Mandate Malpractice

The American Spectator ^ | 6/23/2006 | David Hogberg

[neverdem]

Last week the American Medical Association endorsed a health insurance mandate that would require individuals and families in the United States who could afford health insurance to purchase it. Although the mandate is largely targeted at upper-income folks, it is likely a first step toward a mandate that would require all people to purchase health insurance.

There is a one-word response to the AMA's recommendation: Whoa!

It is premature to advocate a national health insurance mandate when the U.S. is blessed with a federal system. Under our system, state governments can act as "laboratories of democracy," testing new policies. This gives citizens more insight into the effectiveness of a policy when deciding whether to adopt that policy nationally.

We have exactly such a situation right now regarding a health insurance mandate. Back in April Governor Mitt Romney signed into law a health insurance reform that required all people in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance. The experience of Massachusetts (and possibly a few other states that might follow suit) should give us ample information on the effectiveness a health insurance mandate.

Whether a health insurance mandate will work is a matter of considerable debate among health care policy wonks. Those in favor argue that such a mandate is a matter of personal responsibility -- that individuals have a responsibility to purchase health insurance so that, if they get sick, they do not slough their medical costs off on the taxpayers. Ultimately, a mandate could save taxpayers money.

A mandate may also force policymakers to focus on the price of health insurance. When employers are expected to provide health insurance, many policymakers aren't concerned what it will cost. But when individuals (i.e., a lot of voters) must pay for it themselves, politicians look for ways to make health insurance cheaper. For...

[Gordongekko909]

Louisiana law (and that of a few other states, I imagine) requires drivers to carry certain levels of liability insurance. This I accept; that insurance is there not so much to protect you, but to protect anyone you might hit.

Mandating life insurance, though? Liberalism: "We think you're stupid enough to need it!"

[Jaysun]

I still say that insurance companies should give "kickbacks" to their customers when they keep cost down. A hypocomdriatic housewife would be much less likely to run to the hospital once a month if it meant getting some money at Christmas time. If she's been costing the insurer $8,000 per year on average and cuts it to $6,000 this year maybe she gets $500, for example.

Patients could also choose to forgo test and procedures done to guard against lawsuits. If someone comes in with a sprained ankle and the doctor ask if they want a CAT scan they can say no, thus releasing the doctor from lawsuit liability and saving money at the same time.

Something like that would dramatically reduce the cost of health care and insurance. As it is the consumer is playing with someone else's chips and isn't concerned with cost.

[neverdem]

The AMA wants guaranteed payment. If they want to try mandatory coverage, I think it should just be for catastrophic medical insurance. Health Savings Accounts and out of pocket cost should go for routine medical care.

IIRC, they passed a law requiring catastrophic medical insurance for Medicare recipients in the late 1980s. The geezers howled, and the law was repealed before it went into effect. That's almost about as rare as repealing an amendment to the Constitution.

[joylyn]

There are arguments in favor of mandatory health insurance. But before we take this step, why not try offering consumers a menu of health plans tailored to meet their needs and budgets?

[Fido969]

Mandatory insurance rules ALWAYS drive up premiums.

[Abby4116]

And you can choose not to drive. You don't have a choice about being injured or ill.

I pay 50% more in one quarter for health insurance than I pay yearly for automobile insurance. And I have higher deductibles on the health insurance.

[mo]

man...that would just be license for them to have their way!!!

[ClaireSolt]

Peter Lewis, the billionaire friend of George Soros made a fortune off of the pool insurance that backs up mandatory auto insurance laws. That is the dark side of all this. In 1994 State Farm cancelled me, and his Progressive wrote a policy costing $900/mo fpr me and my son.

The men in state legislatures goof up the insurance market with all of their mandates.

btw, we have universal coverage in Palm Beach county. The docs put together a volunteer effort that took care of 1000 people/yr. Now that has morphed into a standard no frills policy that costs low income people $50/mo.

[pageonetoo]

There are arguments in favor of mandatory health insurance.

Name one, that is in line with self-sufficiency! It is just another wealth transfer. I owe you no obligation to help maintain your health, by sharing the cost when you WANT a haert or kidney transplant. Sorry, but I have my own children and grands!

It may sound callous, but it is reality. Those who can't afford it, feel they are owed these things! My Constitution offers no lifetime guarantees!

[Kozak]

Anyone here against the mandate I face to provide free medical care to anyone who shows up in my ER? Known as EMTALA.

[pageonetoo]

Anyone here against the mandate I face to provide free medical care...

Free? I seem to think it is paid for, somehow! If you wish to work for free, that is the price you pay for your chosen path. Why should I pay you to take care of another person? I didn't take you to raise!

[pageonetoo]

...the mandate I face to provide free medical care to anyone who shows up in my ER? Known as EMTALA.

AKA Socialism! Acronyms make neat work of reality!

[longtermmemmory]

The point of this is to move to a NO FAULT MALPRACTICE SYSTEM.

The trade off for car insurance is generally a no fault system.

This is not about health care this is about giving doctors greater protection when they bury their mistakes!

