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
How much time do you spend banging your head against Sarah Palin threads?
It’s not a rhetorical question. I really want to know how much time you spend on this.
“Palin- stopped “death panels/rationing,” focusing on issues like importance of “tort reform,” and an end to defensive medicine practices”
The fascinating thing is, through her series of Facebook editorials, Sarah is dictating a good part of the national discussion about ObamaCare. She forced the libs into the sunlight on the subject. Of course, they vehemently object, as expected, but it’s clearly evidenced in the bill. It’d be a whole lot more helpful for other leading conservatives to take up this cause.
*YIKES*
...hopefully not true.
...I kinda like MARK LEVINE, NEAL BROOTZ
or even MIKE McCONNELL (WLW).
I’m late to this dance, but Sarah really knocked this one outta the park.
Concise, easy to understand, real-life examples of successful tort reform—she shows the poor quality of our elected officials who have been trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Obama just went wee-wee in MV.
God bless Sarah Palin.
With the news of the additional $ 2 trillion deficit tonight, we have to put the stake in the hear of Obamacare once and for all.
And then we need to exile Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman etal to St. Helena, like someone else after they had their Waterloo.
Attagirl, Sarah. Stick it to these weasel eyed vampires.
If the GOP puts him up. Color them dead. They will never rise again.
All these efforts, from the Town Halls outcries to Joker posters to disrupting the DC switchboards and servers to Facebook, are having a cumulative effect on the Rats. We want them to receive a pounding from every direction. The more we keep them reeling and gasping for air the less socialist legislation they can pass.
Why so much time has is wasted at FR discussing who is more qualified to lead the conservative movement is beyond me. We have a battle to fight. A good battle strategy is to be the "firstest with the mostest". I am happy to have SP on the front lines.
It's not beyond me. Actually, you've mischaracterized the battle; its not about who should lead, but whether we should be allowed to have a leader. None of the other names that get bantied about are qualified to even be called conservative, let alone the leader. Sarah sprang forth by the Lord's provinence, much like the Judge Deborah.
The RINO wing of the party has traditionally been promoted as the contrroling element by the MSM's swift demolition of any conservative that has risen to power. They now believe that they own the crown and are fighting like junkyard dogs to hold it.
If the people should regain control of the party, the jig is up. Sarah is poised to bring that event to fruition.
Hey, I'm back. :-)
I think Gov. Palin probably really did buy in to the advice that the best thing she could do was to be the best governor she could, and serve out her term. Then proceed from there. I thought that too. However, serving out her term "as the best Governor she could be" was very limiting in some regards, so we did not hear much from her for a while.
BUT, it surely is evident to everyone that the Left saw these things also, and additionally realized that her course of action could be taken advantage of by them to such effect that Gov. Palin was in an untenable position: Crippled as a Governor, and unable to be effective, nationally. This was not her "fault", in effect, she went back to her bunker way over there on "hill 49", to discover that most of the rest of the platoon had slunk away or was dead, and she was surrounded by sappers. Staying where she was was political suicide. At some point, staying alive to fight for your cause another day IS the right thing to do. It now appears that she has done just that, and IS fighting, and IS working on rallying the troops. God bless her!!!
As for the continued sniping from supposed allies...
All these things people say she needs more of (more of Reagan's depth, more experience, more polish, more xyz...), look, we can make a list 50 pages long, but that stuff, while some of it is significant, and valid, is secondary. The things I most want to see in a leader of "my side" are a (general) compass similar to my own, courage, and effectiveness. As I see it, she has those in spades.
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... 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." 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.
*The costs are the MAIN thing people are uncomfortable with, and everyone has their bogeyman, whether it be supposedly greedy insurance companies, supposedly greedy doctors, or lawyers, plaintiffs, the government, and illegal immigrants.
The grass roots uprisings are happening because people do not want to see their freedom diminished, their health care rationed, or, ultimately, their standard of living diminished by an ever larger government sucking away their livelyhood (which any clear thinking person knows will happen with gov't run health care: There are solid reasons consumer goods in Europe cost 2-3x what they do here, and their health care systems are part of that equation.)
I'd guess that if you poll protesters at a town hall meeeting, the vast majority would say Congress DOES badly need to do something to reform tort laws, or increase the supply of doctors. Plus, they might add that govt's involvement in health care payment has already seriously distorted the system, and put an unmanageable load on Federal and State budgets. So, I think they would disagree with your use of the word "perfectly happy" or "runs perfectly well".
Now, there we agree!
Righto!
“She’s all you’d ever want, she’s the kind I’d like to flaunt and take to dinner.....
She’s got style, she’s got grace, she’s a winner....
She’s a lady, oh, oh, oh she’s a lady......”
Go Sarah Go!!!!!!!
bttt
"America" video (Sarah Palin)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-G2n91wKtY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhillbuzz%2Eorg%2F2009%2F08%2F21%2Fsarah%2Dpalin%2Dwill%2Dsingle%2Dhandedly%2Dbring%2Ddown%2Dobamacare%2Dusing%2Donly%2Dfacebook%2Dto%2Ddo%2Dit%2F&feature=player_embedded#t=138
(And a possible record long link?) :-)
I wouldn't.
Well that's not my battle. I don't need to "be allowed to have a leader". If some folks need a leader to help them think and act then they will use their personal discretion in choosing one. There is nothing we can do here at FR to influence that decision. It is a personal one. And that is not my concern. I will give my support to individual conservative candidates but they do not lead me in any sense.
The nation was founded on the rights of the individual. If enough individual citizens are enraged over the actions of elected official then those officials face removal from office. The fear of removal from office is what has the DemonRats scared $hitless right now. They are paralyzed. And that is a good thing. And all this is happening from the ground up. Simply amazing; I love it.
My battle is with the left.
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.