Democrats paying Doctors $247B to support Healthcare Reforms

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

I'm all in favor of slapping fines on lawyers that file frivolous suits - to the tune that these fines will put them out of business. That should be plenty of discouragement and effectively filter the valid suits from the garbage while still protecting individuals that have suffered because of gross negligence. Raise the bar to get the suit filed and figure out some metric of fair compensation. No opposition here.

But don't sit there and pretend that this will heal the nation's health care system or even that this should be very high on the priority list. That's just dishonest because even by the most conservative estimates, the cost of current malpractice laws is minimal compared to other items that need reform.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

I'm all in favor of slapping fines on lawyers that file frivolous suits - to the tune that these fines will put them out of business. That should be plenty of discouragement and effectively filter the valid suits from the garbage while still protecting individuals that have suffered because of gross negligence. Raise the bar to get the suit filed and figure out some metric of fair compensation. No opposition here.

But don't sit there and pretend that this will heal the nation's health care system or even that this should be very high on the priority list. That's just dishonest because even by the most conservative estimates, the cost of current malpractice laws is minimal compared to other items that need reform.

You are getting as boring as Steven, where every idea has to be measured against some liberal progressive talking point. Open your eyes, talk to a few doctors in private practice, and you will see the true cost of the litigation.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

I'm all in favor of slapping fines on lawyers that file frivolous suits - to the tune that these fines will put them out of business. That should be plenty of discouragement and effectively filter the valid suits from the garbage while still protecting individuals that have suffered because of gross negligence. Raise the bar to get the suit filed and figure out some metric of fair compensation. No opposition here.

But don't sit there and pretend that this will heal the nation's health care system or even that this should be very high on the priority list. That's just dishonest because even by the most conservative estimates, the cost of current malpractice laws is minimal compared to other items that need reform.

You are getting as boring as Steven, where every idea has to be measured against some liberal progressive talking point. Open your eyes, talk to a few doctors in private practice, and you will see the true cost of the litigation.

Dude, I just said that I am not opposing TORT reform. I also said that I am well aware that in order to get any reform package out of the Congress, you'll have to pick your battles. Medical malpractice liability is a small slice of the health care system even when you factor in the defensive medicine that is practiced because of it. And I tell you what: this is one of the areas where the GOP could have really had some positive impact on the reform effort if they would not have chosen to make NO their sole position on health care reform. Are the Democrats aligned with the trial lawyers? Sure, I'll give you that. But if thechoice was a bi-partisan bill with TORT reform or a Democrat only bill without it, then I'd think the trial lawyers would have to take the back seat.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

I'm all in favor of slapping fines on lawyers that file frivolous suits - to the tune that these fines will put them out of business. That should be plenty of discouragement and effectively filter the valid suits from the garbage while still protecting individuals that have suffered because of gross negligence. Raise the bar to get the suit filed and figure out some metric of fair compensation. No opposition here.

But don't sit there and pretend that this will heal the nation's health care system or even that this should be very high on the priority list. That's just dishonest because even by the most conservative estimates, the cost of current malpractice laws is minimal compared to other items that need reform.

You are getting as boring as Steven, where every idea has to be measured against some liberal progressive talking point. Open your eyes, talk to a few doctors in private practice, and you will see the true cost of the litigation.

Dude, I just said that I am not opposing TORT reform. I also said that I am well aware that in order to get any reform package out of the Congress, you'll have to pick your battles. Medical malpractice liability is a small slice of the health care system even when you factor in the defensive medicine that is practiced because of it. And I tell you what: this is one of the areas where the GOP could have really had some positive impact on the reform effort if they would not have chosen to make NO their sole position on health care reform. Are the Democrats aligned with the trial lawyers? Sure, I'll give you that. But if thechoice was a bi-partisan bill with TORT reform or a Democrat only bill without it, then I'd think the trial lawyers would have to take the back seat.

Since the AMA will not support the Heathcare reforms without malpractice reform, that makes it a major consideration for doctors, that a mere $247 Billion dollars won't silence them.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum.

