‘Public option’ on the table?

jdaman

N T

SteveLA

Moe

Don’t forget creating a market place that is 50 state wide for health insurance as part of the puzzle. State regulators are really going to scream over that part.

penguin2

Public option off the table, but what about all of the sneaky regulations they’ll still be leaving in. Those 1000+ pages contain a ton of stuff that needs to go away. I want to know exactly what is being left in that bill. Maybe they should just start over.

http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

If they think we’re going to quieten down if public option is off the table they got another think coming, and still aren’t fully listening.

izoneguy

Yes, that should have been the first thing to discuss when talking HealthCare Reform….Billions go to lawyers & law firms….
Much of that money going back into democratic coffers….

That is why it will be a hard nut to crush……

Next – Why is ACORN mentioned in any HealthCare discussions….

http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

http://deafconservative.wordpress.com Cheetah772

Even if Democrats take off public option, is the health care reform bill still a dangerous thing to enact into law? It’s unlikely that without a public option it’s not going to stop Democrats from making our current health care system worse than it is right now. I’d rather to have it NOT passed at all, than to have it passed without a public option.

And you’re right, no serious health care reform bill should be completed without including tort reforms. Without tort reforms, there’s not much point in reforming our health care system, is there? I’m glad we can agree on something….not that there was anything we disagreed on in the past…oh, I better stop typing right now before I cause myself a major headache!

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

more onerous regs on ins cos that would eventually lead to destroying private ins industry

see here

http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/08/12/seniors-have-defeated-public-optiondeath-panels-next-battle-pre-existing-conditions/

10ksnooker

Why not we just do something that works first.

muffin

Lawyers don’t want tort reform because it will take away from their pockets. Lawyers watch out after their own. That’s why no tort reform.

izoneguy

with non-lawyer types….

Maybe someday…

muffin

pilgrim

I was watching the Q&A, and a latina lady asked how can you have competition in health insurance when it is so different from one state to another regarding the companies that can even provide a plan. He bloviated, and did not answer her question.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I was a liberal dem trial lawyer for 13 years before the conservative epiphany and switch to corp law. Trial lawyers oppose tort reform for selfish reasons and not just plaintiff lawyers. The defense counsel needs the frivolous lawsuits and high stakes as well.

Moreover, lawyers have a distorted view of the free market due to the fact that they are a bit different from the average entrepreneur that doesn’t have a license to a monopoly like lawyers do.

more later

briann

The Dem leadership has pulled too many bait & switch moves in the congress already. We still don’t know what is in the 300+ pages added to Cap & Tax just hours before it was passed in the House (at least I don’t). Single payer will creep back in somewhere, I am fairly certain.

-Bri

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

probably a necessary antecedent in any event under the commerce clause.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

Mainly the co-op option that would be like fannie and freddie gse’s that would distort the market and the more seductive and easily passed ins regs requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc

see below
http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/08/12/seniors-have-defeated-public-optiondeath-panels-next-battle-pre-existing-conditions/

These kinds of regs would end up destroying the ins industry and eventually lead to a public option.

ColdWarrior

also got no answer but just a five minute or longer non-answer filled with talking points.

I also noticed how two questions earlier some brave sole tried to ask Teleprompter Boy a hard question and Teleprompter Boy interrupted him, as he always does (remember the press conference where he told the journalist, when interrupting him, that he didn’t want him to waste his question?) when he’s asked a hard question, and then gave a long-winded non-answer to a reformulation of the question.

And, unbelievably, he repeated the ridiculous “UPS and FedEX are competing just fine against the Postal Service and the Post Office is doing badly” line.

I think this performance was a disaster for Teleprompter Boy.

Thank you.

ColdWarrior

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

people and their bodies are the same everywhere!

muffin

Maybe if we didn’t have so many lawyers in Congress, normal everyday people could actually read and understand the bills they write.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

creates vague non sequiturs that leave courts and bureaocrats free to make up the liberal law they prefer.

jcincy

Any reform made to health care should be aimed at one thing:

Increasing my liberty. I want choices.

