Rush Limbaugh HEARTS status quo healthcare

[Hoss]

What are some examples of how the Democrats have extended an olive branch or exhibited a true effort at bi-partisanship?  I keep hearing that the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of a reform plan which is total BS.  They can't get it heard in committee.

Gridlock is what happens when both sides are unwavering, not one.

They're politicians, Co...do you believe everything you hear from EITHER side?  I bet they don't have anything and HAVE been able to get a word in while in committee.  Remember, this is the party whose members have stated that healthcare would be Obama's 'Waterloo'...and it would 'break' him.

[we vs us]

What are some examples of how the Democrats have extended an olive branch or exhibited a true effort at bi-partisanship?  I keep hearing that the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of a reform plan which is total BS.  They can't get it heard in committee.

Gridlock is what happens when both sides are unwavering, not one.

Well, they slowly watered down and then struck the public option altogether.  The Stupak Amendment (limiting abortion coverage on a government plan) was another honey pot for the GOP.  Of course, exercising that legendary party discipline, none of them bit.

I'm sure there were more, but those are the biggies.  

[guido911]

How about we focus on the biggest costs first, where the greatest savings might be realized?

I never said let's "focus" on tort reform, but how about just including it. Seriously, how much time does it take to type the appropriate language into a bill? If it saves money, no matter how much, why not just do it instead of looking at a bigger picture which has gotten us no where at present.

[rwarn17588]

What are some examples of how the Democrats have extended an olive branch or exhibited a true effort at bi-partisanship?  I keep hearing that the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of a reform plan which is total BS.  They can't get it heard in committee.

Gridlock is what happens when both sides are unwavering, not one.

There was indeed a health-care bill by the GOP. However, the CBO report (which, remember, the CBO is nonpartisan) on it revealed it was so inadequate in extending health-care options to the uninsured that it couldn't be taken seriously.

In short, it couldn't get out of committee because the experts who examined it said it sucked.

[FOTD]

I'm keeping a careful eye on my statements from my insurance company and medical providers from my shoulder surgery and I'm seeing a few areas that are raising red flags with me.

One is a statement from my insurance company came last night, the claim date was two days prior to my surgery, it was a "lab" claim and the physician's name clearly stood out at me.  It's my daughter's boyfriend's father, a cardiologist.  I'd know for certain if I saw him that day and I most definitely did not.  All I can figure is that must have been how they keyed through the charge for the EKG they did on my pre-op visit at St. Francis.  I understand the purpose of a pre-surgical eval by a cardiologist and a PA from the anesthesiologist's office.

There's a few other procedures I'm questioning as to how necessary they were.  They took an X-ray of my shoulder on my two week follow up visit.  My surgery was for soft tissue issues which would not readily show up on an X-ray.  There's another $100 I can't see was needed unless my surgeon was looking for a missing hex socket, ratchet, or screwdriver. 

Another was a pre-op visit with my surgeon the same day I had the pre-op at the hospital.  I gained nothing from it and I can't see how my surgeon gained anything from it other than an additional $120 office call charge.  I literally spent less than 2-3 minutes with him and had some great coffee, but that's it. 

I think there are simply some extraneous charges that get thrown in which do not need to.  Every time I hear "Oh, we don't need to do this" or "We are going to cut your re-hab visits from three to two a week" I'm perfectly content with that.  Insurance companies could probably do a better job of reviewing what sort of extraneous visits they are allowing if they are concerned about capping costs. 

If the government went to a single-payer system and did not take time to do careful audits of all the sausage stuffing that goes on around hospitalizations and surgeries, all we'd be doing is passing the problem along to the tax payer without really looking at why the costs are so high.

FOTD's with you until that last paragraph. Why do you people always have it in your mind that government will handle the single payer invoices and manage care? This needs to be the insurance companies duty to enforce on behalf of the taxpayers and the government. Instead of running away from an efficient direction, just say no. Lazy attitude.

BTW, things you see that look unnecessary on doctor bills are cya to protect them from the lawyers.

[nathanm]

I never said let's "focus" on tort reform, but how about just including it. Seriously, how much time does it take to type the appropriate language into a bill? If it saves money, no matter how much, why not just do it instead of looking at a bigger picture which has gotten us no where at present.

There have been a number of states that have gone down that road. Can you provide any evidence that tort reform has reduced healthcare costs or even slowed their growth?

Would you support comprehensive medical tort reform that barred suits for any conduct that wasn't wilful or malicious, and instead created a fund to provide for the continuing care required as a result of (accidental) malpractice? Or would that be too "big government" for you?

That's one of the great advantages of single payer, you know. Health care costs are paid out of the pool regardless of their cause, so only cases where punitive damages are appropriate would have to go to trial. But, as mentioned above, it could be done without single payer, but it would require some sort of fee to fund the pot of money used to pay for malpractice.

Such a system would be more fair to everyone, in that the payout would not be an estimation of future costs caused by the malpractice, but actual costs instead. It would also avoid the expense of lawsuits in all but the most egregious of cases.

[Conan71]

Well, they slowly watered down and then struck the public option altogether.  The Stupak Amendment (limiting abortion coverage on a government plan) was another honey pot for the GOP.  Of course, exercising that legendary party discipline, none of them bit.

I'm sure there were more, but those are the biggies. 

How much of that was true bipartisanship and how much was: accountability to voters come November and what essentially amounts to corruption on the part of Democrats who are on the insurance company and big pharma dole?

That's the beauty of a two party system for incumbents.  They can blame lack of progress on the opposing party instead of corruption or fear of losing their job for doing the right thing.

