Healthcare Bill - Eliminate Defensive Medicine

[TheFranklinParty]

The right and the left have both gone out of bounds. Rep. Pelosi saying that it is un-American to voice your complaint with the healthcare bill and Sarah Palin talking about “Death Panels”; they should both be ashamed of themselves. The healthcare bill is supposed to make healthcare insurance more affordable and more available. Balderdash!!

Our entire Congress should be investigated for bribery. Why is there no conversation on Tort Reform? Where is it in the bill? Politicians know where their bread is buttered. They don’t want to risk the hundreds of millions of dollars tossed into campaign coffers every year by the Legal industry. It’s just another example of big business buying votes.

For those of you who say, “…reducing malpractice insurance won’t make that big a difference…” I say, “Show me the facts.” The legal costs are the small part of the equation, although PointofLaw.com recently cited that previous estimates of the overall impact of Tort Reform were greatly understated. The real issue is that our medical professionals have taken to practicing Defensive Medicine.

Defensive Medicine is the practice of ordering tests and procedures that aren’t necessary, but protect the medical professionals from the possibility of a lawsuit. In 2005, the Journal of the American Medical Association said that 93% of specialists in Pennsylvania admitted to practicing Defensive Medicine. In Massachusetts, a 2008 survey showed that 25% of all imaging tests were purely for defensive purposes. Although it is hard to quantify, because it has become so pervasive within the medical establishment, it is estimated to have increased overall medical care costs by between $100B and $200B. Even on the low side it comes to almost a 10% savings in healthcare costs, yet we don’t even hear a whisper.

 

[Pandora]

Those are some really good points. I agree both pelosi and Sarah Palin said things they should not. I would like Sarah Palin to explain more of what she meant. I dont need that from pelosi, its clear what she meant.

Our entire Congress should be investigated for bribery. Oh I agree with that 100% and I think they should be jailed if found having done it.

Really great post!

 

[top gun]

The right and the left have both gone out of bounds. Rep. Pelosi saying that it is un-American to voice your complaint with the healthcare bill and Sarah Palin talking about “Death Panels”; they should both be ashamed of themselves. The healthcare bill is supposed to make healthcare insurance more affordable and more available. Balderdash!!

Our entire Congress should be investigated for bribery. Why is there no conversation on Tort Reform? Where is it in the bill? Politicians know where their bread is buttered. They don’t want to risk the hundreds of millions of dollars tossed into campaign coffers every year by the Legal industry. It’s just another example of big business buying votes.

For those of you who say, “…reducing malpractice insurance won’t make that big a difference…” I say, “Show me the facts.” The legal costs are the small part of the equation, although PointofLaw.com recently cited that previous estimates of the overall impact of Tort Reform were greatly understated. The real issue is that our medical professionals have taken to practicing Defensive Medicine.

Defensive Medicine is the practice of ordering tests and procedures that aren’t necessary, but protect the medical professionals from the possibility of a lawsuit. In 2005, the Journal of the American Medical Association said that 93% of specialists in Pennsylvania admitted to practicing Defensive Medicine. In Massachusetts, a 2008 survey showed that 25% of all imaging tests were purely for defensive purposes. Although it is hard to quantify, because it has become so pervasive within the medical establishment, it is estimated to have increased overall medical care costs by between $100B and $200B. Even on the low side it comes to almost a 10% savings in healthcare costs, yet we don’t even hear a whisper.

Everybody wants to limit malpractice awards... until it's their Child or their Mother or their Father killed or injured avoidably.

You'd be no different.

Actually the panel of experts President Obama wants to establish would give doctors some additional cover from certain law suits... as long as they went by the book.

Since Tort Reform on it's own won't take care of the problem we are moving in a direction that addresses many of the problems with today's broken health insurance system.

 

[r0beph]

The right and the left have both gone out of bounds. Rep. Pelosi saying that it is un-American to voice your complaint with the healthcare bill

Wrong, don't spin the context. She is discussing the UNRULY expression of their disagreement with the healthcare bill. If they have something to say, do as everyone else is expected to at the orderly town hall meeting. Making ruckus and causing disorder is not expressing the freedom of speech nor dissent, it is in fact unAmerican by virtue of silencing those who would be speaking their mind in an orderly fashion if they were not being shouted down. This is a valid argument by Pelosi.

and Sarah Palin talking about “Death Panels”; they should both be ashamed of themselves.

She loves to hog the light and if it takes her making up completely baseless accusations against a bill to show her "support for the people" that's what she'll do. The "death panel" bit came from the Living Will section of the bill that ensures that there will be medical assistance for those who wish to create a living will, this is better than not having assistance, but the choice is ultimately each person as to how they wish things to be handled; most definitely not a panel of anything, especially death. Pure and utter nonsense from Palin.

The healthcare bill is supposed to make healthcare insurance more affordable and more available. Balderdash!!