I want to pick my doctor.. or pick no doctor at all. It’s my choice.

I want to pick the way I pay my doctor – DIRECT PAY, insurance, hmo, etc…

If I choose insurance, I want a variety of choices… I want competition.

Put a cap on malpractice to give my doctor the liberty to provide good medicare at a reasonable price.

Cut my taxes across the board and eliminate the tax break for buying through one mechanism, but not another. I believe the complete elimination of the federal income tax would go a long to decreasing costs for all goods and services.

Finally, I don’t want a government choice. You can’t have the “referee” as one of the players in the game. Americans should be able to file a class-action, anti-trust suit against the members of the legislative and the executive branches for overstepping their Constitutional boundaries.

6eorge Jetson

You get to celebrate a victory (public option) for 24 hours.

Then by Monday you move on and focus intensely on the next game (tort reform).

We’ll need to step it up again next week.

ColdWarrior

Teleprompter Boy said over and over and over how “we” needed to have this “vigorous” debate over reforms to the “health insurance” system and how these town hall meetings were good things because the American people were having discussions all across the country?

This, coming from the same guy who demanded that he have the House and Senate deliver a socialized medicine bill with a public option to him for his signature before the August recess?

Which would have meant no input from the American people.

Hmmmm.

Thank you.

ColdWarrior

jeffreywturner

After we twist the dagger in the public option and it is a rotting corpse, we then need to move quickly to tort reform, but more specifically and aptly, let’s call it “lawsuit” reform. Frankly, many don’t actually know what “tort” means.

Let’s insist on MEANINGFUL tort reform that actually will curb the lawsuit abuses, and not just a sham line or two in the bill filled with loopholes.

Let’s make the general public aware of who the culprits are in runaway healthcare costs and force the Democrats into the position of protectingthe greedy, ambulance-chasing trial lawyers who fund their campaigns. Let’s make the Democrats OWN them.

We should absolutely insist on such reform in any compromise bill. This way, if the Democrats scuttle it and it dies, its a black-eye and we beat them next year, but on the other hand if it actually gets through, we will actually have improved the system the way we did when we crammed welfare reform down Clinton’s throat in 1996. It’s a win-win.

jeffreywturner

Why do you think almost all of the campaign donations from the trial lawyers go to the Democrats and the DNC?

Most of the GOP members of Congress who are lawyers are not trial lawyers (ie: litigation attorneys), so they don’t protect the trial lawyers the way the Dems do.

You have all kinds of attorneys, but its the litigation attorneys who are the ones that give all lawyers a bad name.

Just imagine, there was a time in American history when being a lawyer (think Abraham Lincoln – “Honest Abe”) was considered a prestigious and noble profession. The litigation attorneys (trial lawyers) are the ones who ruined that.

jdaman

http://www.pjtv.com/video/AlfonZo_Rachel_Presents%3A_ZoNation/ObamaCare%3A_An_Rx_for_Reform_or_a_Cancer_for_our_Economy%3F_/2212/
A free video in which Alfonzo Rachel, Machosauceproduction tackles the Obamacare issue.

ktsub

Its a trick. Sideshow this rumor, let all our guards down. Nothing but a trick.

izoneguy

Why John Edwards Is Responsible For More Unnecessary Operations Than ?Greedy Doctors?

http://www.allamericanblogger.com/8120/why-john-edwards-is-responsible-for-more-unnecessary-operations-than-greedy-doctors/

Edwards’s career tied to jury award debate

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/15/edwardss_career_tied_to_jury_award_debate/

Senator John Edwards, the North Carolina lawyer running for president, built a career out of winning historic jury awards for children who suffered birth defects allegedly because doctors mishandled their deliveries — from a record $6.5 million in 1985 to a new record of $23 million in his last trial in 1997.
(snip)
Critics counter that jury verdicts are supposed to compensate plaintiffs, not their attorneys. Edwards, according to financial disclosure forms, is worth between $12.8 million and $60 million.

Beyond obtaining large awards, Edwards expanded the limits of personal-injury law. The Campbell case, for instance, involved an expansion of liability for hospitals, even when the treatment was by a private physician.

Six years later, in 1991, Edwards won a $2.275 million verdict for the family of a woman who killed herself in a hospital a few days after she was taken off a suicide watch. The case appeared to be the first time in North Carolina that a hospital was found liable for a patient’s suicide, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.

In 1994, Edwards won a lawsuit against a doctor who failed to diagnose prostate cancer, even though his client allegedly missed several follow-up appointments.

But the case remembered as his biggest win came in 1997 and involved a 5-year-old girl who was injured by a swimming-pool drain. The drain cover was off and the girl was trapped by a suction pump with enough force to extract her intestines. The manufacturer argued that if the cover had been installed correctly, the accident would not have happened.

Edwards countered the company should have provided better warning labels. “Some of the covers say nothing,” he said during his summation. “If that continues, it’s not a question of whether there’s going to be another child hurt. It’s just a question of when.”

Later, he pulled a newspaper out of his jacket and started to read.

“There was a wonderful, wonderful thing written this past spring. . . . It involved the death of a young boy who shouldn’t have died, and what he wrote was this: `We have to gather around this family not because we understand what they’re going through, but because — but because they have to know we share their pain. Our feelings — our terrible, terrible feelings prove that we really all are part of the same family. Their loss was our loss. Their child was our child.’ ”

What Edwards did not tell the jury, although some lawyers in the audience knew, was that the piece referred to his own son, Wade, who had been killed in a 1996 car accident at age 16.

When the jury came back with the $23 million verdict, 10 of the 12 jurors were crying, recalled the judge who presided at the trial.

To those who had worked with Edwards for years, the result was familiar. So was the familiar air of empathy.

Said Wade Byrd, a fellow plaintiff’s attorney, “John then and now had almost a Clintonesque ability to understand a complex subject and break it down to very simple terms.”

___________________________________________________

A 2001 article from National Review explains why the president doesn?t see a need for tort reform:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_53/ai_76915714/

An estimated 50 cents of every dollar awarded to tort plaintiffs gets eaten up by lawyers and courts-and a great deal of that money ends up benefiting Democratic candidates. Over the last decade, the legal profession has led all other groups in campaign contributions-giving a total of $357 million to federal candidates-and 70 percent of its cash goes to Democrats. The 56,000-member Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) was the top PAC contributor to Democratic federal candidates in the last election cycle; the organization spent $2.6 million, 86 percent of which went to Democrats.
___________________________________________________

If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns ?greedy doctors,? many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the ?greedy trial lawyers? off the hook. Remember that next time he accuses the Republicans of bowing down to special interests.

6eorge Jetson

but left the name out to imply the story was about Edward’s plaintiff?

Wow, that’s low. Prostituting your own son’s death to increase the jury reward.

George Claghorn

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_202515.html

In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.

Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: “She said at 3, `I’m fine.’ She said at 4, `I’m having a little trouble, but I’m doing O.K.’ Five, she said, `I’m having problems.’ At 5:30, she said, `I need out.’ ”

But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl’s brain.

“She speaks to you through me,” the lawyer went on in his closing argument. “And I have to tell you right now ? I didn’t plan to talk about this ? right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She’s inside me, and she’s talking to you.”

The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state’s most feared plaintiff’s lawyer.

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

“I was more than just their lawyer,” Mr. Edwards said of his clients in a recent essay in Newsweek. “I cared about them. Their cause was my cause.”

As NYT reports:

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

And:

Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.

Well, so much for that.

