Posted on 08/21/2009 7:14:29 AM PDT by DogBarkTree
President Obama's health care "reform" plan has met with significant criticism across the country. Many Americans want change and reform in our current health care system. We recognize that while we have the greatest medical care in the world, there are major problems that we must face, especially in terms of reining in costs and allowing care to be affordable for all. However, as we have seen, current plans being pushed by the Democratic leadership represent change that may not be what we had in mind -- change which poses serious ethical concerns over the government having control over our families’ health care decisions. In addition, the current plans greatly increase costs of health care, while doing lip service toward controlling costs.
We need to address a REAL bipartisan reform proposition that will have REAL impacts on costs, and quality of patient care.
As Governor of Alaska, I learned a little bit about being a target for frivolous suits and complaints (Please, do I really need to footnote that?). I went my whole life without needing a lawyer on speed-dial, but all that changes when you become a target for opportunists and people with no scruples. Our nation’s health care providers have been the targets of similar opportunists for years, and they too have found themselves subjected to false, frivolous, and baseless claims. To quote a former president, “I feel your pain.”
So what can we do? First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, “If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he'll need to reform the economic structures in medicine—especially programs like Medicare.” [1] Two examples of these “economic structures” are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as “high health care costs”) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.
Dr. Stuart Weinstein, with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, recently explained the problem:
”The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs. Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?” [2]
Dr. Weinstein makes good points, points completely ignored by President Obama. Dr. Weinstein details the costs that our out-of-control tort system are causing the health care industry and notes research that “found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.” Dr. Weinstein writes:
“If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine. Excessive litigation and waste in the nation’s current tort system imposes an estimated yearly tort tax of $9,827 for a family of four and increases healthcare spending in the United States by $124 billion. How does this translate to individuals? The average obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) delivers 100 babies per year. If that OB-GYN must pay a medical liability premium of $200,000 each year (which is the rate in Florida), $2,000 of the delivery cost for each baby goes to pay the cost of the medical liability premium.” [3]
You would think that any effort to reform our health care system would include tort reform, especially if the stated purpose for Obama’s plan to nationalize our health care industry is the current high costs.
So I have new questions for the president: Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients? Do you want healthcare reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?
Many states, including my own state of Alaska, have enacted caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers. Texas enacted caps and found that one county’s medical malpractice claims dropped 41 percent, and another study found a “55 percent decline” after reform measures were passed. [4] That’s one step in health care reform. Limiting lawyer contingency fees, as is done under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is another step. The State of Alaska pioneered the “loser pays” rule in the United States, which deters frivolous civil law suits by making the loser partially pay the winner’s legal bills. Preventing quack doctors from giving “expert” testimony in court against real doctors is another reform. Texas Gov. Rick Perry noted that, after his state enacted tort reform measures, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas “skyrocketed by 57 percent” and that the tort reforms “brought critical specialties to underserved areas.” These are real reforms that actually improve access to health care. [5]
Dr. Weinstein’s research shows that around $200 billion per year could be saved with legal reform. That’s real savings. That’s money that could be used to build roads, schools, or hospitals. If you want to save health care, let’s listen to our doctors too. There should be no health care reform without legal reform. There can be no true health care reform without legal reform.
- Sarah Palin
Currently Sarah has 811,100 Facebook followers, and the number is growing by several thousand per day. Click here to go to Sarah's Facebook page.
they choose because the tax system favors employer based health care instead of individual based insurance. Plus it is hard to get individual insurance here in NY because I can’t buy insurance out of state and there are very few options here. so if my employer doesn’t provide insurance (or unemployed) then it is hard to get any affordable insurance.
You misunderstand, then.
Recall what the fellow claimed above, "the difference is that people are listening to [Sarah Palin]."
The general flavor of the comments in favor of this piece is that Sarah Palin's engagement on the issue has somehow transformed it into an issue with real traction, where before it had none.
That is quite obviously false, which what I have been trying to point out. Sarah Palin has "transformed" nothing -- it's an issue that people have been working on, with some success, for a long time; and she is not alone even among current politicians in calling for tort reform.
Her article certainly doesn't offer any new information; the only "new" thing about it is Sarah Palin's attempt to inject herself into the issue; perhaps she even intended for her devoted followers to anoint her as a "leader" on the topic.
Another point I would like to add.
The left has been spending this week trying to reframe (read weasel) the debate to “co-ops” and “split bills” to get healthcare passed.
Palin has managed, on a Friday, to re-shift debate thru the weekend to tort reform instead of whatever template the left wants.
John's not interested in facts.
Absolutely spot on, and TOTALLY absent from the MSM “reporting”.
If there's an elephant there at all, it must be a pink one.
Tort reform has not been ignored at all. Your comment is wrong.
I do agree with you that 15million illegals are a big problem, potentially adding 15M/300million 5% to the cost of medical care- and THAT must be addressed in addition to health care.
However, you asking that we just have to take YOUR word for it that tort reform is not the answer? Sorry, Charlie.
I'd rather take the word of a very respected firm- an analysis by Price Waterhouse Cooper Accounting Firm, instead. They do not agree with your seat-of-the-pants dismissal.
Well up to this point the issue unfortunately hasn't had good enough traction to get it done.
So here is Sarah tyring to use her influence to give it better traction.
I think that's a good thing. Don't you agree?
Well, you are the one attacking the motives of Palin supporters. I am trying to figure out where the jilted nature of your comments come from. Stating that a Palin supporter is “blinded by her backside” is pretty specious.
I see you are an Orbitologist. Maybe you don’t like Palin because you place a high weight on a politician knowing every detailed machination of government, and flaunting that knowledge to you before you will support them. I don’t know. Maybe you could share with us your line of thinking and where you’re coming from.
Or just continue with the insults.
(Are you listening to Rush now...he is talking about the death panel that is in writing in the veteran health care rules that President Bush cancelled and ol uhbama has RE-ENACTED. Pretty sick stuff!)
An artificial shortage of doctors. Make the right to practice testing based rather than degree based. Require all existing doctors to re-qualify periodically.
That's false. Ms. Palin herself cited several instances where it did have enough traction to be enacted into law ... without her help.
But a bigger point . Her dominance of Facebook denotes her killer instinct to go around her adversaries to get her voice heard, probably like when she went around a taller adversary under a full court press. With the net, we get the rebroadcast of it. Much like Ronald Reagan she is starting to write prolifically on subjects. We will know where she stands when it is time for her to run, much like Reagan had incredible conservative "cred" so will she.
Wise, this one is.... no wonder they are trying to destroy her.......
All of that is really irrelevant. What is relevant is the amount each practicing physician must pay in premiums each year, and how much could be saved if malpractice claims were handled differently after tort reform. And, how much the cost of medical care might be reduced after reform lowered malpractice premiums.
Well said Sarah!!! Lets see them debate on the FACTS!
That's false. Ms. Palin herself cited several instances where it did have enough traction to be enacted into law... I>
Several instances accomplished doesn't mean that we don't need more of it. Ms. Palin herself cites what is still needed. I think that's a good thing. Are you suggesting that it isn't?
... without her help.
There you go again :).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.