Yes, they do, it's just you're never, ever going to hear about it.

So the Republicans are all mutes?

 

its always easier to say no, then develop something of your own.

 

 

its always easier to say no, then develop something of your own.

Except they haven't even bothered with the latter. They don't want a latter, they want same, except with fewer lawsuits.

 

I'm sure they would be within 2 trillion dollars of estimates.

 

If cash for clunkers is any hint, I wouldn't bet on it.

The House GOP did put out a bill. I didn't get to read the whole thing but I saw a lot of tax cuts/credits etc.

The House GOP did put out a bill. I didn't get to read the whole thing but I saw a lot of tax cuts/credits etc.

And of course, that's just outright dismissed by people other then "nutcase right wing wackjobs".

 

 

And of course, that's just outright dismissed by people other then "nutcase right wing wackjobs".

I skimmed over it and the conclusion I drew was "this is not enough."

I skimmed over it and the conclusion I drew was "this is not enough."

No, it's not, honestly. But it does start to address some of the complaints, as long as they get pre-existing coverages in there.

 

I know that people want to think that "EVERYONE" should be in and "NO ONE" can opt out because that's "FAIR". That's just the wrong answer on a lot of levels.

 

At a town hall, a congress critter first accuses a person who wants to ask a question of 'not living there', and gets shown the guys ID to prove he is wrong on that count. He then asks 'Why has tort reform NOT been considered in any of the Dem proposals'. Howard Dean gets up and answers the question candidly, for which I give him props. He pretty much said it wasn't in the bill because they didn't want to piss off the trial lawyers. So much for doing the right thing, they would rather piss off everyone else in the country, except trial lawyers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaMj-WUC-aE...player_embedded

 

The House GOP did put out a bill. I didn't get to read the whole thing but I saw a lot of tax cuts/credits etc.

Well I stand corrected. If you have a link, I'd like to see it. If not that's fine, I can go find it I'd think.

 

Well I stand corrected. If you have a link, I'd like to see it. If not that's fine, I can go find it I'd think.

I think this is the article I read when it happened a few weeks ago.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/hou...care/index.html

 

It actually looks kind of half-assed imo.

I think this is the article I read when it happened a few weeks ago.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/17/hou...care/index.html

 

It actually looks kind of half-assed imo.

Just looking at the highlights, they pretty much all make sense. But I tend to agree its a partial solution, and will have a few negative side effects as well. I wouldn't be opposed to it as a starting place, though.

 

tex, if a doctor is drunk or on drugs f***s up something, he SHOULD have to pay thru the nose. AND not be able to practice again. but when a baby is born and has a birth defect of some sort, the first course of action nowadays is to sue the doctors and hospitals, because it HAD to be somethign they did. Most setttle out of court to avoid the hassles, so it perpetuates the cycle. Those are the cases reform needs to happen for. Reform needs to happen so doctors can stop having to do defensive medicine and ordering every test under the sun just to cover thier asses. People complain about how many tests and labs get run, but if they don't run them, and then discover somethign later, they get sued.

 

So who decides if the law suit is proper or not? How do you decide in advance that 99% of the Doctors would have run that test, or it truly is a waste? Our system is through the courts. When we automatically cut off access to the system who are we hurting and who are we defending? It seems like we take away the rights of the injured and give more rights to the guilty because the innocent will not defend themselves in court.

 

The end result of most of the tort reforms I've seen are less access for the innocent victims and more protection for guilty (and innocent) Doctors. Build a better system and I'll support it. But I do not like the idea of a parent with a child who was born with a birth defect not having full access to the only system we have.

they would rather piss off everyone else in the country, except trial lawyers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaMj-WUC-aE...player_embedded

 

I am certain it would also piss off the victims of medical malpractice while making the borderline Doctors very happy!

I am certain it would also piss off the victims of medical malpractice while making the borderline Doctors very happy!

TEx, do you hear the words 'tort reform' and automatically think that it means nobody is ever gonna be able to file a wrongfull death suit or malpractice suit ever again? Or do you hear that if they ARE able to file that the award would be capped at some super low figure like $10,000? I am not advocating any specific plan for reform, but you can't argue that there doesn't need to be some kind of reform. C-section births are on the rise because doctors fear a natural birth complications. Tests are ordered that aren't needed, or may be needed for that 1 in 50 million chance of some super rare disease, for everyone, just to CYA. That costs time and money which can be better spent on other things. Tort reform needs to happen, in some form, along with numerous other changes. Some of which I posted a few posts back. It is not the end-all, but it has to be part of the final package, whatever it is.