They are just reciting the Republican talking points - tort reform, insurance across state lines,

health savings accounts and all that nonsense.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

I'm all in favor of slapping fines on lawyers that file frivolous suits - to the tune that these fines will put them out of business. That should be plenty of discouragement and effectively filter the valid suits from the garbage while still protecting individuals that have suffered because of gross negligence. Raise the bar to get the suit filed and figure out some metric of fair compensation. No opposition here.

But don't sit there and pretend that this will heal the nation's health care system or even that this should be very high on the priority list. That's just dishonest because even by the most conservative estimates, the cost of current malpractice laws is minimal compared to other items that need reform.

You are getting as boring as Steven, where every idea has to be measured against some liberal progressive talking point. Open your eyes, talk to a few doctors in private practice, and you will see the true cost of the litigation.

Dude, I just said that I am not opposing TORT reform. I also said that I am well aware that in order to get any reform package out of the Congress, you'll have to pick your battles. Medical malpractice liability is a small slice of the health care system even when you factor in the defensive medicine that is practiced because of it. And I tell you what: this is one of the areas where the GOP could have really had some positive impact on the reform effort if they would not have chosen to make NO their sole position on health care reform. Are the Democrats aligned with the trial lawyers? Sure, I'll give you that. But if thechoice was a bi-partisan bill with TORT reform or a Democrat only bill without it, then I'd think the trial lawyers would have to take the back seat.

Since the AMA will not support the Heathcare reforms without malpractice reform, that makes it a major consideration for doctors, that a mere $247 Billion dollars won't silence them.

Last I read, the docs ain't getting the $247 billion either.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

I'm all in favor of slapping fines on lawyers that file frivolous suits - to the tune that these fines will put them out of business. That should be plenty of discouragement and effectively filter the valid suits from the garbage while still protecting individuals that have suffered because of gross negligence. Raise the bar to get the suit filed and figure out some metric of fair compensation. No opposition here.

But don't sit there and pretend that this will heal the nation's health care system or even that this should be very high on the priority list. That's just dishonest because even by the most conservative estimates, the cost of current malpractice laws is minimal compared to other items that need reform.

You are getting as boring as Steven, where every idea has to be measured against some liberal progressive talking point. Open your eyes, talk to a few doctors in private practice, and you will see the true cost of the litigation.

Dude, I just said that I am not opposing TORT reform. I also said that I am well aware that in order to get any reform package out of the Congress, you'll have to pick your battles. Medical malpractice liability is a small slice of the health care system even when you factor in the defensive medicine that is practiced because of it. And I tell you what: this is one of the areas where the GOP could have really had some positive impact on the reform effort if they would not have chosen to make NO their sole position on health care reform. Are the Democrats aligned with the trial lawyers? Sure, I'll give you that. But if thechoice was a bi-partisan bill with TORT reform or a Democrat only bill without it, then I'd think the trial lawyers would have to take the back seat.

Since the AMA will not support the Heathcare reforms without malpractice reform, that makes it a major consideration for doctors, that a mere $247 Billion dollars won't silence them.

Last I read, the docs ain't getting the $247 billion either.

Last I heard this morning, it will be separate legislation, so it would be added to the current $900B pricetag.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

I'm all in favor of slapping fines on lawyers that file frivolous suits - to the tune that these fines will put them out of business. That should be plenty of discouragement and effectively filter the valid suits from the garbage while still protecting individuals that have suffered because of gross negligence. Raise the bar to get the suit filed and figure out some metric of fair compensation. No opposition here.

But don't sit there and pretend that this will heal the nation's health care system or even that this should be very high on the priority list. That's just dishonest because even by the most conservative estimates, the cost of current malpractice laws is minimal compared to other items that need reform.

You are getting as boring as Steven, where every idea has to be measured against some liberal progressive talking point. Open your eyes, talk to a few doctors in private practice, and you will see the true cost of the litigation.

