The alternative healthcare bill introduced by the Republicans is based to a large extent on capping medical malpractice jury awards.
Most trial lawyers are liberals, and they make their living getting those huge jury verdicts (like John Edwards, who single handedly put several drug companies out of business).
People say that the medical profession would be much more cost-effective if it didn't have to carry the legal parasites on its back.
Medical malpractice can be made more rare by alternative means (not lawsuits). These would include more frequent and detailed testing of Board Certified Physicians, and some sort of Personnel Reliability Program in hospitals so that only appropriately qualified people would do the more complex forms of patient care.
The cost of more monitoring and oversight is 1% of the cost of handling mistakes by lawsuits and outlandish jury verdicts that need to be appealed for many years, and riack up legal fees in the tens of millions.
The American Trial Lawyers Association is strongly against the GOP plan. They don't want their bread and butter taken away.
So which is better, saving $ 100 Billion per year in needless healthcare costs, or letting a few hundred bigtime litigators get obscenely wealthy by parasitizing the medical profession?
ATLA says -- give us the cash -- we want the cash -- we want it now -- and Nancy Pelosi will help us get it.
GOP says "how about we give the American people a break"
Caps of medical malpractice awards would limit the total payout from a medical error to 4 or 5 times the actual out of pocket costs.
So, let's say they cut off the wrong arm. OK your out of pocket costs for the lost arm are say $ 1 Million. Well then your cap on your total compensation would be $ 5 Million. You would walk away rich, but not insanely rich.
The way it is now, the Trial Lawyer who gets 40% of your recovery will fight to get you $ 20 Million for that lost arm. He'll do whatever he has to do. If he wins, he walks away with $ 8 million and you get $ 12 million -- this would be after 15 years of litigation, that puts the hospital out of business and ends the Doctor's career, and also all the people in the operating room and all the people on the faculty.
So now you and your lawyer have destroyed about half the medical care in your little town, so you could get a recovery that is disproportionate and which you'll never be able to spend, and mostly so that your lawyer could add another $ 8 million to his earnings, which run about $ 50 million per year as it is.
Does any of this sound like Citi Group, or Bank of America, or AIG to you?
Some guy at the top rakes in crazy amounts of bucks and the whole society and everyone else has to suffer so he can do that.
The GOP says "No, let's put an end to that absurd system!"
Let's give the victim of the medical malpractice a reasonable and generous compensation, but let's not tear apart the whole medical profession by siccing the lawyers on them.
If we need more careful doctors, we'll achive that by more supervision, better testing, and a Personnel Reliability Program to assure the right skill set is there every time a doctor touches a patient. This can be done cheaply and well. It can be legislated into existence. And the mandates involved would be lighter and far less onerous than the mandates (mostly unfunded) from Obama-Care (a 2000 page bill comprised of fine print argle bargle).
My question discusses one aspect of the GOP healthcare alternative, and does not cover every aspect. Other aspects include 1. Insurance written across state lines and 2. Individual Health Savings accounts (which lower insurance costs by allowing the insured to have a higher deductible. They also lower costs to the insured because these accounts are funded with pre-tax money (income that avoids being taxed by going into the HSA). There may be other aspects to the GOP proposal as well. I can't review the entire proposal in a one page question -- so that is a deficiency I know. How about seeing if you can make an intelligent comment about what I have said, instead of nit picking what I have not included. The full proposal is available on the internet, and so everybody can go and read every single clause. I don't have to cover every single clause, just to ask my question.
Reality has a Liberal Bias
Malpractice suits make up about 2% of healthcare costs. It won't fix the problem.
60 min man
your question misleads. you did not mention insurance sales across state lines. you did not mention persaonal savings accounts. even mr. dean said dems are scared to challenge the trial lawyers. next.
Bianca
Republican Health Care:
"Don't get sick and if you do, die quickly."
Wahahahahahahahaha Owned!
Robin
all of this is outside
the intended powers of congress
as stated in the constitution
if this crap passes
they should all be hanged for treason
my malpractice fees are somewhat higher than 2% of my income
and while i tend to avoid "defensive medicine", i am often criticized for it and probably order at least 2% of my income in tests that i am pretty sure of the result prior to the order, but need the proof to justify the treatment. legal stuff is way more than 2% of medical costs, not counting lawsuits
Master of the Universe
I think its a good idea and a start in the right direction. (anything that is in a different direction than obama care is a good thing!)
I think there are other issue's to address as well like the 200 billion the goverment now pays for illegals to get free health care. That only covers a qaurter of the bill that the hospital's have to eat.So in other words hospitals eat 600 billion a year in unpaid bills for illegals.
**GET'EM DOLPHIN** :-)
The Patriot
The first link send you to the site about it. http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco The second discusses the implications.
It does not address the fundamental problems with the system in the USA. And payouts have to be high in the USA to cover on going health costs as insurance companies will not cover preexisting conditions.
FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should [a]
FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet [b]
FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare [c]
FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal health coverage [d]
FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change [e]
FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies screwing the American people [f]
FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and in Switzerland [g]
If anyone can prove the facts above are wrong, e-mail me and let me know.
Orignal From: Healthcare Republican Alternative -- What do you Think of it?
Post a Comment