George Claghorn

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html

Menlo

I believe the individual mandate is what has been and will remain central to this legislation. With that, it doesn’t matter if it is run by government or private companies. It is still purely and completely socialist medicine, and it is an unjustified violation of individual rights.

Menlo

I believe the individual mandate is what has been and will remain central to this legislation. With that, it doesn’t matter if it is run by government or private companies. It is still purely and completely socialist medicine, and it is an unjustified violation of individual rights.

mriggio

The public option is going to be like night of the living dead; this thing ain’t going away! They may say it is, but they’ll change it’s name, slide it back in during a conference committee, bury it in some last minute 3:00 AM amendment, whatever–IT’S NOT GOING AWAY! Let’s keep up the pressure; NO piece of legislation needs to be this long and this obscure when the common-sense approaches are both short and sweet.

Adjoran

It most certainly would remain a dangerous bill on multiple levels even if the overt “public option” were deleted [for now, you know what happens when the camel gets his nose under the tent].

Meaningful health care reform could very well end up with “universal health coverage” for those who want it. Several simple steps could get us a long way towards that goal, without involving more federal programs to botch up the system.

Mike “Gamecock” DeVine’s mention of the absurd state licensing requirements which prevent interstate sale of insurance plans. What else can we not buy from another state of the USA? This would instantly create a much larger competitive market, which in itself restrains prices.

Requiring a reform of health policies so all must offer, at an actuarially sound premium, a guaranteed renewal rider which is cross-carrier portable would prevent loss of coverage due to “pre-existing conditions” just because of changes in employment or carrier. (The premiums could go to a “pool” fund, similar to the “high risk pool” auto insurers share in many states to cover bad drivers no one wants a la carte).

Medical savings accounts have proved effective, efficient, and extremely popular with those who opened them, and this option should be expanded.

Medicare and Medicaid could be folded into a market solution with vouchers allowing participants to select their carrier and plan. Putting these folks under private sector expense management would give them better care at lower economic cost without balancing the entire burden on providers’ backs.

Tort reform is also essential. Medical liability cases should be submitted to mandatory arbitration by panels of experts instead of juries quite incapable of understanding the science involved (and subject to ridiculous emotional appeals devoid of factual relevance). Now, before some toadie for the trial lawyers pops up to insist the cost of medical liability judgments is no more than 1% of total health care spending, let us note that figure doesn’t include the vast majority of cases which are settled and sealed, or the even greater costs of “defensive medicine” by unneeded testing to avoid suits and driving qualified practitioners from critical fields due to high insurance costs.

Unfortunately, this will require a Constitutional Amendment, since the right to trial by jury is secured by the 6th Amendment.

farstar99

The Democrats float on lawyer-funded water wings.

No matter what it ends up being called – “co-op,” etc. it will still be a public option. And if Republicans are stupid enough to allow enabling legislation on it to pass, they will see the Democrats cram whatever they wanted in the first place into the final bill.

Meaning if they fall for “we’ll fill it in later” again, it’s because they learned nothing from TARP, Porkulus or Cap-and-Tax.

izoneguy

Where do the big payoffs for the lawyers come? Typically from the insurance companies. Once the insurance companies are gone – who are the lawyers going to sue – The Federal Government??

LOL

The new socialists will tell the lawyers to take a hike – they won’t need them anymore – the rule of law will be dead.

The unions will be in control and there will only be one party – the “Federal Freedom Front”. The states will be dissolved and everyone will work for the greater glory of the FFF.

6eorge Jetson

as all blanket statements are wrong joke

In turbulent times like these, public opinion is more volatile than ever, which could offer a determined and multi-year persistent conservative base the opportunity to pass tort reform.

We’ve given the Dems a significant body blow over the past couple of months. What better time than now to present to the public a tort reform plan? Will it pass in the current 112th Congress? Of course not. But it could lead to a 113th Congress under Republican control. Which Zero™ will still be able to veto. But a poor economy and the congressional stalemate in the 113th could lead to a Republican president in 2012 and a chance to pass tort reform in the 114th. Or at least having the lawyer special interest groups on the ropes w/ a razor thin filibuster safety margin.

