[tomder55]

Please send me a link so I can follow up and show you why your torpedo is a dud.

He says that if doctors did not screw up there would be no need for tort reform and that caps on awards aren't fair because you can't cap the pain and suffering of a screw up.

Obama got booed by the doctors at the AMA meeting when he suggested he was "not advocating caps on malpractice awards." even though he had suggested that costs are ranging out of control in part because of "unnecessary tests and procedures as part of a 'defensive' medicine culture created in part by the risk of medical malpractice lawsuits."


But you see ;slip and fall lawyers are one of his biggest constituencies so their best interests aren't served by caps on rewards. So although he recognizes tort reform as a means to controlling the costs of medical care ;he refuses to have an honest and principled debate on the subject.

edit :

here is a WSJ op ed on the issue :

President Obama mentioned the medical liability problem yesterday, and it says something about health-care orthodoxies that even this political gesture sent his usual allies into a fluster. We suppose this is progress -- though there's a reason cannier Democrats are smiling.
Of course Mr. Obama deserves credit for even referring to what he called the "real issue" of medical malpractice reform. The paragraph he appended to his stock speech on health care for the American Medical Association yesterday didn't offer much detail -- "I do think we need to explore a range of ideas," he boldly declared -- but trial lawyers and their stratospheric jury awards and settlements have led to major increases in the medical malpractice premiums, thus driving up the overall cost of U.S. health care.
The system today is worse than random -- many lawsuits do not involve any negligence -- and some physicians respond by leaving such high-risk fields as obstetrics, anesthesiology, neurosurgery and emergency medicine. Others practice defensive medicine, ordering unnecessary tests to immunize themselves if they do end up in court. Economists disagree on the precise burden of this legal fear, but some argue that it exceeds $100 billion a year.
Mr. Obama's cri de coeur might have had more credibility had he not specifically ruled out the one policy to deter frivolous suits. "Don't get too excited yet," he warned the cheering AMA members. "Just hold onto your horses here, guys. . . . I want to be honest with you. I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards." In other words, the tort lottery will continue. California, of all places, has had great success in holding down liability costs for doctors and hospitals after a 1975 reform that limited pain and suffering damages -- balanced against the public interest of fairly treating victims of genuine malpractice.
The trial bar and its Democratic allies say that the threat of lawsuits promotes better care and assures accountability. But they've fought even modest changes that would offer liability protection if doctors adhere to evidence-based guidelines. Mr. Obama showed again with his AMA speech that he's willing to nod at the concerns of his political opponents and take media credit for brave truth-telling, only to dump his conciliation if it offends liberal interest groups.
Mr. Obama's aides have openly told the press that he views medical liability as a "credibility builder" -- that is, a token policy to keep the health-care industry at the bargaining table. Given that the only "bargain" that seems likely to emerge is another major step toward total government control of the health markets, the President seems to be counting on credulity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511987247017719.html

[ETWolverine]

How much physio-therapy are yopu elligible for? There must be a limit I guess, I've never reached it.

How many times per year can you visit your dentist? What happens if you find out that you have a wedding next week and you want to visit your dentist for a routine cleaning to look nice for the photos. How long does it take you to get an appointment with him? I'll call on Monday for an appointment the same week. If I'm in pain they find a spot for me ASAP. I get a regular 6 month checkup and cleaning and visit as need for any issues that arise between then.

Has Canada approved the Gastro Cam Pill as an alternative to standard CO or EO exams? Don't know what any of that is, sorry.

If you are receiving care from the state, it is a nanny state. Yours is a semantic argument. Oh ok then. I'm alright with that. If you aren't then we'll leave it at a difference of opinion.

So, what you are telling me is that you don't really know enough about your medical system, its limitations and its advantages to comment on whether it is better, as good as, or worse than the US system. You know only your own experience, and have not had to deal with the limitations of your system because you haven't reached those limitations.

All of which is fine. But it makes you a poor advocate for your system, because you don't have enough information to advocate. This is not a bad thing, per se. Most Americans have no idea how the system works in the USA other than the fact that they present their insurance card, pay a $15 or $25 copay, and the doctor does whatever they need done. But they have no ability to advocate for their system or argue for changes in the system because they simply don't have enough knowledge about that system. THAT is where you are as well. I suggest that you either bone up on how your system works... REALLY works... or else leave the discussion to those who HAVE done the research, watch and learn from what they have to say, rather than put forward an opinion that is not based in fact or is only based on personal experience rather than the general trend of your entire country.

Cosyk is a good example of someone whom I disagree with on the issue, but who has done her homework and knows how the system works in the USA and for the most part knows how it works in Canada too. We come to different conclusions, but she knows her stuff and acts as a good advocate for what she supports.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Ok, have a nice day!

[Skell]

The fact is that private insurance will not be able to compete against the public subsidized plan when all the cards are stacked against them by either taxes;initial artificially set low premiums, or regulations. Eventually through attrition their goal will be acheived .Oh you get to keep your plan and doctor he claims .But like IBD editorialized ;it's like telling the Dutch they can keep their homes after the plug in the dike is pulled.

Tom,

I think you have previously stated that you have studied the Australian Health Care system, which is essentially a two-tier model?

How is it that in Australia the private insurers can compete against the public subsidised plan even in the face of regulation, taxes, low premiums etc? How come the two can co-exist down here but not in the US?

I have private insurance. I can see the doctor I want, when I want. I have friends who don't. They can still get adequate health care quickly and at little or no cost. They are happy. I am happy. Its not perfect but it isn't broke.

