It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SOCIAL: Medical Liability Reform

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 06:39 AM
link   
One of the biggest issues facing Americans today is the astronomical cost of health care. Already high and climbing higher each year these costs will soon overwhelm the system. On key area in which costs can be reduced is One of the biggest areas that costs can be reduced is in the Medical Liability Area. Only President Bush has a plan to address this critical problem
 


Health care facilities have become bombarded by an endless series of lawsuits. As technology has allowed for a greater number of procedures, risk has also increased. Often through no fault of the hospital or its staff, a patient will die. Despite this, the hospital will often be sued. In order to defend itself from all of this excessive liability, the hospital often increases the amount of charting and paperwork. In addition, the hospital will employ a huge team of “Risk Management” staff to prepare and defend potential liability even if it does not come from a legitimate complaint.
By reducing and limiting liability, we can reduce the total costs of the health care system and the money saved can be poured back into patient care.


Medical Liability Reform To Help Rein In Unnecessary Health Care Costs. Too many lawsuits without merit are being filed against doctors and hospitals, forcing them to practice defensive medicine, driving good doctors out of practice, and driving up health care costs for everyone. The President believes people who have a legitimate claim must have their day in court. But to make health care more affordable and accessible to everyone, we must reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and limit excessive jury awards. No patient has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit.
www.georgewbush.com...




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Only President Bush has a plan to "reduce medical costs" by reducing Doctor accountablility for safe, quality healthcare.

Protecting "you" by protecting big business. :shk: Were this plan to increase the profits of Republican constituents in the healthcare industry to ever result in the trickle down of a single dime to you or I, I'd fly my pig to the White House and shake his hand.

While we wait for that to happen, consider the Kerry/Edwards Health Plan for America seeking to actually decrease the direct costs to consumers immediately with a $1000 tax credit targeted to families paying premiums, and further eliminate the "big business" roadblocks to access by allowing re-importation of safe prescription drugs and ending the artifical barriers to generic drug competition.

If President Bush is still upset about all that darned paperwork (as opposed to accountability) he can join Kerry/Edwards in demanding a 25% reduction via technological standards in administrative processing eliminating the paper trail without eliminating accountability.

America can be efficient, save billions and not sacrifice lives.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Rant Rant Rant, Once again John Kerry's platform speaks not of the needs of the American People, but of the trial lawyers that have poured millions into the Democrats coffers in an attempt to kill any legislation that would prevent them from earning money on frivalous suits.

In 2004 alone Dems recieved $80,793,866 or 72% of the total money that they gave. Kerry's position is based not on better care and lower costs, but on supporting a major campaign contributor. (Kerry recieved a total of $19,586,944 for his presidential run from lawyers)
www.opensecrets.org...

Since 1990 The dems have recieved 418,040,839 from lawyers while the Republicans have recieved 164,462,459.
No wonder they oppose liability reform.

For 2004 Bush Recieved 10,281,244 from lawyers
www.opensecrets.org...
For 2004 Kerry Recieved 15,741,662 from Lawyers
www.opensecrets.org...


Patients would be protected from mistakes and they would recieve appropriate compensation for thier injuries. However the 10,000,000 dollar judgements for a stubbed toe have got to stop.

Kerry's vage plan offers nothing but empty promises. However, the Tax credit sounds down right Republican in nature.

Paperwork is a nessary evil in the litigious health care world. Even when appropriate care is provided, lawyers will often encourage families to sue. By mandating excessive levels of documnetation more and more time is spent away from the bedside where care is directly provided.

Editied to add link and figures

[edit on 4-9-2004 by FredT]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
In 2004 alone Dems recieved $80,793,866 or 72% of the total money that they gave. Kerry's position is based not on better care and lower costs, but on supporting a major campaign contributor. 9Kerry recieved a total of $19,586,944 for his presidential run from lawyers)


We're really going to need to see a link or two to support that claim. Is $80 million a typo? Is $19.5 million one of those paper trail errors?

Here's how
USGOVINFO.com breaks down 2004 contributions to candidates:

Health Care

Bush: $8,527,909
Kerry: $3,405,107

Lawyers and Lobbyists

Kerry: $12,812,930
Bush: $10,621,326

It seems lawyers then work both sides of the coin. Were you aware big business hires them too? While I understand the need for Bush speaking points to demonize lawmakers that actually bother to attain law degrees as not the advocates of little people but themselves... all the while pretending big business doesn't employ them in much higher ratios for defense of their malpractice profits, it's simply not a fair assessment of Kerry/Edwards dedication to consumers to say it's loyalty to "lawyers" not people. But the 3 to 1 contributions from healthcare sure point to Bush loyalties, and it's not you or I.

Why the Bush spin to cast healthcare practioners as somehow suffering? Why would it take a limit on their accountability and insurance premiums (assuming Malpractice Insurance companies would even pass along profits to Doctors) for them to trickle down savings to consumers?