[longtermmemmory]

This is about moving to eliminate the right of redress when doctors screw up.

No fault malpractice is the logical step.

[Kozak]

No it's free. As in no money, as in gratis as in nada.
We have a legal mandate from the feds to provide care ( which we can be sued for) but no provision was made for payment. In some areas nearly half of the patients in the ER are deadbeats.

One of the reasons ER visits are skyrocketing and the number of ER's is going down. So don't cry when your local ER shuts it's doors. That will be the price you pay.

[neverdem]

The point of this is to move to a NO FAULT MALPRACTICE SYSTEM.

The trade off for car insurance is generally a no fault system.

This is not about health care this is about giving doctors greater protection when they bury their mistakes!

It has nothing to do with malpractice liability. Have another coffee. Check the AMA link in the first paragraph.

[pageonetoo]

No it's free. As in no money, as in gratis as in nada.

We have a legal mandate from the feds to provide care ( which we can be sued for) but no provision was made for payment. In some areas nearly half of the patients in the ER are deadbeats.

One of the reasons ER visits are skyrocketing and the number of ER's is going down. So don't cry when your local ER shuts it's doors. That will be the price you pay.

So, you are saying you don't get paid? Or, do you have a mouse in your pocket, when you say "we"?

I do not agree with a FED mandate for much of anything. Thanks to them, we have OSHA, and the IRS. We have a Department of Energy, which only produces hot air. We have a Department of Commerce that distributes "money for nothing", and more hot air, definitely NOT for free. We have a Federal Monetary system of cards, and print more daily. We have the best security $15 an hour can buy, and take our shoes off while we bend over at the airport.

Amerika is now officially socialist, and there seems nothing we can do. Jorge is giving the keys to a floodgate of illegals, and taking away my children's inheritance, in doing so.

I am self-employed. I pay too damn much taxes, and I'm supposed to get a bill for your work? Bullshiite. If you don't like the job you chose, do another. If you need to close doors, that is the way it goes.

If you are compassionate enough to serve those who come to you, for nothing, I applaud you. But, for petes sake, don't tell me I own you a damn thing, and don't send me a bill!

A very good friends dad was a country Doc in NC. He has been paid in chickens, hams, and okra. He retired with his hundreds of "chidren" all present for the party. His family never went hungry. He had firewood chopped for him, and a stack of quilts that the Smithsonian would cherish. He had helped birth most of those "children", many who were getting old, themselves. He was 75, when he retired. He was 87, when he went to see God.

Medicine is not a substitute God! It just keeps us away from Him a few days longer!

He gives us a proper offer. Faith = life. But, if you look at old Job (there's a whole bookd about him, in the Bible, in case you don't know), you can see He never promised a smooth voyage.

I am sorry if you feel entitlements, but I do not. I live in an earlier age, in my mind;s eye. I see the reality of the follies rendered daily by DC and company. I am self-sufficient, and have earned it the hard way. I have started and owned businesses, gone bankrupt, started anew, and prospered again... ready to do it all over, if necessary! I prefer the freedom of only having to serve one Master.

[Kozak]

I never said I wanted you to pay me. I would like the federal mandate that requires I provide free care to any and all revoked. Failing that at least let me use the charity care I do provide as a writeoff on my taxes ( currently not allowed ).

Yeah, I make a living. So what, I trained long and hard to be
able to provide for my family. I doubt very much anyone here would be happy to be forced to donate 1/3 of their work for nothing. People need to eat but can't go into a restaurant and not pay. People need shelter, but can't check into a hotel and not pay, people need gasoline etc etc. For some reason the ONLY thing they have a right to and can demand for free is care in an Emergency Room ( note I don't mean for an EMERGENCY, I mean for anything as long as it's in the ER).

[pageonetoo]

I doubt very much anyone here would be happy to be forced to donate 1/3 of their work for nothing.

I donate almost a third of my income, to your gum't, for nothing! Your training is paying your bills. I am 58, and have trained, and WORKED long, and sacrificed so my family is provided the better things of life, when able. That is what life is about. If you are a doctor, you should not be doing it JUST for money, IMO.

My oldest son is a cop. His wife works for an airline, and makes twice as much as he, a sergeant with 8+ yrs. He likes what he does.

My next son is a high school teacher. He loves to play his trumpet, but needed to make a living to feed his wife and two lovely daughters. They bought their own home with acreage. My DIL did daycare while they were little, so she could stay home, but is now back in elementary education. Son says "the best part is they pay you 12 months, for working 9"! He loves teaching, and the kids learn from him.

I have more children, even one still at home. I encourage them to do what they feel is right for them. I never dictated, just prodded. They all are SELF-SUFFICIENT, not relying on gum't for their lives.

Life is individual. You choose to take responsibility for your mate and prodigy. When you look to others for ANYTHING, you will nver gain your own self respect. I don't mean you can't look for help, when a hand is needed, just that nobody took you to raise.

Your views on healthcare are directed at the product apparently, rather than loving care! You should get a real good kick in the butt, when your gum't fails to pay your rent!