ObamaCare and me By Zane F Pollard, MD

[Nova_C]

Now there's a great idea, tort reform, let's not make doctors afraid to practice and restrict juries the ability to give away enormous sums that really don't fit the 'crime', not to mention frivolous lawsuits

I honestly believe tort reform is a non-starter as the only numbers I've ever seen indicate that malpractice accounts for a tiny percentage of health care costs. Has anyone supporting tort reform really shown solid numbers on what the health care industry might save if suits were limited?

 

[Darcpixie]

Sure, malpractice CASES aren't the problem.

Malpractice INSURANCE, on the other hand...

 

[ForkedTung]

I honestly believe tort reform is a non-starter as the only numbers I've ever seen indicate that malpractice accounts for a tiny percentage of health care costs. Has anyone supporting tort reform really shown solid numbers on what the health care industry might save if suits were limited?

You're probably right, it may be more hype than would affect the industry, but again the insurance companies are pretty rough on Doctors and malpractice insurance is out the roof, from what I've read...

 

[Pruddock]

Now there's a great idea, tort reform, let's not make doctors afraid to practice and restrict juries the ability to give away enormous sums that really don't fit the 'crime', not to mention frivolous lawsuits.

Duly noted.

Forked... I don't think we've ever agreed this much in a single thread lol

 

[Pruddock]

I honestly believe tort reform is a non-starter as the only numbers I've ever seen indicate that malpractice accounts for a tiny percentage of health care costs. Has anyone supporting tort reform really shown solid numbers on what the health care industry might save if suits were limited?

Nova, I think we actually discussed this in an earlier thread and I started to bring an argument for the cascading effect tort reform could bring to the entire medical industry. I'm not exactly sure where its at but if I had the time to find it i'd quote it over here again. I'm sure danielle and others could add much more to it to show how much tort reform in the US would probably benefit the medical industry worldwide when it comes down to the prices of devices, medical care, and pharmaceuticals because the companies won't have to tie the cost of their own insurance and necessary capital for fear of a malpractice suit.

 

[Nova_C]

Nova, I think we actually discussed this in an earlier thread and I started to bring an argument for the cascading effect tort reform could bring to the entire medical industry. I'm not exactly sure where its at but if I had the time to find it i'd quote it over here again. I'm sure danielle and others could add much more to it to show how much tort reform in the US would probably benefit the medical industry worldwide when it comes down to the prices of devices, medical care, and pharmaceuticals because the companies won't have to tie the cost of their own insurance and necessary capital for fear of a malpractice suit.

I remember that conversation. I also remember you didn't cite anything at all, so I honestly have no idea how much people who support tort reform expect to save because the only people posting numbers are the ones saying it's not going to do much at all.

 

[danielle]

Nova, just to give you one example in my area mal practice insurance for an OBGYN is over $300,000 a year. For this reason many OBGYN'S have decided to just do gynecology leaving fewer doctors to deliver babies here. Surgeons, neurologists, and cardiologists all pay this amount per year as well and more Mal practice insurance amounts vary by both city and state and are calculatd using the areas geographical weighted index derived by how many suits win or lose a year that specialty has for the specific area.

The cost of the insurance is an expense providers must take into account when pricing the overall cost of care, but insurance companies will only reimburse so much for individual treatments leaving providers with little profit. Then you have the insurance held by pharmacuticals being in the millions a year and R&D in the billions- this explains why the same drug here costs twice as much and the cost of that drug is paid for by us, our insurance, hospitals, and physicians.

So when I say I believe reform should start with malpractice suits its not the suit per say, but the cost providers pay to have coverage to practice their specialty in a given geographic area. Can Canadians sue their providers and if so does the government cover that cost or the provider?

 

[Nova_C]

I'm not sure how often physicians are sued for malpractice in Canada, nor how much successful complaints are paid, but malpractice insurance in Canada is a fraction of what it is in the US, so there's that.

 

[KJUN]

Senator Baucus Thinks You're Too Dumb to Understand Legislation

This is a forward of PART of an email I was sent recently. I didn't write it (nor agree with every letter in it), but I do think many of the concerns here are valid ones. The language used to describe some of our elected officials might not agree with your terms to describe them, but that doesn't reduce the concern ALL of us SHOULD have about another expensive bill possibly getting forced on us without anyone being able to read it first.
KJ



*********************************************
Senator Baucus Thinks You're Too Dumb to Understand Legislation
-- Don't let your two U.S. Senators go along with his arrogance

Friday, October 2, 2009

It didn't seem like such an unreasonable request. Before the Senate Finance Committee passes one of the most important pieces of legislation in our lifetime, we (the American people) wanted to see two things:

* First, the actual language of the latest ... ObamaCare bill.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on its specific language.

But, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a "quickie guesstimate" of the cost -- a "guesstimate" which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

That's right. The committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill -- the most important in our lifetime -- AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Shouldn't we at least have a cost estimate that is based on what is actually in the bill? Yes, but a full CBO cost estimate would take two weeks -- and this is inconsistent with efforts by liberal Democrats to cram this bill quickly down the throats of the American people.

Moreover, don't you realize that "legislative language is very complex" and the American people are just too stupid to understand it.

Well, are the members of the committee too stupid as well? And what about the CBO? Is it too stupid?

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

It's time to put an end to these disgusting tricks.

