1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Healthcare Bill - Eliminate Defensive Medicine

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by TheFranklinParty, Aug 10, 2009.

  1. TheFranklinParty

    TheFranklinParty New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    The right and the left have both gone out of bounds. Rep. Pelosi saying that it is un-American to voice your complaint with the healthcare bill and Sarah Palin talking about “Death Panels”; they should both be ashamed of themselves. The healthcare bill is supposed to make healthcare insurance more affordable and more available. Balderdash!!

    Our entire Congress should be investigated for bribery. Why is there no conversation on Tort Reform? Where is it in the bill? Politicians know where their bread is buttered. They don’t want to risk the hundreds of millions of dollars tossed into campaign coffers every year by the Legal industry. It’s just another example of big business buying votes.

    For those of you who say, “…reducing malpractice insurance won’t make that big a difference…” I say, “Show me the facts.” The legal costs are the small part of the equation, although PointofLaw.com recently cited that previous estimates of the overall impact of Tort Reform were greatly understated. The real issue is that our medical professionals have taken to practicing Defensive Medicine.

    Defensive Medicine is the practice of ordering tests and procedures that aren’t necessary, but protect the medical professionals from the possibility of a lawsuit. In 2005, the Journal of the American Medical Association said that 93% of specialists in Pennsylvania admitted to practicing Defensive Medicine. In Massachusetts, a 2008 survey showed that 25% of all imaging tests were purely for defensive purposes. Although it is hard to quantify, because it has become so pervasive within the medical establishment, it is estimated to have increased overall medical care costs by between $100B and $200B. Even on the low side it comes to almost a 10% savings in healthcare costs, yet we don’t even hear a whisper.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Those are some really good points. I agree both pelosi and Sarah Palin said things they should not. I would like Sarah Palin to explain more of what she meant. I dont need that from pelosi, its clear what she meant.

    Our entire Congress should be investigated for bribery. Oh I agree with that 100% and I think they should be jailed if found having done it.

    Really great post!
     
  3. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Everybody wants to limit malpractice awards... until it's their Child or their Mother or their Father killed or injured avoidably.

    You'd be no different.

    Actually the panel of experts President Obama wants to establish would give doctors some additional cover from certain law suits... as long as they went by the book.

    Since Tort Reform on it's own won't take care of the problem we are moving in a direction that addresses many of the problems with today's broken health insurance system.




     
  4. r0beph

    r0beph New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Wrong, don't spin the context. She is discussing the UNRULY expression of their disagreement with the healthcare bill. If they have something to say, do as everyone else is expected to at the orderly town hall meeting. Making ruckus and causing disorder is not expressing the freedom of speech nor dissent, it is in fact unAmerican by virtue of silencing those who would be speaking their mind in an orderly fashion if they were not being shouted down. This is a valid argument by Pelosi.

    She loves to hog the light and if it takes her making up completely baseless accusations against a bill to show her "support for the people" that's what she'll do. The "death panel" bit came from the Living Will section of the bill that ensures that there will be medical assistance for those who wish to create a living will, this is better than not having assistance, but the choice is ultimately each person as to how they wish things to be handled; most definitely not a panel of anything, especially death. Pure and utter nonsense from Palin.

    I'm not sure what the previous two statements have to do with this conclusion, perhaps the context is maligned, do your two priors somehow imply this final statement? If this statement is stand-alone I must disagree. This is what it is supposed to do, so you're right on that point, however I have trouble with your "Balderdash", we don't even have the bill in place yet, how in the world could you possibly know that it isn't functioning to its expectations? Perhaps you have a time machine? Who wins the next world series?


    Everything else I agree with. Although in many cases defencive medicine is not a bad thing. Often times while the intent is not to ensure the patient's health, it is in line with the SOC and thus as a by product tend to ensure patient health. (Mind you I worked in the hospital system for years in emergency med, so I'm quite well versed in how a lot of that works. ) For example, someone comes in and someone mentions "seizure" even if it is unlikely, since the CC is seizure, you're getting a CT and an EEG and likely a 12 lead EKG. While usually this proves unneccessary, the reason it WOULD be done according to SOC is that there is a distinct possibility of post-seizure cardiac issues, continuing petit mal seizures, and brain damage. Does it usually prove false? Yes. Does it save lives when it isn't false? Most definitely often times.
     
  5. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    So true...

    In 2008, the Lawyers/Law firms donated nearly a quarter Billion to campaign funds ($233,883,007), 76% of that money went to Democrats and just 23% went to Republicans. Despite having spent so much money, the law industry only ranked second in campaign donations in 2008 but they are determined to take first place in the 2010 cycle. SOURCE

    Already in 2009, they have contributed 40% more money to political campaigns than their closest lobbying competitors and 85% of that money has gone to Democrats while just 15% has gone to Republicans. SOURCE

    The special interest groups that Obama cries about, the special interest groups that Democrats like DICK Durban claim are conspiring to squash health care reform... Those big money special interest groups are not trying to stop health care reform, they are pushing for reform, they are all lining the pockets of Democrat politicians to get favorable treatment from whatever reform is enacted.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    IF? We've been sold out. The politicians are going to pander to both public sides of this argument: the people who want universal health care and the people who think it won't work. And the money people will win.

    Having been purchased by big money, the politicians will give the people what they want by passing a health care bill, but it will be so egregiously bad that it won't work and this will give all the naysayers a big "I told you so!". What happens then is business as usual, we tried universal health care but it didn't work so all we can do is continue our current system.

    And the really stupid thing is that it doesn't matter a damn who wins the elections--money wins. We can't even investigate our own government because who's going to do it? We get one crook to investigate another crook? No one has the authority and the stature to truly investigate government malfeasance. Who would YOU trust to do the investigation?
     
  7. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Of course! The Republicans are already mostly on board.
     
  8. TheFranklinParty

    TheFranklinParty New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
     
  9. TheFranklinParty

    TheFranklinParty New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL

    The reality is that most of the Town Halls were staged presentations which don't allow people a real chance to ask follow-up questions to drive real content. Was there Conservative agitators sent into many of these rooms? Probably, but the quickest way to shut them up is to have good answers and that is where many of the presenters failed. My challenge with Rep. Pelosi and many of her partners in this process is that they don't have a very good handle on the details of this bill, so they struggle to respond to inquiry, so they sling mud instead.

    There is very little debate, that the bill as it stands will not lower the cost of healthcare and in many cases will increase it for many Americans. That comes from the Accounting office not me.

    You have the right to your opinion, just as I have mine, but the reality is the people thinking this stuff up aren't looking at how the numbers really add up and that is my biggest challenge with it all.

    Last thought, do you think the founding fathers discussed the ratification of the Constitution calmly and gently? Not based on what I've read. It was an aggressive passionate verbal battle.
     
  10. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
     
Loading...

Share This Page