Medical Malpractice

Shouldn't medical malpractice tort reform need to be done at the state level and not the federal level? Medical malpractice lawsuits take place in state court not federal court.

Why is tort reform (medical malpractice lawsuits) not a part of the health reform debate? My MD brother spends more on malpractice insurance than on his entire staff.

Medical Malpractice... Tort Reform anyone? I am applying to medical school and would love to learn more about people's opinions regarding the outrageous medical malpractice suits.

Why do democrats suddenly support tort reform for medical malpractice when they resisted it for over 20 years? Wasn't this proposed back in the 1980's under Reagan / Bush but has always been killed in the senate because the democrats, the trial lawyer association and John Edwards were against this? Why all of a sudden the change in heart? Well Duh! - Obama is speaking to the AMA today and is throwing this out as a bone to try to get them to support his universal healthcare bill.

Does medical tort reform really accomplish what it promises to accomplish? Medical malpractice insurance covers health care providers, not patients. Coverage providers for health care providers may not collude with health insurance providers to fix prices; thus they are set according to their own spheres of exposure. Those who seek to reform tort law therefore are not limiting their reforms to medical malpractice(letting deep pocket offenders off the hook) nor could these reforms really see any appreciable reduction in the cost of health insurance. So why do those who seek tort reform parrot this line?

Why does medical malpractice reform has no effect on medical costs by itself? states that have passed severe medical malpractice tort restrictions on victims of medical error have rate changes similar to those states that haven't adopted these harsh measures. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158494.php

Tort reform supporters, why does Texas have the one of the highest medical costs in the nation? Texas is one of a few states that tried medical malpractice reform, and they still have hugely more expensive health care costs than all northeastern states. Why has it failed them? And why aren't you pushing for a private market solution? Why in this case is legal reform necessary when you believe it is the cause of all evils in all other cases?

Are Conservatives/Republicans more in support of tort reform for medical malpractice lawsuits than Liberals/? Democrats @Ruth - Great answer. @ Sunshine - Great answer as well.

Are there any Democrats who believe that medical tort reform will help lower medical costs in the US? The best physicians are here in the United States. This is where they can get a decent pay check because we don't have socialistic national healthcare! (Only problem here is that they have to pay sky-high malpractice insurance premiums.) We really need to make tort reform a political issue in 2008. It is the only way to get healthcare costs down. The majority of doctors don't like to charge ridiculous fees. Reforms do not have to forbid lawsuits in legitimate cases of malpractice. But good reform measures would prevent $65 million lawsuits when a much, much lower amount would suffice.

Why are democrats asking doctors to ease up on demands for tort reform? Why are democrats asking doctors to ease up on demands for medical malpractice reform during the upcoming healthcare debate? Isn't the expense do to medical lawsuits one of the biggest costs we bear in paying for health care? http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/63811-reid-offers-docs-a-deal#

Why are Democrats still bucking tort reform when the CBO says it could save us billions? Democrats were more than willing to celebrate the numbers from the CBO in this same report, yet they are still a hard sell for tort reform. Why? "Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today -- a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama's overhaul of the nation's health system." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/cbo_medical_malpractice_reform.html

Has Tort reform had a beneficial impact on Health Insurance rates in California.? California has had Tort reform in medical malpractice for 30 years. Has this kept Health Insurance affordable in California? Ask the parents ofNataline Sarkisyan how they feel about tort reform. Rather than pay for an expensive transplant and a lifetime of expensive care, her insurer simply denied the claim knowing they most her parents could get in punitive damages was $250,000. Seems to me that tort reform is another name for death panels!!! Hmmm since the Republicans claim they want tort reform like California, I find it difficult to label the California system 'Liberal'

Do you like my health care reform proposal? -Repeal the 1099 reporting requirement, business and individual mandates, and $500 billion in cuts to Medicare from Obamacare. -Enact medical malpractice tort reform that limits damages that can be sought beyond actual damages. Actual damages includes medical costs incurred, legal fees, lost wages, etc. -Repeal hospital mandate to treat uninsured patients -Provide tax incentives to for people to purchase health care by providing tax credits based a proportion of how much of someone's income should go towards health care premiums for standard plans, and tax deductions for unforeseeable medical costs beyond what one's plan covers if situation is a medical emergency -Eliminate all government health care programs and replace them with a voucher-credit program that provides vouchers and tax credits to make health care affordable Crossing state lines part of Obamacare would be retained. A voucher has nothing to do with taxes. It's pretty much free money that can only be used to buy a health care plan. Aside from lib smear comments, some excellent ideas are being shared here.

Do you like my health care reform proposals? Repeal Obamacare. 1) Repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. 2) Allow any physician who treats a patient that does not have the ability to pay to write off 97% of the billable expenses as charity. 3) Provide other tax incentives for institutions and health care providers that regularly treat patients without the ability to pay, such as grants. 4) Enact medical malpractice tort reform 5) Allow health care insurance companies that regularly offer free or reduced cost coverage and/or coverage to those with preexisting conditions to write-off 97% of billable expenses as charity if the patient does not have the ability to pay If doctors are repeatedly sued, and those suits are with merit, I agree that they should lose their licenses. This is to give an incentive to care for more people, but not everybody will get care. Health care is not a right.

Do you like my alternative health care reform proposal? -Repeals the individual mandate, 1099 reporting requirment, $500 billion cuts to Medicare, and all tax increases from Obamacare -Enacts medical malpractice tort reform that limits damages other than actual damages. Actual damages are medical expenses, legal fees, and lost wages incurred. -Eliminates all government health care programs in favor of vouchers and tax subsidies. The poorest people would still essentially receive free health care after combined vouchers and subsidies. Medicare would be converting into a personal health savings account guaranteed by the FDIC over time with eligibility for vouchers and/or tax subsidies if money saved up is not enough to secure insurance once retired.

