Limiting the amount of money owed by a doctor to a patient in a malpractice suit would reduce the cost of healthcare over time. Why won't he even mention this aspect? (Hint: it might have to do with the fact that him and his democratic buddies need money for campaigning and trial lawyers help them out But Obama wouldn't take advantage of the common man would? He is the messiah after all...)
jammin7000
Because he's in bed with the trial lawyers- they give $ $ $ $ to his campaign coffers.
Rounder
because just about every politician is a lawyer and lawyers working on malpractice suits are paid a percentage of the judgement,
very rich
who cares . . . lol
rejectedzipper
Mentioning it has no effect. The Administration is fully aware that some kind of Tort Reform is needed, but that would require complex legislation that would probably end up in the Supreme Court.
They have enough to cope with just now.
tonalc2
Pay attention. He has mentioned it.
In a June meeting, Obama told the AMA that he is open to exploring some ways to reform malpractice suits, but said he does not favor capping awards.
During his address to Congress, Obama said that fears of lawsuits had driven doctors to practice "defensive medicine," which some think has led to expensive and unnecessary medical tests and procedures.
"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," Obama said.
Joe
It's not part of his socialist scheme.
Tim
Because they haven't really considered many options. For instance, we wouldn't need centralized health care if pharmaceutical company's lowered their prices and didn't charge America specifically way more than any other nation. Also, if health insurance company's actually followed through on the services people pay them for, people wouldn't get in so much debt because of a disease. I absolutely agree and am glad to hear it from someone else, WE NEED TO CAP MEDICAL LAWSUITS (and possibly kill all lawyers). If we did want the government to take over health care, an easy way would be: remove the CEO's and Directing Boards of pharmaceutical and insurance companies, and replace them with board's of elected public officials with limited terms to ensure consumer protection. Strange, these ineffective ideas come from people who went to school for 8 years to learn law practice, social responsibility, and ethics of policy and yet anyone not specialized in law is more apt to finding a solution.
Warren T
BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN BED WITH THE TRIAL LAWYERS
Juel
That's a really risky way to go, don't you think? I mean, look up how many malpractice cases there are every year. It's pretty scary. Pointless lawsuits are definitely a pain, but what other options does a patient have to hold his doctors accountable if his care is messed up? I'm not sure I would want to give up that protection if something went wrong, because a lot of things can go wrong and they can have lifelong, expensive consequences.
The Patriot
Because if his reforms go through, one will not be needed.
Right now, payouts are large as they have to pay for on going health costs as insurance companies refuse to cover pre-existing conditions. Stop insurance companies doing that or charging more for doing so, and then the on going health costs drop. Which mean that payouts can be smaller. Which means that doctors and nurses can pay less for malpractice insurance, which means they pass on savings, which means even less health costs.
I am amazed that so many Americans are not aware about Obama's healthcare plans. During the election, he campaigned for these changes stating that he felt it was unfair to have a system where insurance companies try to escape paying claims.
Remember, he was elected to bring in these changes, elected by the American people who want healthcare reform. And he discussed his plans in debates with McCain, and he still won the election.
First of all, too many people do not know that Obama wants to make insurance more available to all. His system is similar to that which works in Holland, Taiwain and Switzerland. It works there and private healthcare companies provide most the insurance to the people there.
FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
FACT – insurance companies admit that they push up costs, buy politicians and do not pay out for many claims when they should.
FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.
That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, the Netherlands, Cuba, Switzerland, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage. And no western European nation with universal healthcare has moved away from it.
Remember, I back my facts up with evidence. Those who say they are wrong tend not to. If they are wrong, e-mail me with proof and let me know.
Orignal From: Why doesn't Obama mention a cap on malpractice suits?
Post a Comment