Congress clears historic health care bill...

[jayamazin]

This is what Massachusetts' Health Exchange looks like. The Health Care Bill wants to do something like this:

https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/

 

[jayamazin]

And Texas still has the worst healthcare system in the country. This goes to show that you have to take an all of the above approach to reforming the system.

 

[cincoseisdos]

Originally Posted by Nhung2609

I'm all for this healthcare reform

same here.

 

[utvol23]

Essential1

Please tell what 90% I lied about??

 

[e5antos]

Canada ftw

 

[utvol23]

[h1]Reduce the high cost of medical malpractice[/h1]
Aug 6, 2009 07:01 EDT

congressional budget office | Diana Furchtgott-Roth | health care spending | insurance companies | litigation | malpractice

–- Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The views expressed are her own. –-

The next time you take your child to a doctor, scrutinize carefully the doctor’s bill.  What it won’t tell you is that an average of 10 cents out of every dollar you pay goes to the malpractice insurance doctors must have to protect themselves in case a patient sues them.

Malpractice premiums cost some doctors many tens of thousands of dollars a year, not because an individual doctor has a history of making mistakes, but because in some states juries make excessively generous awards knowing that insurance companies pay.

Medical specialties with the highest premiums include obstetrics and neurosurgery.  Malpractice insurance premiums for obstetricians range from $200,000 per year in high-cost states to $20,000 annually in low-cost states.  Resolving a suit takes at least three years, taking physicians’ time away from the practice of medicine.

According to Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year, and, since 1975, direct costs of litigation avoidance have grown at more than 10 percent annually.

But that’s less than half the story. To avoid being sued, doctors view patients with two sets of eyes.  One set is the caring, compassionate, medical professional.  The other set is a defensive strategist, looking at an individual who tomorrow may call a lawyer to sue.  And, to be fair, sometimes doctors make avoidable, even negligent mistakes and injured patients are entitled to be compensated for their losses, and perhaps for some pain and suffering.

The defensive strategist dominates medical practice today.  Doctors use excessive tests and other procedures to avoid lawsuits, and stay out of certain areas of medicine—most notably obstetrics.  The net result is higher costs for medical care.

In 2006, the Congressional Budget Office reported that states that had placed limits on malpractice awards in 1986 saw health care spending per person decline steadily through 2000, reaching lower levels than in states without caps.

One example is Texas.  According to Grace-Marie Turner, president of the non-partisan Galen Institute in Washington, D.C., Texas is showing  how to get malpractice costs under control.  Since the state legislature passed a series of malpractice reforms several years ago, medical malpractice costs have plummeted, and the number of doctors moving into the state has soared.

“There is a cause and effect here,

 

[dathbgboy]

The main reason people are against it is b/c they don't wanna lose money in some way or another. Like I mentioned in a previous thread about this, I JUST got insurance recently. My moms aint got a gig w/ benefits and I'm a f/t student who can't afford a huge premium for health care. The rich get taken care of while the poor keep gettin poor for needed medical help. All these doctors complainin wouldn't be if they weren't doctors and couldn't afford health care. The government is out of touch with the PEOPLE. Economic status blinds ppl.

 

[ham city]

Originally Posted by Jehlers02

We will be so F'd if this passes, idk if some of you guys realize that "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes. The expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. And if they tax the rich more and the poor less? Thats just 100% communist bull. The people who are getting payed that much worked for it, why does the money come out of their pocket to help the poor when they slacked their whole life. I'm not biased in anyway, i'm an 18 year old going off to college next year and my motivation to do well is to make money, i'll be damned if i work hard get a good job just to give all my money away. If im gonna do that why should i work hard?

Universal Health Care is a terrible idea.

The mindset of a privileged and sheltered individual. 

 

[suckafree85]

So, let's say this does pass.... when does it begin to take effect?

 

[babyjordan0312]

I am so GLAD I moved to Canada...

Honestly, I am in my mid 30's and have lived in a couple of countries. I have come to realize that most Americans are so easily "brainwashed" by what they read or hear from media. Honestly THIS IS A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION & A POSITIVE STEP to reforming U.S. PATHETIC Health Care System.