Dude, I just said that I am not opposing TORT reform. I also said that I am well aware that in order to get any reform package out of the Congress, you'll have to pick your battles. Medical malpractice liability is a small slice of the health care system even when you factor in the defensive medicine that is practiced because of it. And I tell you what: this is one of the areas where the GOP could have really had some positive impact on the reform effort if they would not have chosen to make NO their sole position on health care reform. Are the Democrats aligned with the trial lawyers? Sure, I'll give you that. But if thechoice was a bi-partisan bill with TORT reform or a Democrat only bill without it, then I'd think the trial lawyers would have to take the back seat.

Since the AMA will not support the Heathcare reforms without malpractice reform, that makes it a major consideration for doctors, that a mere $247 Billion dollars won't silence them.

Last I read, the docs ain't getting the $247 billion either.

Last I heard this morning, it will be separate legislation, so it would be added to the current $900B pricetag.

Senate Democrats lost a key vote Wednesday on a controversial $247 billion measure designed to ensure that doctors experience no cut in Medicare reimbursement payments over the next 10 years.

The proposal was blocked in a 47-to-53 vote

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah sure guys, beat the tired TORT reform drum. It's such a miniscule amount in this 2.5 trillion dollar system of ours. And a good part of that actually also goes to insurance company profits. Several states have undertaken TORT reform efforts (yes, states can do that) bringing the number and amount of medical malpractice claims down. All the while, medical malpractice insurance rates for physicians in those states actually kept going up. See a trend?

But in the absence of any sort of federal reform, an attorney can sue the doctor or the network in any of the states that his network does business in. So in essence, they can shop for the best circumstances. I'm not saying scrap the system. They really should put more regulations on it to discourage the frivolous lawsuits and bad faith lawsuits.

It has become ridiculous the degree doctors have to go to satisfy both the liability carrier, and the insurance company that wil pay the fee for service. There is a good chance, that when doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine, to document what is the appropriate treatment, then they can actually start practicing good medicine.

Meanwhile, lawyers makes millions of dollars on class action lawsuits, while class members get a coupon for 10 dollars off their next purchase, because some District Court Judge in Nevada, e.g., is willing to create the class and permit the suit, with nationwide implications.

I must really be screwed over, because every week, I find out I am a member of another classs action lawsuit.

I'm all in favor of slapping fines on lawyers that file frivolous suits - to the tune that these fines will put them out of business. That should be plenty of discouragement and effectively filter the valid suits from the garbage while still protecting individuals that have suffered because of gross negligence. Raise the bar to get the suit filed and figure out some metric of fair compensation. No opposition here.

But don't sit there and pretend that this will heal the nation's health care system or even that this should be very high on the priority list. That's just dishonest because even by the most conservative estimates, the cost of current malpractice laws is minimal compared to other items that need reform.

You are getting as boring as Steven, where every idea has to be measured against some liberal progressive talking point. Open your eyes, talk to a few doctors in private practice, and you will see the true cost of the litigation.

Dude, I just said that I am not opposing TORT reform. I also said that I am well aware that in order to get any reform package out of the Congress, you'll have to pick your battles. Medical malpractice liability is a small slice of the health care system even when you factor in the defensive medicine that is practiced because of it. And I tell you what: this is one of the areas where the GOP could have really had some positive impact on the reform effort if they would not have chosen to make NO their sole position on health care reform. Are the Democrats aligned with the trial lawyers? Sure, I'll give you that. But if thechoice was a bi-partisan bill with TORT reform or a Democrat only bill without it, then I'd think the trial lawyers would have to take the back seat.

Since the AMA will not support the Heathcare reforms without malpractice reform, that makes it a major consideration for doctors, that a mere $247 Billion dollars won't silence them.

Last I read, the docs ain't getting the $247 billion either.

Last I heard this morning, it will be separate legislation, so it would be added to the current $900B pricetag.

Senate Democrats lost a key vote Wednesday on a controversial $247 billion measure designed to ensure that doctors experience no cut in Medicare reimbursement payments over the next 10 years.

The proposal was blocked in a 47-to-53 vote

Yep.