TEx, do you hear the words 'tort reform' and automatically think that it means nobody is ever gonna be able to file a wrongfull death suit or malpractice suit ever again? Or do you hear that if they ARE able to file that the award would be capped at some super low figure like $10,000? I am not advocating any specific plan for reform, but you can't argue that there doesn't need to be some kind of reform. C-section births are on the rise because doctors fear a natural birth complications. Tests are ordered that aren't needed, or may be needed for that 1 in 50 million chance of some super rare disease, for everyone, just to CYA. That costs time and money which can be better spent on other things. Tort reform needs to happen, in some form, along with numerous other changes. Some of which I posted a few posts back. It is not the end-all, but it has to be part of the final package, whatever it is.

 

Sure, but at the heart of the reform usually is limiting access and awards to victims. And the reasoning is jury's awards too high of and it is too costly. Additionally innocent Doctors (actually their insurance companies) settle rather than fight. I'd rather see reforms that force innocent parties to defend themselves than decide in advance who has a legit case and how much is fair.

 

Name a reform that would not limit someone's access to the courts or limit their award and I'm probably for it.

So who decides if the law suit is proper or not? How do you decide in advance that 99% of the Doctors would have run that test, or it truly is a waste?

 

Yet this is exactly what will happen with governmental health care.

Yet this is exactly what will happen with governmental health care.

 

Then we need to be certain that does not make the final bill.

Then we need to be certain that does not make the final bill.

 

That's what this whole thing is about. Wow.

 

Yet this is exactly what will happen with governmental health care.

Wait I really, really don't get this. You're saying, in essence, that the government would be approving which tests the doctors can and can't do? Since when has this not always been done?

WHY WON'T YOU LET THE TRIAL LAWYERS MAKE PROFITS WITHOUT FORCING THE GOVERNMENT TO POWER GRAB IT AWAY FROM THEM

Sure, but at the heart of the reform usually is limiting access and awards to victims. And the reasoning is jury's awards too high of and it is too costly. Additionally innocent Doctors (actually their insurance companies) settle rather than fight. I'd rather see reforms that force innocent parties to defend themselves than decide in advance who has a legit case and how much is fair.

 

Name a reform that would not limit someone's access to the courts or limit their award and I'm probably for it.

 

I just ran across this today and wonder what people think about it. Defensive medicine and how much money it is costing has been talked about for a long time. Here is a study that recently talks about it in Massachusetts:

 

MA Study $1.4 Billion in costs for defensive medicine

 

USA Today published an article about it back in 2005.

A survey of 824 Pennsylvania doctors, published June 1, found 93% admit to risk aversion tactics such as over-ordering tests, abandoning high-risk procedures and avoiding the sickest of patients.

 

They also talk about a concept that I had not heard before called health courts or specialized courts to deal with these lawsuits similar to other courts that we already have:

Opponents say the right to trial by jury is too important to give up. But special courts already handle tax, bankruptcy, maritime and family disputes without juries.

 

What do you all think of it? Has anyone seen that proposal before?

USA Today Health Courts

Mass. spent $44,121,000,000 on health care in '04, with an annual growth of 8.2% (source). so, in 2008, that would have been $60,047,000,000. Defensive medicine was 2.3% of total Mass. costs in 2008.

And of course, that's just outright dismissed by people other then "nutcase right wing wackjobs".

 

welcome to the world of being in the minority. your voices/ideas dont count.

 

Just ask the dems who dealt with it (unhappily) from 1994-2006. Now the tables have turned.

welcome to the world of being in the minority. your voices/ideas dont count.

 

Just ask the dems who dealt with it (unhappily) from 1994-2006. Now the tables have turned.

And a complete government takeover (yes that's somewhat Kaperbolistic ™ but then again) is not what the majority should be doing. America is not a social weenie European country - which is why people are pissed off - but that's what Obama and the Democrats want - to say otherwise is SO shortsighted. But again, they're (people opposed to the United States of Europe) "nutjob wacko nazi skinhead right-wingers" and yes, that's quoted, all things coming from Democrat Congressional leadership in some sort or fashion. There was some of the crap coming from talk radio, but Republicans themselves were mostly better about it then what I'm hearing from the majority now.

 

ETA: There's a hell of a lot of stuff that the Dems went with on the GOP controlled Congress. And now the Dems are pissed about how the GOP isn't going along? It's because what they are ramming down our throat is unprecedented.

Edited August 27, 200916 yr by kapkomet