CBO comes out a 2nd time against Health Care Reform Bill

[FriscoDog]

This is the second time the CBO has had negative things to say about the ObamaCare. Hopefully people will wake up and listen. Reform is needed, but not the stuff they are trying to pass now.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html

[PawDawg]

This is the second time the CBO has had negative things to say about the ObamaCare. Hopefully people will wake up and listen. Reform is needed, but not the stuff they are trying to pass now.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html

One of the simplest things to repair would be for congress to throw a few billion at the medi-gaps. Both sides of the isle get blame for this along with Bush.

Congress doesn't want the public to realize that the billions shorted the Docs and hospitals is passed directly to health insurance premium payers. This should be the very first thing addressed, but you won't hear a Rep. or Dem. speak about it.

[dawg80]

Tort reform should be step one. Docs/hospitals have to pay ridiculous ins. premiums because there is no limit on the damages that might be awarded.

Obviously, no one wants to be on the wrong end of a botched medical procedure, and if the doctor makes a mistake, surely the patient is in a position to seek relief. But, how much?

I read an account where an unemployed person, and whose work history showed they never earned more than $20K in any year, was awarded $millions, even though there was minimal adverse effects of the mistake. And it's not like this person was the primary provider for the household and as a result of the botched surgery, could never work again.

Sensible and fair policies are needed and that will reduce the cost of liability ins. which in turn will cut the costs of healthcare.

[LookingForResults]

Tort reform should be step one. Docs/hospitals have to pay ridiculous ins. premiums because there is no limit on the damages that might be awarded.

Obviously, no one wants to be on the wrong end of a botched medical procedure, and if the doctor makes a mistake, surely the patient is in a position to seek relief. But, how much?

I read an account where an unemployed person, and whose work history showed they never earned more than $20K in any year, was awarded $millions, even though there was minimal adverse effects of the mistake. And it's not like this person was the primary provider for the household and as a result of the botched surgery, could never work again.

Sensible and fair policies are needed and that will reduce the cost of liability ins. which in turn will cut the costs of healthcare.

Amen. Until you see serious tort reform as part of any proposal for a change in the way health care is provided, that proposal is just another Trojan horse.

[TechsasDawg]

I have spent a number of hours trying to understand what is in HR 3200, but all the gobble-de-gook makes it extremely difficult to read and comprehend! If you want the entire bill (1017 pages) downloaded into a PDF format, go to: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:h3200ih.pdf

The one thing that stands out in the whole document is the enormous bureaucracy it will take just to do all the checks and balances at many levels to run the government program. My impression is that if they include the cost of running the program in the 10 year cost figures, the price tag will double or triple. I can't imagine who writes this crap!


TD
~~

[FriscoDog]

Funny things is that when the CBO makes comments like this, you hear nothing but crickets from the BHO supporters. They can't discredit the CBO because it is not Bush's CBO, or Republican CBO etc.

[Guisslapp]

Tort reform should be step one. Docs/hospitals have to pay ridiculous ins. premiums because there is no limit on the damages that might be awarded.

Obviously, no one wants to be on the wrong end of a botched medical procedure, and if the doctor makes a mistake, surely the patient is in a position to seek relief. But, how much?

I read an account where an unemployed person, and whose work history showed they never earned more than $20K in any year, was awarded $millions, even though there was minimal adverse effects of the mistake. And it's not like this person was the primary provider for the household and as a result of the botched surgery, could never work again.

Sensible and fair policies are needed and that will reduce the cost of liability ins. which in turn will cut the costs of healthcare.

Won't happen. Trial lawyers have typically supported Democrats, and Democrats return the favor by not passing tort reform.

BTW, tort reform is also key to controlling the costs of defensive medicine - not just attorney and award costs. Defensive medicine is a huge cost on the system.

With that said, tort reform could be problematic to health care quality in the long run. The truth is that these 1MM+ verdicts are what allow many of these plaintiffs into court. Plaintiff's attorneys take these cases on contingency because most plaintiff's cannot afford the legal fees. Lower the awards, and attorney's will not want to take these cases. Too much risk for the prospect of a low recovery.

[RhythmDawg]

Tort reform should be step one. Docs/hospitals have to pay ridiculous ins. premiums because there is no limit on the damages that might be awarded.

Obviously, no one wants to be on the wrong end of a botched medical procedure, and if the doctor makes a mistake, surely the patient is in a position to seek relief. But, how much?

I read an account where an unemployed person, and whose work history showed they never earned more than $20K in any year, was awarded $millions, even though there was minimal adverse effects of the mistake. And it's not like this person was the primary provider for the household and as a result of the botched surgery, could never work again.

Sensible and fair policies are needed and that will reduce the cost of liability ins. which in turn will cut the costs of healthcare.

This is also the reason that physicians order multiple tests to rule out everything and, in many cases, repeat tests to confirm diagnoses...not because they are looking at a fee schedule deciding how they can make the most money, or because they are not communicating clearly with other physicians...as was the accusation made when BHO mis-spoke during his speech.

It is also clear he does not understand the healthcare revenue cycle.

[PawDawg]

The exsisting gap for reimbursement is much greater than the cost of malpractice insurance. Heath insurance premimus suffer for it in a much greater way. I'll have the figures to post tomorrow.

[mikedog]

Won't happen. Trial lawyers have typically supported Democrats, and Democrats return the favor by not passing tort reform.

BTW, tort reform is also key to controlling the costs of defensive medicine - not just attorney and award costs. Defensive medicine is a huge cost on the system.

With that said, tort reform could be problematic to health care quality in the long run. The truth is that these 1MM+ verdicts are what allow many of these plaintiffs into court. Plaintiff's attorneys take these cases on contingency because most plaintiff's cannot afford the legal fees. Lower the awards, and attorney's will not want to take these cases. Too much risk for the prospect of a low recovery.

Until doctors finally start regulating themselves, lawsuits are the only way to get bad doctors out of the business. There are too many doctors that are nothing but licensed drug dealers and will whore themselves out for the almighty dollar.

[mikedog]

Won't happen. Trial lawyers have typically supported Democrats, and Democrats return the favor by not passing tort reform.

BTW, tort reform is also key to controlling the costs of defensive medicine - not just attorney and award costs. Defensive medicine is a huge cost on the system.

With that said, tort reform could be problematic to health care quality in the long run. The truth is that these 1MM+ verdicts are what allow many of these plaintiffs into court. Plaintiff's attorneys take these cases on contingency because most plaintiff's cannot afford the legal fees. Lower the awards, and attorney's will not want to take these cases. Too much risk for the prospect of a low recovery.

I just don't believe that malpractice awards are the main culprit of defensive medicine. Many states have statutory caps on medical malpractice awards, including Louisiana. Yet, I've never seen any study which suggests that doctors in capped states are less likely to practice defensive medicine.

In my opinion, doctors and patients will continue ordering test after test until you have the patient on the hook for a co-payment for each test or procedure.

[Guisslapp]

I just don't believe that malpractice awards are the main culprit of defensive medicine. Many states have statutory caps on medical malpractice awards, including Louisiana. Yet, I've never seen any study which suggests that doctors in capped states are less likely to practice defensive medicine.

In my opinion, doctors and patients will continue ordering test after test until you have the patient on the hook for a co-payment for each test or procedure.

Preaching to the choir.

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showp...4&postcount=50

[mikedog]

Preaching to the choir.

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showp...4&postcount=50

We need to get more people in our choir.

[Guisslapp]

We need to get more people in our choir.

We can start with the patent attorneys.