How do we get there? One step at a time. Successful journeys start w/ the the first/next step.

6eorge Jetson

In turbulent times like these, public opinion is more volatile than ever, which could offer a determined and multi-year persistent conservative base the opportunity to pass tort reform.

We?ve given the Dems a significant body blow over the past couple of months. What better time than now to present to the public a tort reform plan? Will it pass in the current 112th Congress? Of course not. But it could lead to a 113th Congress under Republican control. Which Zero? will still be able to veto. But a poor economy and the congressional stalemate in the 113th could lead to a Republican president in 2012 and a chance to pass tort reform in the 114th. Or at least having the lawyer special interest groups on the ropes w/ a razor thin filibuster safety margin.

How do we get there? One step at a time. Successful journeys start w/ the the first/next step.

Old_Crow

and make believe the issues is a binary decision, his way or status quo. It’s a simple message for single cell Dem media brains to bleat out over the airwaves, so watch out.
Some obvious contradictions:
Obama says he wants people to have more choices – Okay then let insurance companies compete across state lines and end state mandates.
Obama wants insurance companies to pay for preventative health care – Okay then let insurance companies offer reduced rates for non-smokers etc and folks (some) will tend toward healthier lifestyles.
The list goes on, but we can’t let him get away with painting all opposition as wanting the status quo.

Achance

but in his own time he was better known for splitting hairs on behalf of the railroads. Spin wasn’t invented in the late-20th Century.

The high-stakes legal game of the 1840s and ’50s were the right of way and river bridging battles between the nascent railroad industry and the states, private landowners, and other shipping companies. It wasn’t for nothing that Lincoln was a major proponent of the Transcontinental Railway.

monstermom

if the public option is dropped.

The GOPs bill provides for tort reform and additional taxpayer assistance for those least able to afford health coverage.

It opens up the individual market by allowing membership organizations and trade / professional / industry associations to provide health coverage as a benefit to their members. It allows individuals who opt out of their employer or government sponsored plans to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums purchased from the individual market from their taxes.

Best of all, it opens the health insurance industry to inter-state commerce and allows insurance companies to offer plan across state lines, provided those plans meet the regulations of both states.

It’s called the [url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3400"]Empowering Patients First Act[/url].

monstermom

I think I did the url thingey wrong in my comment. Sorry!

Here’s the link to the Act.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3400

Vladimir

…but it’s comforting to blame trial lawyers for all the ills & difficulty with tort reform, etc.

But we must all remember that the “business-friendly” lawyers who specialize in insurance defense & go toe to toe with the ambulance chasers have some skin in the game, too.

How is tort reform in their interest? They’re paid by the hour. If there’s less litigation, or more efficient settlements, it hits them in the pocketbook.

They sound outraged & talk a good game over business lunches with their clients, but in reality, they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Xasteius

reddog53

Having the ‘public option’ off the table may cause some of our legislators to relax…we need to keep the pressure on!

Comments above rightly point out to the fact that there is so much else in this bill to oppose; we can’t let off the throttle.

Churchill’s exhortation about ‘nothing less than victory’ comes to mind.

Now is not the time for an upwelling of bipartisanship and compromise.

We need to stick a fork in it and start over.

casel21

I am not being a wiseguy but please tell me where I misapprehend the implications of federal tort reform.

Conservatives ask for federal tort reform. The only way to get federal tort reform is to pass a federal statute. As a matter of law and of execution and effectiveness, a federal statute must preempt, nullify, modify, destroy hundreds of years of state tort law.

Also, since it is a federal statute, it is a federal question. And since it is a federal question, all tort cases can be tried in federal court even without diversity of citizenship. But even if a tort case is tried in state court, state court judges, including the state supreme courts, will be bound to follow the rulings of federal court including the lowest level federal court.

