... to trial lawyers.

(page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

Change you can believe in. Guess John Edwards will be able to stay out of the poor house!

Dirt

PS. Can you say "special interest" boys and girls? You think Nancy might get campaign contributions from the Trial Lawyers Association?

PSS. Back to reading!

If you're in the operating room to have your gall bladder removed and instead they mix you up with Mr. Dart in the next bed (an easy mistake to make) who's in to have both his legs amputated, would you want your state to tell you that you are only able to receive X dollars in compensation and that the good lawyer you would like to represent you can only collect Y dollars in fees?

The insurance companies have their teams of lawyers on retainer and there never seems to be any call by the Right to control their fees. The insurance industry has access to unlimited resources but you, the injured, get your hands tied, assuming they haven't been mistakenly amputated also.

I've yet to be convinced that trial lawyer fees or medical malpractice damages have any serious impact on the cost of medical care or insurance premiums. Those costs are driven by corporate greed and the fact that insurance companies often have to deal with people that get sick. It must gladden the hearts of the Right that the real Death Panels, the insurance industry CEOs and accountants, are doing their best to drop costly people from their roles should they have the nerve to get sick after faithfully paying their premiums for years.

I have to laugh at people that, a year or two ago, would go after these murderous CEOS with torches and pitchforks for killing the sick by cancelling their policies, now hold them to their breasts and defend as a mother would defend her child. These people do not have your interests at heart, Dirt. They are after your premiums and the minute you enroll, they begin look for reasons that they might drop you should you ever get sick and create a burden on their bottom line.

This is why, in order to be real reform, we need a public option. The insurance industry has had your representatives in their pockets for far too many years to let any real reform happen. The competition of a public option is the only thing that can force those leeches that the Right loves to defend into offering service at reasonable rates. Should this then be the death of the insurance industry, then that is a fate they have long deserved.

The trial lawyer argument is a mere distraction from the real debate.

Wayne

I agree with you 90%. And please don't tell her but I agree 100% with phoebe's signature line comment! However ....

Dirt

PS. I'll try to read the second section today. Gotta go but will return to finish my reply later today.

I think to have real reform, we need to put the consumer back in charge and responsibility of his her own health.

When Dh got hurt last spring, I did not care what it cost, after all, I had been paying $300 every two weeks on the chance someone in my very healthy family might get hurt or sick. I have given up a lot of choices in order for a big company to take care of me.

We need to have health savings accounts. That can be usded for all health related concerns at our discretion, with the Doctors that we want as adults being responsible.

The idea of being forced to pay insurance premiums and then being regulated as to weight, or smoking or anything else in a perfect world would be considered 'wrong'.

It is the idea of insurance, that someone else knows what is best for you, or your group. Insurance companies have gotten rich on the fear factor, the idea that if you don't have insurance, you are irresponsible, and are going to be denied care.

It is law that no one be denied care, and what happens is a lot of people out there without insurance is using services and NOT paying the bill, because the bill is prohibitively high. so hospitols are struggling to make ends meet, and therefore charge more to those that do have insurance.

Why are we wanting to be child like, and have someone else take care of us? Where did we get the notion that we are entitled to having someone else foot the bill? That paying huge amounts monthly is responsible.

What I think people need, is catastrophic insurance, for the big stuff, and health savings for the small stuff. People would ask more questions, if it WAS their money. Institutions would have to be better at service, if people could choose or not choose to go there.

The plan she is preposing is 1800 pages long. Good Lord, that is suppose to make it better?

Mrs.K

quote:

Originally posted by Mrs. K-og:
The plan she is preposing is 1800 pages long. Good Lord, that is suppose to make it better?

Mrs.K

Yes. The bill is not written to make for an easy read for everyone. It is written to correct the failed system that Americans have been forced to participate in if they wish to receive decent health care. The bill is as long as it needs to be to accomplish this.

Alternatively, the bill the insurance industry and the politicians in their pockets wish to see proposed is zero pages long, short enough to satisfy even the most reluctant readers.

Wayne

I agree with your idea, but not your logic.

It does need correction, and it is not going to be fixed is few short words.

But I am afraid that it has been sweetened here, there and everywhere, to get it to pass, that there is the real possibility to becoming part of the problem. And THAT is what is making the length.

mk

quote:

I've yet to be convinced that trial lawyer fees or medical malpractice damages have any serious impact on the cost of medical care

Wayne, I would hazard a conservative guess that there are millions of dollars of tests, either totally unnecessary or unnecessarily done on an inpatient basis, ordered daily in this country simply because some doctors fear a lawsuit.

Yes, people should be protected from bad medical care and have an avenue of recourse.

Good doctors should also be allowed to practice good medicine without that fear hanging over their head and possibly putting their patients at increased risk by over ordering diagnostic tests.

Buried somewhere else in the first 2 titles is a section about creating a computer system that's going to communicate across the country with all medical facilities in-between. More departments of the federal bureaucracy have been trying that unsuccessfully for years wasting truckloads of money. Wonder who's relative will get rich this time.

