The United States needs a national health care system

[Guest Guest]

Let's say that I'm fortunate enough for my employer to provide a quality plan. If a public option comes to fruition, what stops my employer from saying, "why should I pay for this if the government program is 'free'"? I then would lose my plan and in its place would be an unknown, as far as quality goes, federal plan.

This is the problem with the claims that you can keep your own plan if you're happy with it. I can't keep it if it is no longer provided to me. This makes the President's comments to be a potential omission of the truth. Doesn't mean he's lying, but perhaps he never thought through that an employer may take this direction. Quite honestly, I view this as a legitimate, not the least bit angry, concern.

[Guest Guest]

I'm not against helping the uninsured. For those who can't afford health coverage, the government should provide vouchers and leave the rest of us alone.

So you want the American taxpayer to subsidize private insurance companies. They charge too much, so let's make the taxpayers pay for it. "No skin off my nose," says the welfare recipient, "I'll just pay for it with my voucher." And how are you going to pay for all these vouchers? Are you planning on raising taxes or adding to the deficit?

And apparently this is your idea of choice. Mussolini would be proud of you.

[Guest Guest]

Let's say that I'm fortunate enough for my employer to provide a quality plan. If a public option comes to fruition, what stops my employer from saying, "why should I pay for this if the government program is 'free'"? I then would lose my plan and in its place would be an unknown, as far as quality goes, federal plan.

This is the problem with the claims that you can keep your own plan if you're happy with it. I can't keep it if it is no longer provided to me. This makes the President's comments to be a potential omission of the truth. Doesn't mean he's lying, but perhaps he never thought through that an employer may take this direction. Quite honestly, I view this as a legitimate, not the least bit angry, concern.

It's a legitimate concern but I believe the proposed legislation requires most employers to provide health care to their workers. Check it out.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I've noticed Paul never mentions what trial lawyers cost the healthcare system. Talk about powerful Washington lobbyists.

Most of the Senate are lawyers, that's why we don't have tort reform. They prefer to support their profession, not their constituents.

[Guest Paul]

I've noticed Paul never mentions what trial lawyers cost the healthcare system. Talk about powerful Washington lobbyists.

So why don't you tell us instead of just posting an innuendo.

It's about 1% and meanwhile innocent victims who need the money are compensated.

[Guest Guest]

Did that evil socialist United States Post Office drive out private enterprise? Tell that to UPS and FedEx. The market will always find a way to survive. However, those uninsured folks might not.

Why is it that every time a progressive idea on health care is proposed, the right wing can some how get it in there heads there will be a line of grandmas being led off to death camps. I mean ...it's not like you're trying to scare people ...are you?

UPS and FedEx are efficiently run companies unlike the United States Post Office. The Post Office is in trouble and has to raise rates and cut services, just like a national health care system will do.

You should be scared of a national health care system. The system proposed is similar to the Oregon Health Care system and yes there will be grandmas denied treatment because of costs. Barbara Wagner of Oregon was denied cancer treatment drugs twice that would have prolonged her life. She was offered assisted suicide instead.

[Guest Guest]

UPS and FedEx are efficiently run companies unlike the United States Post Office. The Post Office is in trouble and has to raise rates and cut services, just like a national health care system will do.

You should be scared of a national health care system. The system proposed is similar to the Oregon Health Care system and yes there will be grandmas denied treatment because of costs. Barbara Wagner of Oregon was denied cancer treatment drugs twice that would have prolonged her life. She was offered assisted suicide instead.

1. The U.S. Post Office runs as efficiently as UPS and Fed Ex. It just isn't funded as well.

2. Private insurance companies deny people necessary treatments all the time.

3. What kind of cancer did Barbara Wagner have? Was Tarceva shown to be effective in treating it? Again, private insurance companies look to the same questions but the difference is that they have a motive to deny care.

4. If we want people like Barbara Wagner to have Tarceva, then we have to fund it. We'll either fund a private insurance company through premiums, or we'll fund a public plan like Medicare through taxes. It's the same number of dollars.

5. "Assisted suicide" is part of Oregon law. It is not part of federal law. So that argument has nothing to do with a national health care system.

It's very simple. We're going to choose how we want to fund and structure a medical care system. You can make anything sound horrible, just like the thousands of people whose private insurance carriers denied them drugs for cancer treatments, necessary surgeries, etc. The benefit of a government system is that uniform regulations can be developed, so that if we as a society want people like Barbara Wagner to have medications like Tarceva, that requirement can be written into law or regulation. It's dishonest to argue that private insurance companies don't make the same kind of allocation decisions. The difference is that their profit motive encourages them to deny care.