Indeed, federal tort reform would be a huge win for tort lawyers. They will be able to one-stop shop in DC. If the federal legislature can control all of the tort cases in all of the states, what do you think would happen if the federal legislature adopted a tort law favorable to trial lawyers? States where those tort claims would have been shut down before must now rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

Federal takeover of state law has been tried before with disastrous results, see Swift v. Tyson.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

at the trial lawyers seminars on how to combat the “myths” of tort reform.

They are paid by the hour.

The only hope for reform of the litigous society is a great awakening IV or judges with judicial restraint or tort reform

http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

Exactamento/Exactamundo…

Someone keeps coining phrases before me.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I must say that given we have had no previous contact from which your opening disclaimer might have been a response, Therefore, as when democrats begin diatribes with allegations that their patriotism has been challenged when it has not been….I am amused

reminds me of all the imes when a potential client begins their explanation of the why they are charged with a crime with

I’m a Christian, I’m telling the truth

rather than, here is what happened….

My guard is up.

Now, I will address your wisdom or lack thereof, and if the latter, will lead you to a more elevated state of knowledge.

Dave_in_Fla

A national campaign to address the impact of malpractice insurance on healthcare costs would be timely.

Dave_in_Fla

I could whip something up.

janis

lawsuits actually do—i.e. they enrich lawyers, make everyone’s health care costs skyrocket, and tie up courts & juries that could be otherwise more productively used. Back before I quite reading John Grisham’s books, due to his miserable politics, I remember reading whichever one it was that explained how class action suits really work and the pittance that a claimant actually received while the lawyers got the millions off the top.

Rule of thumb: If a lawyer is advertising on TV, steer as far away from him as you can. If for no other reason, your fees will be higher in order for him to pay for all that lovely advertising. Well, that, and they come across as exactly what they are–ambulance chasing money hogs.

casel21

was written because I’ve posted a few diaries on this subject and have not received any comments. Probably I’m just a poor writer.

I look forward to your response.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I respond so that I can try and cover the matters fairly comprehensively.

Suffice to say for now that a statute that only caps damages would not have the dire consequences you fear.

more later

jeffreywturner

There are thousands of others just like him. They are leeches. They don’t actually go into the operating room and do anything to improve the system. They just exploit the misfortune of others. They are parasitic organisms, not unlike ticks or fleas on a dog. They truely are the vermin of humanity and are among the most vile and disgusting people alive.

Worst people in the world:
1. (tie) child rapists
1. (tie) litigation attorneys
1. (tie) Keith Olberperson
4. ACLU

Rod_Patrick

I also want to be enlightened on what you’re saying about those “TORTish” obstacles.

janis

on the “AMA and Tort Reform.” You did receive comments. That you didn’t receive more is not necessarily a critique of your writing, but more an indication that most of us don’t really know whether what you said was correct or not. That’s because most of us don’t know the arcane rules that govern such things. For many of us, it just comes down to “We detest lawyers like John Edwards and somebody should be able to stop guys like him from doing what they do.”

I’m on board with that sentiment, by the way. There should be something that can be done to stop people like Edwards from mucking up the system for the rest of us while getting obscenely rich at the same time.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

and after I review that old column and comments, I will respond fully in the comments here and maybe do a whole new essay.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

I should have! But I am going to have to now.

AKSteveB

Yep, we all want tort reform, but remember, the big thing above all else is stopping the public option. We can fix anything else when we’re in power, a public option will be impossible to reverse. Enjoy a victory, we likely just avoided health care Argageddon with only 40 senators. You’ve all done great work.

Btw greetings from Iceland, I’m over here for another week.

