Pelosi Healthcare Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation.

[but]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages

.

So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!

While there is debate over the details, it is clear that medical malpractive lawsuits have some impact on driving health care costs higher. There are likely a number of procedures that are done simply as a defense against future possible litigation. Recall this from the Washington Post:

“Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today — a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama’s overhaul of the nation’s health system. New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).”

Stay tuned. There are certainly many more terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad provisions in this massive bill.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi...ers/#more-23042

[Pooky 3,784]

Ouch!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So you could save 5 billion annually out of 2.5 trillion (to be almost 4 trillion in a decade). 2% to start and about 1% to finish. What a savings...

Ooops, I overstated the potential significantly - 0.5% is the number quoted by CBO. That's a huge deal. NOT.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [but]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

I spoke with a private doctor not to long ago who said his annual malpractice insurance costs is approximately $200K. This is the sort of ####### that dems are disingenuous about because rather than job creating corporations, it's their lawyer buddies that are milking the country dry. It's the skeleton in the closet they fail to discuss.

How many other developed countries allow yank style lawyers to sue for millions and millions of dollars? Not many. Hence why their health care system works.

So you could save 5 billion annually out of 2.5 trillion (to be almost 4 trillion in a decade). 2% to start and about 1% to finish. What a savings...

Ooops, I overstated the potential significantly - 0.5% is the number quoted by CBO. That's a huge deal. NOT.

It is a big deal. In most other industrialized countries, you cannot sue a doctor blind. Are we here to treat patients or make lawyers and their clients rich?

Edited October 31, 2009 by Booyah!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So you could save 5 billion annually out of 2.5 trillion (to be almost 4 trillion in a decade). 2% to start and about 1% to finish. What a savings...

Ooops, I overstated the potential significantly - 0.5% is the number quoted by CBO. That's a huge deal. NOT.

It is a big deal. In most other industrialized countries, you cannot sue a doctor blind. Are we here to treat patients or make lawyers and their clients rich?

It is a big deal in a moral sense - it's not right that a doctor can be sued blind. The criteria that warrants a suit needs to be tightened and there should be a cap on damages. That said, from a cost perspective, it's not that big a deal as the COB numbers show.

[Heracles 417]

It is a big deal in a moral sense - it's not right that a doctor can be sued blind. The criteria that warrants a suit needs to be tightened and there should be a cap on damages. That said, from a cost perspective, it's not that big a deal as the COB numbers show.

Maybe in the grand scheme of US health care costs it's not, however, for the local doctor who has to buy litigation insurance it clearly is. I know for a fact that doctors in Aus pay nowhere near that for litigation insurance.

If a doctor is grossly negligent, a patient should be able to sue them for a reasonable amount. If a doctor makes a genuine mistake or misdiagnosis, this should never be grounds for twenty million dollar lawsuits. We are talking about the human body here, not building some backyard shed. Doctors need to concentrate on treating patients than be scared about being sued.

After all, US doctors are obviously carrying out unnecessary tests in order to protect themselves against vulture like American litigation lawyers. Lawyers who have done jack ###### to advance this country in any meaningful way, might I add. Quite the contrary actually. It's also hypocritical to hate on corporations while allow the scum of the earth (aka American litigation lawyers) to get away with legalized extortion.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Booyah!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is a big deal in a moral sense - it's not right that a doctor can be sued blind. The criteria that warrants a suit needs to be tightened and there should be a cap on damages. That said, from a cost perspective, it's not that big a deal as the COB numbers show.

Maybe in the grand scheme of US health care costs it's not, however, for the local doctor who has to buy litigation insurance it clearly is. I know for a fact that doctors in Aus pay nowhere near that for litigation insurance.

Sure but malpractice insurance premiums have continued to go up even when states raised the bar on malpractice law suits and malpractice awards have gone down as a result. There's more to the issue than what is being discussed.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[Heracles 417]

Sure but malpractice insurance premiums have continued to go up even when states raised the bar on malpractice law suits and malpractice awards have gone down as a result. There's more to the issue than what is being discussed.

As it stands, insurance companies have been scapegoated for everything wrong with US health care. Punishing them will do nothing to fix the problem. Reform has to happen in ever area of the industry, not just in terms of insurance.