[Guest Guest]

Most of the Senate are lawyers, that's why we don't have tort reform. They prefer to support their profession, not their constituents.

You mean like Orin Hatch, Republican of Utah? He's a lawyer.

Senators write laws so it's only natural that lawyers tend to go into politics. It's also natural that people tend to vote for lawyers, who have the training to understand how the laws work.

The reason so many Senators are lawyers is that the people elected them.

[Guest Guest]

My fear is that my company will drop our insurance plan and I will have to shop for one on my own, which will cost alot more , or I choose the government healthcare. Looks like I'll be forced into it.

What if the public option lowers the cost of coverage and your employer puts that extra money into your bonus at the end of the year?

Riiiiight!

[Guest Guest]

So why don't you tell us instead of just posting an innuendo.

It's about 1% and meanwhile innocent victims who need the money are compensated.

So you can post 1% and that's supposed to be fact? Prove it. And make sure you take into account the monetary judgements, malpractice insurance, medical insurance rates, healthcare costs, drug research costs, etc. All driven sky high because these people and companies have to factor in proctecting themselves from lawyers.

Why are lawyers so dead set against tort reform? Maybe because it would kill there business.

[Guest Guest]

UPS and FedEx are efficiently run companies unlike the United States Post Office. The Post Office is in trouble and has to raise rates and cut services, just like a national health care system will do.

You should be scared of a national health care system. The system proposed is similar to the Oregon Health Care system and yes there will be grandmas denied treatment because of costs. Barbara Wagner of Oregon was denied cancer treatment drugs twice that would have prolonged her life. She was offered assisted suicide instead.

What about these? Private insurance companies deny claims all the time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/d...h_n_253160.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,1423324.story

http://miami.injuryboard.com/automobile-ac...googleid=201564

This one cost a 17-year-old girl her life. CIGNA didn’t care.

http://www.ins.state.ny.us/press/2008/p0808111.htm

http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsur...aim-denial.html

With a government system, we can demand that our elected officials change the law. How are you going to stop private insurance companies from denying your claim?

[Guest Guest]

UPS and FedEx are efficiently run companies unlike the United States Post Office. The Post Office is in trouble and has to raise rates and cut services, just like a national health care system will do.

Actually FedEx and UPS also have raised rates, fuel and residential surcharges. Their increases are greater than the Post Office rate increases. They also cut back.

Complaining about the postal rate increase is ridiculous considering you can send a first class letter for 44 cents. Try going to a FedEx or UPS store and telling them you want them to send a letter for less than a dollar. They'll out of the store.

[Guest Guest]

So you can post 1% and that's supposed to be fact? Prove it. And make sure you take into account the monetary judgements, malpractice insurance, medical insurance rates, healthcare costs, drug research costs, etc. All driven sky high because these people and companies have to factor in proctecting themselves from lawyers.

Why are lawyers so dead set against tort reform? Maybe because it would kill there business.

You prove it. It's your claim. Lawyers are easy whipping boys. That's why I don't buy into lawyer-bashing. Give me some facts or stop talking trash.

[Guest Guest]

You prove it. It's your claim. Lawyers are easy whipping boys. That's why I don't buy into lawyer-bashing. Give me some facts or stop talking trash.

There are multiple reasons why lawyers are "easy whipping boys". They have earned the reputation. Lawyers are among the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington and most politicians are lawyers so it's safe to say they have the inside track. Don't you wonder why tort reform never goes anywhere?

If you want facts why don't you ask your doctor what he pays for malpractice insurance?

[Guest Guest]

There are multiple reasons why lawyers are "easy whipping boys". They have earned the reputation. Lawyers are among the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington and most politicians are lawyers so it's safe to say they have the inside track. Don't you wonder why tort reform never goes anywhere?

If you want facts why don't you ask your doctor what he pays for malpractice insurance?

Lawyers have earned a poor reputation but that doesn't mean that lawsuits aren't necessary. They are necessary to help keep doctors honest, since they won't police themselves.

[Guest Paul]

So you can post 1% and that's supposed to be fact? Prove it. And make sure you take into account the monetary judgements, malpractice insurance, medical insurance rates, healthcare costs, drug research costs, etc. All driven sky high because these people and companies have to factor in proctecting themselves from lawyers.

Why are lawyers so dead set against tort reform? Maybe because it would kill there business.

