Media advance GOP's deceptive claims of partisanship in health reform process
In the wake of the Senate Finance Committee's October 13 passage of a health care reform bill, the fifth such bill passed out of congressional committees this year, numerous media figures have advanced the claim that the bill and the process of crafting health reform more generally was overly partisan, and have blamed Democrats. But these charges ignore the numerous Republican amendments included in both Senate health reform bills, and turn a blind eye to Republicans Senators' refusal to negotiate on health care reform in good faith and to their efforts to bring about, in the words of Sen. Jim DeMint, Obama's "Waterloo."
Media claim health reform not bipartisan
IBD editorial: "Bipartisan Baloney." An October 14 Investor's Business Daily editorial -- headlined "Bipartisan Baloney" and reflecting on the Senate Finance Committee's vote to pass health care reform, which received the support of Republican Olympia Snowe -- declared that "[a]s predicted, the Democrats are using the vote of one very liberal Republican as proof their health care takeover is 'bipartisan.' It's nothing of the sort. But then, we're getting used to such exaggerations."
Ingraham: "You're about to have your entire health-care system changed by one party." During the October 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham said during a discussion of the Senate's health care reform legislation: "This crowd is the most partisan crowd I have ever seen in Washington. They said Bush was partisan? Look at what they are doing to a fifth of our economy with no Republican support. It's, it's mind-boggling. And everyone listening to this across the country watching this show, you should be outraged. You're about to have your entire health-care system changed by one party that's wildly unpopular right now. Unbelievable." [Fox & Friends, 10/27/09]
Halperin: Democrats "made a mistake not making this bipartisan." Discussing the Senate's health reform legislation on the October 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Time's Mark Halperin told co-host and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough: "I agree with what you have been saying for months, which is they made a mistake not making this bipartisan, once they made the decision to do it with Democratic votes."
But Senate bills included numerous GOP amendments, reflected bipartisan meetings
Senate HELP bill: "161 Republican amendments accepted." According to a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, the final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009. [HELP committee document 07/09]
Senate Finance bill included 13 amendments sponsored by at least one GOP senator. According to the Senate Finance Committee's document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill. Additionally, Chairman Max Baucus stated in an October 13 opening statement to a mark-up of the health bill that the Gang of Six, a bipartisan group of six senators including three Republicans and three Democrats, "held 31 meetings to try to come to a consensus. We held exhaustive meetings. We met for more that 61 hours. We went the extra mile."
GOP Senators made clear they didn't intend to negotiate with Dems in good faith
Sen. DeMint: "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo." During a July 17 conference call organized by the anti-health care reform group Conservatives for Patients Rights, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) asserted, while discussing health care reform: "If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
Sen. Kyl admitted "almost all Republicans" will oppose reform - even with concessions. Minority whip Jon Kyl (AZ) reportedly admitted August 18 that "almost all Republicans" will oppose Democratic health care reform efforts, regardless of the compromises Democrats might make in attempting to win their support. As The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen explained, concluding that Kyl's remarks should indicate that "bipartisan talks just officially died":
I think Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, the second highest ranking Republican in the Senate, said something really important this morning.
The Senate Republican whip, speaking to reporters on a conference call from his home state of Arizona, said that even if the Democrats do away with a government-run insurance option, the GOP most likely won't support the bill that's being written in the Senate
"I think it's safe to say that there are a huge number of big issues that people have," Kyl said, referring to Republican senators. "There is no way that Republicans are going to support a trillion-dollar-plus bill."
Asked if he'd support a bill if it were deficit neutral, Kyl said Dems may find a way to pass reform without adding to the debt, "but that doesn't mean the Republicans will support it." Asked if he could tolerate a nonprofit insurance cooperative instead of a public option, Kyl added that a co-op is "a step towards government-run health care in this country." The Senate Minority Whip added that "almost all Republicans" are likely to oppose reform, even if it's the result of a bipartisan compromise.
So, bipartisan talks just officially died, right? There's no real ambiguity here -- a member of the Senate GOP leadership announced, publicly and on the record, that Republicans are going to oppose health care reform, no matter how many concessions Democrats make.
Sen. Grassley forwarded death panel falsehood. Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley during an August town hall meeting forwarded the widely debunked falsehood that health reform legislation provides for "death panels," saying: "In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life [...] You have every right to fear. You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma." Despite the utter falseness of his claim, the provision was subsequently removed from the Finance Committee's health reform bill.
