Skip to main content

View Diary: Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why Should they? (0+ / 0-)

    Would you pay more if you were barely scraping by now?  I wouldn't.  The problem this is going to have is that unless you pass tort reform in it, there has to be significant cost savings for it to work.  After all, the Government isn't going to allow itself to be sued.  Why should a private doctor have to pay extortion rate premiums?

    •  Well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I would. Analogy is the tax system. I would probably pay more if it was simplified. I probably would, more than likely, save money. And would certainly lessen the aggravation.

      Not about people who can't afford health care at any price, but about personal views on the poll. People want others to cough up to make their HC affordable. Fair enough. But it doesn't ask who would gratefully pay more so that those in need get health care.

      Can't the Govt be sued now? Doctors would still need malpractice insurance. Not sure what you're asking there.

      •  Government Cannot Be sued (0+ / 0-)

        In general, public employees (folks employed by the government) cannot be sued.  Sovereign immunity.  Admittedly there are exceptions, but unless specified by law, one of the savings of the government health care is that they won't be sued. So why can't doctors at least be capped instead of paying outrageous malpractice insurance?  The government takes advantage of it.  As for the tax system, I don't like it either, but I use TurboTax so for $50 I get a first-class audit free return so I don't pay more than I have to.  I don't gratefully pay for anything more than I have to.  

    •  The reason people are barely scraping (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle

      by is because their access to money has been unreasonably restricted and what they do get is often lifted by crooks.

      Reducing prices/costs simply does not put more money in people's pockets.  Rather, it's a justification for putting in less  (food is so much cheaper so it doesn't matter that wages have been reduced--never mind that the nutritive value of the cheaper food is very much less).

      If the bailout of Wall Street has taught us anything, it's that more money is readily available when it's wanted by the right people.

      How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

      by hannah on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 06:12:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tort Reform Would Go a Long Way (0+ / 0-)

        If you passed tort reform, doctors could not only pay less for health care insurance, but would have to do less defensive medicine and order much fewer tests which would allow the practice of medicine to be cheaper.

        •  Every study has shown that awards for (0+ / 0-)

          negligence and malpractice are not significant.  A review of a county in Texas demonstrated rather definitively that excessive testing was related to health care providers having a monetary interest in the testing services.  Some doctors are money-grubbers as are people in other professions.  That the system is rigged so doctors start out with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for their education doesn't help.

          How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

          by hannah on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 11:04:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Tort reform is no more than a red herring (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle, Egalitare

      it constitutes less than 1% of all health care spending (about 0.6%). That's not where cost savings lie.
      One diarist brought up a case where a man got a $27 million dollar settlement from a hospital. It turns out the 50 year old man was misdiagnosed with sinusitis in an emergency room, when he was actually having a stroke. He spent a month in a coma and is paralyzed and brain damaged. IF he's lucky, that money will pay his current medical bills and health care costs for the rest of his life.
      If he'd been living in Texas, where tort reform has been passed, the maximum he could have gotten was $500,000, if I read the bill correctly. He'll be lucky if that money lasts a few years.
      What needs to be looked at is the companies that insure doctors, and why their premiums are so high on doctors who have never had a lawsuit filed against them.

      Save the Earth! It's the only one that has chocolate.

      by skohayes on Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 06:44:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tort Reform is an Important Consideration (0+ / 0-)

        What you can't tell from that .6% is how many tests are ordered or referrals done (in other words, how much defensive medicine is practiced) to avoid lawsuits.  For example, my primary physician used to do cortisone shots for routine arthritis.  Because of the cost of insuring that, she refers me to an orthopedics man which costs me more and costs the system more.  That isn't factored into that .6% calculus but it is an important one.  The thing is everyone knows it but the trial lawyers are resisting any change.  I say no health bill can pass without including tort reform.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site