I'm not sure what the previous two statements have to do with this conclusion, perhaps the context is maligned, do your two priors somehow imply this final statement? If this statement is stand-alone I must disagree. This is what it is supposed to do, so you're right on that point, however I have trouble with your "Balderdash", we don't even have the bill in place yet, how in the world could you possibly know that it isn't functioning to its expectations? Perhaps you have a time machine? Who wins the next world series?


Everything else I agree with. Although in many cases defencive medicine is not a bad thing. Often times while the intent is not to ensure the patient's health, it is in line with the SOC and thus as a by product tend to ensure patient health. (Mind you I worked in the hospital system for years in emergency med, so I'm quite well versed in how a lot of that works. ) For example, someone comes in and someone mentions "seizure" even if it is unlikely, since the CC is seizure, you're getting a CT and an EEG and likely a 12 lead EKG. While usually this proves unneccessary, the reason it WOULD be done according to SOC is that there is a distinct possibility of post-seizure cardiac issues, continuing petit mal seizures, and brain damage. Does it usually prove false? Yes. Does it save lives when it isn't false? Most definitely often times.

 

[GenSeneca]

Why is there no conversation on Tort Reform? Where is it in the bill? Politicians know where their bread is buttered. They don’t want to risk the hundreds of millions of dollars tossed into campaign coffers every year by the Legal industry. It’s just another example of big business buying votes.

So true...

In 2008, the Lawyers/Law firms donated nearly a quarter Billion to campaign funds ($233,883,007), 76% of that money went to Democrats and just 23% went to Republicans. Despite having spent so much money, the law industry only ranked second in campaign donations in 2008 but they are determined to take first place in the 2010 cycle. SOURCE

Already in 2009, they have contributed 40% more money to political campaigns than their closest lobbying competitors and 85% of that money has gone to Democrats while just 15% has gone to Republicans. SOURCE

Diagnosis: Reform

For some individuals, how Congress aims to reform America's health care system is literally a matter of life and death. For some industries, it could mean the difference between weathering the economic storm or shuttering their businesses. Nobody knows yet what the shape or scope of the final bill will be. It may not even make it to President Obama's desk. But one thing is certain: The American health care system is set to get a lobotomy and diverse special interests are spending big bucks to make sure they're in the surgery room when it happens.

The special interest groups that Obama cries about, the special interest groups that Democrats like DICK Durban claim are conspiring to squash health care reform... Those big money special interest groups are not trying to stop health care reform, they are pushing for reform, they are all lining the pockets of Democrat politicians to get favorable treatment from whatever reform is enacted.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Those are some really good points. I agree both pelosi and Sarah Palin said things they should not. I would like Sarah Palin to explain more of what she meant. I dont need that from pelosi, its clear what she meant.

Our entire Congress should be investigated for bribery. Oh I agree with that 100% and I think they should be jailed if found having done it.

Really great post!

IF? We've been sold out. The politicians are going to pander to both public sides of this argument: the people who want universal health care and the people who think it won't work. And the money people will win.

Having been purchased by big money, the politicians will give the people what they want by passing a health care bill, but it will be so egregiously bad that it won't work and this will give all the naysayers a big "I told you so!". What happens then is business as usual, we tried universal health care but it didn't work so all we can do is continue our current system.

And the really stupid thing is that it doesn't matter a damn who wins the elections--money wins. We can't even investigate our own government because who's going to do it? We get one crook to investigate another crook? No one has the authority and the stature to truly investigate government malfeasance. Who would YOU trust to do the investigation?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So true...

In 2008, the Lawyers/Law firms donated nearly a quarter Billion to campaign funds ($233,883,007), 76% of that money went to Democrats and just 23% went to Republicans. Despite having spent so much money, the law industry only ranked second in campaign donations in 2008 but they are determined to take first place in the 2010 cycle. SOURCE

Already in 2009, they have contributed 40% more money to political campaigns than their closest lobbying competitors and 85% of that money has gone to Democrats while just 15% has gone to Republicans. SOURCE

Of course! The Republicans are already mostly on board.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Everybody wants to limit malpractice awards... until it's their Child or their Mother or their Father killed or injured avoidably.

You'd be no different.

Actually the panel of experts President Obama wants to establish would give doctors some additional cover from certain law suits... as long as they went by the book.

Since Tort Reform on it's own won't take care of the problem we are moving in a direction that addresses many of the problems with today's broken health insurance system.



Please don't speak for me!

My mother died in large part to her physicians negligence and outright stupidity. Instead of hiring a lawyer, so I could cash in on her death I hired an attorney to make sure the doctor's actions were brought in front of the Medical Board and to insure that his ability to practice at the local hospitals was pulled.

For those families that lose someone that is a bread winner I have no problem with covering medical costs, covering lost and future wages, as well as ensuring their children's education.