ACTION: Call your two U.S. Senators. Ask them to oppose any ObamaCare legislation -- at least until we have two things:

1. The actual legislative language.

2. A definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on what's in the bill.

You can call your two Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

 

[v_various]

I live in Canada, where we have this so call "rationing of care".

This article is.....ugh. It's just not how it is. Our system isn't perfect, but if the government decided to take it away I can GUARANTEE you there would be riots. Free health care is pretty awesome.

 

[mike17l]

I live in Canada, where we have this so call "rationing of care".

This article is.....ugh. It's just not how it is. Our system isn't perfect, but if the government decided to take it away I can GUARANTEE you there would be riots. Free health care is pretty awesome.

Yeah if I got something that I didn't deserve for free, I wouldn't be all that enthusiastic if it was taken away.

 

[mike17l]

Free health care is pretty awesome.

and, it ain't free for everyone. Someone has to pay for it.

 

[v_various]

uhhhhh what? It's health care, I think is a basic need. I deserve it because I pay taxes. Do I care if some hobo is getting his broken leg set on my dime? If some poor kid is getting eye surgery that I helped pay for? Not really. My grandpas hip replacement probably cost a lot more, and he wouldn't have been able to pay.

I think our country is richer for how we take care of people who truely need it. We all pay for it over time anyway, taxes are on everything. I'm not making a mint at my job or anything, but I can afford everything I need plus a nice vacation every year. I'm good.

I don't understand how you can say our system is wrong. It works fine, and I know I don't have to worry if something happens. No one has that stress, not single mothers, not the mentally unstable street kids, not the old folks on fixed incomes. We are all family, we are all someones kid or mom or grandpa, you know? I like that they are all taken care of if they need it. I like that my family doesn't have to worry.

 

[ForkedTung]

I re-wrote this with changes in blue.

Senator M. Savage Thinks You're Too Dumb to Understand Legislation
-- Don't let your two U.S. Senators go along with his arrogance

Friday, October 2, 2009

It didn't seem like such an unreasonable request. Before the Senate Finance Committee passes one of the most important pieces of legislation in our lifetime, we (the American people) wanted to see two things:

* First, the actual language of the latest ... Limbaugh Bill.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on its specific language.

But, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman S. Hannity, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a "quickie guesstimate" of the cost -- a "guesstimate" which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

That's right. The committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill -- the most important in our lifetime -- AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Shouldn't we at least have a cost estimate that is based on what is actually in the bill? Yes, but a full CBO cost estimate would take two weeks -- and this is inconsistent with efforts by liberal Democrats to cram this bill quickly down the throats of the American people.

Moreover, don't you realize that "legislative language is very complex" and the American people are just too stupid to understand it.

Well, are the members of the committee too stupid as well? And what about the CBO? Is it too stupid?

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

It's time to put an end to these disgusting tricks.

ACTION: Call your two U.S. Senators. Ask them to oppose any GlennBeck Care legislation -- at least until we have two things:

1. The actual legislative language.

2. A definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on what's in the bill.

You can call your two Senators toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

Now I can forward it to all my bleeding heart liberal friends. See anyone with a computer can come up with any political dogma they see fit to write, base it on half-truths or outright lies and forward it to like-minded individuals.
It's so much easier when you use quotes in it that aren't referenced to anyone in particular ( makes it almost impossible to research any facts behind them) that insinuate that the 'bad guy' said it, but even better when there are absolutely no references to anything that is 'documented' in the letter, nothing... no attributed quotes no references, the writer/writers don't even sign it, no authorship whatsoever. Classic propaganda!

 

[Nova_C]

and, it ain't free for everyone. Someone has to pay for it.

Yep. In fact, the cost of health care in Canada is shared by all Canadians, meaning every pays according to what they can afford, and everyone is treated, without regards to their status in society.

 

[Nova_C]

Yeah if I got something that I didn't deserve for free, I wouldn't be all that enthusiastic if it was taken away.

Also, I like how you allude no one in Canada deserves any treatment at all. Nope, not offensive to generalize an entire nation of people as thieves or con-artists. Not at all.

 

[ForkedTung]

Yep. In fact, the cost of health care in Canada is shared by all Canadians, meaning every pays according to what they can afford, and everyone is treated, without regards to their status in society.

That's not fair, only the rich should be able to have health care, let the peasants rot.:crazy01:

 

[KJUN]

Now I can forward it to all my bleeding heart liberal friends.

Is it your policy to change things to say what you want them to and then forward it as fact? I mean, I suspect most liberals do this, but they rarely admit it.

:nyah::nyah::nyah::nyah::nyah:

 

[ForkedTung]

Is it your policy to change things to say what you want them to and then forward it as fact? I mean, I suspect most conspiracy theory, revisionist, paranoids do this, but they rarely admit it.

:nyah::nyah::nyah::nyah::nyah:

No Sir, Never...oke:

 

[danielle]

LOL too funny Kyle. It's fine if Canadians like their system they should it's theirs afterall. The point is our population more than triples yours, we have an expensive military, and already offer free or lower cost health care for the elderly, children, pregnant women, and those who are low income.

We are also in a recession, are terribly in debt, and just plain don't have the funds to adequately pay for a full blown health care plan for all. Having to wait weeks to months for diagnostic testing, surgery, having to travel to receive these things because your particular province doesn't offer that service, and being told which treatments you should undergo based on cost efficiencies is not what I want and these statements reflect Canada's current system. While many think a system like this is the better of the two evils I personally don't