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
You’re trying WAY too hard, and it shows.
And what has that gotten him?
Alternative GOP healthcare proposals are being ignored by both the Dems and media.
All of which puts him well ahead of Palin on the topic.
From a textbook standpoint, yes.
Is he driving the debate though?
Explain how his "Waterloo" comment received more coverage than his alternative healthcare plans.
You want to fight like the Redcoats when Palin is fighting like the Minutemen and Colonists.
I would venture to guess that you're unfamiliar with Monty Python.
I was merely responding to the words about her and lightning bolts. It merely reminded me of this sketch. Nothing more to it.
She quit.
Thanks. Do you know if coverage remained constant? That is, the only variable was non-economic damages available to litigants?
The reason I ask is that I am an attorney. I do not practice personal injury or medical malpractice law. But I am interested in tort reform and its consequences on my profession. I voted for tort reform in Texas in 2004 (I think, or was it 2003).
At that time I believed it was more important to vote as a citizen, and not as a member of an interst group. Now I’m not so sure that people with that mindset are being manipulated by clever propaganda.
In any event, since entering practice I have seen many things, especially behavior I would consider sinister by insurance companies, and reckless behavior of some doctors/medical establishments. And many friends of mine, and untold colleagues, lost their jobs because of tort reform. I hear anecdotal stories of prospective clients turned away because it is not economical to represent them. And their lives are ruined—some injuries are horrific. If they live (many prospective clients are the survivors).
So to sum it up, I take a great deal of interst in tort reform. Both in its consequences, its costs, its truths, and its falsehoods.
“Sarah Plain was born before 1997?”
Should read:
"Sarah Plain was born after 1997?"
Ah, yes. That "argument" is always a sure sign that I'm wasting my time. Buh bye.
ROFL. OK you win, she quit.
So...why analyze over what she's doing now?
She's a loser and there's no way in Hell she's winning in 2012...right?
The shills own this place now!
She wrote a press release on FaceBook. Wow....
But... again you make the point for Palin supporters!!!
Palin says "death panels" on Facebook (admittedly a bit of a stretch) and creates a HUGE uproar that still hasn't entirely died down. By itself, it might not have been all that effective, but, combined with the coverage of the townhalls, and Obama, etc.'s, repeated bumbling... it had a wonderful effect on the average citizen,. Just look at the polls on the subject of health care reform.
Look, I like DeMint, but he could have had press conferences every day for 3 months, and would not have had 1/10th the effect.
Flawed she may be, but, Palin has "it" (whatever "it" is), and we'd better be darn glad she does, and is on our side. She should get our encouragement and support (which CAN include constructive criticism -- you hear that, both supporters and detractors???) What we can not do is fall into the Palestinian mode (attack each other any time an Israeli is not around.) Like it or not, right now, Palin is the biggest single gun we have.
I actually don’t mind criticism from r9etb and others who are skeptical of Palin. We need to have these discussions and get them out in the open (even though she’s been vetted to death already).
It appears she quit the gov. job so that she can concentrate on national politics and possibly something bigger.
What's the problem?
That is the problem. She's just not ready for the big time yet. With time and effort she may become ready, but she's not there yet.
Just remember what her Mom's refrigerator magnet said.
You stand amongst a definite minority of soulless and clueless Republicans.
True conservatives recognize exactly who Sarah Palin is, what she represents and what she means to America.
Neglecting the argument that if Palin had not quit, it would have been detrimental to the State of Alaska...
She obviously quit to maintain her clout and visibility on a larger scale. And, to build HER “army”. So far, she has been pretty successful in that endeavor.
I gotta sign off, people! Lots to do... It’s been fun!
That is the problem. She's just not ready for the big time yet. With time and effort she may become ready, but she's not there yet
There are no Republicans at this point in time who are ready for the 2012 race...and as you admit(lol), Sarah may become the one.
Oooooh! So I'm not only a hater, and doing the devil's work, now I'm "soulless," too!
All that, just because I don't think Sarah Palin is not what we need right now....
Have you any idea how ridiculous you folks sound? It's like she's got her own Obama-style church choir...
Not by 2012, she won't. She needs a good 10 years.
She is what we need right now.
You, and your ilk, are not.
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.