Is Obama trying to "bribe" the American Medical Association with tort reform to get support? I heard on the news this morning that President Obama is going to address the AMA regarding universal healthcare. One of the things he is going to propose is limiting the payouts on medical malpractice lawsuits. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-ama-obama-jun10,0,3173373.story Is this basically a bribe to the AMA? The AMA have been pushing this for years but the democrats and the trial lawyers have been resisting this. So are Obama and the democrats turning their backs on the lawyers now? How does Democrat John Edwards feel about this? http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12590927?source=rss Yutsnark - The AMA is going to resist Univeral Healthcare Reform. Several articles were printed about it. Here is one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/american-medical-associat_n_214132.html?page=61&show_comment_id=25470925#comment_25470925 Sassyone - Why all of a sudden due democrats support tort reform for malpractice? Shouldn't that have been done 20 years ago when it was proposed?

This is a question for you conservatives who think the federal government "ought to mind its own business" a? leave to the states to decide on such matters as gay marriage but also advocate legislation at the federal level for medical malpractice tort reform. Please explain how you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions. If I live in Georgia, and a doctor in Georgia injures me, should it not be up to the Georgia legislature to decide what, if any, should be the caps on damages? Does not make much sense? I'll try to dumb this down. You want intrusive federal regulation in on area and not in the other. Explain.

Why in 2004 did democrats say malpractice tort reform "is unfair to injured patients"? but now that democrats control the house, senate, and presidency, they say it is necessary. The quote in 2004 was as follows: Democrats accuse Republicans of playing up to their donors in the medical and insurance lobbies and say that limiting damages is unfair to injured patients and their families. "I've never seen such special-interest legislation," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "Instead of going about doing the people's business, we seem to be going about the political action committees' business, and that's why, of course, nothing is getting done." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-07-malpractice_x.htm Why the change? Isn't the ability to have some dead beat that spills coffee on their lap and gets a $10 million award from McDonald's fair? Why didn't they support this in 2004 when they had a chance?

The T.E.A Party is taking ideas from the Citizens to send to Representatives, What do you think about these? Legislation shall contain no unrelated ammendments Implement the Fair Tax Congressional Term Limits Abolish the Department of Education Official Language of the USA Pass Nationwide Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Congress shall not exempt themselves Interstate Health Insurance Competetion Drill Here Drill Now cite Constitutional Authority for creating laws http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

How is tort reform not an example of big government? Tort reform wants to limit the amount someone can win in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The real issue is frivolous lawsuits which the person who sued would almost certainly lose the case. So, how is it fair to punish those who suffer from irresponsible doctors who aren't careful and how is this not an example of big government? What I'm referring to is capping lawsuit payouts. Frivolous lawsuits need to go.

Could this unpopular Medical Health Care Bill cause some states to cede from the union...? Before the states go bankrupt due to mandates of the upcoming Medical Health Care Bill, do you think some states would rather cede from the union? For instance, in the first few months after Texas reformed medical malpractice tort law they were able to save 2 billion dollars which went back into updating hospitals. Why would they put up with being strapped with this monstrosity when they are reforming their health care on their own?

Why did medical license applications jumped 58% in Texas after tort reform? Why are 90% of all malpractice cases dropped but still cost on average 110,000 to defend? Why do doctors perform "defensive medicine" ie order unnecessary tests to avoid lawsuits costing from 5% to 10% of total Medical costs? Why do trial lawyers have more to say about our health system then the AMA?

Why are the Republicans screaming for tort reform? A study published in 2005 by Tom Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, found that after all costs, including legal fees, insurance costs and payouts, the cost of medical malpractice suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. Oh, I see its just more rhetoric they use to oppose health care reform.

Can we bypass Congress and implement tort reform and insurance reform without the feds? The idea is for state insurance commissioners to band together to open up their states to competitive health plans and for state legislatures to pass statute to limit awards in medical malpractice suits and punitive damage awards. If the red states did it, the blue states would have to follow suit.

Why aren't there people arguing against tort reform? Tort reform puts a cap on the level of compensation a family may receive from medical malpractice. Infants receive brain damage because of the negligence of the others leaving that child in the care of others for the rest of his life. If families have a good case don't they deserve the money they receive from a malpractice law suit?

If you support tort reform, would you also support the following? Price controls on prescription drugs and gasoline. I mean, if you want the government saying how much can be gained from medical malpractice lawsuits, then surely you might also want the government saying what the maximum price for prescription drugs and gasoline to be too, right?

Conservative health reforms. what do you think? I wrote up this huge response to some liberal's health reform question only to find the question was removed before I could post my answer! D'oh! I decided to post it as a question instead. I'm so sick of ignorant liberals who don't know what they're talking about claiming that Republicans have no ideas for health care reform. Here they are for like the gazzillionth time. 1) Open up competition by removing laws that restrict interstate insurance sales. There are 1300+ health insurance companies in America, but if you live in California, for instance, you can only purchase insurance from 6 of them due to state law. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and should exercise that power. If Obama wants more competition, why doesn't he support this reform? 2) De-regulate health insurance so insurers can sell a wider variety of policies. Right now, every state has strict guidelines on what care insurance has to cover. As a result young healthy people can't buy high deductible, catastrophic only policies. Millions of the uninsured are just those kind of people who don't want comprehensive insurance. Having catastrophic only coverage means you simply pay out of pocket for routine stuff like doctors visits and routine prescription drugs. 3) Expansion and improvement of health savings accounts, wherein people can use the saved money to either pay for health care costs directly, or buy insurance of their choice, rather than choosing only among the insurance provided by their employer. This would also sever the tie between employers and insurance, as the employee would own the policy and keep it if they leave their job. The HSA would add a free market element to health care purchase decisions that would lower costs by making health care users into prudent buyers.. 4) Medical malpractice tort reform. By some estimates, the annual cost of MM liability insurance, and defensive medicine practiced to avoid lawsuits costs as much as $200 Billion a year. One suggestion is to set up a medical malpractice arbitration fund paid for by a tax on insurers. Potential claims would be adjudicated by medical experts, and law suits against health providers would be illegal. The current system is basically a jackpot system that funnels a lot of money to trial lawyers. 5) Make all health care expenses tax deductible, not just when paid for by an employer, when they exceed 7.5% of AGI. 6) Administer govt run health plans like medicaid and medicare through tax credits that allow seniors and poor to go out and buy their own policy rather than being stuck with the one policy offered by government. For those of you in Rio Linda, a tax credit is different from a tax deduction. A tax credit is available to anyone, not just those who owe taxes. My suggestions, don't cost anything, in fact they save money and get more people covered. One problem with health insurance, be it government or private is that a third party is paying for your care, so you have no incentive to shop around for a good deal, and providers have no incentive to become efficient. Just look at the cost of treatments like laser eye surgery that isn't covered by insurance. That surgery has improved, and come down in cost 80-90%. Had it been covered by insurance it probably would still cost $5000 per eye. Obama and Democrats don't support any of these reforms. Not one of them. How dare liberals say that it is Republicans who don't want real reform. It is Democrats and Obama who simply want to expand the status quo.

