Posted on 09/11/2009 1:31:35 PM PDT by rhema
The thing about the bully pulpit is that Presidents can make the most fantastic claims and it takes days to sort the reality from the myths. So as a public service, let's try to navigate the, er, remarkable Medicare discussion that President Obama delivered on Wednesday. It isn't easy.
Mr. Obama began by depicting a crisis in the entitlement state, noting that "our health-care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers," especially Medicare. Unless we find a way to cauterize this fiscal hemorrhage, "we will eventually be spending more on Medicare than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health-care program is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close."
On this score he's right. Medicare's unfunded liability—the gap between revenues and promised benefits—is currently some $37 trillion over the next 75 years. Yet the President uses this insolvency as an argument to justify the creation of another health-care entitlement, this time for most everyone under age 65. It's like a variation on the old Marx Brothers routine: "The soup is terrible and the portions are too small."
As astonishing, Mr. Obama claimed he can finance universal health care without adding "one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period," in large part by pumping money out of Medicare. The $880 billion Senate plan he all but blessed this week would cut Medicare by as much as $500 billion, mainly by cutting what Mr. Obama called "waste and abuse." Perhaps this is related to the "waste and abuse" that Congresses of both parties have targeted dozens of times without ever cutting it.
Apparently this time Mr. Obama means it, though he said this doesn't mean seniors should listen to "demagoguery and distortion" about Medicare cuts. That's because Medicare is a "sacred trust," and the President swore
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It didnt take me days to sort out the Obama lies.
I knew it even before representative Wilson.
If we can save Medicare 500 billions dollars we can do it without the health care bill. We can do it now.
Fact is it cannot be done without screwing over Seniors by rationing care. Sure we can save probably, at best 100 billion ,by cutting out the fraud involved but even that costs money to hire the people to do it.
Obama says it wont go into effect for 4 years, why does he have to shove it down our throats now Everything is now with this guy because he doesnt want anything looked over.He wants to hide his shifty deals in legalease and not give anyone time to work them out.
Might be more cost effective to contract out the watch dog function. The contractors wouldn't have a sinecure like their civil service equivalents, but would be in position to get bonuses for ferreting out proof of existing fraud.
How anyone could think that we would spend less with the gummint running all of it I can't imagine but there is porbably a bunch of libtards that believe it. Of course they also believe the Flying Unicorn will crap colored candies as it flies overhead and all they have to do is just go outside and open their mouths.
I would trade my current job salary for the simple commission of a buck every time Obama lies while in office. Shoot I will even throw in my retirement account. This is change you can believe in.
All serious GOP discussants talk about tort reform. This is an item that needs to be fleshed out — it cannot be left to the vagaries of future politics. I don’t believe anyone wants to begrudge a patient harmed by a preventable mistake on the part of health care staff, enough to take care of the economic costs of ameliorating the harm (even after the cut taken by contingency fee attorneys). This cut is why we do allow non-economic damages, so as to try to make up the difference, And we allow contingency fees because even with an excellent case few would sue or even press for arbitration if they had to pay all to their attorneys up front. (Even loser pays is not always appropriate for close cases, and all extant loser-pays systems allow for judicial bypass of same.) But the proof of such is in the pudding. What does the tort reform actually SAY.
I would suggest the following for tort reform: 1) limit pain and suffering and punitive damages to no more than $1,000,000; 2) limit contingent fees to no more than 20% of the recovery; and 3) award attorneys fees to the defendant if the judge rules the case to be frivolous, or less than one third of the jury votes for a recovery for the plaintiff, with the plaintiff’s lawyer paying the fees.
Actually, to give the (ahem) devil his due, this is correct. It will not add one dime, it will add (shouting toward living room---"Hey, how many dimes are in a Trillion dollars, anyway?") No response.
Well, it will add that many dimes...
Once again, Mr. President, to use your famous phrase, don't "wee-wee up" my leg and tell me it's raining...
My problem is with class action suits.
The ones we see advertised on TV.
Join this suit or the other. The lawyers advertise for victims of various diseases an get hundreds of people in on the suit. These hundreds add to the cost of the payoff, but in the end the lawyers get the gravy off the top and the class action suiter’s get pennies.
Do the math, this will end up with some patients not getting the economic damages (actual medical care) they deserve.
HiTech: You should do the math. Many moons ago, I clerked for a law firm that did medmal defense. The easiest damages calculation to sell to the jury is economic and medical care damages. What experience do you have in this arena?
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.