Does this answer the question?
By PHILIP K. HOWARD
Eliminating defensive medicine could save upwards of $ 200 billion in health-care costs annually, according to estimates by the American Medical Association and others. The cure is a reliable medical malpractice system that patients, doctors and the general public can trust.
But this is the one reform Washington will not seriously consider. That's because the trial lawyers, among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party, thrive on the unreliable justice system we have now.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574432853190155972.html
So the democrats don't want to cut off funding to their trial lawyer friends.
Jacob
It's because it's not actually about saving money or covering the uninsured. The public option is an obvious trojan horse for a single payer system, which is then a trojan horse for government-owned health care, which is a major step in establishing a socialist/communist regime.
mac
Obama is for Tort Reform.
Teagan
He is preserving the jobs of ambulance chasers who contribute to his campaign modestly. Also his poor voters love to sue and he is not trying to cut them off either from free money d/t frivolous lawsuits.
Bryan
Because the goal of the health care initiative is not about reforming the system and never has been. I don't know why some people cannot see this. The administration is not proposing anything that will help control costs in the system. It is all designed towards giving the government greater control of the system as a whole.
suthrnlyts
And also because he knows it would work and that would give his "government takeover" less leverage.
A great example is what has happened in Mississippi since they've enacted tort reform:
Since passing tort reform in 2004, Mississippi has seen the number of medical malpractice claims plummet by 91 percent from its peak. The state's largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect.
In the wake of tort reform's passage, Barbour added, plaintiffs still have the right to sue and recover damages, and trial lawyers can still make a living -- just not at the previous, exorbitant level. "It has not been very contentious," he said. "Most of the trial lawyers -- particularly the ones who are really good lawyers, think that it's fair," even if "they don't like it."
In addition to the benefits to the medical profession, tort reform has ushered in a new age of economic growth in Mississippi. Such major corporations as General Electric, PACCAR, and Severstal are making major post-tort-reform investments, all on the heels of Toyota's decision to bring 2,000 jobs to the state in 2007.
Barbour said he believes the other companies "wouldn't have really noticed us if it hadn't been for Toyota, and Toyota wouldn't have considered us if it hadn't been for tort reform."
Here's your link:
Randa
You got it.
Do you know about this?
Per realist101
PJTV: The Power & Danger of Iconography
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c&feature=fvhr
If you watch it, watch it all the way through as I believe you'll see that whoever is doing this is right on.
Thanks for the good question.
Zap
Because, like the Immigration distraction your party is so hell-bent on trying to inject into the Health Care debate, it is a COMPLETELY SEPERATE ISSUE that deserves a different forum for debate, like judicial tort reform (or are you going to bring up oil drilling when we debate that issue?).
Let me tell you that your Party can keep trying to deflect and distract (since solutions are non-existent and this is all they have), but like all their efforts since 2007, you are going to continue to fail because lies can only go so far and distractions only work for so long (ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf? Well, your party has lost all credibility crying wolf WAY too many times...)
I certainly understand the concept of controlling debate by forcing the argument into a position favorable to your side of the argument but the problem with your party is that they invent issues to connect to the debate or out right lie...this is where you will continue to fail unless you actually start coming up with alternative solutions, whining and crying doesn't win debates or elections.
Jeff S
No as for what the AMA says!
Have you ever heard of "conflict of interest"?
Why are Doctors allowed to run from state to state when they get in trouble?have you ever heard of collusion?in most hospital elevators there is a sign that says "don't discuss patient information in public".If you think they are protecting patient privacy you're naive or a liar!I wonder how many medical "mistakes" are never acted upon!
CONvict Shrubya
(sigh) once again, if you want tort reform then have your state legislature enact it. Keep it at the state level where it should be.
It is disingenous for you to complain about everything Obama does, particularly health care, as a government takeover and then ask for national tort reform.
The AMA? nice source, he he he.
In regard to the efficacy of tort reform. Insurance giant Wellpoint has said defensive medicine is only 2% of all health care costs. Admittedly, if the pie is large enough then 2% can be a lot but it is nowhere near the primary focus. States with malpractice limits have not seen reduced health care costs but they have seen reduced malpractice insurance premiums (AMA conflict of interest?). Finally, a jury of peers hears evidence and gives an award. Why not trust them? It shouldn't take too long to think of a scenario in which $ 250k (the common tort reform limit) would not compensate someone for the pain and suffering caused by a doctor's negligence. If an award is completely out of line with the evidence, the judge may reduce the award.
Lee B
You answered your own question, but, yes, it was to protect the financial interests collectively of the ABA.
Orignal From: Tips: Why has Obama said that Medical Malpractice Is Off Limits?
Post a Comment