bills_fan Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Is gridlock the best we can hope for at this point? I mean, I am rooting for Brown at this point in that faint hope. I would hope we could do better in the future. It worked OK for the last 6 years of Clinton's term. The nation became obsessed with blue dresses and blowjobs, rather than 22% underemployment and underwater mortgages. I'd gladly return to the late 90s, they seem quaint in a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I do think they should have added both of those to the health care reform. They did nothing to address prices. Not in favor of a strict cap on tort reform though. If the Doctor removes your leg, when he was supposed to take out your appendix because he is plastered, that should be worth more than 250k. This is part of the problem as well: for every drunk doctor story you tell me, I can tell you a parasite lawyer story. We can trade these stories back and forth into tomorrow, and solve nothing. My lawyer is fond of calling what he does a "cost of doing business". Since when? What value does that add to what I provide my clients? to what a Doc does? Plaintiff Lawyers on the whole keep suing for more and more money, which in turn demands more and more billable hours to defend against lawsuits. This is a closed system, and has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of doing business, in any business, mine or a health care provider's. IF it was, then I should be able to limit my client's liability, thus adding value to what I do, and reduce their insurance rates. I have spoken to the insurance companies and surprise, surprise, they won't even consider it, because they have to keep paying their lawyers. Any REAL cost of doing business, for me, for a doc, for a hospital, etc. should be able to be reduced based on innovation, reduction of service/product provided, or reorganization. Legal fees cannot be reduced by any of these means, therefore, by definition, they CANNOT be a cost of doing business because they have nothing to do with the business itself. They are not part of the health care "system", yet they have a massive effect on that system? We can't have it both ways. If lawyers want to participate in the health care business, then their rates MUST be subject to the same regulations as everyone else. When Medicare sends down a ruling reducing reimbursement rates for a certain health care service, that's it, there is an appeal process, but, good f'ing luck with that. As a result, health care providers have to adjust their costs accordingly. I see no reason why we can't apply the very same regs to lawyers and lawyer fees in health care. If CMS was empowered to regulate lawyers the same as they are able to regulate providers, then the playing field would be level. Certainly no one can make the case that lawyers are MORE responsible/LESS likely to be dubious doing their jobs compared to providers. Then, the lawyers would have a choice, continue to participate as a full and equal member of the health care system, or, seek life elsewhere. The good ones, who have a real track record, and are able to survive based on the merits of their work, would be just fine. The bad ones would be gone. I guarantee you would cut the cost of insurance by at LEAST 20% in the first year of implementing legal regulations. Its simply a numbers game: you reduce the # of lawyers = you reduce the # of mouths to feed = you reduce the # of nonsense lawsuits = you reduce the liability of insurance companies = you reduce rates = you reduce health care cost. We have a shortage of DOCTORS/NURSES, not Lawyers, in health care. Steps need to be taken to increase the latter and decrease the former, and anyone who can't see this is either a fool, or a schill for the trial attorneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 It worked OK for the last 6 years of Clinton's term. The nation became obsessed with blue dresses and blowjobs, rather than 22% underemployment and underwater mortgages. I'd gladly return to the late 90s, they seem quaint in a way. Add to that: Clinton stole a bunch of Republican ideas, via Dick Morris triangulation, and then he and the Republicans in Congress were competing with each other to see who could cut more needless spending. And, also add to that: I didn't mind the tax increase that Clinton was able to pass because, for once, it was done based on the economy, and not on ideology. The economy was booming too fast, and instead of letting inflation get out of hand, he reduced the money supply, which also had the added benefit of, almost, balancing the budget. In addition, the $ Clinton/Gingrich, etc. did spend went to things like adult education, which significantly boosted the # of IT people, something we desperately needed. In fact the only bad thing that came out of those years was Donahoe, and, cutting the CIA/Defense budget way too much -> 9/11 What does all of the above have in common? They are common sense solutions to real problems. Common sense is something that is completely missing from the current policies and legislation being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I do think they should have added both of those to the health care reform. They did nothing to address prices. Not in favor of a strict cap on tort reform though. If the Doctor removes your leg, when he was supposed to take out your appendix because he is plastered, that should be worth more than 250k. I'd be satisfied if they simply required more medical and less legal judgement be used in malpractice cases. It's not the amount of awards that's the issue as much as the amount of awards in legitimately ambiguous cases that can't reasonably be judged by people without medical knowledge. I know of one case - not atypical - where a multi-million dollar malpractice award was granted based on an EKG that, when magnified by a factor of 10, showed one pixel out of place that one hand-picked doctor argued indicated a deadly heart condition that any cardiologist should be aware of (even though it was only evident at 10x magnification, which is no cardiologist could reasonably be expected to do as a normal diagnostic test). Awards like that are ridiculous - and only occur when medicine is judged on non-medical terms by people who can't and shouldn't be expected to understand it. The Vioxx suits are another good example. You want to reduce health care costs...start with introducing medical judgement back in to medicine. After that, cap punitive malpractice damages: if a doctor removes a guy's leg instead of his tonsils, he should be awarded compensation for the loss (whatever that is - I don't necessarily know how you value a leg), but the doctor shouldn't be punished by tacking on an extra hundred million. He should be punished by losing his license and practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Let me play too. Possible names of new political parties: Whig Tory Progressive Tea People's Buffaloed Neutral Bedroom (no lobbys allowed) Zealot Terrorist Suburban Keg -- Free Beer for all on Fridays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 (whatever that is - I don't necessarily know how you value a leg) I think you start by trying to decide what Conner would post if he had one to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I think you start by trying to decide what Conner would post if he had one pretty font to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts