Socialized Medicine

wut?

Chilling indeed.  What pepprdog is describing is the law in many countries, including the UK, which is otherwise the most similar to the US legal system.  And the results of this one difference are quite striking, and this would be one change that I am quite confident most Americans would object to if they fully understood the implications.

Peter Parker wrote: I think the real issue here is this term "tort reform." This cost is built I to our entire legal system, and has nothing to do with medical malpractice. To really change the role of lawyer. And lawsuits in the US we would have to make some pretty drastic changes. And my suspicion is that most people would not like those changes. "Tort reform" is a sop to the AMA, and would not really affect most people at all.

So you think reformation of the legal system relating to lawsuits is something most people wouldn't like? HMMMmmmm..... maybe in your crowd...heh, heh.....
Personally I would like to see a risk-reward system. You bring suit, you lose, you pay all the costs for both sides. Right now it's lopsided only benefiting the person bringing suit and almost always costing the person defending themselves even when that person is proven to have done nothing wrong. In these cases winning is still losing..........You lose time, money and suffer unnecessary stress.....
Maybe I needed to be more specific, "Medical Tort reform" would affect a lot of people in the medical professions.

Try this link about government "estimates";

http://downsizinggovernment.org/government-cost-overruns#sampling

I think the real issue here is this term "tort reform."

people get fixated on the occasional big jury award, or hung up on big legal bills. That's fine, but you have to understand that "tort reform" won't change very much. All it would do it cap punitive damages, and the cap would be pretty high. That isn't a change that will drastically change the legal cos of doom business.

This cost is built I to our entire legal system, and has nothing to do with medical malpractice. To really change the role of lawyer. And lawsuits in the US we would have to make some pretty drastic changes.

And my suspicion is that most people would not like those changes. "Tort reform" is a sop to the AMA, and would not really affect most people at all.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.


-Thomas Jefferson



Written by Dr. Dave Janda    

Thursday, 23 July 2009


As a physician who has authored books on preventative health care, I was given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner at The Capitol Building in Washington last Friday (7/17).

The presentation was entitled Health Care Reform, The Power & Profit of Prevention, and I was gratified that it was well received.

In preparation for the presentation, I read the latest version of "reform" as authored by The Obama Administration and supported by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Here is the link to the 1,018 page document:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf ;

Let me summarize just a few salient points of the above plan. First, however, it should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on The ObamaCare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: Consuming this product is hazardous to your health.

The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventing health care need whatever. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.

The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board "will approve or reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment."

Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer.....dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your coffin.

Oh, you say this could never happen? Sorry.... this is the same model they use in Britain.

The plan mandates that there will be little or no advanced treatments to be available in the future. It creates The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research, the purpose of which is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." Yes, this will be the law.

The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator For Health Information and Technology.

This " coordinator" will "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." It goes on to say....."Doctors and hospitals not adhering to guidelines will face penalties."

According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment.

So according to The ObamaCare Plan....if your doctor saves your life you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.

Section 102 has the Orwellian title, "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g., if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal.

When Mr. Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible, a blogger from Maine referenced an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance.

He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" Mr. Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."

Then there is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner.

This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care." It is no wonder The Obama Administration does not like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the "enemy" as people would live longer.

I rest my case. The ObamaCare Plan is hazardous to the health of every American.

After I finished my Capitol Hill presentation, I was asked by a Congressman in the question-answer session: "I'll be doing a number of network interviews on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan what should I answer."

The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, sad but truthful. I told him that one word is FASCIST.

Then I added, "I hope you'll have the courage to use that word, Congressman. No other word is more appropriate."

Dr. Dave Janda, MD, is an orthopedic surgeon, and a world-recognized expert on the prevention of sports injuries, particularly in children. His website is noinjury.com.

woah, look who the cat dragged in ^^ :)

Peter Parker wrote: First off, you guys need to stop the gay pride parade posting.  Very headache-inducing.

Word.< id="gwProxy" ="">< ="jsCall;" id="jsProxy" ="">

Peter Parker wrote:   I am not saying that "tort reform" is necessarily a bad idea, but I am saying that it would not make a meaningful difference in US healthcare costs.

Typical lawyer who doesn't even try litigation cases. You lawyers are all the same..

jmac3 wrote: Mack, I wasn't leaving raising taxes "off the table". I am saying taxes wuld HAVE to be raised. I just believe that a budget could be worked out that people would be paying those taxes but still coming out paying less than they were previously for insurance.

And I don't believe that is possible.  Or, to put it more correctly, those that can't afford it now will possibly end up paying less (which is more than the nothing they are paying now), but the remainder will have to be subsidized by others.  (Which would be paying more.)

No, it's more fun this way.