Grassley admitted he wouldn't vote for his own bill if GOP remained opposed. NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd asked Grassley during an interview on MSNBC's Morning Meeting, "Are you willing to be one of just three or four Senate Republicans that support an eventual deal if you get what you want out of the Senate Finance Committee, and it's an agreed-upon deal with the Gang of Six and that's basically the bill that comes out of the Senate? Are you willing to be one of just three or four Republicans while 36 or 37, including the Senate Republican leadership as a whole, all being against it? Are you willing to be just one of those three or four Republicans?" to which Grassley responded: "Absolutely not. And I told the president that a week ago Thursday, and I told Max Baucus that over a period of three or four months." Todd went on to ask: "If you have -- if it's something you believe ... if you think this is a good deal, are you gonna -- and overall because of the politics of the situation you can't get more Republicans on board, you're going to go ahead and vote against it, even if you think it is a good deal?" Grassley replied: "Well, it isn't a good deal if I can't sell my product to more Republicans." As TPM Media's Brian Beutler noted, Grassley effectively "said he'll vote against his own bipartisan health care bill if it doesn't win the support of more Republicans." [Morning Meeting, 08/17/09]
Mr. News
Do you think Andrea Mackris that poor soul thinks The Assault was her Fault?
Did Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes give you a "That a Boy" or a Pat on the Back?
Did anyone at Fox News Confront you about the Character that you Lack?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
According to Slate (a familiar lefty site), the GOP submitted 721 amendments. Of the 161 GOP amendments listed in this article...132 of them are "technical amendments". So, from a total of 721 proposals, the legislation has 29 amendments from the GOP. This article "forgot" those facts.
Politifact.com goes on to say that only 2 of those were significant enough to warrant roll call votes.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, said 132 of the amendments were for "technical amendments" and that it was a misnomer to call them proof of bipartisanship. None of the Republicans' priorities have gotten any traction, he said: Tort reform, equalizing the tax code, reducing the proposed cuts to Medicare spending, and scrapping the proposed "public option."
Even the Washington Post, Oct 18, 2009, had an article titled, "Small Group Now Leads Closed Negotiations on Health-Care Bill", in which it detailed the democrats ONLY that worked on the bill.
Gosh, its hard to believe that a site like Media Matters would possible skew to the left...huh?
Republicans can't even agree that health-care reform is needed!
John McCain and Mitch McConnell claim that the number of uninsured Americans is really only 12 million, using some convoluted numbers game. And Roy Blunt says "That number may be 45 million, but an awful lot of them could get insurance at work if they wanted to. An awful lot of them are healthy people under 30."
So knowing that Republicans don't think health-care reform is needed, what was the Republican contribution to the health-care debate?
Chuck Grassley lies, "they want to pull the plug on Grandma". Sara Palin's pathetic lies about the government killing her child with Downs Syndrome. And then there's Jim DeMint's MAIN goal in opposing health-care, it just might bring down the President!
For 6 years Republicans had control of the ENTIRE government. Republicans could had pushed through ANY health-care reform YOU folks wanted, but instead, Republicans did NOTHING!
And when Republicans were presented with several opportunities to be a part of health-care reform, Republicans CHOOSE to act like whinny, pain in the a** 2 year olds. MORE concerned about bringing down President Obama and regaining power and control, than reforming health-care!
First, the number of uninsured Americans is a numbers game, period.
Second, even Obama himself has changed numbers, starting with 47 million in a July 2009 national address, and switching to 30 million by Septembers address. Wow.
Third, various studies exist that indicate the 30 million uninsured are not unable to obtain health insurance. In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research called "Is Health Insurance Affordable for the Uninsured?", 17.5 million of the uninsured make more than $50,000. Another study by the Urban Institute (leftists) says that 25% of the uninsured are eligible for assistance.
So, let's do the math, shall we?
Start with Obamas 30 million. Let's subtract 25%...oh heck, let's be CONSERVATIVE, and subtract 15% who are eligible for assistance under the current system. Now, we have 25.5 million. Now, remove everyone making more than $75,000 (from the same study above), thinking that they can make changes to their lifestyle to afford healthcare. That number is 9.1 million. So, we are left with 16.4 million.
Fun game, huh?
Now, the current US population is 305-315 million. Let's go conservative again...305. That means that we have 5% uninsured.
Hell, we have 1% homeless.
No, this is not the issue that you've been lead to believe. No, we do not need to switch to socialized healthcare to cover 5% of the population.
Again, I ask you NY Rep. Weiner's question: What do the insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
And yes, it is socialized healthcare. But, so is Medicare and Medicaid. The definition is: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
This, my friend, is socialism. We all pay (as a collective) for the GOVERNMENT to take ownership and administer the healthcare system.
So, my answer to your question: Insurance companies bring to the table what any company in a capitalist society brings, competition and services. You SHOULD be able to choose to not insure, and take your chances. Kinda stupid, but your choice. Insurance companies take our money, invest it, and give it back if we need it.