Say What you want about Canada's Health Care, but at least here (British Columbia)

A Tim Horton's/Subway Employee can recieve a Heart Transplant FREE OF COST and even if it's only a 1% chance (which it's not) It is still better than your chances in the U.S. where a minimum wage employee with no insurance coverage or a pre existing condition would just be left to die...

Because most of NT is young, you take your health for granted. But Believe me, when you old and 1 foot in the grave and denied health care coverage. You will have come to realize that paying a little in Taxes now to save your life later was a "smart choice"

FROM BEING IN BOTH COUNTRIES

CANADA > USA Health Care

I often feel most Americans don't deserve a GREAT PRESIDENT like OBAMA

Wake up people, live abroad, seek education & experience life

We are truly blessed to be here

 

[jayamazin]

Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

The main reason people are against it is b/c they don't wanna lose money in some way or another. Like I mentioned in a previous thread about this, I JUST got insurance recently. My moms aint got a gig w/ benefits and I'm a f/t student who can't afford a huge premium for health care. The rich get taken care of while the poor keep gettin poor for needed medical help. All these doctors complainin wouldn't be if they weren't doctors and couldn't afford health care. The government is out of touch with the PEOPLE. Economic status blinds ppl.

  

Another reason is because people here "government takeover" and "socialist" from the political right and that "government is going to decide for you." Thats the scare tactics that people hear instead of reading the bill themselves.

 

[utvol23]

[h1]Doctors: Malpractice Costs the Biggest Money-Saver in Tort Reform [/h1]
Many physicians and Republican lawmakers are asking why the president wants to test "demonstration projects" when reforms have already proven successful on the state level. 

Many physicians and Republican lawmakers were happy to hear President Obama raise the issue of medical malpractice in his address to Congress last week, but now are asking why the president wants to test "demonstration projects" when reforms have already proven successful on the state level.

"Whole states are demonstration projects," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. "Texas passed tort reform in 2003 and ... insurance premiums went down 30 percent. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40 percent. Let's enact tort reform. Let's not just try that with demonstration projects. We already know it works. Let's put it into law."

During his address to a joint session of Congress, the president argued that some lawmakers will resist any health care reforms. But then in a bid at bipartisanship, he said he agreed with doctors -- and Republicans -- looking for changes to the way medical malpractice lawsuits are litigated.

"I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs," the president said.  

Smith said Texas has already proven the effect of tort reform on medical care.

When Texas passed tort reforms in 2003, medical malpractice insurance premiums went down and doctors started rushing back into the state. At least 10 counties that had zero obstetricians, for instance, now have one, and more than two dozen other counties have seen additional obstetricians seek licenses there.  

"We now have women that are getting their care in local communities whereas before, for their obstetric care, they had to drive hundreds of miles to be able to get it," said James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association. "Before the reforms, there was such a shortage of obstetricians, many expectant mothers had to drive long distances for care. The liability reforms changed that." 

Many doctors pay $100,000 to $250,000 a year in malpractice insurance even if they've never had a judgment against them. Neurology leads the list of high-cost malpractice insurance. Obstetrics isn't far behind.

Supporters of tort reform argue that expense doesn't just drive up the price of medical care, it also leads to defensive medicine, meaning doctors order all sorts of tests they wouldn't otherwise order just to make sure they won't get sued.

In one study of doctors in Massachusetts, 83 percent of respondents said they ordered tests they thought were unnecessary just to protect themselves from liability. And that, doctors argue, adds huge amounts to the nation's health care bill.

"Defensive medicine is a very important component of the health care equation," said Dr. Albert Strunk of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "It's also a component that is notoriously difficult to evaluate in terms of actual dollars. We've seen estimates anywhere from $60 billion a year to $200 billion a year as far as defensive medicine is concerned."

Opponents of medical malpractice reforms say it is unfair to limit awards to individuals legitimately injured by a doctor's negligence.

Juries often side with patients for a pay-out above "compensatory damages," or the actual damages sustained by treatments that harm a patient's life or ability to make a living. They often award what are called "non-economic damages," meaning damages for pain and suffering. This is where trial lawyers aim to win huge sums of money to punish doctors.

