If you were in Congress next year, what would you do to change or improve the current health policy legislation?
Charlie Dent: Emanuel. The President came to the meeting. I recommended various medical liability reforms. "We had a massive debate on this issue, as you know. It was very frustrating for me, personally. I was invited to the White House in May 2009 to discuss health care with RahmRahm Emanuel said, 'We're going to do that, Charlie.' I said, 'Great, Rahm, what are you gonna' do?' He told me. I said, 'Rahm, That's great, I'll support you. It's not going to save you money, but I have some more ideas for you.' So we had a nice conversation with the President chimng is, 'Yes, we're going to do medical liability reform.'
"When the Bill was written and presented to the American people, not one word on medical liability reform. Why did that happen? The President of the United Staes said it was going to happen, and it didn't happen. He told me and twelve other members, in the White House, there was going to be liability reform. Why? Because the trial lawyers didn't want it. Howard Dean said it very well.
"So what we need to do is control the costs. That's the first order of business. The law deals with expanding coverage, but it does not deal with cost containment. That's why this law is going to fail. It will fail. And it will lead to rationing.
"So what we should do is medical liability reform; we should allow small businesses to reach across state lines where they can receive greater discounts when they purchase insurance; get out from under the state insurance mandates; we should also make sure that individuals can buy insurance across state lines. That is something that we can do, and that will make a very meaningful difference. Because right now, we don't have that in America.
"One other thing that I think we also really need to focus on - making sure that a federal bureaucrat can't step between you and your doctor. We need to protect that. We need that type of patient's Bill of Rights, a Medical Rights Act. That's extremely important.
"So health care is going to be an issue that we're going to have to deal with. We're going to have to defund much of this health care law. The employer mandate's not gonna' work. The individual mandate is problematic. Many of these tax hikes have to go. The 1099 provision in the health care law. If you pay more than $600 to a vendor, you have to issue a 1099 for, a paperwork nightmare.
"So there's so many issues that we're going to have to address, we're going to be spending years."
John Callahan: "[Congressman Dent would] repeal the Bill, and that would be a mistake. That would essentially be taking all the - I mean - who here wants to see the ability of the insurance companies to deny new coverage due to pre-existing condition? Who doesn't want to have the opportunity to cover other kids up to the age of 26 on their health insurance if they don;t have a job that gives them health insurance?
"That's Charlie Dent's plan, to go back to the old policies of before. We all know what has happened in the course of the last 6 years with health care premiums. In the time that Charlie Dent's been in Congress, health care premiums have gone up by 34%.
"We all recognize that this is a central issue to this country, and our ability, not just to provide health care fr our citizens, but to be competitive in the global market place. Charlie Dent wants to go backwards, and not forwards. He wants to repeal the Bill. He doesn't want to improve on it, he wants to repeal it.
"There is medical liability reform in the Bill. There are demonstration projects set u, and I think we should move forward with further medical liability reform going forward.
"But the reality is that there's not a day goes by that I don't talk to a senior citizen that's caught in a doughnut hole, trying to make a decision between paying their rent or paying for their prescription drug bill. And the list goes on and on, and Charlie Dent doesn't see that as a problem. He said when he got elected six years ago that this was issue One. It's not about rhetoric. It's about results. And he has done nothing to move this country forward when it comes to healthcare, and meanwhile, he's accepted $350,000 from those same medical insurance companies."
Blogger's Note: The medical liability demonstration projects mentioned by Callahan have nothing to do with the health care overhaul. They are instead part of an initiative announced by President Obama on 9/9/09. Callahan never really offered any changes or improvements, but chose instead to criticize Dent.
13 comments:
The medical liability system, which includes "defensive medicine", only accounts for 2.6% of total health care spending.
Look at this CBO chart of Medicare/Medicaid growth projections. Dent's main plan wouldn't do anything to control costs.
The "interstate sales" canard is a recipe for a race to the bottom on insurance quality. Every insurance company will rush to headquarter in the state with the weakest regulations. Charlie Dent admits this - he says it will help insurance companies get out from under state insurance mandates. That means state laws regulating what insurers have to cover.
That's certainly one way of "controlling costs". I guess if you get way less coverage you're going to pay less for it, but I don't think that's an outcome anybody wants, or that anyone will benefit from.
One of the good things the ACA does is impose minimum quality standards for insurance. Some of the worst mini-med plans are now getting pushed out of the market, and that's what we want to see. Charlie Dent's idea of progress is apparently for all of us to have mini-med plans that don't cover anything.
