Mitt Romney's Health Plan

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
In the interest of bipartisanship, and allowing sniping from both sides, here is an excellent link to a discussion of what Mitt Romney's said and done regarding health care funding. Once you've read the piece you might want to browse the rest of the blog (Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review)--it's a good resource.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I don't like Romney all that much. And I don't care if his plan in Massachusetts is "working," however that conclusion is made, I still don't want the government controlling this aspect of my life--in any way, shape or form.

That said, Romney is right, insofar as all States are not the same. For the standpoint of financials, alone, there are States that have far more problems than others. From the standpoint of demographics, there are too many differences in various states to even begin to list. So I'd say that if Romney wants to argue that what he did in Massachusetts was possible because of these kinds of specifics, he's got a fair point. The canoe stuff doesn't hold water.
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Feeble boating metaphors aside, I assume what Romney's really asking is for red folks not to hold against him what the blue folks in Massachusetts made him do.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
An effective politician, in my book, is one who accomplishes goals or at least fulfills promises. Did he run on this issue in Mass? If so, this speaks well of Romney, not poorly.

So, if he's running on a different platform for a national election--which kinda makes sense--that doesn't make him anything other than a typical politician. He's actually a little Clinton-esque, no? (Bill, not Hil)
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I agree with you that a politician should be pragmatic and willing to compromise up to the point such compromise conflicts with whatever core principles he or she has. The question facing conservatives evaluating Romney is: what are his core principles? One possibility is that in healthcare he is willing to be a pragmatic compromiser and doesn't really think government involvement in healthcare to the extent he presided over in Massachusetts is intrinsically evil. Leftie that I am, I hope that is the case. I suspect, though, that he is trying somehow both to take credit for and distance himself from what he signed into law there. Yes, I know--the states differ. But their healthcare needs are not that wildly different. So if he thinks what went on in Massachusetts would be a good thing for the many similar states, he should just say so and stop acting like Clinton with his famous joint, as in: "I just puffed East Coast Liberalism--I didn't inhale any. Trust me."
 

dclary

Unabashed Mercenary
Poetry Book Collaborator
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
13,050
Reaction score
3,524
Age
55
Website
www.trumpstump2016.com
Romney's from Massachussetts?

Ok, I must vote against him.

/dclary, whose commute sucks bad enough without having a president even slightly associated with "The Big Dig."
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
There's an update about Romney's policy proposals that Rob will like on the Health Care Policy Blog. A snippet:

"Of course the reason that health insurance costs so much is that health care costs so much, but we’ve discussed that one plenty of times before." (There's then a link to that issue.)
 

Joe270

Banned
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
5,735
Reaction score
3,485
Location
Vegas, baby
One reason why health care costs so much is opportunistic lawyers like John Edwards getting rich off the system by suing with dubious scientific evidence. The insurance pays, then raises rates on doctors who charge us all more to cover the insurance.
 

SarahinOhio

In My Blue Period
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
516
Reaction score
133
Location
Waiting for Godot
Website
sarahhina.blogspot.com
One reason why health care costs so much is opportunistic lawyers like John Edwards getting rich off the system by suing with dubious scientific evidence. The insurance pays, then raises rates on doctors who charge us all more to cover the insurance.

Its contribution is marginal, at best. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2004 that malpractice lawsuits account for less than 2 percent of increased health care spending.

http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/insurance-carriers-related/771677-1.html

That being said, I don't think caps are a bad idea.
 

GeorgeK

ever seeking
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
6,577
Reaction score
740
Its contribution is marginal, at best. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2004 that malpractice lawsuits account for less than 2 percent of increased health care spending.

http://www.allbusiness.com/finance-insurance/insurance-carriers-related/771677-1.html

That being said, I don't think caps are a bad idea.


I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the Congressional Budget Office period. You can argue any way you want about why physician malpractice premiums have skyrocketted to the point that they have. My Neurosurgeon's premiums are over a quarter million per year, and he's a great surgeon with few if any suits against him. I'm sure that bogus malpractice suits are partly to blame, but I think a lot of it is the insurance companies themselves. They can charge it because they have a captive audience. Most if not all hospitals and surgery centers require so much coverage as a requirement for priviledges. In many states there are few insurance providers. When Insurance CEO's are making 30 million plus dollars per year I think it is fair to say that not all of that increase in premiums is going to plaintiffs. It is pure and simply price gouging, and the rest of the country is suffering for it.
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
One reason why health care costs so much is opportunistic lawyers like John Edwards getting rich off the system by suing with dubious scientific evidence. The insurance pays, then raises rates on doctors who charge us all more to cover the insurance.