Money doesn't bring them back. Money doesn't even make you feel better. What works is that the guilty parties are prevented from ever doing it again.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Wrong, don't spin the context. She is discussing the UNRULY expression of their disagreement with the healthcare bill. If they have something to say, do as everyone else is expected to at the orderly town hall meeting. Making ruckus and causing disorder is not expressing the freedom of speech nor dissent, it is in fact unAmerican by virtue of silencing those who would be speaking their mind in an orderly fashion if they were not being shouted down. This is a valid argument by Pelosi.

She loves to hog the light and if it takes her making up completely baseless accusations against a bill to show her "support for the people" that's what she'll do. The "death panel" bit came from the Living Will section of the bill that ensures that there will be medical assistance for those who wish to create a living will, this is better than not having assistance, but the choice is ultimately each person as to how they wish things to be handled; most definitely not a panel of anything, especially death. Pure and utter nonsense from Palin.



I'm not sure what the previous two statements have to do with this conclusion, perhaps the context is maligned, do your two priors somehow imply this final statement? If this statement is stand-alone I must disagree. This is what it is supposed to do, so you're right on that point, however I have trouble with your "Balderdash", we don't even have the bill in place yet, how in the world could you possibly know that it isn't functioning to its expectations? Perhaps you have a time machine? Who wins the next world series?


Everything else I agree with. Although in many cases defencive medicine is not a bad thing. Often times while the intent is not to ensure the patient's health, it is in line with the SOC and thus as a by product tend to ensure patient health. (Mind you I worked in the hospital system for years in emergency med, so I'm quite well versed in how a lot of that works. ) For example, someone comes in and someone mentions "seizure" even if it is unlikely, since the CC is seizure, you're getting a CT and an EEG and likely a 12 lead EKG. While usually this proves unneccessary, the reason it WOULD be done according to SOC is that there is a distinct possibility of post-seizure cardiac issues, continuing petit mal seizures, and brain damage. Does it usually prove false? Yes. Does it save lives when it isn't false? Most definitely often times.

The reality is that most of the Town Halls were staged presentations which don't allow people a real chance to ask follow-up questions to drive real content. Was there Conservative agitators sent into many of these rooms? Probably, but the quickest way to shut them up is to have good answers and that is where many of the presenters failed. My challenge with Rep. Pelosi and many of her partners in this process is that they don't have a very good handle on the details of this bill, so they struggle to respond to inquiry, so they sling mud instead.

There is very little debate, that the bill as it stands will not lower the cost of healthcare and in many cases will increase it for many Americans. That comes from the Accounting office not me.

You have the right to your opinion, just as I have mine, but the reality is the people thinking this stuff up aren't looking at how the numbers really add up and that is my biggest challenge with it all.

Last thought, do you think the founding fathers discussed the ratification of the Constitution calmly and gently? Not based on what I've read. It was an aggressive passionate verbal battle.

 

[top gun]

Everybody wants to limit malpractice awards... until it's their Child or their Mother or their Father killed or injured avoidably.

You'd be no different.

Actually the panel of experts President Obama wants to establish would give doctors some additional cover from certain law suits... as long as they went by the book.

Since Tort Reform on it's own won't take care of the problem we are moving in a direction that addresses many of the problems with today's broken health insurance system.



Please don't speak for me!

My mother died in large part to her physicians negligence and outright stupidity. Instead of hiring a lawyer, so I could cash in on her death I hired an attorney to make sure the doctor's actions were brought in front of the Medical Board and to insure that his ability to practice at the local hospitals was pulled.

For those families that lose someone that is a bread winner I have no problem with covering medical costs, covering lost and future wages, as well as ensuring their children's education.

Money doesn't bring them back. Money doesn't even make you feel better. What works is that the guilty parties are prevented from ever doing it again.

I'm sorry about your loss...

but you're still misguided on the issue.

There ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE HIGH COMPENSATION FOR THE NEGLIGENT KILLING OF A LOVED ONE... and not just for the couple of things you've mentioned. The entire family is affected by this type of tragedy. There are all kinds of possible future inheritance issues for not just children but grandchildren and many others, and a broad range of other things that can be wiped away with one careless or stupid mistake.

On this I might say... no you, please don't speak for me. Feel free to give YOUR award back but leave others alone.

That's exactly what you'd be doing in disallowing families to be compensated for the negligent loss of a loved one. Sure the doctor should be gone after to try and halt his practice of medicine... but most often they don't loose their license.

I'm for setting up some limits but those limits must be kept relatively high. If not the insurance companies on a risk assessment scale will often see it more profitable to take chances that save them money case by case but also can from time to time be deadly... but still on a risk to award basis a better deal for them to take that chance due to a low maximum cap in damages.

I would meet you this far. I'd be willing to go for judges and not juries awarding the actual amounts. Juries could find guilt or innocence but then have the judge make the award. There are times when juries can be over emotional.

But the financial loss deterrent must still be there.