Tort reform being a main part of the GOP health care reform bill who benefits the most under their plan? Congressional Budget Office(December 2008) estimated that imposing limits on torts for medical malpractice cases would lower malpractice premiums nationwide by about 6 percent, on average from the levels likely to occur under current law. (The savings in each state would depend in part on the restrictions already in effect.) Savings of that magnitude would have only a modest impact on total health care expenditures, however reducing total health care spending by less than 0.2 percent. page 154 on study http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

California has had Tort Reform for over 10 years. What impact has this had on Health Insurance prices? What impact has it had on medical malpractice insurance rates? Most people presently pay only a small portion of the cost of their health insurance with their employer paying the largest protion. As an example, Average cost for coverage for an emploee and his family in my firm is about $1,200 per month. . WHen the Tort reform proposition was placed on the ballot we were assured this would lower health insurance prices and would lower malpractice insurance premiums. All it did was increase insurance company profits.

The increasing size of medical malpractice awards has caused malpractice insurance costs to skyrocket, driving some physicians with high risk coverage, such as OB-GYNs and anesthesiology to move to states that have passed tort reform laws. In 2003, Ohio passed a similar law to prevent the flight of OB-GYNs to other states. Do you think it is fair to the injured party to have a state law limit the amount that can be recovered in a medical malpractice suit?

Conservatives: free market solution to Medicare and Medicaid? I'm a Ron Paul Conservative. With that, I'm looking to form my opinion on how the health industry can be fixed. Obviously, there's allowing the purchase of health insurance over state lines, medical malpractice tort reform, deregulating the health industry and getting government out of the way, encouraging competition... ...but what is to be done about those who cannot afford health insurance? Who's jobs don't supply it? Or those who are too old to afford it? Can you really just eliminate Medicare and Medicaid if they were to go bankrupt? (which they will -- experts predict it will by 2019) I can't, in good conscience, support just throwing people onto the street in ruin health-wise. My question is this: what is a free-market solution to Medicare and Medicaid? And, if you're willing to even elaborate further, what is a practical free-market solution to this entire healthcare problem?

How can the Dems avoid Tort Reform? From the NY time Aug 31 On “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, seemed to agree that medical malpractice lawsuits are driving up health care costs and should be limited in some way. Is this not part of Obamas saving. Why? Campaign contributions? We all know the answers. Savings first. We don't trust politicians to keep promises. Lawyers jump states to take advantage of looser laws.

Doesn't health care tort reform have to take place at the state level? Medical malpractice lawsuits take place in state court not federal court.

Is this a bad idea or a good idea for health care reform? 1. Tort reform to reduce the costs associated with medical malpractice lawsuits 2. Either do complete away with group insurance or make it so everyone has access to group insurance 3. Require everyone to carry health insurance or face fines. 4. Require insurance companies to make available health insurance to everyone 5. Health insurance will only cover catastrophic costs and not the normal costs of health care.

Considering medical malpractice insurance prices rose at 1 1/2 times the rate of health service prices, why...? ...isn't Obama leading the charge for tort reform so doctors costs will lower enough to charge less money? http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/Medical-Malpractice-Law-in-the-United-States-Report.pdf page 25

Should we outlaw malpractice insurance as a part of tort reform? I have been thinking allot about tort reform as part of the health care issue. What bothers me the most is that there is virtually no punishment for doctors that mess up allot or ones that mess up big time. not because of simple mistakes but those doctors that are truly careless. (think of micheal jackson's doctor) In the case of MJ, if the police were not charging him with murder the man would get only a slap on the wrist ... and how likely would it have been if MJ wasn't such a high profile case? As it is now insurance picks up the tab on bad doctors and the rest the medical community pays the price with high rates. So if what we do is put limits on the amounts people get as settlements shouldn't we also put limits on the insurance so that perhaps the doctors themselves feel it when they are the ones at fault?

will tort reform decrease health care costs? CBO and GAO both question whether the results Kessler and McClellan observed in hospitalized heart patients can be applied to patients in cancer wards, nursing homes, doctors’ offices, maternity wards and elsewhere. In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive medicine: GAO: Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed. And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine. CBO: When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts. Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously was chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html...

Tort Reform question? Large damages awards in tort litigation have to be paid by someone. If the defendant is insured, then insurance companies foot the bill. Ultimately, thought, high insurance rates are passed on to consumers of goods and services in the United States. Consequently, tort reform that reduces the size and number of damages awards ultimately will mean lower costs of goods and services to consumers. The downside of these lower costs, though, might be higher risks of medical malpractice and dangerous products. Do you believe that this trade-off is real? Why or why not?

Is 'Tort Reform' really all the GOP has? I haven't seen anything else from them, have you? Americans for Insurance Reform, a project of Center for Justice & Democracy, has released a new study called True Risk: Medical Liability, Malpractice Insurance and Health Care. It is co-written by actuary Robert Hunter, Director of Insurance for Consumer Federation of America, and former Federal Insurance Administrator and Texas Insurance Commissioner. Its major findings are: 1. Medical malpractice premiums, inflation-adjusted, are nearly the lowest they have been in over 30 years. 2. Medical malpractice claims, inflation-adjusted, are dropping significantly, down 45 percent since 2000. 3. Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of the country"s overall health care costs; medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs. In over 30 years, premiums and claims have never been greater than 1% of our nation"s health care costs. 4. Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been remarkably profitable over the last five years. 5. The periodic premium spikes that doctors experience, as they did from 2002 until 2005, are not related to claims but to the economic cycle of insurers and to drops in investment income. 6. Many states that have resisted enacting severe restrictions on injured patients" legal rights experienced rate changes (i.e., premium increases or decreases for doctors) similar to those states that enacted severe restrictions on patients" rights, i.e., there is no correlation between "tort reform" and insurance rates for doctors. Another fart against the wind by the GOP?