And when your child's guts get sucked out by a faulty pool drain, I'll be betting that you'll be wanting a lawyer like Edwards to fight for you in a court of law.

Granted, there are cases that are questionable, but do note that there are companies that do put out bad products,doctors who do bad medicine, and health insurance companies who don't cover all medical needs and currently the only real way to deal with them is suing them.

Futhermore, that's not the real reason why health care costs so much. Just so you know.
 
Last edited:

Joe270

Banned
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
5,735
Reaction score
3,485
Location
Vegas, baby
And when your child's guts get sucked out by a faulty pool drain, I'll be betting that you'll be wanting a lawyer like Edwards to fight for you in a court of law.

Talk about apples and oranges. This is more comparing apples and concrete blocks.

So how does this case you cited wind up as malpractice? Or is it sensationalism for the sake of derailing the issue?

The point I made clearly was using pseudo science, and absolute lies to, IMHO, literally steal money from the health care system. Millions of dollars, at that. If it's two percent, that's fine, but I expect it is higher than that.

I expect that only reflects the pay outs, not the increased rates which follows. That would more than double the cost to us, who eventually have to pay those sleazy lawyers through increased costs.

And one of them is running for President. Great, just great.
 

Gary

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
968
Reaction score
153
Location
East Texas
It's not only the direct cost of malpractice insurance that you have to consider.

How many unnecessary tests are run because physicians want to prevent lawsuits? How many medical equipment suppliers need to mark up the price of their products to cover potential lawsuits? What about the reams of documentation that must be maintained for years, in case of lawsuits? How much of a drug company's income goes to insurance?

I don't know the answers, but I'd bet a bundle there is nothing wrong with our health care system that a massive dose of tort reform wouldn't fix.
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
Talk about apples and oranges. This is more comparing apples and concrete blocks.

So how does this case you cited wind up as malpractice? Or is it sensationalism for the sake of derailing the issue?

The point I made clearly was using pseudo science, and absolute lies to, IMHO, literally steal money from the health care system. Millions of dollars, at that. If it's two percent, that's fine, but I expect it is higher than that.

I expect that only reflects the pay outs, not the increased rates which follows. That would more than double the cost to us, who eventually have to pay those sleazy lawyers through increased costs.

And one of them is running for President. Great, just great.

The Health Insurance industry is seeing high profits these days. Their claims of having to raise the costs because of lawsuits is bullshit. Frankly, if they actually, you know, actually covered all the needs of their customers, they wouldn't BE facing lawsuits, now would they?

It's not only the direct cost of malpractice insurance that you have to consider.

How many unnecessary tests are run because physicians want to prevent lawsuits? How many medical equipment suppliers need to mark up the price of their products to cover potential lawsuits? What about the reams of documentation that must be maintained for years, in case of lawsuits? How much of a drug company's income goes to insurance?

I don't know the answers, but I'd bet a bundle there is nothing wrong with our health care system that a massive dose of tort reform wouldn't fix.

Oh, Goddess forbid that we have all these tests to make sure that our health problems are properly diagnosed! Let's all feel bad for Big Pharma and Big Health Insurance because they're making record profits but the bad bad little people are getting all uppity and whiny about not being properly covered by this drug or this transplant surgery and having to cut into the bottom line by suing. *rolls eyes*

All kidding aside the need for "tort reform" is bull. It's the industry that needs fixing, not the lawsuits. Like considering health care as a right, instead of a privilege for starters.
 
Last edited:

Joe270

Banned
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
5,735
Reaction score
3,485
Location
Vegas, baby
All kidding aside the need for "tort reform" is bull. It's the industry that needs fixing, not the lawsuits.

Reading comprehension is not one of your high suits, that's for sure.

I never said all lawsuits are bogus. There are law firms which specialized in using pseudo science and charming, handsome, persuasive lawyers to win jury awards in cases that were completely false.

Edwards specialized in 'forceps delivery' cases. Their data was false, skewed, and often faked, but it didn't matter, they made millions off South Carolina's obstetricians. Many left the state to avoid future lawsuits because the method was and is accepted and remains fairly safe. Of course, doctors could just c-section every woman, and then we'd really see lawsuits flying.

Don't accuse me of protecting MDs. I don't use MDs, and I think their methods and approach to medicine is skewed to profit, their egos, and maintaining their 'superiority' to the slobbering masses. I personally use a DO. Osteopathic Medicine treats more than simple symptoms, they treat patients with respect, and they talk to you much more than any MD to find the root of the problem. They want to cure their patients.

To prove the profit motive of MDs, one needs to look no farther than the decades of 'ulcer' treatments and surgeries, the billions made when a simple antibiotic treatment cures some 95% of ulcers. . . permanently. People suffered needlessly for decades to sell Tagamet and the like.