[nathanm]

They can blame lack of progress on the opposing party instead of corruption or fear of losing their job for doing the right thing.

In this particular case, however, the Republican leadership is happy to take the blame. They have repeatedly stated that their current goal is to obstruct the Democrats' agenda. I don't have references at the moment, but I seem to remember several bills so far that have been changed at the request of Republican Congresspeople, yet still garnered exactly zero Republican yea votes.

One thing is certain, however: both parties are on the corporate dole. The only room for debate there is one of degree, not of substance.

[FOTD]

How much of that was true bipartisanship and how much was: accountability to voters come November and what essentially amounts to corruption on the part of politiciansDemocrats who are on the insurance company and big pharma dole?

That's the beauty of a two party system for incumbents. I They can blame lack of progress on the opposing party instead of corruption or fear of losing their job for doing the right thing.

There is room for discipline and negotiation to achieve a result that is in the best interest of the citizenry....if they were to define common ground. Are you saying it's best to do nothing? As a single payer advocate, the only argument from the blue dawgs and repukes is "it's socialism." So what?

Cannot believe you ignored what Nathanm wrote. You must have been having a Guido moment...

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan - no coherent reply...yet?


It's STILL the Republi-contin in the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch bottled Kook-Aid!

[guido911]

There have been a number of states that have gone down that road. Can you provide any evidence that tort reform has reduced healthcare costs or even slowed their growth?

Would you support comprehensive medical tort reform that barred suits for any conduct that wasn't wilful or malicious, and instead created a fund to provide for the continuing care required as a result of (accidental) malpractice? Or would that be too "big government" for you?

That's one of the great advantages of single payer, you know. Health care costs are paid out of the pool regardless of their cause, so only cases where punitive damages are appropriate would have to go to trial. But, as mentioned above, it could be done without single payer, but it would require some sort of fee to fund the pot of money used to pay for malpractice.

Such a system would be more fair to everyone, in that the payout would not be an estimation of future costs caused by the malpractice, but actual costs instead. It would also avoid the expense of lawsuits in all but the most egregious of cases.

I am going to cheat a little (or be lazy) and just re-post this thread about tort reform in which cannon fodder & I got into it a little bit (plaintiff lawyer v. defense lawyer):

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14143.msg141920#msg141920

This is what I specifically posted about the success with tort reform in Texas:

Here's an article that claims defensive medicine costs are nearly $100B a year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511987247017719.html

In Texas, significant tort reform was implemented with the following results:

• The total impact of tort reforms implemented since 1995 includes gains of $112.5 billion in spending each year as
well as almost 499,000 jobs in the state.
• The reforms with respect to asbestos/silica litigation, which were enacted in 2005, are already contributing $490.3 million in annual spending and 2,683 permanent jobs.
• Reforms related to limiting non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation alone lead to increases of $55.3 billion in spending per year and more than 223,000 jobs.
• Benefits are spread across the state, positively affecting communities both large and small. Results are provided
for the state as well as every county, metropolitan statistical area, council of governments region, planning region, and
legislative district.
• The fiscal stimulus to the State from civil justice reforms is about $2.558 billion per year.
• Other positive benefits include an increase in the number of doctors, particularly in rural areas and other regions, which have been facing severe shortages and the inclusion of almost 430,000 Texans in health plans who would
otherwise be uninsured.

http://tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/Texas_Tort_Reform_Report_2008.pdf

[heironymouspasparagus]

Geez...you are using Texas as an example???

Just for general principle, the state that executes the most innocent people per capita of any state, should be excluded for consideration of legal topics.

[nathanm]

I am going to cheat a little (or be lazy) and just re-post this thread about tort reform in which cannon fodder & I got into it a little bit (plaintiff lawyer v. defense lawyer):

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14143.msg141920#msg141920

This is what I specifically posted about the success with tort reform in Texas:

Here's an article that claims defensive medicine costs are nearly $100B a year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511987247017719.html

In Texas, significant tort reform was implemented with the following results:

• The total impact of tort reforms implemented since 1995 includes gains of $112.5 billion in spending each year as
well as almost 499,000 jobs in the state.
• The reforms with respect to asbestos/silica litigation, which were enacted in 2005, are already contributing $490.3 million in annual spending and 2,683 permanent jobs.
• Reforms related to limiting non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation alone lead to increases of $55.3 billion in spending per year and more than 223,000 jobs.
• Benefits are spread across the state, positively affecting communities both large and small. Results are provided
for the state as well as every county, metropolitan statistical area, council of governments region, planning region, and
legislative district.
• The fiscal stimulus to the State from civil justice reforms is about $2.558 billion per year.
• Other positive benefits include an increase in the number of doctors, particularly in rural areas and other regions, which have been facing severe shortages and the inclusion of almost 430,000 Texans in health plans who would
otherwise be uninsured.

http://tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/Texas_Tort_Reform_Report_2008.pdf

Perhaps I'm having a senior moment, but I don't see where it discusses reduced growth (or an actual decline) in medical costs. Given that Texas still has some of the highest cost health care in the country (based on Medicare per-capita expenditures), I'm inclined to think it doesn't exist.

[Red Arrow]

Perhaps I'm having a senior moment,

That explains some of your posts but honestly, I haven't gotten the impression you are old enough to have senior moments.

[nathanm]

That explains some of your posts but honestly, I haven't gotten the impression you are old enough to have senior moments.

Everyone has them from time to time, no matter what age.