That is what critics say drives the inflated costs. And that is what Texas decided to limit.
Strunk said the pay-off nationally would be better care.

"Pilots can report near misses without fear of punitive action. In our system any effort to recognize something that could be improved or any change that we make to effect an improvement turns around and gets used against us in the context of litigation."

Obama is not embracing any effort to limit liability -- or place award caps on injured patients, a disappointment to those who thought the president had seen it their way on frivolous lawsuits.

Rather, administration officials say they're looking at testing "certificate of merit" programs in which a panel of experts decides whether a case has merit before it goes to the courts.

Another option is "early disclosure," which encourages doctors to apologize early on for any errors and the case goes to mediation.

Doctors groups have other ideas as well, such as separate "health courts" that would deal only with these kinds of cases.

"I think we're seeing consensus along the lines of safe harbor for doctors who use best practices, and this idea of medical courts, use of arbitration to lift a lot of these cases out is under discussion," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a chief negotiator in the Senate.

But Smith said if the president were serious about a bipartisan health care bill, he would do more than talk about tort reform pilot tests.

"That is the biggest source of cost savings we could possibly put into any health care reform legislation," Smith said. "I hope the president can convince the Democrats to support it.

 

[100proof]

I have yet to see a group of minorities protesting HCR, every anti HCR rally looks like a bunch of white people scared they are gonna get taxed to pay for minorities to go to the doctor.

Pass the damn bill

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Lol @ Devin Nunes nearly excusing protesters for using the "n" word

 

[trelvis tha thrilla]

Originally Posted by JayAmazin

 Thats the scare tactics that people hear instead of reading the bill themselves.

You read the whole bill? You know its over 1,000 pages right?

 

[essential1]

Well decreased care in quality.......... You lied saying it will decrease let's go further liberal and get a nationalized health care....These "Socialist Nations" have better outcomes... They don't ration care.

Go bankrupt paying for it... Well people already are going bankrupt PAYING TO LIVE.... Alsooooooooooooooooo CBO projected this bill to have a deficit REDUCTION.... You just quoted the CBO so you have no reason to scream about them

TAXING THE RICH TO DEATH YOU SAY? Tax increases on every dollar over $350k-550k 1% and over a million gets taxed an extra 5.4%, That will raise $550 billion in 10 years. That does not sound like taxing the rich to death...

Medicare is going broke because every surplus ever had by medicare is spent on wars, and other useless things.


You may say you are in favor of health care reform... But your argument is fairly unconvincing

1. http://www.citizen.org/do...xas_Liability_Limits.pdf

I also guess you did not read that article of how tort reform increased health care spending (WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO REDUCE)

2. Everyone has a right to quality health care...

3. Generally agree but ban it.. I disagree..

4. IN THE CURRENT BILL

 

[jayamazin]

Originally Posted by Trelvis Tha Thrilla

Originally Posted by JayAmazin

 Thats the scare tactics that people hear instead of reading the bill themselves.

You read the whole bill? You know its over 1,000 pages right?

Yeah its 2,700 pages. I didn't read all the pages. I know. But if you let someone else define what is in the bill, they'll tell you all kinds of things especially the people who are opposed to it.

  

 

[utvol23]

Its actually over 2000 pages.

 

[utvol23]

I can quote info too in BIG BOLD letters. Now tell me the 90% I lied about and also how you deal with this on a daily basis.

 

[friendliest ghost]

Originally Posted by 100PROOF

I have yet to see a group of minorities protesting HCR, every anti HCR rally looks like a bunch of white people scared they are gonna get taxed to pay for minorities to go to the doctor.

Pass the damn bill

Your demonizing people that disagree with you, just as anti-war protesters were called unpatriotic and anti-American. You should be proud of yourself. 