Maybe its because those evil capitalist insurance companies are taking our money and keeping huge profits for themselves, right? Well, Politifact.com says NO. Only 1 insurance company turned a profit last year, and it wasn't a record profit as Obama said.
Or, how about the 5 year average? Well, the Aug 5, 2009 Wall Street Journal says the average was between 4-7%. If I'm an investor in that company, I would expect nothing less. Repeat after me, CAPITALISM.
We've been applying it since the founding of this country, and it's ok per the constitution, under the "general welfare" clause. Hmmm. Sorry. I looked for some mention of "capitalism", but couldn't find it. Perhaps you know where it is mentioned?
Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
And check out what Thomas Paine said about "socialism".
http://political-philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/thomas_paines_agrarian_juustice
Court precedent would beg to differ with you.
Here are links that go into detail on rulings per the general welfare, and commerce clauses.
It is up to the courts to rule on constitutional law. In these cases, they have - in favor of socialistic methods. The tendency is when appropriate, socialistic methods can apply. To make socialistic methods out as the unconstitutional "boogie man", is twisting the facts once again. You skipped over that little part about court rulings. Nice try.
You sound like either a Ron Paul or a Lyndon LaRouche supporter. Both twist their narrow interpretation of the Constitution to re-frame it as a document for Social Darwinism.
general welfare clause
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
commerce clause
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-CommercePower.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910300049
I guess you missed the fact that 25-30 cents out of every dollar of premiums goes to overhead. Medicare/medicaid is 3 cents.
Maybe they didn't turn a profit because they were too busy paying their CEOs tens of millions of dollars.
And you're right - medicare is a socilist program. But the health care industry will NOT be socialized simply by ADDING a public option.
Thanks for your honest attempt to answer Rep. Weiner's question. But, as usual, your answer is wrong.
Insurance companies do NOT bring competition. Most states have at least a 75% monopoly by ONE insurance company.
And you think insurance companies bring services? What would those services be? I always thought the only service they provided was to collect premiums and then pay doctors/hospitals as little as possible while paying their CEOs as much as possible.
Insurance companies do NOT provide any service in regards to health care. They are nothing but middle men who take their 25-30% cut.
Well Hallelujah for socialized medicine!
I'm 75 years old and I pay $44.01 per month for Blue Cross/Blue Shield PPO supplemental and my UNION pays my medicare. I can visit ANY physician I CHOOSE, see ANY specialist, have ANY test, and pay $40.00 every 3 months for my medicine. AND the government has ZERO involvement!
You need a dose of reality.
Over the last decade, employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have increased 131%. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2009 Annual Survey. September 2009
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that job-based health insurance could increase 100% over the next decade. Congressional Budget Office, “Taxes and Health Insurance,” February 29, 2008.
Economists have found that rising health-care costs correlate with significant drops in health insurance coverage, and national surveys also show that the primary reason people are uninsured is due to the high and escalating cost of health insurance coverage. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The Uninsured: A Primer, Key Facts About Americans without Health Insurance. 2009. April 2009.
Without health-care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 TRILLION dollars over the next 10 years in health-care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health-care costs, $834 BILLION in small business wages will be lost due to high health-care costs over the next 10 years, small businesses will lose $52.1 BILLION in profits to high health-care costs. The Economic Impact of Health-care Reform on Small Business, Small Business Majority, June 2009.
WHY are we making the health--care industry wealthy? WHY are we allowing the health-care industry to act like loan sharks? WHY are we allowing CEOs to make MILLIONS, while people suffer and die because they cannot afford decent health-care?
Call it Medicare F, H or z, for all I care, but OFFER Americans the OPTION to receive DECENT health-care insurance without having to sell a kidney!
Yes, and those who have insurance are paying twice what other countries pay to cover everyone and they better outcomes from their health systems to boot. Why are you arguing for continuing to pour all this money (1/12 of our GDP!) directly into the pockets of already wealthy men? Are you one of them?
Or...we could do it the progressive way. Pay really high taxes (40% or more for the "rich"), get mediocore care (like England and Canada), and have healthcare rationing to control costs. Awsome. Refer to how well the government is doing with Medicare.
Would it matter if I were rich?
Limiting damages? Perhaps, but again, people must be compensated for injuries and accidents that negatively affect their lives, whether permanent or temporary.
Again, tort reform will have no effect on premiums without a public option to encourage the for-profits to keep costs down.
The public option, if passed, by law, will be revenue neutral. That aside, did you read that we pay twice what other countries do per capita and get poorer health results? We pay more than Canada and England, and have worse care, in other words. We have health care rationing now, jstephens005, and it's done by nameless faceless bureaucrats who are willing to let people die in order to fatten their Christmas bonuses. I happen to think that's wrong.