How come STATES decide on tort reform, but the FEDS mandate a tax penalty for not buying insurance? I notice Obama puts the Federal Govt. in charge of all his possibly unconstiutional reform measures. But tort reform is left to the states. Why do you think that is?? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul The legislation makes no changes in medical malpractice laws. It does incorporate Obama's call for federal funds for state experiments on alternatives to malpractice lawsuits.

How can liberals demand lower health care costs, yet be anti tort-reform? Tort reform laws need modification to limit damages against, in this case specifically, doctors? 93% of all doctors admitted to practicing defensive medicine; defined here. Defensive medicine: Medical practices designed to avert the future possibility of malpractice suits. In defensive medicine, responses are undertaken primarily to avoid liability rather than to benefit the patient. Doctors may order tests, procedures, or visits, or avoid high-risk patients or procedures primarily (but not necessarily solely) to reduce their exposure to malpractice liability. Defensive medicine is one of the least desirable effects of the rise in medical litigation. Defensive medicine increases the cost of health care and may expose patients to unnecessary risks. So on one side of the liberal agenda, we have a desire for a nationalized, subsidized, non-equitable health care system - yet we also are against preventing frivolous lawsuits which ultimately raise malpractice insurance costs and that, in turn, causes doctors to practice defensive medicine. Another liberal paradox....... Please answer my question without a temper tantrum or the word BUSH, he has nothing to do with it - neither does Iraq or NEO-CONS! I'm not a Neocon, I was born this brilliant. http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch705-hsmalprc.html I still haven't recieved an answer to the question. Explain to me how you can be so passionate about lowering the cost of health care and so deeply rooted into the issue of anti-malpractice (tort) reform? It just doesn't make sense! Does my question automatically pin me as a 'victim of public education'? You violated my temper tantrum rule. No gold star for you Mr.

Opinions on the importance of tort reform in the health care debate? Doctors must carry (therefore we must pay for) expensive malpractice insurance, and there are tens of thousands of lawyers making their living off of peoples dissatisfaction with their medical care. . You may alternately say that they are making their living from the mistakes of the medical profession. How do those countries with national health care programs handle the voracious attorneys, and what must we do in this area to achieve comparable care for a comparable price, whether privately of publicly administered?

Conservatives: If Medical Malpractice suits drive up Healthcare costs and drive out Doctors, explain this...? >> A national report released Wednesday says the 2003 Texas law that limited damage awards in malpractice suits has caused health care spending to rise and has not significantly increased the number of doctors in Texas. The report comes as Gov. Rick Perry has touted the benefits of the law on the presidential campaign trail, boasting that it has added 21,000 Texas doctors — a claim the report disputes. Supporters of the law also urged Congress to enact a similar provision for the nation as part of the federal health care law that passed in March 2010. That provision was not included. << Are conservative theories on Tort Reform being discredited by reality? (Then again, aren't conservatives ALWAYS being discredited by reality?) This is from my city's newspaper, and is the source; do read it: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/report-texas-tort-law-has-failed-to-reduce-1910690.html

Is Tort Reform By Choice a Compromise Solution? This is a follow-up question. To my earlier question almost all Conservatives said that they would be willing to sign an agreement or a waiver limiting professional medical liability to 250K or even less. So how about adding this to the Healthcare Bill, giving Americans the choice to having binding agreements with their doctors that in the event of a malpractice suit the doctor's liability would be limited to the negotiated sum or to the total fee?

What about the 98,000 who die each year from medical malpractice? These 98,000 people are conveniently forgotten about in this whole Tort reform debate. Also conveniently forgotten is that only 1% of total health care costs go towards fraudulent malpractice claims. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/09/trial_lawyers_f.html http://www.98000reasons.org/ The only reason why Republicans have a grudge against trial lawyers is because the majority of them contribute donations to the Democratic party. 98, 000 people each year die from medical malpractice - FACT. Boston.com is the web address for the newspaper Boston Globe. Very well known newspaper. So your basically saying the patient deserves no rights? That the doctor and insurance company will not be responsible if something goes wrong? Besides, like I said...only 1% of total health care costs are due to malpractice claims. Remember, the health care industry makes up 14% of our total GDP, it's a multi-trillion dollar industry! A few million dollars here and there hardly makes a difference. Prove me wrong Pro Con. Between 44,000 and 98,000 is still a large number. So the difference is between one and two Boeing jets crashing each day. Still quite shocking. pdooma: Actually the 98,000 figure is from the Institute of Medicine.

T' Republican Sages Claim that T' Medical Malpractice Trial Lawyers are Responsible for T' High Insurance Y? N? High Insurance Premiums. http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2010/02/25/white-house-health-care-summit-morning-wrap-up-tort-reform-insurance-costs-and-republican-ideas/

Presidential Address Critique? 3? HEY! The president just mentiond medical malpractice and tort reform! Im shocked he's even SPEAKING about it. SInce the MSM arent! NOW maybe those chicken-hearts will. Who is tired of Pres Obama using the term "status quo"? When he's the BIGGEST contributor to it? And him bringing up the word 'idiology'. Like its some kinda curse to spew out. There he goes bringing up the 'heart strings' about the late, Sen. Ted Kennedy. Is this appropriate? He WAS a 'big government Liberal'! And he's not the last. Congres is full of em in BOTH parties. Again, he's using his preacher-pulpit-college professor speak. As if he's still running a campaign or some "making history" moment without any REAL answers. THats politics. It wasnt stirring. A lot of stuff he's aleady said. ANd nobody is STILL not watching or listening. sad.

Why are Dem's against TORT reform? When unreasonable medical malpractice suits represent huge premium costs?