Vegas_Rick

The co-op idea will be even more confusing to the general public. It can easily be made to seem innocuous, but IMHO it will quickly crowd out the private competition and make a ?public option? a backdoor reality.

janis

saying that Obama is going to try for making it legal or workable for only 50 senators to vote this kind of stuff in instead of 60. Nothing would surprise me at this point with the possible exception of wondering why he didn’t do that sooner.

http://www.rmforbes.net rmforbes

It had no effect in reducing healthcare costs or even doctor’s malpractice premiums. So how will that reduce my health insurance premiums as a small businessman. My rates have almost doubled in the last year and I don’t know if I’ll be able to stay in business unless something is done.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

until it crowded out all private ins cos for single payer, at least the private ins cos would have an incentive for better service afforded to those mandated so long as they could switch private insurers.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

different medical costs/tort laws in states. Well, the sale of any product is subject to differing tort laws and costs of doing business but they manage to set prices. Ins cos could do the same if they chose. many may choose to sell some policies only in certain states, but most would offer varieties of products that increase the pool of insureds and lower premiums.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

for tort reform to have significant impact is at the federal level in conjunction with interstate commerce for ins cos.

http://www.rmforbes.net rmforbes

that tort reform does need to happen, I just don’t see any significant healthcare cost savings as a result. We need insurance reform that allows small groups to bands together to spread the risk and change the rules so individuals can take their coverage with them when they move or change jobs. The current system just doesn’t work for small business at all.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

a former plaintiff’s trial lawyer of 15 years before going corporate in 2002. I know all the trial lawyers assn arguments but I do think the savings would be significant for two reasons:

Now, the potential liability is nearly infinite and two, the supply of doctors is quite suppressed due to the cost of med mal ins. The cost is so high for premiums that it is simply prohibitive for many and causes doctors to charge exorbitant rates to cover it and still make living they deem commensutate with all the hard work and student loans they had to incur to become a physician.

Lower premiums will increase the supply of doctors and that will have a somewhat hidden and uncalculated effect in addition to lowering costs directly.

How significant? No one knows, but it is intuitive and common sense that informs my opinon as well as the fact of seeing businesses surrender and settle so many cases in many areas of life (race and sex harrasment cases as well as ordinary torts incl med mal) that also inflates the cost of every thing.

Avoiding runaway juries absent judges with character and courage is exacting a great cost on America.

http://www.rmforbes.net rmforbes

Very little or nothing, as a small businessman I’m getting killed now by the current system. We need to get a real reform system that will reduce the costs on small business fast. Tort reform hasn’t been proven to be the answer, we need real answers.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

which premiums are so high now that they cause many doctors to quit private practice and deter many students from becoming doctors.

The decrease in the supply of doctors increases the cost of their services.

The potential liability for malpractice increases the cost services.

The fear of a lawsuit, which, even if frivilous can ruin ones reputaion causes settlements that increse the cost of services.

The fear of malpractice causes many unnessesary tests that increases costs.

Get it?

http://www.rmforbes.net rmforbes

Texas has had these reforms in place since 2003 and still has the same problem as the rest of country, healthcare cost growing 3 to 4 times faster than inflation, individual and company premium rates nearly doubling in just the last 5 years, and health insurance company profits increasing by 435% in the last 5 years. I’m a small business owner and it’s in my own self interest to offer health insurance to my employees because a healthy employee is productive and makes me money. However, my business competes in a market place with other companies that offer simular product as I. I could never earn a profit margin of 35% because my competition would not allow it. The health insurance industry is getting a 35% profit margin at my expense and the expense of every other American. Why can’t we address this? We’re talking major savings to all Americans. Not just the pennys saved with tort reform. We need to inject real competition into health insurance industry and remove publicly held corporations from the system. Publicly held corporations must by law continually strive to increase profits to maintain their stock price and pay dividends to their shareholders. This is not a good model for the healthcare industry. They can be for profit but must be privately held so that profits are not put before contractual obligations. They must not be allowed to deny claims when benefits are needed most in order to increase profits.

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

‘Public option’ on the table?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL