Health Care Bill Passes

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 561 - 580 of total 710 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

apogee

climber

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:25pm PT

Letter from Congressional Budget Office to Orrin Hatch, (R) Utah

(Excerpt)
CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical malpractice liability—which consist of malpractice insurance premiums together with settlements, awards, and administrative costs not covered by insurance—will total approximately $35 billion, or about 2 percent of total health care expenditures. Therefore, lowering premiums for medical liability insurance by 10 percent would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Boulder, CO

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:31pm PT

Apogee...I think what John is saying is that it's not the suits that are the issue, it is the amount of unnecessary tests and exams that doctors give to cover their own butts...I could be wrong.

stevep

Boulder climber

Salt Lake, UT

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:32pm PT

I don't think you would find too many of the reform supporters here that would have any issue in getting some kind of malpractice/tort reform done. I think Obama would support it as well and he has mentioned his willingness to talk about that.

But HHDJ hit the nail on the head. Tort reform is a drop in the bucket from a cost control perspective compared to getting rid of the pay for procedure system we currently have. That is the next reform I'd really like to see, but that one will be even harder to pass and MUCH harder to implement than anything in the current bill.

apogee

climber

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:35pm PT

Bob, I think you're right, but my point remains- the GOP has done nothing to make that clear. Instead, they've simply waved around the phrase 'tort reform' as though getting rid of the lawyers and all lawsuits, was one of 2 or 3 silver bullets that would fix the healthcare problem.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:39pm PT

Perhaps the issue should be rephrased as "What is an acceptable level of care?". Both in context of tort reform, redundant CYA testing, and insurance, and of general health care rationing mechanisms. All medical systems have rationing mechanisms - the economics demand it. If the rationing isn't to be solely determined by economics, then a substitute is required. (Of course, there are already many mechanisms, we just don't think/talk much about them.) A few shrill demagogues indirectly alluded to this in their fantasy about "death panels". Putting it another way, not everyone is going to always be able to get all the treatment they need, let alone want. How is that to be decided? We have all sorts of such mechanisms here, even though the starting point is that everyone has the right to treatment.

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Boulder, CO

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:40pm PT

Apogee..tort lawyers are the whipping boys for the GOP.

They are sending the bill back to the house for very minor changes...I wonder if this will really backfire on the GOP and they slip in the PO or the medicare option?

apogee

climber

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:42pm PT

'whipping boys'...that's the phrase I've been trying to recall to describe the role of lawyers in GOP politics. Thanks, Bob.

apogee

climber

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:47pm PT

MH, that is the central question to any kind of healthcare reform, to be sure- what level of care is acceptable within the medical system we have. You are dead on that that decision exists in any system, whether it is a purely socialized system, or a pure free market system. The level of care decision has been made within the US free market system as long as it has existed, driven solely by profit interests. Socialized systems make that decision based on actual costs (I'm guessing).

Until we can have an open, honest, non-hyperbolic ('death panel') discussion about the question of level of care, any solution that comes forward will miss the mark.

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Boulder, CO

Mar 25, 2010 - 12:53pm PT

Anders wrote: We have all sorts of such mechanisms here, even though the starting point is that everyone has the right to treatment.

And maybe that is why a PO is the best way go on this matter.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:01pm PT

John E - with a Ph.D. in Poli Sci, I can't help myself but read the other stuff too. I just stop reading when they crater into the name-calling and media sound-byte (bite?) b.s..

Still, I enjoy hearing the substantive stuff that people bring to the table since professionally I've moved to other areas (I'm a Criminologist now).

I guess I'm a recovering politard. :)

Gack. It's my second political post!

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:02pm PT

so, Repubs controlled the Presidency, House, and Senate from 2000-2006.

Someone tell me WHY they did NOT pass healthcare tort "reform"?
If tort reform is SO very important in controlling costs, then did Repubs
not care about controlling costs? Why no legislation?

I am still waiting for an answer as to why 38 Senate Republicans voted
AGAINST giving employees of defense contractors the right to have their fellow defense contractors prosecuted for rape in the US court system.

Take your time on these, think of a really irrelevant and weak ass response.

apogee

climber

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:03pm PT

Welcome to the mix, Crimpie. If you can filter out the hyperbolic slag that sometimes floats around these threads, they can actually produce some interesting discussion and a little learning.

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Boulder, CO

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:12pm PT

I have learned a lot from John and really consider him a friend...I still don't agree most of the time with him but that is more of difference of how we view government and what roles it plays in the lives of its citizen.

I tend towards the democratic party on most issues and believe he (John) is more aligned with GOP on most issues. On the whole I really don't think that most of us are really that far apart on the issues and feel that we all really care about this country and its citizens.

happiegrrrl

Trad climber

New York, NY

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:33pm PT

"Health care is not a right, it should be earned based on one's productivity to society."

This is your opinion only, and others have differing opinions on the subject. It appalls me - the stance you take. So - the teenager with extreme Down's Syndrome, whose never been able to hold a job beyond assisting the neighbor with gardening or some such thing, falls down an embankment as he walks near a steep, rocky section of a path, and is hurt pretty badly. What of him? Basics - band-aids and a few stitches? Or do they get to fuse his broken spine and help him learn to walk again?

I have no idea what this gamma surgery you refer to is. But people should get the care they NEED to be back on their feet and living a life that is feasible.

Do you do a nose job on the person who got his jaw broken in a car wreck, just because he never did like his nose and since they're in the general neighborhood....? No.

Do you use an "expensive" technique on some McDonald's worker, if it is the best option to best bring them back to quality of life? Yes.

Crimpergirl

Sport climber

Boulder, Colorado!

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:37pm PT

But Fatty, by that line of thinking then no child is deserving of any health care.

Edit: And I am sorry to hear of your father's health issues. I hope he is as comfortable as is possible.

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Boulder, CO

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:43pm PT

Crimp wrote: But Fatty, by that line of thinking then no child is deserving of any health care.

Good one crimp! Happie...I agree. And it really is nice to have you ladies posting to this thread.

So who defines productivity in Fat's world...I would imaged that it is much different than mine.

nature

climber

Tucson, AZ

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:46pm PT

oh crimpie.... why did you have to go and do that? Don't confuse fatty with logic. It busts up his line of thinking and you know what happens then.

THINK OF THE KITTENS!!!111169

stevep

Boulder climber

Salt Lake, UT

Mar 25, 2010 - 01:57pm PT

That should be a decision made between you, you dad, and your doc.
And ultimately, we probably will need some limits. There already are limits in most private plans and in Medicaid, Medicare. I don't think anyone here or Obama is proposing that we encourage extremely expensive procedures that will only marginally extend/improve quality of life.
But if that McD's worker is productive and in his 30s and has a family, and we can get him back to 100%, I don't see that he is any less deserving of care than a CEO, simply because he makes less.

apogee

climber

Mar 25, 2010 - 02:02pm PT

Oddly, I find myself partially agreeing with fattrad on that point- it is directly related to MH's earlier comment. In an ideal world with unlimited resources and unified priorities, all persons would receive the highest level of care regardless of who they are or what they possessed.

As much as I believe we need to strive towards that ideal, the reality is that it isn't achievable, and it is a perfect example of how, as a society, we need to come to grips with the fact that our resources do have limits, and it is simply not possible to provide perfect care for everyone. It's sad, but it's real.

The crux is defining what that baseline level of care should be, and maintaining it at a sustainable level that benefits society as a whole. Hyperbolic 'death panels' discussions don't contribute to a productive solutions.