|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 26, 2009 7:39:35 GMT -8
The President sure seems to be rushing this thing, doesn't he?
It's like he knows that he can't get it passed NEXT year, so he wants it done now, in a hurry, so he can have that as part of his legacy.
Health Care reform is NOT something that should be rushed. It should take at least a year to research and come up with GOOD solutions.
There are numbers out there that show that the number of TRULY uninsured (and not by choice) people in this country is much, much smaller than advertised when you take out the illegal aliens and those TEMPORARILY uninsured (there is a significant number of people who are uninsured for PART of any given year - a transition period from one job to the next or one insurer to the next).
A significant percentage of the uninsured are uninsured by choice - they're young, healthy, and don't want to spend the money on health insurance. They're gambling, but they're betting that they won't need it.
Another thing that President Obama and those that far or farther on the left are ignoring is the number of people who have health insurance and LIKE their coverage. I heard the numbers on the radio, and over 2/3 of Americans WITH health insurance are satisfied with their coverage.
So if a majority prefers to keep their system, why are we looking at such radical changes?
Smaller changes can get the job done - and at a far lower cost to the people (we all will have to pay for it in higher taxes - everything the government does costs significantly more than projected).
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 26, 2009 8:04:33 GMT -8
A significant percentage of the uninsured are uninsured by choice - they're young, healthy, and don't want to spend the money on health insurance. They're gambling, but they're betting that they won't need it. The problem with that is if they lose the gamble they wind up in the ER which is much more expensive and has added to the taxpayer and charity cost of health care. It's also less likely that they'll engage in any sort of preventative care. Obama's hurrying on it because you never know what's going to happen in next year's election and he may not have as large a majority in the Senate as he has now. But I think there are a ton of studies on how other countries do health care so I don't know that a lot more study needs to be done. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 26, 2009 8:11:37 GMT -8
A significant percentage of the uninsured are uninsured by choice - they're young, healthy, and don't want to spend the money on health insurance. They're gambling, but they're betting that they won't need it. The problem with that is if they lose the gamble they wind up in the ER which is much more expensive and has added to the taxpayer and charity cost of health care. It's also less likely that they'll engage in any sort of preventative care. Obama's hurrying on it because you never know what's going to happen in next year's election and he may not have as large a majority in the Senate as he has now. But I think there are a ton of studies on how other countries do health care so I don't know that a lot more study needs to be done. =Bob But here's the thing - how many countries have tried to insure 300 MILLION people? That's what the endgame is for those on the left. It isn't just about studying, it's about planning and projecting - and that seems to be something they're doing on the fly. There is no precedent that says that our government can set up a remotely efficient or well run health care system for that many people. There is RATIONING in the U.K. and Canada. I don't personally want to be told that my health care issues aren't urgent enough to warrant being covered (because there are more people with more pressing issues). That's what happens in those countries, and they cover a far smaller number of people than we have here. This thing will be at least twice as expensive as projected (every government program like this has been since at least the 60's). The true number of uninsured is smaller than those on the left have been saying, and there are smaller steps that could be implemented to help them that won't threaten the existing health care programs that should be tried before doing anything so radical that it will lead to the eventual end of private health care insurers.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 26, 2009 11:15:25 GMT -8
The problem with that is if they lose the gamble they wind up in the ER which is much more expensive and has added to the taxpayer and charity cost of health care. It's also less likely that they'll engage in any sort of preventative care. Obama's hurrying on it because you never know what's going to happen in next year's election and he may not have as large a majority in the Senate as he has now. But I think there are a ton of studies on how other countries do health care so I don't know that a lot more study needs to be done. =Bob But here's the thing - how many countries have tried to insure 300 MILLION people? That's what the endgame is for those on the left. It isn't just about studying, it's about planning and projecting - and that seems to be something they're doing on the fly. There is no precedent that says that our government can set up a remotely efficient or well run health care system for that many people. There is RATIONING in the U.K. and Canada. I don't personally want to be told that my health care issues aren't urgent enough to warrant being covered (because there are more people with more pressing issues). That's what happens in those countries, and they cover a far smaller number of people than we have here. This thing will be at least twice as expensive as projected (every government program like this has been since at least the 60's). The true number of uninsured is smaller than those on the left have been saying, and there are smaller steps that could be implemented to help them that won't threaten the existing health care programs that should be tried before doing anything so radical that it will lead to the eventual end of private health care insurers. Not everyone