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
Anything constructive Romney has had to say on the issue has been too far buried in his defense of his own socialized medicine in MA.
You’re right about DeMint, he has been out there. But Corker isn’t enough of a national figure to really be heard on anything.
Using Facebook is brilliant. Not only is it free but she can take her message directly to the people totally bypassing the MSM.
Who said that she invented the idea?
The truth is that this piece offers nothing new to the debate. She's not doing much heavy lifting -- the people whose studies she quotes did that for her.
She also didn't do the really heavy lifting of actually passing the Tort Reform legislation she cites with approval -- that happened before she was ever in a position to influence it.
Again, it's nice that she's on-board, but it's disingenuous to suggest that she's had any actual influence on the matter.
Which brings us back to the flaccid thinking behind that throw-away line I cited. That's actually the most important part of the entire artice, precisely because it's the sort of line that gets big-time politicians in trouble. Ms. Palin needs to learn to think more carefully about such things, because it will (and many times already has) get her in trouble.
What it tells us is that she needs a few years of seasoning before she should have the temerity to offer herself up for higher office or party leadership.
If you don’t think she’s has an influence on the debate in the last two weeks, you either haven’t been paying attention or, I assume, are one of those strongly biased against her.
Sure, she quotes the experts on the subject, as she would have less credibility without doing so. But the Republicans have to take it to the public politically, now is the time to do that, and she’s been very effective.
She does that with FACTS. She pummels the politicians in DC pointing out that they are IGNORING something that COSTS YOU and me and every other American $2000/yr in additional medical costs, meanwhile those same politicians have plans to ADD a Trillion Dollars in the next decade, and $250 BILLION PER YEAR after that! She is not hammering the politicians as a Republican or a Democrat, but as the populist that she is.
Why are they ignoring it? You know why as well as I do: most of them are lawyers and have many lawyer buddies and donors. If Congress addresses TORT REFORM FIRST, they will be showing me, at least, that they are trying to demonstrate a real interest in controlling costs and changing the medical system for the better. Then I might be willing to let them tackle other issues with a little more faith in them.
Ignoring TORT REFORM means they have no interest in helping us.
Here is a Price Waterhouse Analysis of healthcare costs in America. This shows that the expert Sarah relied on for this is accurate, and that adds to her credibility in this issue.
“What ... a call for tort reform is now a ‘lightning bolt?’
Get real. Folks have been suggesting that for at least the past 20 years.”
Alaskans have been suggesting a pipeline to the lower 48 for 30 years but it took Palin to ram it through.
Tort reform was like bird shot on the shelf. Palin has flushed out the quail and delivered bird shot to the tail feathers.
Go Sarah! Go!
“The truth is that this piece offers nothing new to the debate. She’s not doing much heavy lifting — the people whose studies she quotes did that for her. “
This is what Palin wrote:
“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.”
So she is bringing her unique perspective as a *governor of alaska* as to why tort reform makes sense. Governors are responsible for their states and have to implement the correct decisions.
There you go again. Palin is not claiming this is a new idea and I've yet to see anybody on this thread make the same claim.
Your point is ironic given your stated correction of Sarah on her mentioning "building roads and hospitals" as being inappropriate.
THIS!! This needs to be the new mantra!
The corporation gets to choose, because the corporation generally pays the lion's share of its employees' insurance premiums. In my case, I think it's about 80%... Plus which, they handle all of the negotiations (and most likely get a better price than I could on my own), and they handle the enrollment.
One might plausibly argue that corporations should get out of the middle, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that it would be easy; in fact, it might be a lot harder for individuals, and may well cost more.
No predicates!
This bill should never become law.
umm his profile says he’s a guy
I might have to make her page my new home page.
Not that I needed another reason to love this woman! I can’t wait to hear the screeching heads on the MSM!
I think it's safe to assume that everyone on this thread knows that when you quote a study, it means that the study was done by somebody else.
LOL, unbelievable.
Sarah is sure getting a big bang for her buck on Facebook! Press release? Press Conference? Who needs it. She is using technology to her advantage and kicking the opposition’s ass in the process! I LIKE IT!
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.