| Name: |
architect
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Healthcare reform
|
|
Date:
|
9/12/2009 4:31:57 PM
|
Here are a couple of proposals for reform of healthcare:
1/ A state health insurance exchange will be established for insurance providers to offer their product to individuals and small business. This exchange will be the only clearing house through which individuals and small businesses which do not presently offer health insurance can legally purchase health coverage.
2/ Anybody with a gross income of 3 times the Federal poverty level must buy health insurance or post a $10000 bond. If such person could not post such bond their wages could be garnished or their income tax refunds be withheld until the bond was satisfied.
3/ Working closely with doctors, the Federal Government and the private sector will establish an institute for evidence based medicine to conduct studies and systematically review existing information and help inform the nation's overstretched medical providers.
What do the forum contributors think of these proposals?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Healthcare reform
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 9:58:06 AM
|
1/ A state health insurance exchange will be established for insurance providers to offer their product to individuals and small business. This exchange will be the only clearing house through which individuals and small businesses which do not presently offer health insurance can legally purchase health coverage.
Why do we need this? First of all, individuals and small companies can already buy health insurance. We have thousands of insurance agents out there right now working hard every day to sell these products. I know because I get three to four calls every week from them. There are other reforms that are needed. Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow health insurers to offer their products across state lines and to make it easier for private coops to buy insurance (i.e., to allow individuals or small businesses to more easily band together to improve their buying power). We don't need the government for this, we just need the government to change the laws to allow the markets to work.
2/ Anybody with a gross income of 3 times the Federal poverty level must buy health insurance or post a $10000 bond. If such person could not post such bond their wages could be garnished or their income tax refunds be withheld until the bond was satisfied.
The problem I have with this is that a good many of the people this will trap are the working poor and young adults that make the personal calculation that they will take a chance on not needing health insurance. So something catastrophic happens and they use the system and can't pay. There choices are pretty much like what my parents had to do, declare bankruptcy. The very same thing would happen if they don't have life insurance and one dies and they can't pay their bills or they start a business that fails. Why stop here? Why not have the government force us to buy life insurance or post a bond? Where does it stop?
3/ Working closely with doctors, the Federal Government and the private sector will establish an institute for evidence based medicine to conduct studies and systematically review existing information and help inform the nation's overstretched medical providers.
How about a better idea? Lets do tort reform so we can save billions on defensive medicine and liability insurance. But wait, the Dem party is the aprty of the trial lawyers so that will never happen although in states like Texas where it has it has been wildly successful. Ask any doctor and they will tell you they spend a lot of time keeping up on their area of expertise and don't need a bunch of laypeople trying to tell them what does and doesn't work. Thats what they do continuing education for and what all the journals are for.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Healthcare reform
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 3:43:45 PM
|
Items 1&2 were introduced to the Ga. General Assembly in Jan. 2007 by GOP Sen's Chip Rogers and Judson Hill. It did not get to a vote. Very similar provisions are part of the current proposals before congress. Sen's Rogers and Hill now oppose the idea and have infact introduced a proposed state constitutional admendment to prohibit Ga. from participating in such a program. HYPOCRISY!
Item 3 was proposed by Newt Gingrich and John Kerry in a joint opinion piece in the Oct. 24, 2008 NYT. Now such an idea, which is also part of the current proposals before Congress, is equated by Sarah Palin as leading to "Death Panels" and Newt refuses to call her on it. HYPOCRISY!
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
BTW
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 3:49:02 PM
|
How much has Texas Tort Reform lowered health insurance costs in that state? I'm for tort reform too for all professions, but experience in states where such reforms are in place show it will have very minimal impact on insurance premiums.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tort Reform
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 4:08:09 PM
|
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Tort Reform
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 4:13:03 PM
|
Sorry about that. Not like me to say nothing!!
Rather than play with limits under tort reform, just require under federal law that whoever loses the suit pay the legal fees for the winning side. This should slow down frivolous suits.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
State your source
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 8:49:24 PM
|
Did you just make that up or do you have a source? I have heard a lot of positive spin from the state of Texas about the positive impact of tort reform so please provide your proof that it has had little positive impact. Or is this just another drive by comment like we get from Lady....fact free and filled with emotion?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I agree`
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 8:54:54 PM
|
GF: That is a great idea but what you will hear from the left is this has a chilling effect on rightful litigation. If we instituted even this simple reform it would have a very positive impact. My company got sued by a competitor and even though we thought the entire matter was frivolous we settled because the burden of proof for a counter suit for frivolous lawsuits was ridiculously high and not worth pursuing. It was cheaper to settle than to litigate. Even if you limited what lawyers get from a lawsuit you would reduce frivolous suits significantly.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You are so wrong
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 9:00:44 PM
|
Archie: Unlike you I evaluate legislation on its merits and I am not some mind numbed zombie that thinks something is good simply because of the party affiliation. So don't accuse me of hypocrisy when you don't have clue. I could care less who proposed this. You are such an ideologue and a sycophant that you think others are like you. Just like I am not a closet racist like you and the people you chose to hang around with in North Georgia, I am not a mind numbed moron who thinks something must be good because it was proposed by a Republican.