Wayne commented that the bill was as long as it needed to be to fix the problem. I can find a street full of lawyers and politicians that say the same thing about the tax code. We know how effective that is.

Then there's the comment about a zero page bill and politicians in the pockets of the insurance industry. Wholly inaccurate and misleading. Hold that thought because I'm searching who contributed to the campaigns of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Max Baucus and President Obama (please note the manner in which I mention the President even though I'm not a supporter).

For the record I'm am not on the fan list of the insurance companies, as a matter of fact I'm on top of the other list. I'm even in favor of letting some of their executives share a cell with some of your least favorite politicians (and mine).

Almost forgot Harry's slight of hand in moving money to make the bill look affordable. I want everyone in the room to stand that thinks any administration is going to run a bureaucracy cheaper than forecast! I've got an investment proposal for you. Give me a bunch of your money you can't afford and I'm going to set up an investment firm using your money (that you can't afford to give me) that will have profits indexed to the financial efficiency of the new health care bureaucracy. Of course I'll take my cut first.

Dirt

2008 Campaign Contributions from Health Care/HMOs

House
Rangel (D) - $127K
Boehner (R) - $50K

Senate
Obama (D) - $1.4M
Clinton (D) - $618K
McCain (R[INO]) - $427K
Baucus (D) - $232K
McConnell (R) - $150K
Reid (D) - $54K
Biden (D) - $48K
Specter (who cares) - $48K

Overall Averages
House
Dem 209 @ $10K each
Rep 157 @ $8K each

Senate
Dem 41 @ $78K each
Rep 47 @31K each

Begs the question, define "in their pockets"? Guess that just proves the Democrats can accept larger sums of money and stay un-influenced while the evil Republicans are in the pockets with less?

They really do think we're stupid - all of them and all of us!

Dirt

PS. Nancy was on the list, she just gets most of her money from "other" bastions of capitalism!

From page 131

I'll let you form your own opinion


Subtitle E—Governance
SEC. 241. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.
a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration


How big do you think this department will be 25 years from now (if passed)?


Dirt

What I would like to know is what make anyone think the Government can run anything well.

They sure haven't been able to run the Post Office at a profit. How about Amtrak, did that save the railroads? How many drugs have been recalled that the Food and Drug Administration told us were safe to use? How much energy has the government been able to save us over the last 30 years with the Federal Energy Commission? I don't think the Federal Energy Commission has found a single drop of domestic oil, which is why they were formed to begin with. I could go on all day but you get the idea.

It scares the heck out of me to think that a government that can't even find a few million illegal immigrants will be able to manage the health care of 300-million citizens. The only thing the government is any good at is stealing our money and wasting it foolishly.

quote:

Originally posted by Dirt Pit:
From page 131

I'll let you form your own opinion


Subtitle E—Governance
SEC. 241. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.
a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration


How big do you think this department will be 25 years from now (if passed)?


Dirt

And who do you think will be making those "choices"? Care to wager what the "choices" will be? Of course, one could put all their faith in the government and not worry.

Dirt

Then again if you make the "Choice" to not buy insurance you're subject to a fine and/or jail time.

If enough people make the "Choice" to go to jail who's paying for the people that get free health care? Like the people in jail! And people that don't pay taxes.

Then there's the issue of "Freedom of Choice". Guess the Constitution doesn't extend that right in this case.

Do you detect a sense of hypocrisy?

Dirt

Every right and freedom that one person enjoys is often seen as infringing on the freedom of someone else.

If you choose to not have health insurance, seeing that as a "right" or freedom that you may enjoy, am I free to say not a penny of my money goes to support you if you become sick or injured? No. My tax dollars will support you no matter how long, through your own choice, you are a burden to society. (Not you in particular, Dirt.)

There is no shortage of people who cry about their rights and freedoms on one hand and gleefully deny others theirs.

The "freedom of choice" terminology is to indicate that everyone will be free to participate in the health care plan of their choice. It was necessary to use this term, I believe, to counter the Tea Baggers and right-wing talk radio personalities who were falsely claiming that the proposed reforms force Americans into a single, publically run plan.

It was either that, or less politely, to include language referring to "fear mongering lying sacks of horse manure."

Wayne

I have a good friend who serves as a representative in the US House. He's a Democrat and supports bits of the legislation. However, when he found out that all high deductible policies and HSAs (Health Savings Accounts attached to the catastrophic coverage policies) will be eliminated by the legislation he voted against it. His family has just such a policy (he turned down the Congressional set-up because his plan was cheaper)since they are young and healthy and use more alternative medicine than mainstream and are able to use their HSA for things not covered by conventional insurance plans like health supplements to avoid problems rather than prescriptions to "cure" problems.
He also sees big problems with eliminating the "Medicare Advantage" policies (I think that's what they're called officially, the left-wingers are calling them Cadillac plans) and making massive cuts to an already bankrupt Medicare program. He was a staunch supporter of the administration until about a month ago...he's now expressing serious doubts due to the health care debacle and Afghanistan.