Years ago, when I began practice as a young attorney, the focus of my practice was product liability. There are very few product liability cases any more, the major reason being that products are safer. We lawyers played a major role in that by holding manufacturers accountable for product safety. As a result, I switched my focus to medical malpractice, where it has remained for twenty-five years.

The doctors could put most of my colleagues out of business very quickly if they wanted to by taking a few simple steps:

1. Weed out bad doctors. I see the same offenders over and over. All my colleagues do. A small percentage of doctors are responsible for a majority of the claims and the majority of the payouts. Yet the doctors refuse to police themselves.

2. Tighten up quality controls on weekends and holidays. Educate doctors and nurses on the critical importance of increasing standards at those times. A disproportionate share of cases in my practice and every practice consists of cases that happened on or just before a weekend or holiday.

3. Stop forcing residents in hospitals to work ridiculous hours. Many in-hospital errors come about because the residents are at the end of their shifts, dead-tired.

4. Stop perpetually overworking and overburdening nurses. As hospitals have changed from care institutions to businesses, nurses have been forced to care for too many patients, resulting in a lesser quality of care.

These things being true – and they are, I know firsthand from my own practice – eliminating or severely curtailing the patient’s right to sue would result in poorer medical care, with attendant costs to the public, not to mention the lives destroyed by additional acts of malpractice.

Greed is denying good medical care to patients. When the medical profession tightens up its standards, malpractice claims will decline dramatically.

That won’t mean that doctors’ insurance premiums will decline. Many states have passed legislation limiting medical malpractice cases. Insurance rates have not declined. The insurance companies are getting rich off the system and will continue to do so until the American people wise up to what’s really going on. The reason so-called reform legislation has not passed Congress is that it won’t address the problem.

So which is the more costly: medical malpractice itself or the legal system that addresses it? “The cost to society in terms of disability and health care costs, lost income, lost household production and the personal costs of care are estimated to be between $17 billion and $29 billion. In contrast, the medical liability system costs $6.7 billion annually, about what is spent on dog food each year.” http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National...ctice-Facts.cfm I’ll grant you the source is biased but those are the correct numbers. We can’t solve this problem by killing the only watchdog consumers have.

We lawyers are easy to blame. “99% of lawyers are giving the rest of us a bad name.” I know, you don’t have to tell me. I see it every day. But in the end, the system should be about the people. The people are being harmed by medical care that is less than what it should be. The remedies are simple and they have nothing to do with preventing innocent people from bringing legitimate claims for medical malpractice.

And it’s not as though we lawyers don’t pay a price for bringing a bad medical malpractice case. We spend tens of thousands of dollars in up-front outlays on every medical malpractice case. Lawyers who take bad cases don’t survive.

Here are some another link. While biased, it does cite unbiased research:

http://www.resource4medicalmalpractice.com...cticefacts.html

I’ll never convince people who have their minds made up on this issue that medical malpractice litigation is necessary and in the public interest. (Drug research costs – you don’t know what you’re talking about. Health care costs – consider the costs of treating permanently injured people. Insurance rates – check out the profits of the insurance companies and find out whether insurance rates have declined in states that passed so-called malpractice reform. They didn’t.) But I do hope that people will consider the human costs of devastated lives (death of a wage-earning parent, a child brain-damaged at birth, a person maimed for life by a medical error, etc.) and the costs to the public of medical malpractice. I acknowledge your point about abuses within the system. You should acknowledge my point about the problem of medical malpractice itself.

You will never hear me complain that the product manufacturers put my products liability practice out of commission by making safer products. I’ll earn a good living as a malpractice attorney for as long as the medical profession refuses to clean up its act. Until then, you can blame me if you want to but you would be wiser to insist on a few simple reforms within the medical community.

[Guest Guest]

Years ago, when I began practice as a young attorney, the focus of my practice was product liability. There are very few product liability cases any more, the major reason being that products are safer. We lawyers played a major role in that by holding manufacturers accountable for product safety. As a result, I switched my focus to medical malpractice, where it has remained for twenty-five years.

The doctors could put most of my colleagues out of business very quickly if they wanted to by taking a few simple steps:

1. Weed out bad doctors. I see the same offenders over and over. All my colleagues do. A small percentage of doctors are responsible for a majority of the claims and the majority of the payouts. Yet the doctors refuse to police themselves.

2. Tighten up quality controls on weekends and holidays. Educate doctors and nurses on the critical importance of increasing standards at those times. A disproportionate share of cases in my practice and every practice consists of cases that happened on or just before a weekend or holiday.