Can I have an ed op piece on Tort Reform for 1L class today.......? Preferably on Medical Malpractice or Cigarette

Why are Democrats against Tort Reform? Do they hate mothers-to be so much that they would rather a lawyer get a million in a lawsuit than a mother-to-be get a 50.00 check up by her OB? Many obstetrician/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) are no longer delivering babies (or are giving up obstetrics while retaining their gynecological practices) because of the rising costs of medical malpractice premiums and concerns about being sued, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a 49,000-member organization in Washington, D.C. One survey reported that OBs' malpractice premiums had risen about 53 percent in a recent four-year span. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_8_52/ai_n20525142/ Should Democrat mothers-to-be get charged extra to pay for the Extreme OB costs?

How much could we improve health care in the USA simply with tort reform? If we cut off the trial atty's lifeblood, medical malpractice, something Obama, Pelosi and Reid refuse to do, how much would we save in medical costs? I know for a fact that malpractice insurance has risen exponentially over the past 25 years. How much money is spent on insurance protecting Dr's and hospitals from million dollar lawsuits? And the atty's make about 25% or more if it goes to trial. Per verdict. If we have a bad Dr, you should get something and the Dr. should be removed. But now, we sue for millions and then go back to the same Dr. We don't dislike them, we just want the $$. If we take out the lawsuit bonanzas and tighten up the Dr's board and lower the malpractice insurance could we save enough to insure more people without the gov't taking everything over? Afterall, name me one gov't program that isn't losing money...... Dolphin swimming around in circles and getting dizzy again huh? wow......

Conservatives - what do you think about my solution to tort reform? Medical Malpractice cases are getting out of hand. There should be a system in place for getting rid of frivolous lawsuits and excessive awards. I propose the following: 1. The plaintiff has an attorney - the doctor should get one too. And it should be provided by their insurance carrier. 2. The plaintiff should be required to have another DOCTOR certify that the defendant doctor committed malpractice. 3. There should be a mechanism for dismissing cases that have absolutely no merit. 4. There should be a panel of regular people - like you and me - who decide how much compensation an injured plaintiff is entitled to. What do you think of my ideas? Of course that is what already happens! I just wanted to see what people would say. there is no need to have additional reform, the system works the way it is.

Why are Conservatives/Republicans in favor of tort reform for? medical malpractice lawsuits at the federal level? Do they not know that doing this takes away power from the states who have been regulating this? What happened to the 10th Amendment in this issues? BTW this is a genuine question that I posted in response to my previous question about this issue. ( I posted a link to it.) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoZVHhs4mlmnmPz1M2_ddYHsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090803202614AAHA6nE @Max 50 - I knew I would get at least one unintelligent rant.

Which of the following 3 choices was the most Misleading Lie teleprompted by Obama w/ a captive GOP audience? 1: Lie: “From the start, I sought out and supported ideas from Republicans. I even talked about an issue which has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I’d be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn’t get a lot of nibbles.” Truth: The operative word here is “talked.” Republicans tried and failed to get Democrats to address tort reform. Not only do both bills exclude medical malpractice reform, but the House bill actually sets up incentives that discourage such reform at the state level. #2 Lie: “Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions. That wasn’t my idea, it was Sen. McCain’s, and I supported it, and it got incorporated into our approach.” Truth: The high-risk pool “incorporated” in the Senate bill would only be a temporary measure that would be in effect until 2014, when the federal government would start requiring insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions. McCain’s proposal on high-risk pools was meant as a substitute for taking the drastic step of imposing such regulations at the federal level #3 “Allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers…. That’s an idea that was incorporated into our package.” Truth: This is another misleading statement. The impetus for the conservative proposal to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines is that many states have imposed so many benefit mandates on health insurance that there are parts of the country where it’s difficult to buy a basic medical plan with affordable monthly premiums. Obama argued during the campaign (and reiterated today) that free interstate purchase of insurance would be a bad idea, because insurers would flock to states with the least regulations.

How stupid does Obama consider the American people? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul 1.) Sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste. - Obama knows this already takes place. 2.) Expanding medical malpractice reform pilot programs - Pelosi already stated that Tort Reform was not her priority. 3.) Increasing payments to Medicaid providers - The senate bill opposes this and senate Dems already said they wont support it. 4.) Expanding the use of health savings accounts. - Dems in both House/Senate have already said they would not support this. Does Obama actually think we're going to fall for this crap? There is no compromise with these four points from Republicans because Obama knows that the Dems already oppose 3 out of the 4 whether he supports them or not! Truly, utterly unbelievable. VOICE - Explain to me how offering a compromise regarding an aspect of the healthcare bill Obama already knows the Dems have no intention of changing is offering to work with Republicans...I'll wait... VOICE I'm still waiting...

I believe Ann Coulter is right. Can anyone prove she is wrong? I bet you can't? Prescription For Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare by Ann Coulter 03/31/2010 On the "Today" show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas. One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform. The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore." So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform. Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.) At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses -- as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses. The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines. I know they're lying because -- well, first because I read the bill -- but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them. True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law -- but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover. That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates -- it's worse! At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder. Under federal mandates, there will be no escape. That's right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes "competition across state lines." How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses? The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid). There's no reason why most Americans shouldn't be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars. And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through. These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care. Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients. A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.) How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act? How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use? How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on? The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exac

How about a simple solution for healthcare instead of trillions for a government boondoggle? Private insurance - optional, takes care of routine medical needs - tax deduction for premiums, tax credits or government support for low income folks. Tax free "health savings accounts" ala 401k Tort reform - limit medical malpractice awards - reduce malpractice insurance "Loser pays" lawsuits - cut down on trivial lawsuits Insurance sales across state lines - increase availability and competition Government funds care for catastrophic illness and preexisting conditions thru insurance companies Simple, efficient, elegant and effective... AND less expensive Clown... typical liberal ... how about what works for the COUNTRY... that's what those jackasses are supposed to be doing, but the dems just want to control everything they can... pinhead. Pat - ditch the talking points and THINK for a change... try it.. you might enjoy it. hotnwell... competition and reducing the burden of multimillion dollar malpractice awards will go a long way to reducing the costs

Why is high government intervention good except for the lawyers? I mean... they feel financial services bonuses should be controlled... medical services should be controlled.... but hands off tort reform like medical malpractice... why is that? does it make sense? http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/200… Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages Or is 'consistency the hobgoblin of small minds?'