It wouldn't matter if you were rich, but as hard as you argue to protect obscene corporate profit, it would hardly be surprising.
Tort reform with serious malpractice reform--as in review boards with strong powers to take licenses of incomptent doctors and shut down (and perhaps prosecute) providers who care more for their profits than for patient care--might be the starting point for a real dialogue about this, but frankly, tort reform by itself is nothing more than another variation of the only welfare conservatives like--the corporate variety...
But I remember you posting a couple of weeks ago, and you didn't make much sense during that visit here either.
And tort reform? We've debunked that non-issue a bunch of times.
The CBO has said that tort reform will lower the overall cost of healthcare (the "high costs" you mention) by 1/2 of 1%. That's nothing. Yes, it's considered to be $11 Billion the first year, I believe $41 Billion over 10 years - it would be fine to do that, except then the real beneficiaries of that are insurance companies again! It doesn't really help the average citizen at all, and it hurts anyone who has a large injury due to medical malpractice.
We all know what tort reform is really about - it's about hurting trial lawyers.
1/2 of 1% is not going to help reform the system and lower costs to any significant degree. But it's the best solution you had to offer. The best you had to offer left 99.5% of the "high costs" on the table - do you realize how pathetic that is?
And the 'across state lines' nonsense? Nothing stops companies from going into any state they want to in order to offer insurance plans today. There's no reason to stop insurance regulatory commissions in each state from continuing to control their in-state insurance. It's a non-starter. Allowing companies to sell insurance in multiple states doesn't help competition.
Wow. That's alot of savings in a trillion dollar industry.
I sincerely hope you're never irreprably harmed by a doctor or hospital. You'd surely be whistling a different tune.
Pay really high taxes (40% or more for the "rich"),
In case you missed it, when the highest earners paid more in taxes our middle class was the strongest.
Why do you hate the middle class so much?
I think they were more interested in attacking those pressing "values" issues like, prayer in schools, banning gay marriage, banning flag burning, stopping abortion, tax cuts, etc.
So now that the Dems have control of both the House and the Senate, what do the Reps do? They whine about how no one listens to them. Boo hoo. Could it be they still have the "my way or the high way" approach to negotiations?
Ok. So there's the highway. Bye.
Here's a list of the 2 committees that worked on HCR. Feel free to ask the Republican members why they didn't attack this issue when they had control.
Spoiled crybabies.
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=160&Itemid=61
But, according to your logic, the minority party should NOT voice opposition to policies that are contrary to their beliefs. Interesting. Because, I heard the whining of the Dems from 2000-2008 concerning such "minor" issues as abortion, tax cuts, and national security. Did you say that the Dems should hit the hiway? I bet you didn't....
You claim that, "according to [my] logic, the minority party should NOT voice opposition to policies that are contrary to their beliefs"
No. That is not what I said.
The Republicans can voice their opposition as much as they want. It's not that no one listens to them. It's just that no one buys all their positions. That's life. Get over it, move on & stop trying to make it look like no one wants to negotiate.
Example: The insistence by Republicans that there cannot be HC reform without "tort reform" is a big smoke screen, designed to derail HC reform "in toto". Tort reform is a sham. See the latest CBO report below:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
Do you remember when Obama said he wanted healthcare debates broadcast on CSPAN? August 21, 2008:
Candidate Barack Obama: “When I’m elected president you’re going to see this health care legislation written in the open. It’s going to be on C-SPAN, and you’ll be able to see all the different people arguing to see whether they’re on your side or they’re on the side of the drug companies and the insurance companies and so on. But you’ll be able to see that process on C-SPAN.”
Hmmm...not quite happening, is it?
As for tort reform, the report you link to is exactly what the GOP, and me for that matter, are referring to. The CBO released updated statistics that estimate $11 BILLION per year in savings. Is that insignificant? Have you become so hardened by this (and honestly, the previous) administration that BILLIONS mean nothing?
When Medicare was introduced, they estimated that it would cost $12 billion by 1990. They were off by $95 billion. Hmmm....this is estimated to save $11 billion...but you think its a "big smoke screen".
I like my logic.
Are you afraid of tort reform? Why can't it be included? Are we saying that saving the taxpayers $11 BILLION per year is not worthwhile? Are you insane?
Keep your logic. It's your prerogative. I prefer my logic.
$11 billion seems like a lot, huh? But look at it in terms of percentage & you're talking a measly 0.5%. Wow.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
Page 3, section titled, "The Effects of Tort Reform on Total Health Care Spending and the Federal Budget"
"CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009)."