Believe me, I opposed Bush's prescription drug plan, I opposed McCain-Feingold, etc. You really don't understand how a conservative thinks and you apparently don't have the cycles to ever be able to.
|
| Name: |
JustAGuy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I agree`
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 10:24:57 PM
|
I say that the losing ATTORNEYS have to pay the legal fees of the WINNING attorneys. The way things are now ... the attorneys get paid whether they win or lose.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You are so wrong
|
|
Date:
|
9/13/2009 10:42:00 PM
|
I did not accuse you of hypocrisy. I accused these three gutless wonders (Messers Gingrich, Hill & Rogers) of hypocrisy. As for sources of tort reform's effect on insurance I suggest you do as you and WW often tell me. Google it, I did. But even before then mull this over, 30 states have passed tort reform including limits on awards. Why has the increase in cost of insurance not slowed down but has accelerated? Explain how tort reform will really end "defensive Medecine" as long as doctors and clinics continue to paid for all tests whether or not they are needed and whether or not tort reform is in place?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
So tort reform doesn't help?
|
|
Date:
|
9/14/2009 10:06:30 AM
|
Explain these facts just from the state of Texas and from a comprehensive study of tort reform results from 1996 to 2006. Not sure where you did your research on google but this took me two seconds to find positive results from state-based tort reform. Is it the only answer? Of course not, but it has been proven to result in lower costs, improved care for patients, more doctors which should equate to more competition, etc.
"As a result, Texas doctors have seen their insurance rates decline by, on average, 27 percent. The number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas has skyrocketed by 57 percent. In 2008, the Texas Medical Board received 4,023 licensure applications and issued a record 3,621 new licenses.
In all, in just the first five years after reforms passed, 14,498 doctors either returned to practice in Texas or began practicing here for the first time. And our reforms finally brought critical specialties to underserved areas. The number of obstetricians practicing in rural Texas is up by 27 percent, and 12 counties that previously had no obstetricians now have at least one. The statistics show major gains in fields like orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, neurosurgery and emergency medicine. The Rio Grande Valley has seen an 18 percent growth in applications to practice medicine, adding about 200 doctors to this critically underserved area.
And what about the money that used to go to defending all those frivolous lawsuits? You can find it in budgets for upgraded equipment, expanded emergency rooms, patient safety programs and improved primary and charity care."
Also, see below from a study by the Heartland Institute. This points out that not all tort reform has the same impact. But overall it does reduce the awards which ultimately reduces costs in the system through lower health insurance premiums.
"Of the 25 tort reforms that we examine, the statistical analysis identifies 18 reforms to state civil-justice systems that significantly reduced tort losses and tort insurance premiums from
1996 through 2006. For some categories of tort cases, specific reforms cut payouts by more than 50 percent. The cumulative effect of reforms across all tort categories is a 47-percent
reduction in losses and a 16-percent reduction in insurance premiums for consumers. Some tort reforms are highly effective at reducing costs in certain tort categories, but are ineffective
in other tort categories. It is important that reformers pick the right tool for each problem."
|
| Name: |
rude evin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Dang MM.........
|
|
Date:
|
9/14/2009 11:37:36 AM
|
There you go using facts again to bury Archy, it's just not fair...........I bet he also thinks that the Acorn group is great at giving tax advice to 'free lance' businesses.... :-}
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Like shooting fish in a barrel
|
|
Date:
|
9/14/2009 12:59:45 PM
|
It always amazes me how quickly they state alleged facts that are so easily checked and disproved. Once again, liberals believe so much that just isn't so......
What I can't quite figure out is I think Archie has stated previously that he is for tort reform. Why he wants to try to argue that it won't help is mystifying. I think he knows Dems can't accept real tort reform because of their alliance with trial attorneys so maybe he is trying to provide some cover.....who knows?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
OK Mr. Mensa
|
|
Date:
|
9/14/2009 6:57:41 PM
|
You've told all of us how much tort reform has lowered Texas' doctors liability insurance rates. Now be kind enough to inform us how much the average Texas individual citizen's healthcare premiums have been reduced by tort reform. Sure, tort reform is great for medical professions but has had almost no impact on the healthcare insurance rates of the everyday working stiff. There my brilliant and arrogant friend is the rub.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
and furthermore
|
|
Date:
|
9/14/2009 7:02:02 PM
|
I have said I favor tort reform for ALL, not just doctors. I've practiced architecture on a small scale sinse 1975 and have never even had even so much as the hint of a lawsuit yet must pay thousands for errors and omissions insurance. Don't I deserve a little tort relief too?
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
More insults and more fish
|
|
Date:
|
9/14/2009 9:20:24 PM
|
Gee Archie, do you always have to be so nasty or does that just come naturally to you? You'd like to bite my finger off wouldn't you? C'mon, admit it.
Read in my post about the second study and you will see that they stated that insurance premiums in states with meaningful tort reform saw on average a "16 percent reduction in premiums for consumers". You see consumer means regular folks like me and you and not the doctors or the lawyers.
At least give me the courtesy to read my posts before you ask a dumb question that was already answered. Bang, got another one......
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Archii and Martii
|
|
Date:
|
9/15/2009 12:32:48 PM
|
You guys need to meet in Atlanta for lunch and a drink and I have the feeling you will have a most enjoyable time chatting and laughing at some of the posts.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Archii and Martii
|
|
Date:
|
9/16/2009 9:43:38 AM
|
GF, the problem I have with Archie is when faced with irrefutable facts he always resorts to name calling, insults. etc. And this whole racist business is just a distraction from the important disagreements we have with Obama's policies (most recently the worst President of the last century Jimmy Carter has played it). It is intellectually dishonest to try to deflect legitimate criticism by attributing motivations that do not exist. That is a true sign of desperation and it won't work and it won't be allowed to stand, at least not by me.
I would be glad to buy Archie a beer as long as he promises not to have my pinkie as an appetizer. :-)
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Bear Creek Reservoir
Login
|
Home