Opinions on the importance of tort reform in the health care debate? Doctors must carry (therefore we must pay for) expensive malpractice insurance, and there are tens of thousands of lawyers making their living off of peoples dissatisfaction with their medical care. . You may alternately say that they are making their living from the mistakes of the medical profession. How do those countries with national health care programs handle the voracious attorneys, and what must we do in this area to achieve comparable care for a comparable price, whether privately of publicly administered?

CBO says Tort Reform would save Billions, why do the Democrats Ignore this method of reducing costs? http://www.google.com/search?q=CBO+%2B+Tort+Reform&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a "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." http://advance.uconn.edu/2009/090223/09022302.htm "defensive medicine" increase health care costs by billions "About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons. Reducing cases? Evidently you don't understand how personal injury lawyers work.

Does the USA need tort reform? Michael Moore did a movie about health care because the cost of good health care has spiralled out of control. Funny, he gave trial lawyers a complete pass. Did you know the USA is the ONLY country in the world that does not use the English based court system, where the loser pays the legal and other costs to the winning party. Guess what? No other country has the level of exccessive litigation, needless medical procedures, excessive malpractice insurance, courts paralyzed with frivolous law suits, etc, as we suffer with, in the USA. Is our country too litigous? PS did you know part of the fortune earned by John Edwards was based on a case where a plaintiff won the lottery (Edwards took a third or so) on a child-birth case- today, any woman who has a needless Cesarian, should thank John Edwards.

If socialists win, getting free national health care, will they suddenly support tort reform? The question really is whether liberals consiously have sic'd trial lawyers onto the medical community as a strategy to undermine it, to convert it to socialism. Trial lawyers run amok, have made our society the most litigous in the world, causing health professionals to pass on excessive malpractice insurance costs to the public and caused needless medical procedures to protect against litigation; these cretins (peronal injury lawyers) take 30% to 40% contingency fees & play the odds, filing 15 - 20 suits, hoping one will stick and get a crazy jury award! Hey! Most Americans don't even know we are the only country in the world who allows a plaintiff to file a lawsuit & even if its frivolous, don't make the loser of the suit compensate the winner, for their expenses and injury. Huh? So, if socialists nationalize health care will they suddenly support tort reform? Will they allow their cancer (trial lawyers) posion their new socialist health care program?

Why do libs say nothing about tort reform, if they claim to care about health care cost? Why not pick some low hanging fruit, how about reasonable limits on jury awards for medical law suits? If you really care about health care costs, consider the all the costs passed onto the medical consumer due to trial lawyers and fear of litigation: 1) the cost of unnecessary tests, procedures and operations patients are forced to endure and finance, for fear of lawsuits. 2) the "run-away" jury awards, which trial lawyers take 35% - 40% 3) all the frivolous law suits- trial lawyers initiate 20 suits, hoping just one pays off where they can be compensated $10,000 per hour for the time they spent on the case. 4) the high cost of malpractice insurance, all health care providers and doctors have to pay for and then pass the cost back to the consumer. 5) America is by far the most litigous country in the world because we are the only country where the plaintiff has no financial obligation to the defendant for the cost to defend frivolous law suits. All these costs are passed onto the consumer, exponentially increasing the cost of health care. Whatever you think of insurance companies, drug companies and capitalism, there is no argunment to oppose reasonable limits and caps on jury awards and judgements IF you care about the cost of health care. Why do liberals stand against reasonable caps and limits on law suits? If you oppose tort reform isn't it obvious its really just about breaking the back of the health care industry to achieve socilaized medicine?

When speaking about Health Care Reform, did President Obama talk about tort reform? Is that change...? we can believe in from President Obama? How can he be blaming health care costs on anything else? The Democratic Party is full of lawyers, so in order for Mr. Obama to really do health care reform, he would have to go against his base. Do you believe that will ever happen? In a recent press release, stated the following "Lawsuit Abuse Facts: " According to a recent Towers Perrin study, the U.S. tort liability system cost each U.S. citizen $721 in 2001 ($205 billion total). More than 40 percent of doctors reported avoiding prescribing appropriate medication because they knew the drug might be involved in litigation. Personal injury lawyers walk away with 30-50 percent of any jury award to the plaintiff, plus an additional percentage of the award to cover expenses. Since its widely used cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol was withdrawn from the market, Bayer is facing more than 8,000 lawsuits. The New York Times notes that at least 6,000 of those lawsuits, however, are being filed by people who did not suffer any side effects whatsoever. Their web site state these "Fast Facts - Symptoms of Lawsuit Abuse:" Lawsuit abuse affects all Americans on different levels. 80% of Americans say personal injury attorneys take too much of their clients' winnings. 76% of Americans believe medical liability lawsuits threaten access to quality healthcare for families. 74% of Americans describe medical liability issue as crisis or major problem. By 61% to 22% margin, Americans say lawsuits against doctors result in wealthy lawyers rather than improved quality of care for patients. Lawsuit costs passed on to consumers add up to nearly $721 per year for every person in America today. Because of litigation fears, 79% of doctors said they had ordered more tests than they would based only on professional judgment of what is medically needed. It takes at least a year to resolve most lawsuits, and delays of three to five years are not uncommon. Unfortunately, injured people with legitimate claims can wait years before their cases go to trial. An estimated $50 billion per year is spent on unnecessary test procedures designed only to guard doctors and hospitals against malpractice claims. Almost half of the money spent by physician insurers goes towards defending cases that ultimately are closed without compensation paid to the claimant. http://headaches.about.com/cs/advocacy/a/lamus_cala.htm The first four answerers are saying Tort Reform is not needed! Wow... it is only 2% of health care (I wonder where you got that fact!). Even if it were true, that is still $5 Billion.... not much of a savings and that is why lawyers throw around that fact!!