My point is that it's disingenuous to refer to international examples regarding points that suit people's agenda but totally fail to discuss that lawyers are not permitted to run wild in other industrialized countries. Hence, why their health care systems actually work. Rather than worrying about whether they will be sued, doctors are free to concentrate on actually treating a patient. For example, a doctor abroad is not afraid to take a calculated risk, if it can potentially save a patient's life.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Booyah!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sure but malpractice insurance premiums have continued to go up even when states raised the bar on malpractice law suits and malpractice awards have gone down as a result. There's more to the issue than what is being discussed.

As it stands, insurance companies have been scapegoated for everything wrong with US health care. Punishing them will do nothing to fix the problem. Reform has to happen in ever area of the industry, not just in terms of insurance.

Absolutely. But let us keep n ind that the only entities that fail to add any value to the system are the insurance companies. They merely take a cut off the top and do nothing to further the goal of affordable, quality care. Nothing whatsoever. So, why is anyone even listening to what they have to say in this debate? why are we honoring the pimps of the system with even a second of attention?

Edited October 31, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sure but malpractice insurance premiums have continued to go up even when states raised the bar on malpractice law suits and malpractice awards have gone down as a result. There's more to the issue than what is being discussed.

As it stands, insurance companies have been scapegoated for everything wrong with US health care. Punishing them will do nothing to fix the problem. Reform has to happen in ever area of the industry, not just in terms of insurance.

Absolutely. But let us keep n ind that the only entities that fail to add any value to the system are the insurance companies. They merely take a cut off the top and do nothing to further the goal of affordable, quality care. Nothing whatsoever. So, why is anyone even listening to what they have to say in this debate? why are we honoring the pimps of the system with even a second of attention?

The insurance companies function as gatekeepers, which is why, with all the expectations of what meaningful healthcare has come to mean, single payer is the only practicable solution to the problem.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sure but malpractice insurance premiums have continued to go up even when states raised the bar on malpractice law suits and malpractice awards have gone down as a result. There's more to the issue than what is being discussed.

As it stands, insurance companies have been scapegoated for everything wrong with US health care. Punishing them will do nothing to fix the problem. Reform has to happen in ever area of the industry, not just in terms of insurance.

Absolutely. But let us keep n ind that the only entities that fail to add any value to the system are the insurance companies. They merely take a cut off the top and do nothing to further the goal of affordable, quality care. Nothing whatsoever. So, why is anyone even listening to what they have to say in this debate? why are we honoring the pimps of the system with even a second of attention?

The insurance companies function as gatekeepers, which is why, with all the expectations of what meaningful healthcare has come to mean, single payer is the only practicable solution to the problem.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation.

[but]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages

.

So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!

While there is debate over the details, it is clear that medical malpractive lawsuits have some impact on driving health care costs higher. There are likely a number of procedures that are done simply as a defense against future possible litigation. Recall this from the Washington Post:

“Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today — a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama’s overhaul of the nation’s health system. New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).”

Stay tuned. There are certainly many more terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad provisions in this massive bill.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/pelosi...ers/#more-23042

Doesn't matter what they say now. The ONLY way the gvernemtn can even hope to control healthcare is by reining in the lawsuits.

What wea re seeing is a framework being enacted (erected). They "blow kisses" to everyone, I am expecting soon they will start giving particular names..."and for you, John Doe, we will do..." Nothing matters. The only thing that matters is they PASS this legislation. They will say whatever they have to, to whomever they have to...and then change everything by fiat or by regulation, or even by legislation. The only thing healthcare feform guarantees, is more reform, reform, reform, reform. The bills is not what they want...it is what they think they can pass...this time.

The attorneys will have to be cut off at the ankles, HAS TO BE! Of course, if they just did that and made insurance universally available, then their would be no need for reform to begin with. The lawyers will be cut off next.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The bills is not what they want...it is what they think they can pass...this time.

Unfortunately, yes, that's what it was butchered down to.

[kaydee457 13]

So you could save 5 billion annually out of 2.5 trillion (to be almost 4 trillion in a decade). 2% to start and about 1% to finish. What a savings...

Ooops, I overstated the potential significantly - 0.5% is the number quoted by CBO. That's a huge deal. NOT.

Typical liberal....No regard for OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So you could save 5 billion annually out of 2.5 trillion (to be almost 4 trillion in a decade). 2% to start and about 1% to finish. What a savings...

Ooops, I overstated the potential significantly - 0.5% is the number quoted by CBO. That's a huge deal. NOT.

Typical liberal....No regard for OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.....

Dude, 0.5% is 0.5% - it's a negligible amount any way you slice it. Reducing the cost of health care by 0.5% won't stop this system from going down the drain in the very near future. Plain and simple.