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 are so missing the point...!
Sensible Sarah ping!
"You bots stay on that cruise to ambivalence aboard the SS Romney 2012"
Some people who have blind devotion for a particular candidate can't quite grasp the fact that criticism of their "hero" is just that criticism, and not the work of some secret Romney cabal.
You'd be wrong about that. The comment in question was a case of cross-thread stalking, directed to those of us who are unimpressed by Sarah Palin's qualifications.
For some reason, there's a group of morons who equate "unimpressed with Palin" with "Romney supporter." Their behavior is, unfortunately, a good example of the current state of political discourse at FR and elsewhere.
Which is....?
And those that say "she's no Reagan" are going to be eating their tongues involuntarily!
She reminds me a little (I don’t mean to be blasphemous) of John writing from the Isle of Patmos. She’s probably holed-up writing from a cabin in Talkeetna by Coleman lantern, zapping out things like “tort reform”, “death panel”, etc. And all the “king’s” men in their pin-stripe suits can’t counter her. HAHAHA
Well, I’d ask how someone (moonbats excepted, of course) can accuse anyone of anything without actual evidence . . . but the dewpoint here is 74 right now and so I probably wouldn’t be able to grasp the answer . . . :(
Sean Hannity is aboard (main deck men's room Valet)
I so agree that she strikes like a viper going after prey, and hits it home because of her clarity and because she is not beholden to anybody. I LOVE IT!
Her paragraph about the percentage of doctors who are sued is JUST HORRIFIC.
And with NO TORT REFORM in 1000 pages, who is going to control what universal health care costs all of us, are our tax dollars going to used to pay off lawyers and health care goes into the tank?
ALready posted under thread about tort reform...she has a killer paragraph in her writing about the percentage of doctors who are sued each year in specialty practices (not even including family practice or internists). Something like ONE HALF of all neurosurgeons are sued EACH YEAR. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? And ONE THIRD of ALL orthopaedic surgeons, ONE THIRD of all EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTORS are SUED EACH YEAR!!!!!!!!!! EACH YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And those arseholes in DC did NOT INCLUDE TORT REFORM, or LEGAL REFORM in any of the ONE THOUSAND PAGES of their COMMUNIST HEALTH CARE MANIFESTO....NOT ONE SENTENCE IS DEVOTED TO REFORMING THE HORRIFIC FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS THAT HAVE CAUSED MEDICAL COSTS TO SKYROCKET.
Rant/ off
Precisely,
OldDeckHand and I have been engaged in numerous conversations on the Palin topic. I know that he is not a Romney bot, but I wanted to include him in the conversation because he has reservations about Palin’s policy accumen. Steve-b and Reaganaut on the other hand, are definitely romney-bots, with Steve-b leading his own personal crusade to post every single specious lie and rumor about Sarah Palin that he can find. I also resent the implication that support for Palin is worship. I worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. My support for Palin is because she represent the charisma, character, and will to do to this government what needs to be done. Pare it down, restore it to its Constitution bounds, and get it out of this Politically Correct/devoid of Common Sense policy making mentality.
EVERYONE else I see on our side is a go with the flow person who just wants some small changes to programs and tax policy.
She's no Reagan.
Consider this little nugget, which perhaps slipped past you:
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.
That merits a bit of attention: what she's saying is ... that's $200 billion that the government could use in other ways. It's still not your money.
Does Sarah Palin really mean that? Who knows -- perhaps she only meant it as a throw-away sympathy grabber.
But the thought process underlying the point was either careless (which is not Reaganesque), or deliberate (which is not conservative).
My money is on "careless." That's precisely the sort of thing that demonstrates Sarah Palin's unreadiness for the big time.
She's quite obviously trying to sound "intellectual" with pieces like this. But she needs 10 years of practice and effort to make it stick.
You've deftly painted the picture of the burr under the RINO's saddle!
Note: she didn't write that paragraph. She's quoting somebody else's work.
It's nice that Ms. Palin is doing a little research -- or somebody is doing it for her -- but let's not pretend that she's offering anything that we haven't read before.
Perhaps you have prismatic vision? - Her point is that the $200 billion is being siphoned out of the available kitty, thus depriving the taxpayers while rewarding the destroyers. We've already paid the taxes; the issue is where it has gone. The Gingriches, Lotts, and Lugars that continually thwarted tort reform in the congress are the ones you should be directing your anger towards.
That’s ok. Sarah has Rush. Hannity can have all of his fawning hot and bothered housewives calling in.
Sean Hannity Show Format:
3:00-3:15PM- Ruth’s Chris ad, Plug Hannity Concert, Plug Tonite’s Hannity Show
3:15-3:20PM- Commercial Break
3:20-3:30PM- Interview to Dick Morris
3:30-3:35PM- Commerical Break
3:35-3:45PM- Take calls from Hot and Bothered Housewives
3:45-3:50PM- Commerical Break
3:50-4:00PM- Repeat plugs for Hannity, Ruths’ Chris, and the Hannity Concerts
Next two hours, repeat first hour.
I love that Sean is passionate about our cause. But I am living in fear of the day that Rush Can’t carry on his show any longer. Sean is the heir apparent, and I just can’t listen to him. But for now, there is Rush, and there is everyone else. Rush is in Sarah’s camp and everyone else will be too come July of 2012
Don't try to weasel out of it. Just apologize, and next time try to be more adult about inviting us to discuss something.
When the ‘Bot’ fits, wear it!
My President has spoken, and I support her.
SINGLE PAYER NATIONALIZED LEGAL SERVICES FOR ALL! NOW!
Cap trial lawyers income and in kind compensation at $100,000 per year.
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.