If they truly want to help out the people I found a place to start! Stop bleeding the consumer. And it doesn't require limiting healthcare accountability, since despite what Bush would have us believe "It's not the lawyers stupid!" (directed at Bush):

Drug Costs are the Major Driving Force Behind Increased Health Care Costs.
The cost of the 10 most popular prescription drugs has gone up and average 8.7 % over the last year alone. Prescription drugs now account for 23 percent of American's out-of-pocket costs. [AdvancePCS, 8/25/03, www.advancepcsrx.com; New York Times, 1/9/04]

They can handle a little economizing:

The Drug Industry is the Most Profitable Industry In United States.
According to the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, "[T]he pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in the United States for each of the past 10 years. In 2001, it was 5-1/2 times more profitable than the average of all other Fortune 500 companies." [Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Follow the Money, 9/30/03, www.ag.state.mn.us]

Look at the result (aka where your tax refund and more went):

Household Spending on Health Care Expenses Now Eats Up One-Fifth of Income.
Urban Institute Analyst Eugene Steuerle has estimated that households will spend on average $15,000 on health care costs in 2004, including $8,000 in taxes to cover government programs and tax subsidies. Health care costs now account for nearly 20 percent of household personal income. [Urban Institute, Tax Analysts, 9/29/03, www.urban.org]

And how it happened:

Bush Does Nothing While Health Care Costs Spiral.
Health Care Spending Has Accelerated Every Year of Bush's Presidency. Data recently released by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that health care spending was up 9.3 percent in 2002, following an 8.5 percent increase in 2001. Under Bush's watch, medical spending has risen from 13.3 percent of GDP in 2000 to 14.9 percent in 2002. [Bestwire, 1/13/04; New York Times, 1/9/04]

But four years later while running against evil "lawyers" Bush suddenly has a new plan other than the $400 billion grab bag award to the pharmaceutical industry funded by his Medicare deforms. The new and improved Bush plan to decrease healthcare costs to consumers is to increase healthcare profits MORE by decreasing accountability and limiting consumer recourse. I not only object, I'm disgusted.

The Kerry/Edwards plan specifically addresses and immediately answers the problem. Re-importation. DIRECT tax breaks to the consumers. And the best thing is nobody dies from the huge pass on accountability Bush seeks for his campaign contributors.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Actually Rant, this was a specific post to the Liability issue. If youd like to address the Kerry mirage on health Care Reform, please follow this link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Actually Rant, this was a specific post to the Liability issue. If youd like to address the Kerry mirage on health Care Reform, please follow this link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And I addressed the "issue" as the Bush misdirection that it is pretending to be about health care costs.

Were we in "court" counsellor
I think I'd be allowed a little leeway to not only illuminate the real issue the defendent is avoiding, but also expose the pattern of deception. Or is it also the "greedy environmentalists" destroying the environment?

The "issue" as it's being promoted by Bush as about "healthcare savings" not only demands exposure of his highly suspect (if not patently obvious) motives, but also the real culprit as it's not the advocates of the wronged.

Though I understand Bush would like to limit the discussions of issues to his highly unique framing of them, it's not going to happen here as it does in mainstream media.

Rant accepts no advertising dollars from Bush contributors hawking purple pills and Viagra.


Speaking of which, let's use your source Opensecrets.org (which includes all contributions, not just the one's of Election Board record) to indeed examine motives here.

2004 contributions to each party by Healthcare industry to nearest $100 thousand:

Pharmaceutical/Health Products
Dem = $4m
Rep = $7.5m (65%)

Hospitals/Nursing Homes
Dem = $4.7m
Rep = $6m (56%)

Health Services/ HMO's
Dem = $1.9m
Rep = $3.3m (63%)

Individual Health Professionals
Dem = $16.8m
Rep = $29.9m (64%)

And the trending favors Bush more than even all Republicans over the past decade with all Republican contributions from the industry up 5 to 6% in 2004, that is except Pharmaceuticals that remained overwhelmingly pro-Republican throughout the years (67% average) and are obviously reaping the rewards under their paid spokesperson, George W. Bush.

The reason this is significant illuminating Bush motives for "Medical liablity reform," is the industry overwhelimgly buying him here specifically engages in one product, that being healthcare, and all are subject to those "liability" measures enacted to ensure saftey and accountability.

Your analyses of contributions from all "lawyers and law firms" (while indeed being a huge source of contributions) is much more murky as to motive on the healthcare issue, as the overwhelming support of these advocates for democrats over the years applies not only to medical malpractice attorney's, but the industries collective OUTRAGE at the Patriot Act and any number of authoritative reforms from Republicans over the years. The "no mercy" clauses that hog tie Judges into manditory sentencing via "strike" laws. The Republican press to not allow moratoriums on Death Sentences pending review of new technologies like DNA. Even just your basic everyday issues of constitutionality over an invasion like DUI roadblocks, the right to privacy, the ability to marry or to not have Jesus specifically shoved down our throats.

Everybody sure hates lawyers til they need one. :shk: But in this instance tying Kerry/Edwards opposition to reducing medical accountability to serving the interests of lawyers and not people is misplaced. Though it's patently clear who Bush serves on the "issue" of Healthcare profit protection.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by RANT]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join