Is there a major difference in what Obama is proposing that will make it impossible fopr the two to exist in the US? Fill me in? Maybe I'm missing something.

P.S. I hope these questions contributes to the debate sufficiently enough for you...

[Wondergirl]

Tom,

I think you have previously stated that you have studied the Australian Health Care system, which is essentially a two-tier model??

I thought the US already has a two-tier model -- private and Medicaid. I have private. My homeless buddy depends on Medicaid and, now that he is over 65, Medicare. Both of us are happy with the care we get.

[Skell]

I have both. Medicare (government subsidized) and private.

Are you able to have both in the US?

[Wondergirl]

I have both. Medicare (government subsidized) and private.

Are you able to have both in the US?

Yes, after 65. The private insurance is then called supplemental health insurance. My uncle's private insurance company picked up the bulk of the bill, and Medicare picked up the balance.

If an insured has only Medicare, it pays only "approved" amounts. If a doctor changes $60 for an office visit, Medicare might pay only the "approved" $50 of that, and the insured would have to pay the rest somehow. Otherwise, the insured would have to find a doctor who charges (i.e. will accept) the Medicare approved-amount of $50 and would not then have to pay anything out-of-pocket.

[Skell]

Over 65? So I suppose that is the essential difference between the two.

Thanks. I purposefully steer clear of these health care threads as I don't fully understand your current system or the system being proposed.

Hence my questions to Tom.

[excon]

Please send me a link so I can follow up and show you why your torpedo is a dud.

Hello again, El:

Yeah, tom is right. I said that I'd be all for a cap on malpractice awards when there's a cap on the damage that can be done when a bad doctor makes a mistake. I said, that it doesn't look too fair to limit one when you cannot limit the other.

I asked further that if your daughter was maimed, you wouldn't want her award limited, would you?

That was my torpedo. Ain't no dud, dude.

excon

[tomder55]

In the US "2 tier system" the primary system is the private insured and the gvt. Run system covers the gaps (Medicaid )and the "entitled " (Medicare )


Obama wants to fundamentally change that with a single payer system . He would put a system in place that would make private insurance available to only the elites . The video that Elliot tried to link (not sure if he did it here because I don't have access to video on my computer... but I have seen it on other computers) shows Obama and his supporters being very frank that their goal is the destruction of the private insured system .

[excon]

shows Obama and his supporters being very frank that their goal is the destruction of the private insured system .

Hello again, tom:

Or said another way, it's the removal of the private insurance system because they have become obsolete, and too damn expensive... Somebody's going to get thrown under the bus. So far it's been the patient, but it's time that ended. Plus, he'll be able to cover ALL the 47 million uninsured people with the money that the health insurance industry won't get..

It's not like there isn't anything left for them to insure. I don't think any insurance exec will be in the food line.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Yeah, tom is right. I said that I'd be all for a cap on malpractice awards when there's a cap on the damage that can be done when a bad doctor makes a mistake. I said, that it doesn't look too fair to limit one when you cannot limit the other.

I asked further that if your daughter was maimed, you wouldn't want her award limited, would you?

That was my torpedo. Ain't no dud, dude.

excon

Actually, it IS a dud, because what I have proposed for tort reform is civil grand juries. Frivolous cases get thrown out cheaply, while legitimate cases go on to their final outcomes in court or settlement. I'm not and have never proposed capping awards for legitimate cases. I'm for getting rid of the frivolous cases in a way that doesn't cost the defendant lots of money for legal defense or for needless payouts to get rid of the frivolous lawsuits because it's cheaper to pay than to defend against them.

Your torpedo doesn't hit me because I'm off in another direction from where you aimed.

[inthebox]

Here are hard facts and figures that will support your case --

http://debate-central.ncpa.org/topics/2002/book2.pdf

We already have a single-payer system in Medicaid. No uninsured person in the U.S. has to go without medical care. All he or she has to do is go to a hospital ER where he or she will be triaged and eventually treated. Jerry, our library homess guy, did this many times, never paid a cent out-of-pocket, got excellent care, usually was kept as a patient for a few days to a week at the hospital to begin treatment, and then was sent to an extended care/nursing home facility (of his choice!) where treatment continued for as long as four weeks until Medicaid coverage for this illness expired. If he still needed treatment, he could reenter the ER and start the process all over again.

As as much as I love you, ET, I do totally disagree with you that Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine. He never held a political position in Chicago, although he was an "activist" (but you said all he did was pass out leaflets on corners). He held only the state office of senator. Mayor Daley mostly hated Obama. He endures him now.

This homeless person getting "free care" at the hospital because of medicaid, well IT IS NOT FREE TO SOCIETY. The hospital passes the costs of his care by getting government grants and or charging patients with insurance higher rates, the same rates that working people without insurance have to pay. The insurance companies pass the cost by raising premiums. The state and federal gov tax citizens for medicare and medicaid. So no money actually comes out of that homeless guys pockets, IT COMES FROM OUR POCKETS in the form of higher cost for service, higher taxes, higher premiums.


I think "universal healthcare" is a good ideal, but after you are done drinking the Koolaid be prepared for less advanced care, rationing, longer wait times, and less doctors.





G&P

[inthebox]

I would like to see all these proponents of government healthcare, including Obama, go without private insurance for just one year, and then get back to a real debate.



Federal Eye - Report: VA Facilities Improperly Sterilized Colonoscopy Equipment




Maybe they can get a colonoscopy while they are at it. :rolleyes:






G&P