on the Left is as eager to socialize things as you seem to think they are. Second, the true number of uninsured does stop those other two groups who are uninsured from going to emergency rooms when they are sick. Just offering the difference between those who cannot afford insurance and those who don't want it and illegals does nothing to alter that simple fact. And lastly, there is rationing already in this country and it's not necessarily just due to income level. There aren't that many states, for instance, that require insurance companies to cover autism therapy, which can for too expensive for a middle class family to afford. My mother lived with massive pain for 3 years before she could get her hip replaced in 1979 because her insurance company called it "experimental" and refused to cover it before then. And, of course, we also have the problem with pre-existing conditions. Everyone brings up Canada and the Brits, but there are other countries with better run systems. Germany is a good example of that. My wife had her appendix out when she was working in Germany and it didn't cost her a dime. And I suspect the Germans might take umbrage at the claim that our medical system is the best in the world. It certainly doesn't show in the statistics. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 26, 2009 15:00:04 GMT -8
Well, you can't convince me that Obama or the Democrat congress has the best interest of the US citizen at heart when he writes up 1000 pages or so of health reform, all in the name of saving money and increasing the availability of care for all of us, yet the laws they write contain little or no medical tort reform. This alone betrays them, let alone the hundreds of other BS specials within the bills under consideration.
It is obvious that the Democrat's approach is more about power and less about delivering more services to more at reduced costs. It may be about giving special benefits to particular minority constituencies, however.
It is a false argument to say that the GOP wants to do nothing as they have forwarded plenty of good ways of reducing costs and increasing insurance coverage without having to give the Government an irresistible advantage in the insurance market place.
The fact is that the debate is only about how the leftists want to implement medical reform and that may be it's own worst enemy. People are skeptical of its financial impact (especially in the wake of the promises by Obama and the boondoggled Stimulus bill) and its eventual monopolization of personal medical choice.
This is process where the Democrats want to undercut private medical insurance and, with the turmoil that it will cause (like rationing, doctor/nurse flight to exclusively private practice, delays, increased costs, outlawed procedures, etc), they hope that the electorate will eventually demand more and, in the moment of "crisis", the Dems will seize the opening to implement single payer health care (which is where Obama and the Dems wanted to be all along).
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 26, 2009 15:56:05 GMT -8
Well, you can't convince me that Obama or the Democrat congress has the best interest of the US citizen at heart when he writes up 1000 pages or so of health reform, all in the name of saving money and increasing the availability of care for all of us, yet the laws they write contain little or no medical tort reform. This alone betrays them, let alone the hundreds of other BS specials within the bills under consideration. One question. Are you absolutely certain that the high cost of malpractice insurance has a direct correlation to malpractice litigation? Do you know for a fact that insurance companies would lower rates if non-income awards were capped? Here's a counter argument: www.injuryboard.com/national-news/Med-Mal-Insurance-Profits-Up-Claims-Are-Down-Study-Finds.aspx?googleid=267586But that aside, the real cost of health care has risen so much due to some other factors. There is apparently a Federal law on the books that hospitals have to report to the Feds when they suspend doctors. There are no penalties if they don't, so they won't because it could give the hospital a bad reputation and hurt profits. I read something not long ago that 5 percent of doctors are responsible for more than 50 percent of the malpractice suits. You guys on the right are always going on about getting rid of bad teachers, but how's about supporting better regulation of bad doctors. If the hospitals refuse to name those they suspend, how is the public to know? And what about the really good docs who almost never make mistakes? Why should they be forced to pay a couple hundred grand a year when they may never see a malpractice suit? BTW, malpractice litigation in this country has declined quite a bit over the past decade. The rest of your post is just the usual right-wing tirade about Liberals wanting to control everything and not really worth bothering with. But I will ask a question - what are the great ideas other than tort reform that the Republicans have come up with? =Bob
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jul 26, 2009 19:39:12 GMT -8
Well, you can't convince me that Obama or the Democrat congress has the best interest of the US citizen at heart when he writes up 1000 pages or so of health reform, all in the name of saving money and increasing the availability of care for all of us, yet the laws they write contain little or no medical tort reform. This alone betrays them, let alone the hundreds of other BS specials within the bills under consideration. One question. Are you absolutely certain that the high cost of malpractice insurance has a direct correlation to malpractice litigation? Do you know for a fact that insurance companies would lower rates if non-income awards were capped? Here's a counter argument: www.injuryboard.com/national-news/Med-Mal-Insurance-Profits-Up-Claims-Are-Down-Study-Finds.aspx?googleid=267586I do know for a fact that in the insurance business if your profits get too high the companies lower premiums because the insurance REGULATORS will step in if they don't, and they don't want the regulators (Departments of Insurance) to do it because they'll do it in ways that hurt the companies more and give them less flexibility in the long run. Plus, in competitive markets the sooner you can lower your premiums the sooner you have a competitive advantage and you take business from the higher priced insurers. That's how insurance companies grow. We need tort reform to encourage more companies to get into medical malpractice insurance and create more of a competitive environment. I know a thing or two about insurance because I'm an insurance underwriter. And, Bob, the costs of those million dollar lawsuits isn't just passed on to the doctors in the form of higher premiums (it is, trust me), it's also passed on to you and me in the form of higher health care insurance premiums. WE pay for those ludicrously large awards. But it's the Democrats who have blocked serious tort reform every time it's been brought up. There are many steps that could be taken that are smaller, but less costly in the long run, that could be implemented now to fix the health care system in our country, but the Democrats want none of that, either. They want the big, splashy program that eventually drives the private companies out of business and puts the Feds in charge of the whole damned thing. And, Bob, how many people are there in Germany, anyway? Less than half of what we've got here? How many illegals live there as a drain on their economies? (And don't try telling me that illegals aren't a drain - education alone with the average 3 kid family will cost almost as much as they make in total, and they don't pay a 90% tax rate. Add in their health care costs - whether in an emergency room or through a governmen run system - and they are a HUGE net drain.) Germany doesn't have to deal with that. Well, there's an idea that could be implemented along with tort reform and a few other smaller reforms that would actually make our system better, more effective, more efficient, and more accessible due to lowered costs. Of course, they won't happen because they aren't part of the Democrats big plans. Just like car insurance with drivers who never have accidents the doctors who never get sued have lower premiums than those who do get sued (and lose). Health savings accounts for the (truly) poor, for one thing. Give them a tax credit in advance in the form of an account to be used ONLY for health care. Let them shop the market and find the best health insurance deal available. It's another market force that would give the insurers a reason to be more competitive with their premiums. That's just one of a few ideas I've heard over the last decade or so that have been proposed by Republicans...
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 26, 2009 19:55:40 GMT -8
Well, you can't convince me that Obama or the Democrat congress has the best interest of the US citizen at heart when he writes up 1000 pages or so of health reform, all in the name of saving money and increasing the availability of care for all of us, yet the laws they write contain little or no medical tort reform. This alone betrays them, let alone the hundreds of other BS specials within the bills under consideration. One question. Are you absolutely certain that the high cost of malpractice insurance has a direct correlation to malpractice litigation? Do you know for a fact that insurance companies would lower rates if non-income awards were capped? Here's a counter argument: =Bob Why would defensive testing, the bane that Obama spoke of by another name, go down when no changes are made in malpractice liability for Doctors? ......<crickets chirping>....... Of course only 5% of the doctors generate 50% of the claims. Would you expect an error rate higher than that? Just because only a fraction of the doctors are sued and lose, don't think many are not threatened by get rich quick schemers, slip and fall artists, etc. and don't think that all practicing doctors don't pay dearly for their malpractice insurance. The Democrats are not serious about delivering more for less when they do nearly nothing on the malpractice side and it is obvious to anyone except glassy-eyed true believers. And when "defensive" testing is not paid for by Obamacare but the liability for missing something and getting it wrong remains, what do you think the doctors will do? Refuse Government insurance clients? Revise their medical practice to elective medical procedures where only the rich can play? Care for nothing more than hang nails and then refer more serious clients to a more expensive and harder to see specialists at every turn? Make the Government insurance clients pay for the testing anyway with out of pocket money? A little of all of the above? Right - a little of all the above. Brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 27, 2009 9:41:55 GMT -8
And what do you think the small business owner (the particular ones who employ many but do not offer health care) will do when they receive the threat of taxation or penalty from Obamacare for mandated coverage? They will lay-off to the absolute minimum staff required, reduce pay-rolls to avoid mandated coverage limits (go ultra-small) or outsource services (eliminating employees). And who will pay for the healthcare with the increased amount of unemployed, independent contractors or those working for ultra-small businesses? No problem. With this law, there will be a surplus of tax money floating around in a few years Oh I know, since other small and large businesses will save money by dumping their private insurance benefits for the "lower cost" public option, they will hire the millions that will be fired as a result of this law. Right - satisfying for the great demand for windmills, solar panels and bicycles
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 27, 2009 13:10:13 GMT -8
You must wonder just how smart and how engaged the Obama Mob is on this issue. Why would Obama let Pelosi and Reid draft the legislation? Why not put together a detailed plan and let Congress work from some comprehensible starting point? I really think that this think is doomed now that folks are getting wind of what is going on.
|
|
|
Post by William L. Rupp on Jul 27, 2009 13:19:59 GMT -8
Bob, I am hearing more and more that all national health services ration care. As regards Germany, one bit of info coming out is that the government makes little or no effort to publicize which new drugs are effective for which ailments. Reason? The new drugs are more expensive, and if patients are unaware of them, they will not demand that the govt. provide them.
Here's the bottom line: if the politicians (or MDs who are chosen because their philosophies match those of the pols) are in charge, they will see cost containment as their number one goal. Not better care!
As for outcomes, I have heard that in Canada women are much more likely to die of breast cancer than in the U.S. because of lengthy waits for treatment.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 27, 2009 15:20:34 GMT -8
And what do you think the small business owner (the particular ones who employ many but do not offer health care) will do when they receive the threat of taxation or penalty from Obamacare for mandated coverage? They will lay-off to the absolute minimum staff required, reduce pay-rolls to avoid mandated coverage limits (go ultra-small) or outsource services (eliminating employees). And who will pay for the healthcare with the increased amount of unemployed, independent contractors or those working for ultra-small businesses? No problem. With this law, there will be a surplus of tax money floating around in a few years Oh I know, since other small and large businesses will save money by dumping their private insurance benefits for the "lower cost" public option, they will hire the millions that will be fired as a result of this law. Right - satisfying for the great demand for windmills, solar panels and bicycles umm, no they won't since the playing field will be level. All of their competitors will have the same expenses. This will, in fact, make the employer who DOES offer healthcare more competitive with the sweat shops that don't.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 27, 2009 15:51:32 GMT -8
You must wonder just how smart and how engaged the Obama Mob is on this issue. Why would Obama let Pelosi and Reid draft the legislation? Why not put together a detailed plan and let Congress work from some comprehensible starting point? I really think that this think is doomed now that folks are getting wind of what is going on. The question is this - why do you believe that Obama's people aren't on The Hill directing this? They have the starting point. The Republicans ain't going to go for it no matter what, so it comes down to negotiating with the Blue Dogs and that's what's going on. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 27, 2009 15:57:34 GMT -8
And what do you think the small business owner (the particular ones who employ many but do not offer health care) will do when they receive the threat of taxation or penalty from Obamacare for mandated coverage? They will lay-off to the absolute minimum staff required, reduce pay-rolls to avoid mandated coverage limits (go ultra-small) or outsource services (eliminating employees). And who will pay for the healthcare with the increased amount of unemployed, independent contractors or those working for ultra-small businesses? No problem. With this law, there will be a surplus of tax money floating around in a few years Oh I know, since other small and large businesses will save money by dumping their private insurance benefits for the "lower cost" public option, they will hire the millions that will be fired as a result of this law. Right - satisfying for the great demand for windmills, solar panels and bicycles umm, no they won't since the playing field will be level. All of their competitors will have the same expenses. This will, in fact, make the employer who DOES offer healthcare more competitive with the sweat shops that don't. You do understand that many small businesses have limited profit margins to begin with? And do you mean to tell me that these small businesses will just let their profit margin take a crap and the owners will just sit there and grin and bear it with the knowledge that their competitors, if they have any, are getting whacked also? I disagree. The small business owner that does not now offer healthcare will either trim their staff, trim their payroll, or raise the costs to customers (risking loss of business) or a bit of all three to maintain their standard of living with the advent of the Obamacare mandate/tax/penalty. Many small business offer services that you can do yourself but find that is not worth your time if the service is priced right. If the cost for those "conveniences" go up because of Government policy, the likelihood is that the consumer may and will opt out of buying those conveniences more and more and do it themselves. Can you say "European Economy"?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 27, 2009 16:04:01 GMT -8
Bob, I am hearing more and more that all national health services ration care. As regards Germany, one bit of info coming out is that the government makes little or no effort to publicize which new drugs are effective for which ailments. Reason? The new drugs are more expensive, and if patients are unaware of them, they will not demand that the govt. provide them. AzWm Will, two problems with that. First, publicizing drugs is something we're used to in this country with all the "Ask Your Doctor" ads. Those just go to the cyberchondriacle people who hit Web MD on a daily basis to determine which disease they think they have that morning (I have to give credit to USA's "Royal Pains" for the phrase). If the doctors don't think you need a drug, it's not rationing care; it's docs being honest - something far too many people in this country don't much like. I'm sure you remember this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AVNQMQ_RLwHalf the kids I did volunteer drug intervention with were getting their drugs from their home medicine cabinet. Our culture is totally drug addicted and maybe some tough love would do a world of good. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 27, 2009 16:08:54 GMT -8
Why would defensive testing, the bane that Obama spoke of by another name, go down when no changes are made in malpractice liability for Doctors?
......<crickets chirping>.......
Do you mind if I take a bit of time responding. Crickets chirping is cute but rather juvenile.
Of course only 5% of the doctors generate 50% of the claims. Would you expect an error rate higher than that? Just because only a fraction of the doctors are sued and lose, don't think many are not threatened by get rich quick schemers, slip and fall artists, etc. and don't think that all practicing doctors don't pay dearly for their malpractice insurance. The Democrats are not serious about delivering more for less when they do nearly nothing on the malpractice side and it is obvious to anyone except glassy-eyed true believers.
That doesn't answer my comments and is a rather pathetic defense of the insurance industry. BTW, slip and fall artists aren't suing doctors or hospitals, they're looking to sue insurance companies who offer home or car insurance.
And when "defensive" testing is not paid for by Obamacare but the liability for missing something and getting it wrong remains, what do you think the doctors will do? Refuse Government insurance clients? Revise their medical practice to elective medical procedures where only the rich can play? Care for nothing more than hang nails and then refer more serious clients to a more expensive and harder to see specialists at every turn? Make the Government insurance clients pay for the testing anyway with out of pocket money? A little of all of the above? Right - a little of all the above. Brilliant!
Wonderful. You avoided every point that I made. Bravo
=Bob
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 27, 2009 16:44:33 GMT -8
Why would defensive testing, the bane that Obama spoke of by another name, go down when no changes are made in malpractice liability for Doctors? ......<crickets chirping>....... Do you mind if I take a bit of time responding. Crickets chirping is cute but rather juvenile.Of course only 5% of the doctors generate 50% of the claims. Would you expect an error rate higher than that? Just because only a fraction of the doctors are sued and lose, don't think many are not threatened by get rich quick schemers, slip and fall artists, etc. and don't think that all practicing doctors don't pay dearly for their malpractice insurance. The Democrats are not serious about delivering more for less when they do nearly nothing on the malpractice side and it is obvious to anyone except glassy-eyed true believers. That doesn't answer my comments and is a rather pathetic defense of the insurance industry. BTW, slip and fall artists aren't suing doctors or hospitals, they're looking to sue insurance companies who offer home or car insurance.And when "defensive" testing is not paid for by Obamacare but the liability for missing something and getting it wrong remains, what do you think the doctors will do? Refuse Government insurance clients? Revise their medical practice to elective medical procedures where only the rich can play? Care for nothing more than hang nails and then refer more serious clients to a more expensive and harder to see specialists at every turn? Make the Government insurance clients pay for the testing anyway with out of pocket money? A little of all of the above? Right - a little of all the above. Brilliant! Wonderful. You avoided every point that I made. Bravo=Bob Physician heal thyself. Lets go back to my post that you missed countering entirely. Excluding malpractice reform shows that the Democrats are not serious about lowering costs to the consumer. It is about political patronage to lawyers but feel free to try to choke up some other reason they don't include it? I'll ask again - Why will defensive testing go down when Doctors still have the liabilities they have today? And by the way, you can post to all the statistics you want about a few "bad doctors" and how much money insurance companies make but it will not change the fact that malpractice insurance is needed by ALL doctors regardless of their competence level and it consumes a huge amount of their salary to pay for it - and it's cost is passed onto us in the forms of high insurance premiums and high direct costs. So what was your point again?
