It can. The goal has been stated to provide healthcare to those that don't have it and can't afford it. This would provide 11 million additional people with healthcare insurance. You're trying to change the conversation to something else: how much I spend (and others like me) on healthcare to get the coverage I want.
Not really as I don't have the time (at work). But I've been quasi involved due to some of the work I do with the government. It's a never ending issue. Also, most of the tort reform, after it's been beat to death by the lobbiests, ends up being nothing more than some silly cap.
Not trying to change the conversation, just trying to understand. But I think you are right. I withdraw my comment on the math - you are certainly correct in any case that $11B could provide 11 million people with $1000 to spend. I'm a bit skeptical that insurance 1/6 the price of what I've got is much good, but I guess that's beside the point. $1000 is $1000, and it certainly buys something, and that's better than nothing. So - let's go ahead and save that $11 billion, collect it as tax from those who save it, and distribute it in some fashion to those who don't have health care. Works for me. barfo
http://geoffdavis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=150512 Republicans offered multiple amendments in both the House and Senate in an effort to include medical liability reform in health care reform legislation. All of our amendments were defeated. http://ensign.senate.gov/public/ind...1-401d-73dc-51e190f5b8a2&Region_id=&Issue_id= DEMOCRATS BLOCK ENSIGN MEDICAL TORT REFORM AMENDMENTS TO HEALTH REFORM BILL Finance Committee amendments would have included medical liability reform in bill
So DC, You go in for a procedure to repair a torn ACL and the doctor misreads the chart and takes the leg off. Do you think you should be limited to $250K for pain and suffering?
It's pretty meaningless to introduce an amendment that you know will be defeated. It lets you say you introduced it, but it doesn't mean that you actually tried to get it passed. Trying to get it passed would involve compromise with the majority party, and as we all know that isn't happening. If Republicans wanted to offer a few votes for the overall plan, they could get this and probably a whole host of their other priorities included in the plan. But tort reform just isn't that important to them. barfo
I think if the doctor has taken off more than one leg under those circumstances, he should be stripped of his license, and to pay heavy cash penalties. An insurance court would be ideal to make both happen. You do have a jury making an award before the insurance court can be appealed to. This gives us the trial by jury of peers that is important to our justice system. The problems with a jury are that they are not medical experts, can be swayed by experts on both sides, and sympathetic to the plaintiff especially if the defendant has deep pockets. If the object is to take care of the fellow who lost his leg, $2M invested at 5% interest would give him $100K per year for life. FWIW, I would set the cap on awards at $5M, not $250K.
Majority party isn't interested in compromise. Worked that way with republicans in control, with democrats in control before that, and democrats in control now. Especially with 60 votes in the senate. You apparently think it's better to not offer good amendments at all, regardless of how idiotic and closed minded the majority is.
Well, they don't quite have 60 votes, or this would have been done long ago. And they'd be quite happy to make a compromise that brought in 5 or 10 republican votes. That would actually be a huge win for the democrats. It hasn't happened because aside from the state of Maine, republican votes are not available for the reform package at any price. No, I'm in favor of noting them for what they are - position statements - and not for what they are not (attempts to change the law). barfo
The cap isn't the big deal here, it's making the plaintiff pay legal fees if the lawsuit is frivolous. The idea of a $5M award is that it seems sufficient to provide a lifetime of income to the injured party up to ~$250K/year.
The dems have the 60 votes, they just don't want to be looked at by future historians as the party that rammed a really bad thing down the public's throats. If it's bipartisan, then it looks like there was a consensus. What do you think would happen if the dems actually passed one of the amendments?
They could certainly make hay about passing R amendments and then the R's would really look like obstructionists instead of a party being frozen out of the process.
The best way to have serious tort reform is to have a screening committee (a few states do; usually made up of 3 medical experts, a judge and one other person). They determine if there is any merit to the case by a vote. If they vote 'no' and the case goes forward, the plaintiff agrees to be responsible for defense costs if they lose. If the answer is 'yes', then the case goes to mediation. If that does not settle it, the defense makes an offer of judgment to the courts. If the plaintiff does not accept it, goes to trial and bests it, the defendant pays for a part or all plaintiff fees. If the award is less, then the plaintiff simply collects and moves on in life. I'm not huge on caps, but in good reform, if the defendant feels the award is too high, they should have a right to appeal to protect against unreasonable juries.
No. The Democratic strategy is to try to pick off just ONE Republican in either the House or Senate, and then call the bill "bi-partisan".
Sure. W picked Norm Minetta (D) for his cabinet. Obama's picked a couple (R) for his. It's called "reaching across the aisle."
That sounds reasonable to me. But why mediation step(mediation I attened with my lawyer was a waste of time, the attorney on the other side had no authority to settle and the adjuster didn't bother coming to the mediation), I say arbitrate the matter and if one side appeals and does worse at trial, then they pay costs.