And on page 5, under the title, "The Effects of Tort Reform on Health Outcomes", the report concludes very clearly:
"Because medical malpractice laws exist to allow patients to sue for damages that result from negligent health care, imposing limits on that right might be expected to have a negative impact on health outcomes."
Net - The CBO's own report says it's not worth taking away our rights to sue for such a measly savings.
But here's an idea (a bit of MY logic). If we set limits on malpractice lawsuits to supposedly lower insurance premiums (which it doesn't), why not apply this for ALL insurance? If I run someone down in my car & maim them for life, too bad, they can only sue me for $250k. Sweet. Wanna stand in front of my car when that becomes law? Didn't think so. Same thing goes for this so-called "tort reform". It's a draconian measure with no net gain (except for padding the politicians' coffers with Insurance $$).
I guess in your haste to make your point, you forgot to see that MMFA also posted info on the FACT that there is a great deal of Republican input on these bills. The problem is, there are a few vocal liars who don't want HC reform at all. Why would they continue to spew lies like "death panels" to this very day? Doesn't sound like good faith negotiation to me. Does it to you???
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910300018
Yep. I think I'll stick with my logic.
Kinda matches Pelosi talking about her wonderful "Consumer Option"...
$11 billion is 11% of the proposed cost of the healthcare plan ($1 trillion over 10 years = $100 billion per year). Of course...its only 1% of Obamas record shattering deficit for this year.
Funny though...you didn't answer my question. Do you find $11 billion of taxpayer money insignificant?
BTW - The CBO report does NOT say its not worth it. In fact, it says that the result would be a savings of $11 billion of taxpayer money. How is that not worth it? Especially since it can happen ALONG with other socialist measures you prefer...
As for your example...I kinda agree. There should be reasonable limits to the damages awarded. Your silly number is not accurate, but I think it OK to limit the dollar amount for damages.
Of course, if you try and run me over, I get your money, AND you go to prison. :)
And no, I commented elsewhere on the inaccuracies of the MM article. Search for it in this thread.
So what's to interpret? I think a high school student with a rudimentary level of statistics can understand it.
You may want to read a great book on this subject. It's called "How to Lie With Statistics", by Darrell Huff. I think even you may be able to understand it. It explains these "perspectives" very well.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5oSU5PepogEC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=how+to+lie+with+statistics+huff&source=bl&ots=9D66BSIeem&sig=7b79Uxgcsyn0iXICjf4EEnqFSXM&hl=en&ei=ULjrSrK-G8KWtgeK9LQ7&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Oh well...Here's the difference between you and I: I feel that an $11 billion dollar per year estimate is worthwhile. I feel that $11 billion of my fellow taxpayers money should be kept by them! I don't need to say "its only 0.5%" to justify taking $11 billion dollars of American taxpayer money. And again...Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion by 1990. THey missed it by 1000%. How about that number...? What if "they" missed this projection, and we end up saving $100 billion every year. Not likely...but remember, these are all estimates. It could go the other way, but I personally do not think so.
And for the third time...and another difference between you and I...you did not answer the question directly.
You keep adding more to your arguments, but I'll see if I can touch on the main topics. But this is the last response to you. I know there are some people who just have their positions, and I am not going to change their minds.
I did say the $11 Billion / $35 Billion was a large amount, but it must be put into the perspective I'll try to explain again.
I have never said I was against Tort Reform. I am only against the draconian measures to limit awards as proposed by the Republicans. There are other ways to deal with this issue as Tort Reform. But exactly how to address it is not entirely as clear as the politicians would want us to believe. The Republican plan is to punish the trial lawyers by limiting our rights. Not so fast.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/061707dnbusmedmal.3ce4922.html
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/news/economy/obama_medical_malpractice/index.htm
Lawsuits, or the threat of lawsuits have a benefit of ensuring the right level of caution is taken. It is not known how imposing limits will affect the quality of health care. Which is what I think the CBO was saying on page 5 of their report:
"Because medical malpractice laws exist to allow patients to sue for damages that result from negligent health care, imposing limits on that right might be expected to have a negative impact on health outcomes. There is less evidence about the effects of tort reform on people’s health, however, than about its effects on health care spending — because many studies of malpractice costs do not examine health outcomes. Some recent research has found that tort reform may adversely affect such outcomes, but other studies have concluded otherwise."
To me, the CBO is clear on this point. There is a potential for a negative effect if limits are set. And the studies are inconclusive. Example - who pays for someone who was healthy, but now needs long-term care due to a doctor's negligence? Likely us taxpayers. So taken together, I am saying that the relatively small savings, as a percentage of the whole, may cause more problems than it's supposed to fix.