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 28, 2009 5:26:38 GMT -8
As far as getting bad doctors out of the system, they can follow the lead of many other regulated professions (~real estate). Pay some modest dues to cover the cost of a regional board to review complaints by patients. And to satisfy the left who hates all things not under the thumb of the Government, have a political oversight at the state level to assure that they are not just looking the other way.
Example: Require arbitration for doctor/patient disputes, limit pain and suffering awards and simply mandate that Malpractice insurance providers have return of premium policy (or some other form of incentive that will allow the good doctors to keep their salary and bad doctors to pay more). It is not brain surgery to know that civil law suits within our ridiculous legal system is NOT the only way to get rid of bad doctors and it is not brain surgery to figure out a way to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance if awards for pain and suffering are capped.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 9:50:17 GMT -8
Why would defensive testing, the bane that Obama spoke of by another name, go down when no changes are made in malpractice liability for Doctors? ......<crickets chirping>....... Do you mind if I take a bit of time responding. Crickets chirping is cute but rather juvenile.Of course only 5% of the doctors generate 50% of the claims. Would you expect an error rate higher than that? Just because only a fraction of the doctors are sued and lose, don't think many are not threatened by get rich quick schemers, slip and fall artists, etc. and don't think that all practicing doctors don't pay dearly for their malpractice insurance. The Democrats are not serious about delivering more for less when they do nearly nothing on the malpractice side and it is obvious to anyone except glassy-eyed true believers. That doesn't answer my comments and is a rather pathetic defense of the insurance industry. BTW, slip and fall artists aren't suing doctors or hospitals, they're looking to sue insurance companies who offer home or car insurance.And when "defensive" testing is not paid for by Obamacare but the liability for missing something and getting it wrong remains, what do you think the doctors will do? Refuse Government insurance clients? Revise their medical practice to elective medical procedures where only the rich can play? Care for nothing more than hang nails and then refer more serious clients to a more expensive and harder to see specialists at every turn? Make the Government insurance clients pay for the testing anyway with out of pocket money? A little of all of the above? Right - a little of all the above. Brilliant! Wonderful. You avoided every point that I made. Bravo=Bob Physician heal thyself. Lets go back to my post that you missed countering entirely. Excluding malpractice reform shows that the Democrats are not serious about lowering costs to the consumer. It is about political patronage to lawyers but feel free to try to choke up some other reason they don't include it? I'll ask again - Why will defensive testing go down when Doctors still have the liabilities they have today? And by the way, you can post to all the statistics you want about a few "bad doctors" and how much money insurance companies make but it will not change the fact that malpractice insurance is needed by ALL doctors regardless of their competence level and it consumes a huge amount of their salary to pay for it - and it's cost is passed onto us in the forms of high insurance premiums and high direct costs. So what was your point again? As I pointed out, California and Texas cap non-income awards and the cost of insurance keeps going up anyway, so the question of insurance company profits is certainly part of the equation. There is nothing to guarantee that a Federal cap on non-income awards would do anything more than raise insurance company profits. Certainly all doctors need malpractice insurance. I never stated that they didn't. I do, however, question whether or not defensive tests are necessary to the extent they're used. A lot of people get MRIs not because the hospital is worried about getting sued but rather is worried about paying off the damn thing. Either way, doctors who have never been sued shouldn't have to pay anywhere near 200 grand a year for malpractice insurance. It's totally obscene. So if you want to cap jury awards, you should also be in favor of capping malpractice insurance premiums or at least in favor of some sort of tiered system that rewards good doctors. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 9:53:56 GMT -8
As far as getting bad doctors out of the system, they can follow the lead of many other regulated professions (~real estate). Pay some modest dues to cover the cost of a regional board to review complaints by patients. And to satisfy the left who hates all things not under the thumb of the Government, have a political oversight at the state level to assure that they are not just looking the other way. Example: Require arbitration for doctor/patient disputes, limit pain and suffering awards and simply mandate that Malpractice insurance providers have return of premium policy (or some other form of incentive that will allow the good doctors to keep their salary and bad doctors to pay more). It is not brain surgery to know that civil law suits within our ridiculous legal system is NOT the only way to get rid of bad doctors and it is not brain surgery to figure out a way to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance if awards for pain and suffering are capped. The litigation becomes necessary when hospitals cover up for bad doctors in order to keep their reputation. You won't see any sort of tiered system, though, because the insurance industry and the health care industry has far more clout than trial lawyers. =Bob
|
|