Socialized Medicine

pepprdog wrote: Whoa!!!!!! Tort reform IS an issue for all doctors.

oh sure, it's an issue for doctors. They would like their insurance premiums to be lower. But that doesn't translate into a major contributor to the overall cost of healthcare, which it is not.

In fact, I am quite confident that the market could bear premiums quite a bit higher. It would be nice if malpractice insurance were cheaper (or would it...?), but they just don't really contribute that much to the total cost.    

frivolous lawsuits are rampant

no, they are not. I guess it depends on what you mean by "frivolous," but by almost any definition his statement is not only false, but really, really false.

Do you have any idea what it costs a doctor to have to leave their office in order to go to court?

Why yes, I do.

In order to further the plan the lawyers will get the doctor committed to the court date and right before that date and sometime the day of court, have it changed, usually several times.

also false.

The occasional abuse does happen, of course, but presenting this as a widespread cost-running practice is simply false. If this happens regularly to doctors you know, then they need better lawyers.

Don’t you wonder about Sokolov and other nationally advertising ilk lawyers?

I don't know this Sokolov fella, but I would suggest to you that most of the national plaintiff's lawyers do mainly class action work, which is mostly irrelevant to malpractice insurance.

You don’t see how lawyers make millions tearing at the medical professionals, drug companies and hospitals? You don’t see how this will make a difference in healthcare costs?

what I do see is that the amount spent by insurance companies and providers on legal fees suing each other FAR outstrips the amount they spend on defending malpractice claims. It isn't even close.

I can tell many horror stories about the way the lawyers have treated many doctors, I personally know, in order to get a settlement when the physician has done absolutely nothing wrong.

told to you by physicians, no doubt. Somehow nobody ever starts their story of woe with "I made a mistake."

Before you say too much, my father is an MD, my wife is an MD and my son plans on going to Medical School...... against our advice and I've been around longer than OS.

that's great.

Pretty much exactly half of my family are healthcare providers of some kind, mostly physicians. My prior firm is one of the top healthcare law firms. Some of my closest friends are top executives at health insurance companies.

My information is good.

You guys that are all for socializing our healthcare need to talk to people that have actually been involved with Canadian or European medicine, especially the older ones. It is NOT what it is here, no where close. You think they have such a great system, you need to do more research.

Like I said in the other thread - been there, done that.

Remember, there has never been a modern major government project that has come in at or under cost projections.......... they always estimate WAY too low.

wow - impressive claim. And one that is basically impossible to back up.



Edited by Peter Parker - 06 August 2009 at 4:36pm

OS's last post (regarding the letter from Dr. Janda) made me curious so I tried to follow the link to the health care plan and it didn't work.  Does anyone have an address that is valid for reading through the plans being considered, as opposed to just links to other people's thoughts on the plan?

Edit:  Disregard, I found a link that seems to work.

Second Edit:

oldsoldier wrote: Written by Dr. Dave Janda     Thursday, 23 July 2009 As a physician . . . 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. Having read this section (and developed quite a headache from trying to translate it from Bureaucratize to English) it seems to focus on "grandfathering" in those who already have their own coverage but denying that choice to those who get coverage after the implementation of the plan.  (In the year 2013, referred to as "Y1" throughout the document.)  I base this on the following statement from page 16 (line numbers omitted for ease of reading} : (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—    (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering          such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is          on or after the first day of Y1. Freedom of choice in health care coverage may also be impacted by the "grace period" applicable to employment-related insurance explained on page 17.  Essentially, it seems to give existing employer provided coverage 5 years to conform to the new standards.  To me this seems like being given the choice of using government coverage or keeping one's current coverage which has to match the government coverage within 5 years.  (In other words, this doesn't sound like a real choice.) . . .  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. Admittedly I had a rough time with this section as it was written in a manner that was very hard to follow.  However, I did not get the impression that it was designed to promote euthanasia.  I was worried about the parts to be determined later such as the quality standards for end of life care being determined by a commission that would be formed after implementation of the law.  (This struck me as a "pass the law and we'll determine what it means later" section.)  This worried me because it does leave the door open for cost savings being generated by decisions which could lead to forcing people to decline treatment if the commission chose to implement "quality standards" that made surviving unbearable. I rest my case. The ObamaCare Plan is hazardous to the health of every American. There are definitely some worrisome things in the plan, but it is too early for me to agree/disagree with this statement.  I am planning on further review as long as my aspirin supply lasts.

Second Edit:  For those who say that everyone would pay less the "Surcharge on High Income Individuals" which is explained starting on page 197 would indicate differently.  It refers to additional taxes ranging from 1% to 5.4% of income based on various income brackets.


Edited by Mack - 06 August 2009 at 6:00pm

pepprdog wrote: You bring suit, you lose, you pay all the costs for both sides.

In my business I think we call that "chilling effect."

NecroSpamBump

Edited by Evil Elvis - 06 September 2011 at 5:12pm

Could it spam a recent post atleast?