To reiterate, I agree that we should not ignore this issue, but limits may not be the correct solution.
That's the way I interpret the report. Take it or leave it.
And yes, I'd be in jail if I hit you with my car. But if malpractice limits are capped, what would happen to a doctor who maims you due to negligence? Jail? Stop practicing medicine? Not so sure.
Other items you brought up:
You said: "Your silly number is not accurate, but I think it OK to limit the dollar amount for damages."
What silly number is that? $250k? Texas has a $250k cap now. The Republicans want to use that number for all of us. If that's silly, you tell us what you think a good number should be. Remember, this limit could affect your ability to help pay for long-term care of your relative, if a negligent doctor destroys your relative's life due to negligence. I'm not talking about death. I'm talking about turning a healthy tax-paying citizen into someone who needs long-term health care, and no longer able to care for themselves.
You said: "Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion by 1990"
Funny. I don't recall mentioning Medicare. But since you added this to your list, I agree that Medicare reform is needed. Actually, a lot of the savings noted in the CBO report is in the area of Medicare (see page 4 of the report). Here's a link to reform proposals for Medicare.
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/medicare/index.html
In closing, it is grammatically incorrect to say, "between you and I". It's "between you and me".
So, tort reform leaves 99.5% of the overall costs on the table, untouched. It's not some large percentage of the cost of healthcare, as you falsely stated above.
And it comes at the cost of denying people the right to sue and get the damages that a jury of their peers determines is appropriate.
We all know, the reason tort reform is pushed is because they know their base hates lawyers and sees them as the scum of the Earth.
It's not because it makes fiscal sense to insist upon tort reform, but the facts disprove that claim. It's to energize their base. It's purely a political move. Instead of being truly concerned about their constituents, they want to win political points. And that tells us all we need to know about the political machinations of Republicans.
You'll be whistling another tune if you were irreparably harmed due to a medical mistake.
Y'know, I'm beginning to like the idea of Auto-Insurance reform. I kinda like the idea of running people down, knowing they can't sue me for much.
Yeah. }:-}
But, how much is too much? How about the $100 million dollar award in PA? $55 million and $47 million also that year. Too much?
Look...if I lost a family member, you're darn right I'd be upset. And yep, I'd want compensation. But, we have to be reasonable. Limits. Reasonable limits.
Pick a number. What's "reasonable" to you? What's reasonable to someone you don't know?
Decide on a number that will be imposed on all future lawsuits, including your hypothetical lost family member, or someone else who loses a family member.
It should be easy for you.
What is the exact number of frivolous lawsuits that have been awarded on merit in the past 5 years? Do you know?
Which have been settled out of court? Do you know?
Which have been tossed out because they were without merit? Do you know?
You probably don't.
If an award was given on merit, it wasn't frivolous.
If it was settled out of court, blame the insurance companies for rolling over with your $$.
If the lawsuit was tossed out, the system that our founding fathers created for us to exercise our rights worked.
Hey! What do you know? A "liberal" standing up for the principles this country was founded on! Whoda thunk!
Just imagine telling a young woman that was misdiagnosed with breast cancer, losing both her breasts was only worth a million dollars. Tell that young woman, that due to "tort reform" her breasts are valued at $500,000 a piece.
And imagine that young woman was your daughter or wife!
I will be the first to admit that some awards seem excessive, but who am I to determine the limit of a person's pain and suffering?
"According to a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, the final bill included '161 Republican amendments,'..."
So, how'd they get Republican amendments into secret Democrat-only meetings? Maybe in the House, but not the Senate, you say?
"According to the Senate Finance Committee's document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill."
Not true. Working in secret? Not true. Add it to the heap of 'not true', along with death panels, death to granny, etc. etc. etc.
As I said, and as I meant, and as is reflected by REALITY....
The thing I've heard that tees me off the most is the false story that the Democrats did all their work in secret. That's ridiculous.
Now the good news.....NOT....I work for a fortune 500 company and my employer provided insurance for 2010 is costing me 15% more each paycheck and all out of pockets costs have gone up, and all deductibles have gone up with a new deductible being added. Yea, health care is just swimming along nicely. I just wish they would do single payer and make it easy for everyone.
15% out of your pocket is still 15% out of your pocket.
At least with single payer you'd know that you won't fall victim to the old "pre-existing condition" fiasco.
1. Introduced TORT REFORM (oh but what about the HUGE salaries lawyers make. huge profits yet they add NOTHING to health care. Who pays for them? YOU & ME
2. Award caps
3. Charge the country of origin for ILLEGAL ALIEN health care, perhaps as an added benefit we could ship 'em home when they show up at an ER. Take it out of their foreign aid if necessary.