Why is having taxpayers subsidize health care the only "reform" Democrats can think of? Since this is health care "reform," I can think of two other items that ought to be in this bill to reduce costs. 1. Tort Reform. I heard a stat once that 25% of all medical tests weren't really needed, but ordered by doctors to cover their behinds so they wouldn't be sued. I remember a few years back (right around the time my wife was pregnant) that obstetricians were leaving the field because they just couldn't handle the shockingly high medical malpractice insurance premiums. 2. Restructuring who can deliver health care. Even for the most routine of visits, we end up seeing a highly educated, highly trained MD. Is that really necessary? I can't tell you how many visits for minor things like small cuts that needed stitching that could have been handled by a less educated, less trained and much cheaper provider. Maybe it's about time that the medical industry and the gov't set up a new regime with some other folks that can receive an intermediate amount of training and provide for simpler health care needs. So why won't the Democrats offer any of the reforms offered above?

How's this for a "hybrid" healthcare reform? Allow insurance companies to sell across the country - reduces costs by increasing competition. Enact tort reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits out and cap malpractice awards at a reasonable level - reduces malpractice insurance costs (currently $100,000 a year) and costs associated with excessive "defensive testing" Insurance is OPTIONAL. If you don't have insurance, you pay out of pocket. Buyer pays (or buys insurance) for routine medical exams and procedures. Tax deductions for insurance premiums. Government assisted insurance for the truly poor. NO ILLEGAL ALIENS on government insurance. The government funds a catastrophic illness/pre-existing conditions reserve account, overseen by a medical board that allocates funds to doctors and hospitals for treatment. Kaito - good questions, and details that could be worked out much more efficiently and effectively than a bludgeon of the "public option" where everyone's health care is trashed for the benefit of a few...

Should there be government decided limits on damages awarded in personal injury lawsuits or? assessed on a case-by case basis by citizens in a court of law? FYI CBO study on tort reform and health care cost. Congressional Budget Office(December 2008) estimated that imposing limits on torts for medical malpractice cases would lower malpractice premiums nationwide by about 6 percent, on average from the levels likely to occur under current law. (The savings in each state would depend in part on the restrictions already in effect.) Savings of that magnitude would have only a modest impact on total health care expenditures, however reducing total health care spending by less than 0.2 percent. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

What do you think about this idea for tort reform? I don't really want a maximum amount. But in a lot cases the amounts rewarded are ridiculous. The amounts being rewarded just be within reason. We also need to know that medical personnel and doctors are human and therefore not perfect. The fact that it was not intentional but an innocent mistake or a wrong decision should play a part in the amount rewarded. If the harm was due to something that was intentionally done or not done then I want to nail that doctor to the wall and put him in the poor house. We also need a way of punishing lawyers who bring cases when there was no case. One way to do this is have a special court with a board of judges to decide the cases or to have all malpractice lawsuits to be automatically reviewed by a special court to determine if the case was legitimated and the amount rewarded was reasonable.

If health care costs are an issue, why do dems support trial lawyers & frivolous law suits? An obvious solution to the problem is capping the jury awards on negligence and personal injury lawsuits by tort reform. Medical providers pass on a huge expense to the consumer for malpractice insurance and run many needless medical procedures all because of greedy and unethical trial lawyers, who prey on the medical community. Michael Moore did a biased documentary on health care costs but instead of targeting the true villians- trial lawyers, he simply carried the socialist flag and attacked corporations (the mortal enemy of socialists). Did you know the USA is the only large country in the world that does not apply the English rule of law, where the losing party pays the winning party. Only in America, someone can file a frivolous law suit, hiring a trial lawyer on contingency (the parasite takes 30% - 40%) causing the defendant to spend unlimited funds to defend themself & if the palintiff loses, he doesn't reimburse the defendant for the costs they incurred. Huh?

Would this decrease the cost of health care in America significantly? Doctors and hospitals spend some amount of money (probably a lot) on redundant and even unnecessary tests and procedures due to fear of being sued for malpractice, not to mention the overabundance of paperwork that follows patients around these days. Do you think we could cut costs significantly by the government selling low cost malpractice insurance and reforming the associated tort system? Manufacturers of drugs and medical equipment also pay high premiums. Should the government also offer liability insurance to them?

Conservatives: What are some of the best counter-proposals for health care reform? I agree that reform is needed to the current system, but not a government takeover. Here are some ideas that I believe would cut costs out of the system: - Tort reform (limiting lawsuit payouts to keep malpractice insurance costs in check). - Limit spending on pharmaceutical advertising (shouldn't the doctors know the best drugs to prescribe as medical professionals rather than having patients needing to talk their Dr. into a certain drug?) - Eliminate insurance coverage for "recreational" drugs like Viagra, Cialis, etc. Also, limit coverage for chronically abused painkillers/sedatives to a short time period... - All individuals pay for their own coverage (much like auto insurance). This will give everybody more flexibility to create a plan that's right for them, AND give them more incentive to adopt a healthier lifestyle. If this is too drastic, then at least tax the benefit plans according to their worth so that people with Cadillac plans are not able to hide that benefit. - Guarantee that the insured know what costs they will be responsible for before any non-urgent procedures. Health care is virtually the only good or service where the individual doesn't know what the price is before the transaction takes place. - I must admit that the "pre-existing conditions" provision is tricky. I think that there should be coverage for pre-existing conditions, but I believe it is justified for the insurance companies to charge a higher premium (at least initially) for covering those conditions.

Name the only country in the world that allows plaintiffs to not pay the defendant for a frivolous suit? Hints: 1) This country has a political party who obstructs tort reform. 2) This country has a political party who has deep, long term partnership with trial lawyers, who fund their political campaigns. 3) This country is more litigous, by far, than any other country in the world. 4) This country has higher health care costs because their entire medical community and industry, passes on their costs to the consumer for excessive malpractice insurance, needless medical procedures and many other needless excesses. 5) This country's health care costs would dramatically reduce if the political party who supports trial lawyers would not obstruct tort reform. 6) This country has a large portion of their population who have no idea that the rest of the world does not allow trial lawyers to prey on the community, don't have courts back-logged with frivolous law suits & every business spending money, needlessly, just to protect themselves from excessive litigation. Hhhmmm...

