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
Perhaps you're trying to make excuses for what she quite clearly wrote. She sees those savings as being available for other government projects. She's still "depriving the taxpayers," just on different things.
Does Sarah Palin actually believe that? No, probably not. If you pressed her on it, she might well retreat from it. I suspect she didn't actually give it much thought, beyond its use as a cheap emotional appeal.
But she did write it, and that's precisely the sort of intellectual carelessness that politicians use to paint themselves into corners. It's exactly the sort of easily-misconstrued comment that's giving Obama fits right now.
It's just an example of how she is not yet ready for the big time. Articles like this are a good way to start ... but only to help her gain the depth she needs. As it stands now, this article merely proves the point that she's not there yet.
Sean is passionate about his paycheck. When Murdoch is done with his conservative patriot ruse, which will be soon, Sean will move on with him.
I share your enthusiasm for Palin (and distaste for Romney — I’m from MA), but ODH is the one who posted Palin’s piece, and with an approbative comment! I would think you’d like that. Unless I’m missing something . . . as I said, I’m not too quick at a dewpoint of 74 . . .
What you're missing is that ODH didn't post the piece....
You prove my point! - Roads and bridges are the area where we get a bigger bang for our buck from government than from private investment. Your smoke stinks to high heaven.
Noooooooo. I said she HAS a killer paragraph in her writing.
She is quoting incredible statistics, the STATISTICS ARE THE INCREDIBLE PART and Rb, I CERTAINLY HOPE she did not MAKE THEM UP. Geeeez. I am pretty sure you don't want her making statistics up either.
Don't worry too much about the folks like me who really admire Sarah, because there are lots of folks who do not, as well. And that is ok. We are all in this together.
You’re right R9, she should stick to sweet nothings like “slow down” and “be bipartisan.”
Or better yet, she should be required to extrapolate and extend every thought to every theoretical logical possible conclusion.
Two points:
1. Savings that the government realized could pay for a road or a school that is currently being borrowed for, against our children and grandchildren’s future.
2. 100% of the $200 billion savings isn’t going to be realized by the government. Most of it will be realized by doctors, patients, insurance companies, and consumers.
I want to apologize to you r9, on behalf of Governor Palin, for her failure to carry that thought out to every theoretical possible conclusion. I also want to apologize for her having an idea that is transcribed for us to share and discuss, as anything that crosses your idealized Caribou Barbie vision of her must cause you intense colorectal distress.
In the future, we should ALL remain silent unless our words are perfect. And while we wait for our PERFECTION, we can watch silently as the SOCIALIST’S PERFECTION unfolds before us.
Mississippi medical malpractice insurance has dropped by 40% after reforms were put in place.
You are sure that it is a bogeyman?
From this, I take it that you're happy with the idea that any savings from Tort Reform should go to the government?
Your smoke stinks to high heaven.
You seem to be blinded by dreams of the backside of Sarah Palin's pants.
Ah . . . as I said, I’m barely conscious in this weather! Sorry! :(
Did I say that? Nope. You're just lying now. Have a nice life.
With a big lie like that, you've got to be a lawyer!
Tort reform is the answer in just about every area of concern! Healthcare, environmentalism, labor law reform, and all else that hits us in the wallet.
LOL! Why don't you address the actual point: does that supposed $200 billion actually belong to the government, as Sarah Palin seems to imply?
Any money wasted, government money or not, is money wasted.
Let go of your hate.
TORT REFORM is CRUCIAL.
I know of DOCTORS whose NET PAY is equal to the INSURANCE they pay out so that their ENTIRE LIVIHOOD is not stripped from them by a lawsuit imposed over a matter that could not be helped.
Doctors get sued because they did not do appropriate tests, so they OVERTEST to avoid LAWSUITS and the COSTS GO UP!
I wonder how many LAWYERs would still be in practice if they had to carry personal liability insurance that hit ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR and up.
EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS in not unusual.
Imagine how not having to carry such ridiculous amounts of insurance would IMPACT costs? And hospitals...where ONE HALF of the neurosurgeons, and ONE THIRD of the bone surgeons, and ONE HALF of the emergency room doctors etc. etc and those are ACCURATE NUMBERS across our nation....can YOU IMAGINE how costs would drop if this were not the norm.
Would you want to have to carry massive insurance because ONE THIRD of the folks in your profession were SUED EACH YEAR? Or ONE HALF?
Forget about it.
It has gotten crazy.
Lawyers are LIVING off of DOCTORS and that is PERVERTED.
Another r9etb typical Strawman - Bravo!
Now go get your eyes checked.
Like I said, in your world, she should remain silent unless her words are perfect. This isn’t the first critique you have had about her editorials, you pretty much weigh in with problems on every one of them.
Without her intervention in the debate, we could’ve been on our way to America’s version of the Bataan Death March right now.
You said "she has a killer paragraph in her writing." So, yeah, I can be excused for thinking you meant that she wrote it.
She is quoting incredible statistics, the STATISTICS ARE THE INCREDIBLE PART and Rb, I CERTAINLY HOPE she did not MAKE THEM UP. Geeeez. I am pretty sure you don't want her making statistics up either.
The thing is, I've been reading statistics like that for the past 20+ years. They're not new and surprising facts.
What they are, is precisely the type of information that has been animating the tort reform movement for the past two decades (at least).
They're quite useful in the context of Palin's article. But they're not ground-breaking, and neither is her article.
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.