3. Stop forcing residents in hospitals to work ridiculous hours. Many in-hospital errors come about because the residents are at the end of their shifts, dead-tired.

4. Stop perpetually overworking and overburdening nurses. As hospitals have changed from care institutions to businesses, nurses have been forced to care for too many patients, resulting in a lesser quality of care.

These things being true – and they are, I know firsthand from my own practice – eliminating or severely curtailing the patient’s right to sue would result in poorer medical care, with attendant costs to the public, not to mention the lives destroyed by additional acts of malpractice.

Greed is denying good medical care to patients. When the medical profession tightens up its standards, malpractice claims will decline dramatically.

That won’t mean that doctors’ insurance premiums will decline. Many states have passed legislation limiting medical malpractice cases. Insurance rates have not declined. The insurance companies are getting rich off the system and will continue to do so until the American people wise up to what’s really going on. The reason so-called reform legislation has not passed Congress is that it won’t address the problem.

So which is the more costly: medical malpractice itself or the legal system that addresses it? “The cost to society in terms of disability and health care costs, lost income, lost household production and the personal costs of care are estimated to be between $17 billion and $29 billion. In contrast, the medical liability system costs $6.7 billion annually, about what is spent on dog food each year.” http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National...ctice-Facts.cfm I’ll grant you the source is biased but those are the correct numbers. We can’t solve this problem by killing the only watchdog consumers have.

We lawyers are easy to blame. “99% of lawyers are giving the rest of us a bad name.” I know, you don’t have to tell me. I see it every day. But in the end, the system should be about the people. The people are being harmed by medical care that is less than what it should be. The remedies are simple and they have nothing to do with preventing innocent people from bringing legitimate claims for medical malpractice.

And it’s not as though we lawyers don’t pay a price for bringing a bad medical malpractice case. We spend tens of thousands of dollars in up-front outlays on every medical malpractice case. Lawyers who take bad cases don’t survive.

Here are some another link. While biased, it does cite unbiased research:

http://www.resource4medicalmalpractice.com...cticefacts.html

I’ll never convince people who have their minds made up on this issue that medical malpractice litigation is necessary and in the public interest. (Drug research costs – you don’t know what you’re talking about. Health care costs – consider the costs of treating permanently injured people. Insurance rates – check out the profits of the insurance companies and find out whether insurance rates have declined in states that passed so-called malpractice reform. They didn’t.) But I do hope that people will consider the human costs of devastated lives (death of a wage-earning parent, a child brain-damaged at birth, a person maimed for life by a medical error, etc.) and the costs to the public of medical malpractice. I acknowledge your point about abuses within the system. You should acknowledge my point about the problem of medical malpractice itself.

You will never hear me complain that the product manufacturers put my products liability practice out of commission by making safer products. I’ll earn a good living as a malpractice attorney for as long as the medical profession refuses to clean up its act. Until then, you can blame me if you want to but you would be wiser to insist on a few simple reforms within the medical community.

I have no problem with innocent people bringing legitimate claims. The problem is with, as you say, the 99% of lawyers that are giving the rest a bad name. Judging from your postings you sound like an ethical person. I also think you're in an interesting position dealing with the other 99% that will say and do anything to win a case. I'd be interested in know how you resolve that issue.

I'm a little disappointed that you right off my claim that litigation drives up drug costs. Developing medications for people is an extremely risky business. It's impossible to forsee every outcome that's possible on a population. Yet when a drug has an adverse effect on a few people, out of tens of thousands of people that use without issue, lawyers practically kill to get a shot at the manufacturer.

[Guest Paul]

I have no problem with innocent people bringing legitimate claims. The problem is with, as you say, the 99% of lawyers that are giving the rest a bad name. Judging from your postings you sound like an ethical person. I also think you're in an interesting position dealing with the other 99% that will say and do anything to win a case. I'd be interested in know how you resolve that issue.

I'm a little disappointed that you right off my claim that litigation drives up drug costs. Developing medications for people is an extremely risky business. It's impossible to forsee every outcome that's possible on a population. Yet when a drug has an adverse effect on a few people, out of tens of thousands of people that use without issue, lawyers practically kill to get a shot at the manufacturer.

Of course, the "99%" is an intentional exaggeration. As far as dealing with unethical conduct, it's like most things in life: one step at a time.

I'm open to data on litigation and drug costs if you have it. Very few of my colleagues are bringing cases against drug manufacturers. When the cases are brought, it's usually because the drug has damaged many thousands of people.