CBO projection of Medicare/Medicaid growth here
Jon, as you well know, according to DEMOCRATIC FIGURES (which Geeting already consented to on his blog), medical liability reform will save $500 BILLION over 10 years.
Even an avowed spender like you has to realize $500 BILLION is alot of cash.
And that's not a typo people - Jon Geeting and the Progressive Liberals what you, the taxpayer, to take a $500 BILLION hit to the shorts to protect their trial lawyer lobby paymasters.
Also, you're dead wrong about interstate sales as well. Hasn't worked that way in any other line of business.
Ever.
It's interesting to note that a reduction in defensive medicine - which is the MAJOR cost of frivolous malpractice suits, not court costs or even awards - would save roughly $50 billion a year - or $500 billion over 10 years. 91% of doctors admit that they're forced to practice defensive medicine, which costs everyone more (no, the doctors don't make any more money ordering those unnecessary tests, so I don't even want to hear that old canard.)
$500 billion is almost the EXACT amount that the federal government wants to CUT FROM MEDICARE over the next 10 years.
So wouldn't it make more sense to take that money out of lawyers' pockets than senior citizens' and military families' pockets? Or should personal injury lawyers continue to prosper on the backs of the elderly and those who serve our nation?
BTW - the "demonstration" projects were established by executive order, and specifically EXCLUDE any of the measures, like capping non-compensatory damages or lawyers' fees, which have been proven to work everywhere they've been tried. Instead, they must focus on "patient safety" or alternative dispute resolution. States which HAVE caps are specifically excluded from participating. Wonder whose idea that was? Plus....since when was throwing money at a study, which must be carried out, then analyzed, then maybe implemented - but probably not - since when was that "reform?"
The entire "tort reform" aspect of Obamacare was smoke and mirrors, designed to placate doctors and Republicans, with full knowledge that it would do absolutely NOTHING to rein in malpractice costs of reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits.
See what happens when bills that nobody read get signed into law at 3 AM
GOTZ VON BERLICHINGEN
875,000 have had to find new insurance - so far. This, after Barry's lies about "nobody will have to change insurance." His own party (except for poor Geeting) is running away from the ill-conceived disaster they've created. Luckily, much of it will not be funded after rs take over.
While tort reform is a great idea, why didn't the Rs do it when they were in control? Oh wait, that would have hurt all their lawyer pals. Now that the Ds have control and aren't doing it because it will hurt all their lawyer pals, the Rs are all for it. Any bets on how far this goes if the Rs regain Congress?
7:51, you're right. It's why Rs lost power four years ago, and why the TEA Party exists today.
Lawyers run DC. It's why the economy is in free fall. Only 8% of Obama's cabinet is from a business background. The most liberal administrations previously hovered in the 40%- 50% range. Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers.
Uh oh.
So is a disbarred lawyer worse than a regular lawyer or is he redeemed?
Only difference is that a disbarred lawyer's been caught. Like the Catholic concept of a priest for life, there's no redemption from being a lawyer, not even in the blogosphere.
I see. Well, at least I'll be joining all my friends when I reach the fiery gates of hell.
Just to keep a sense of accuracy here....
Between 2001 and the end of 2006, the Republican House passed various incarnations of medical liability reform AT LEAST TEN TIMES.
Some measures included caps on non-economic damages (pain and suffering) while all retained UNLIMITED ECONOMIC OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES(lost wages, health care, special devices, child or home care or anything to which a realistic price could be attached) Some covered all medical liability cases; others attempted to provide some relief for the hardest hit specialties like ob-gyn and ER care.
Then all ten of those bills went to the Senate, where the admittedly Republican controlled Senate DID NOT HAVE 60 VOTES and was thus unable to defeat numerous Ted Kennedy-led filibusters.
Lawyers in Congress did indeed defeat medical liability reform while Bush was President - Democratic lawyers in the Senate, who knew that there WERE 51 votes for passage of the medical liability bills, so the only way they could avoid losing the unlimited trough at which personal injury lawyers continue to feed was to use the filibuster, because they knew the Republicans didn't have enough votes for cloture (60 votes)
Sadly, the Republicans hadn't yet figured out how to bypass the Senate's cloture provisions like Harry Reid did in March 2010 for the health care bill.
Blame Republicans all you like for spending too much money during the Bush administration, getting involved in wars some people disagree with, not passing immigration reform, supporting bank bailouts - but DON'T blame them for not passing medical liability reform when it was Senate Democrats who were ENTIRELY responsible for that.
Post a Comment