Why Can't Democrats Just Be Honest About Their Desire To Takeover Health Insurance? A government health insurance plan sounds nice and pretty, but when you consider a little bit of history concerning the government and its regulation of the private insurance market and consider basic economics it's pretty darn clear that as time goes on more and more people will be forced into government run plans. First, the lie that the government wishes to just "compete" with private insurers is complete BOGUS. The federal (and state governments) already heavily regulate the private insurance market. Over the years governments (both state and federal) have required insurers to cover more and more procedures, many which have nothing to do with health thereby forcing customers to shell out more money instead of just simply allowing consumers to customize their plan....you know kinda like how you do with other insurance. Also doctors spend around 30 billion per year (according to CNN) on malpractice insurance. So if we could have some tort reform of some sort to reduce law suit abuse. But the point I REALLY try to make to people is this....Private insurance companies need to at least break even to keep themselves in business. Government does not. Government can afford to operate at a loss because it has an endless supply of tax revenue and the ability to borrow money from sales of bonds or by monetizing the debt with the Federal Reserve. Now ask yourself this....if you were a business of some sort, and you were competing against someone who could afford to operate at a loss indefinitely don't you think you would have a hard time competing against them? They could afford to continually undercut you (at their loss) and eventually put you out of business. So as you can see the government is NOT competing against private insurers in a FREE market because 1) they regulate their competitors already and 2) they can afford to lose as much money as they want since they do not need to make a profit or even break even to stay in business. Now some people would say that as long as they can afford to give people cheap medical care then it shouldn't really matter if they operate at a loss....Well ok, but there is one problem with that and that is supply If the government sets prices artificially low then their will be an increase in demand for those services. The system will not be able to handle everybody in a timely manner which will lead to long waits and rationing. Now to be clear there already is rationing today just as their is rationing of every product and service we buy....the rationing factor is the price. There are ways to lower the price using Free market solutions instead of the heavy coercive hand of government such as: Tax deductions for health savings accounts that can be used towards deductibles or insurance premiums, tort reform, allowing private insurance to compete in a free market unlike what it has endured over the years as increased government regulation has increased the price. I'm starting to ramble, but the main point I wanted to put out for debate is that government is NOT competing against private insurers because it is government that is setting the terms of competition and not the market and also the government can afford to operate at a loss while private insurers can't. Talk about a monopoly! Please if all you can say is a bunch of rude or ignorant things then please don't comment.

By supporting trial lawyers, are liberals hypocrites when they complain about health care costs? ? The USA is the only country in the entire world who does not hold the plaintiff, fully responsible for compensating the defendant, in a frivolous law suit. No other country but the USA allows a party to make false accusations and not be responsible for paying the injured party's costs, defending the false charges. In the rest of the world, the loser pays THUS there is no such thing as excessive litigation anywhere in the world, than the USA. The USA is the most litigious society in the world, our courts are backed up with frivolous law suits because one of our political parties will not allow tort reform, so we can be like other countries. In the medical community, every facet from nursing homes, hospitals,, doctors, nurses, drug companies have HUGE expenses (all passed onto the consumer); patients have many needless procedures and costs, for fear of a trial lawyer exploiting a situation to get rich. The malpractice costs are enormous for all facets to the medical community, ALL passed onto the consumer. The trial lawyers are in partnership with the democratic party; the trial lawyers pay HUGE donations to dem candidates & the democrats manipulate the law to allow these cretins to plague our society. Liberals will rationalize their support of trial lawyers because attacking drug and insurance companies is consistent with the socialist uprising (all corporations are evil because capitalism is the real target). How can liberals cry about health care costs while they support trial lawyers?

Barry says that UPS and FedEx are doing fine and the USPS is in a $7 billion hole,? so why in God's name would we want 0bamacare over reformed private insurance?! Allow insurance companies to sell across the country - reduces costs by competition Tort reform to to keep frivolous lawsuits out and cap payments to a rational level - reduces malpractice insurance costs (currently $100,000 a year) Do NOT require ALL people to have healthcare insurance - it is OPTIONAL Buyer pays (or buys insurance) for routine medical exams and procedures. Tax deductions for insurance premiums. Tax credits for Individual Health Savings accounts Government assisted insurance for the truly poor. NO ILLEGAL ALIENS on government insurance. Government funds a catastrophic illness/pre-existing conditions fund, run by a medical board and administered by insurance companies on a cost-plus basis. It WON'T take over 1000 pages to define.. more like 50, and it keeps government bureaucracies OUT of medical care for the vast majority of citizens.

Healthcare - two simple questions? Should healthcare reform include changes to tort laws to put limits on settlements.? In texas, changes to tort laws have reduced malpractice insurance by 30%. In countries with a universal healthcare, there are also limits on claims. What do you think? Yes or No. Do we really require a government run public insurance plan or would a co-op be preferred.? Under the current legislation, the government is establishing what various options, such as co-pays, etc must be offered by ALL insurance companies. They are also including what range of payments can be made for various medical services. Seeing as the government is in effect setting what healthcare insurance policies must contain, is there really a need for a government run insurance company? Yes or no? Just seeing if there are common areas that maybe the political parties can't seem to agree on but both liberals and repubs on yahoo can. France has moved to a Scandinavian compensation system (I'll explain why it's called "Scandinavian" whenever Ezra covers the Swedish health care system). Under the French implementation of the Scandinavian system, wronged patients bring claims before their regions' government-appointed review board which is responsible for determining if compensation is in order and, if so, how much. For a patient to get paid, the board does not have to find the doctor at fault, or that medical negligence caused whatever pain and suffering the patient is experiencing. Money for patient relief comes from a national compensation fund, which presumably gets its cash either from a dedicated tax insurance premium placed on doctors and hospitals, or from general fund revenues. The closest analogy to this sort of system in the United States would be workers' compensation funds that many states run. The goal of such systems is not to find fault or establish causation as much as it is to provide a