The FDA is quite strict. Drugs don't go on the market in the US without very careful testing, usually over several years. No litigation would succeed against a drug company for an adverse effect that shows up for the first time after the drug is on the market - providing the proper testing was done. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how the drug could suddenly start having adverse effects after it was placed on the market. So while I'm open to any data you might have, or link me to, remember that a lawyer who takes on a case against a drug manufacturer is going to spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in up-front money just to have a chance to make a recovery later. Lawyers who do that without a solid foundation probably will go broke before they hit a payday. So while I'm open to any hard information you might have, what you're describing doesn't seem to fit what I know.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Years ago, when I began practice as a young attorney, the focus of my practice was product liability. There are very few product liability cases any more, the major reason being that products are safer. We lawyers played a major role in that by holding manufacturers accountable for product safety. As a result, I switched my focus to medical malpractice, where it has remained for twenty-five years.

The doctors could put most of my colleagues out of business very quickly if they wanted to by taking a few simple steps:

1. Weed out bad doctors. I see the same offenders over and over. All my colleagues do. A small percentage of doctors are responsible for a majority of the claims and the majority of the payouts. Yet the doctors refuse to police themselves.

2. Tighten up quality controls on weekends and holidays. Educate doctors and nurses on the critical importance of increasing standards at those times. A disproportionate share of cases in my practice and every practice consists of cases that happened on or just before a weekend or holiday.

3. Stop forcing residents in hospitals to work ridiculous hours. Many in-hospital errors come about because the residents are at the end of their shifts, dead-tired.

4. Stop perpetually overworking and overburdening nurses. As hospitals have changed from care institutions to businesses, nurses have been forced to care for too many patients, resulting in a lesser quality of care.

These things being true – and they are, I know firsthand from my own practice – eliminating or severely curtailing the patient’s right to sue would result in poorer medical care, with attendant costs to the public, not to mention the lives destroyed by additional acts of malpractice.

Greed is denying good medical care to patients. When the medical profession tightens up its standards, malpractice claims will decline dramatically.

That won’t mean that doctors’ insurance premiums will decline. Many states have passed legislation limiting medical malpractice cases. Insurance rates have not declined. The insurance companies are getting rich off the system and will continue to do so until the American people wise up to what’s really going on. The reason so-called reform legislation has not passed Congress is that it won’t address the problem.

So which is the more costly: medical malpractice itself or the legal system that addresses it? “The cost to society in terms of disability and health care costs, lost income, lost household production and the personal costs of care are estimated to be between $17 billion and $29 billion. In contrast, the medical liability system costs $6.7 billion annually, about what is spent on dog food each year.” http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National...ctice-Facts.cfm I’ll grant you the source is biased but those are the correct numbers. We can’t solve this problem by killing the only watchdog consumers have.

We lawyers are easy to blame. “99% of lawyers are giving the rest of us a bad name.” I know, you don’t have to tell me. I see it every day. But in the end, the system should be about the people. The people are being harmed by medical care that is less than what it should be. The remedies are simple and they have nothing to do with preventing innocent people from bringing legitimate claims for medical malpractice.

And it’s not as though we lawyers don’t pay a price for bringing a bad medical malpractice case. We spend tens of thousands of dollars in up-front outlays on every medical malpractice case. Lawyers who take bad cases don’t survive.

Here are some another link. While biased, it does cite unbiased research:

http://www.resource4medicalmalpractice.com...cticefacts.html

I’ll never convince people who have their minds made up on this issue that medical malpractice litigation is necessary and in the public interest. (Drug research costs – you don’t know what you’re talking about. Health care costs – consider the costs of treating permanently injured people. Insurance rates – check out the profits of the insurance companies and find out whether insurance rates have declined in states that passed so-called malpractice reform. They didn’t.) But I do hope that people will consider the human costs of devastated lives (death of a wage-earning parent, a child brain-damaged at birth, a person maimed for life by a medical error, etc.) and the costs to the public of medical malpractice. I acknowledge your point about abuses within the system. You should acknowledge my point about the problem of medical malpractice itself.

You will never hear me complain that the product manufacturers put my products liability practice out of commission by making safer products. I’ll earn a good living as a malpractice attorney for as long as the medical profession refuses to clean up its act. Until then, you can blame me if you want to but you would be wiser to insist on a few simple reforms within the medical community.

Look up the word "pithy".

[Guest Guest]

Look up the word "pithy".

Look up the word "stupid." See also "ignorant," "impertinent" and "obnoxious."