4. Health Savings Plans
5. Allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines (competition)
6. Let the pushers of government health care sign themselves up, that's right all of congress and the president. that would probably save millions ;-)
How come NO ONE on this site will address ANY of these items.
BTW Olympia Snowe is more liberal than half the democrats.
Oh yeah almost forgot; over 40% of the health insurance providers including Kaiser, Blue Cross Blue Shield are NON PROFITS. Don't spout the IRS form 990 BS, you can read all about it www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=176613,00.html here directly from the IRS... Od just call Harry, Nancy or Barack THEY all know it...
Any of you folks for ANY of these things??... Why???
A little fact that an organization called the Congressional Budget Office has already published.
Republicans don't always get their way, because their way is full of lies and distortions.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
So the most recent from the CBO as reported on 10-October-2009 regarding tort reform is that it'll save 54 Billion dollars, not exactly chump change huh?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100904271.html
BUT I have every reason to believe you are an intelligent person, so tell me how is it that the trial lawyers can make HUGE PROFITS and HUGE SALARIES (like John Edwards 20,000 sq ft home complete with a FULL BB court, for "channeling"). Where exactly does this money come from??? Hmmm!
This is while the health care INSURANCE providers average BELOW a 3% profit on revenue. I think the highest margin was less than 5%, while 40% of the providers are NON-PROFIT like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield...Hmmm
I really don't care if you dispute the profit numbers, if your interested it's not too hard to find the facts. The point is that if the HUGE PROFITS and SALARIES the trial lawyers make (without doing a dang thing for health care) and the HUGE amount paid to provide health care to ILLEGAL ALIENS, well perhaps the sting might at least be taken out of the 1.055 TRILLION dollar cost of government run health care. BTW that IS a CURRENT CBO figure, and they have NEVER guessed HIGH.
One last thing, I am one of the 36 to 47 Million uninsured people (wife too). After paying WAY TO MUCH for more years than I can recall, we finally decided to pay as you go... We put the premium money in an account, been doing it for 5 years. I AM an old man WITH pre-existing conditions...
Oh YEAH one more thing. I'm betting that the average main street liberal thinks this is going to get them FREE medical insurance... Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country... Truly inspirational words I just wish all liberals knew them... Of course MOST liberals probably think it was a lying, distorting republican that said them...
Limiting liability caps is not the magic silver bullet you claim it to be. There may be other ways to address "frivolous" lawsuits. Capping limits is draconian, and likely unnecessary.
I still like the idea of running anyone down in my car and telling the victim to "suck on it". That's what capping limits amounts to.
Sorry, but the CBO report is what it is.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
------------
Page 2, bottom paragraph, titled, "The Effect of Tort Reform on Premiums for Medical Liability Insurance"
"CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical malpractice liability—which consist of malpractice insurance premiums together with settlements, awards, and administrative costs not covered by insurance—will total approximately $35 billion, or about 2 percent of total health care expenditures. Therefore, lowering premiums for medical liability insurance by 10 percent would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent."
------------
And on page 4:
"In research reported in 2002, Kessler and McClellan found that when tort reform was introduced, health care spending in regions with relatively more enrollees in managed care plans did not fall as much as it did in regions with relatively fewer enrollees. Presumably, the managed care plans had already eliminated some of the defensive medicine that would otherwise have been diminished by tort reform."
-------------
And on page 5, under the title, "The Effects of Tort Reform on Health Outcomes", the report concludes very clearly:
"Because medical malpractice laws exist to allow patients to sue for damages that result from negligent health care, imposing limits on that right might be expected to have a negative impact on health outcomes."
States already have introduced tort reform. And it's hardly made a dent in rising health care costs. But you'd whistle another tune if you have a malpractice claim.
Health Savings Plans
Yeah, that'll work for the people who can't afford over-priced premiums right now.
Allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines (competition)
I doubt insurance rates are cheaper in Georgia than they are in Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
Talking points is all you're bringing. Try again.
Well I do know know that health insurance coverage is significantly cheaper in NC than Colorado, Colorado is cheaper than California...
What about the NON profits, how is the government going to be any cheaper then Kaiser, Blue Cross Blue Shield (NON profits).
Now keep in mind, I HAVE purchased health insurance for my wife and myself on the open market. It WASN'T pretty, WASN'T cheap.. Well my solution was to save the money I was spending on "health insurance" and pay my own way, or another way of stating it is I joined the so called 47 Million uninsured (by choice).
About a year ago, gas prices rose to near $5 a gallon. Remember that? And at my local Mao-Mart (always Chinese communist slave labor. Always), prices rose, because of course transportation costs rose. I didn't begrudge them that, just the cost of doing business. Then, after President Obama was elected, and it became obvious that at least some things would change around here, gas prices fell once more to less than $2 a gallon.
Do you think that the prices at my local Mao-Mart went down, or stayed the same? That's right! They stayed the same. The transportation costs fell, but they just pocketed the difference. Not much I can do about that, really, since Mao-Mart doesn't answer to me.
It will be the same with tort reform and health insurance, unless there is a robust public option to drive premiums down by providing non-profit competition. Simple as that. I think tort reform is a good idea, mind you.
As for buying insurance across state lines, that's exactly what the federal insurance exchange proposed in the legislation will provide.
As for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, do you have any idea what levels their executive compensation has reached? I rather believe it is far above even the $400,000 or so we currently pay our POTUS each year, so one way government insurance will be cheaper is through lower overhead. Also quite simple.
Interesting that you haven't seen any price relief with the cost of transportation having gone down.
Why so adamant against executive compensation while you don't see the HUGE salaries and PROFITS raked out of the system by trial lawyers like John Edwards and his 20,000 sq ft house complete with a full size basketball court?
I just don't get it the "executive compensation" which is FAR LESS than the trial lawyers get is :evil". What about those that provide NOTHING to health care (trial lawyers).
The country of origin should be billed for illegal aliens, when feasible, but I'm not sure how workable that is. What about Americans who need health care oversees? What happens when they visit a country that has universal health care? Does that bill get sent to the U.S. Government? Is the cost of the bureaucracy to keep track of it all even able to be paid for by the amount of money involved? You do realize when the FBI was formed, some bright bulb pointed out it was cheaper just to cut the banks being robbed a check directly from the treasury than to create and sustain the FBI itself, right? I consider the size of John Edwards' house irrelevant, as you have no direct proof that it was attorney fees rather than, say, wise investing that purchased it.
All of these little fixes will have no impact on costs unless there is a government run non-profit public option to provide lower premiums forcing insurance companies to tighten their belts. Health insurance costs have risen at three times the rate of inflation, and the companies involved have had enormous profits. In 1980, about 88-90 cents of every premium dollar went to pay for coverage and claims. Now it's down to 75 cents or so, and they've tried to get federal law passed to cap it at 65 cents of every dollar.
If other nations pay, per capita, half what we do and get better outcomes, then I must ask two questions:
1) What do for-profit insurance companies bring to the health reform debate, aside from the propaganda they've been spending so heavily on?
2) Would you consider having your monthly premiums cut in half a significant savings?
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/
You see, that's why Republicans whine about this. They can't get EVERYTHING they want, so they scream they aren't being invited to the negotiations. Well, sometimes you just don't get your way. That's the consequence of LOOSING THE ELECTION. Get over it.
If capping malpractice awards lower insurance premiums, the why can't we cap ALL awards for ALL insurance. Why can't I just run someone down with my car, then they can only sue me for $250k? Sounds sweet. Where can I sign up? You want to stand in front of my car when that law passes?
http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs
http://www.resource4medicalmalpractice.com/topics/medicalmalpracticefaq.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/05doctors.html
Permanente Medical Groups are physician-owned organizations, which provide and arrange for medical care for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan members in each respective region. The medical groups are for-profit partnerships or professional corporations and receive nearly all of their funding from Kaiser Foundation Health Plans. The first medical group, The Permanente Medical Group, formed in 1948 in Northern California. Kaiser is not totally innocent.
Speaking truth to power means we have to stop the Democrats from taxing us to death while destroying a system that can be improved with tort reform, competition between health insurers across state lines and other improvements likely to reduce costs for everyone. If they could eliminate the massive fraud in medicare and medicaid they could give everyone who is uninsured a Cadillac health care plan from the savings. Just when you think things couldn't get worse the left has figured out a way.
So, I assume you mentioned the two best arguments you had, and neither one holds water. Reducing fraud isn't very easy, actually - you pretend it's a lack of will, and it's not at all.
FAIL.
Regarding the tort reform and award caps, just who is it that pays the exorbitant salaries of the trial lawyers, 54 billion according to the CBO.
And yeah, we know it's a big bucket, a huge bucket, but it leaves 99.5% of the rest of the costs untouched.
Until you address that issue, your point that billions of dollars is a huge amount of money is the only point you have, and it ain't helping your cause here.
Are you really this dense that you can't understand this, or are you simply here to derail the conversation that should be happening about how the GOP is lying about how little bipartisanship happened?
See, because I watched a lot of the hearings, and I know how much bipartisanship went into this bill, and it's a lot. And if you believe what Republican lawmakers misled you with - about how almost none of the amendments they wanted to pass got included - as evidence, then no facts we provide you with will likely sink into your thick skull anyway.