 

[dathbgboy]

Originally Posted by JayAmazin

Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

The main reason people are against it is b/c they don't wanna lose money in some way or another. Like I mentioned in a previous thread about this, I JUST got insurance recently. My moms aint got a gig w/ benefits and I'm a f/t student who can't afford a huge premium for health care. The rich get taken care of while the poor keep gettin poor for needed medical help. All these doctors complainin wouldn't be if they weren't doctors and couldn't afford health care. The government is out of touch with the PEOPLE. Economic status blinds ppl.

  

Another reason is because people here "government takeover" and "socialist" from the political right and that "government is going to decide for you." Thats the scare tactics that people hear instead of reading the bill themselves.

Yup, fear is the great motivator, and that along with ignorance is not a good duo

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Well decreased care in quality.......... You lied saying it will decrease let's go further liberal and get a nationalized health care....These "Socialist Nations" have better outcomes... They don't ration care.

Go bankrupt paying for it... Well people already are going bankrupt PAYING TO LIVE.... Alsooooooooooooooooo CBO projected this bill to have a deficit REDUCTION.... You just quoted the CBO so you have no reason to scream about them

TAXING THE RICH TO DEATH YOU SAY? Tax increases on every dollar over $350k-550k 1% and over a million gets taxed an extra 5.4%, That will raise $550 billion in 10 years. That does not sound like taxing the rich to death...

Medicare is going broke because every surplus ever had by medicare is spent on wars, and other useless things.


You may say you are in favor of health care reform... But your argument is fairly unconvincing

1. http://www.citizen.org/do...xas_Liability_Limits.pdf

I also guess you did not read that article of how tort reform increased health care spending (WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO REDUCE)

2. Everyone has a right to quality health care...

3. Generally agree but ban it.. I disagree..

4. IN THE CURRENT BILL

Yeah socialized medicine is great. Thats why the wait times are extensive and most of the systems are going broke and doctors are leaving.

I already stated how the deficit reduction is a hoax. Also just look back at how much medicare was anticipated to cost when it was instituted and how much it has REALLY cost.

Well when you are already paying 40% of your income in taxes not counting state taxes and then you are instituting further capital gains taxes etc yes I would say that is taxing to death.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

I can quote info too in BIG BOLD letters. Now tell me the 90% I lied about and also how you deal with this on a daily basis.

daily basis.. I read on it....

But maybe you should listen to this guy.... He knows more about both sides (politics & health care) than you do

 

[utvol23]

[h1]Statistics Show Canadian Healthcare Is Inferior to American System[/h1]
July 28, 2009 01:45 PM ET | Peter Roff | Permanent Link |Print

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Those who would have the U.S. government play a larger role in healthcare like to point to Canada as an example the United States should follow. Their argument, in sum, is that healthcare there is of high quality, is readily available and, because of generous government subsidies, much cheaper. In fact, most Americans know little about the inner workings of the Canadian system other than the anecdotal evidence provided by both sides of the debate. A look at the hard data, however, suggests there is more support for the arguments put forward by the critics of the Canadian system than by those who see it as a model for the United States.

Working off data compiled by The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, the GOP staff of the congressional Joint Economic Committee assembled this chart to show in visual terms how long Canadian patients have to wait to receive essential healthcare services:

​

For example, the median clinically reasonable wait time before receiving neurosurgery is 5.8 weeks. In Canada in 2008 it was 31.7 weeks. For gynecology it's 5.6 weeks v. 16.1 weeks. And for internal medicine is 3.3 weeks v. 12.5 weeks. Fraser's hospital waiting list survey measures median waiting times to document the extent to which waiting times for visits to specialists and for diagnostic and surgical procedures are used to control health care expenditures. The report measures the wait times between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist, the time between seeing the specialist and receiving treatment, and the total wait time.

The good news, if there is any, is that Fraser's 2008 study (and they have been collecting data on wait times for 18 years) indicates the median wait time for those patients seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment is down by a full week—from 18.3 weeks in 2007 to 17.3 weeks in 2008. Despite the improvement, however, the Fraser data shows many Canadians are still waiting almost four months (121 days) or more before they can receive treatment.

As the JEC chart indicates, the grass may not be greener over the northern U.S. border.

 

[metallicnitro]

This is intense, I didn't know C-SPAN could get like this.

I'm for healthcare reform.