To prove how much MDs are threatened by DOs, one needs to look no farther than the railroading of Dr. Sheppard. Check up on it. It'll raise your eyebrows.
 

Unique

Agent of Doom
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
8,861
Reaction score
3,230
Location
Outer Limits
Reading comprehension is not one of your high suits, that's for sure.

I never said all lawsuits are bogus. There are law firms which specialized in using pseudo science and charming, handsome, persuasive lawyers to win jury awards in cases that were completely false.

Edwards specialized in 'forceps delivery' cases. Their data was false, skewed, and often faked, but it didn't matter, they made millions off South Carolina's obstetricians. Many left the state to avoid future lawsuits because the method was and is accepted and remains fairly safe. Of course, doctors could just c-section every woman, and then we'd really see lawsuits flying.

specialized in forceps cases? I think not. where do you do your reading?
South Carolina? Again, I think not.

Every bad outcome in a hospital or clinical setting is not the doctors' fault. SHIT HAPPENS. And those are usually sick people, eh?

But as my wise professor once told me, 'Fifty percent of doctors graduate in the bottom half of their class.' The AMA has covered the asses of horrible physicians for years. Their own hospitals do it, their colleagues do it, and who knows how many other layers of cover up exist.

I, myself, have been a victim of medical malpractice. I did not sue anybody because I am still alive and SHIT HAPPENS.

Yes, there should be caps but they should be fair. High risk pregnancy and the baby died - sometimes it happens. The doctor did not do a C-Section as 99.5% of his colleagues would have because he 'didn't believe in them' or was not feeling like doing one that day - that doctor is at fault.

After he's had the pants sued off him - then he should lose his license.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I'm all for such doctors having their "pants sued off." Though there should be a cap--a fair cap. And that cap should be waayy less than millions of dollars, barring proof of intent to do harm.

But that's not the whole story. Lawyers sue everyone even remotely connected with such cases, just hoping that they'll get lucky and hit a jackpot. It's become ridiculous and getting moreso by the moment.

And of course insurance companies are making a fortune, here. Every big-time judgment is a reason to increase their rates, under the defensible position that they could get hit with a bunch of such lawsuits at once. This is no less true of property insurers. And health insurers. And auto insurers. And that's why insurance should never exist as a mandate, imo, in any way shape or form. Doctors shouldn't have to carry any insurance. And if they didn't they'd be personally liable for malpractice awards. Then you'd see a drop in cases, I bet. Of course, there'd also be a drop in the amount insurance companies would charge, and a drop in the number of vultures (lawyers) hovering around the industry. That would be bad news, I guess.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Doctors shouldn't have to carry any insurance. And if they didn't they'd be personally liable for malpractice awards. Then you'd see a drop in cases, I bet. Of course, there'd also be a drop in the amount insurance companies would charge, and a drop in the number of vultures (lawyers) hovering around the industry. That would be bad news, I guess.
Well, it certainly would be bad news for a patient needing expensive lifetime care due to gross negligence.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Well, it certainly would be bad news for a patient needing expensive lifetime care due to gross negligence.
A potential that exists for gross negligence in many, many aspects of life, no? Should we all be required to carry insurance for all that we do? I understand the consequences of such tragedies--be they a consequences of gross negligence or simple error. And I understand the need to believe that such can be remedied. But I think that there must be reasonable expectations in this regard, and a reasonable view of life, in general.

Regardless, the costs of such a life time of care are inordinate partly because of these very same reasons, as well.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
To prove the profit motive of MDs, one needs to look no farther than the decades of 'ulcer' treatments and surgeries, the billions made when a simple antibiotic treatment cures some 95% of ulcers. . . permanently. People suffered needlessly for decades to sell Tagamet and the like.
For years, conventional wisdom held that it was unlikely that bacteria could be a primary cause in ulcers. In medicine, as in most all walks of life, conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong.

In the eighties, two researchers (physicians) discovered that indeed the bacterium H. Pylori was responsible for most ulcer cases. They faced initial skepticism, but later won a Nobel prize for the discovery. Antibiotic treatment is now the standard of care.

To clarify, are you saying you believe doctors knew about the connection between bacteria and ulcers all the time, but ignored it because it would eat into their profits?
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
I promised to stay out of this, but that's not so. Unless I really slept through all my gastroenterology lectures (which is possible), the standard teaching was that the high-acid environment of the stomach made survival of any bacteria there impossible. Since then we've found that not to be true. Similarly, we've since found that bacteria can live in near-boiling hot springs, too. They're far more sturdy than previously thought.

You may now resume your malpractice mud-throwing.