Posts Tagged health care reform

A Non-Scandal in Wisconsin

An ultra liberal special interest group called One Wisconsin Now has accused Republican Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen’s office of a “gross abuse of power” and putting “politics above the law.”  Exactly what offense did Van Hollen’s office commit?  Basically being against President Obama’s government take-over of the health care system and seeking information about joining other AGs in a Constitutional challenge to this monstrosity.

If that sounds like a big nothing-burger to you, you’re not alone.  The most interesting thing here is not the non-scandal, but the extent to which a tangled web of special interest groups is spending millions of dollars to try to turn policy disagreements into criminal acts – or at least create an appearance of impropriety that can be used in the next campaign.

One Wisconsin Now is the political arm of the Institute for One Wisconsin.  The Institute is bankrolled in part by – drum roll please – hedge fund billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.  What does One Wisconsin do with the $$?  Well, some of it gets funneled to another political operation called the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund.   Other members of the club include politically-motivated unions like the SEIU and AFSCME.

One Wisconsin Now also tries to drag down the American Justice Partnership, which I run, for contributing to the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) – a group dedicated to supporting conservative, rule-of-law AGs such as JB Van Hollen.

Groups like One Wisconsin Now know how deeply unpopular Obamacare is with the people of Wisconsin.  They understand the bill was steamrollered through Congress despite questions over the constitutionality of several provisions.  Now they’re trying to browbeat and intimidate AGs like JB Van Hollen for daring to challenge their dream of socialized medicine.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The Importance of the Attorney General

As expected eleven state Attorneys General are bringing suit challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform bill just signed into law by President Obama. The suit focuses on the law’s mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

The threatened action suggests the controversial measure is about to move from the legislative realm into what could become a protracted and messy fight in the courts. The attorneys general say they will sue once President Obama signs the bill into law. They are pledging to take their battle all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli lays out the crux of the argument from the article penned by Warren Richey:

“Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the US Constitution’s commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do.”

For years we’ve promoted the importance of the office of AG and this development cements our belief. No matter how this turns out it’s great to see these 11 Attorneys General standing up against big government mandates.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Bingo!

Atlanta anesthesiologist Dr. Tod Rubin says in an op/ed piece in today’s Washington Times what many of us have been thinking:

The suggestion by President Obama to provide a paltry $50 million to institute a medical liability pilot program is just another example of how insincere, deceptive and ignorant he remains on the substantive issues affecting our health care system. To infer that giving each state $1 million to study the medical malpractice liability issues it faces is laughable.

Dr. Rubin, who is a board member of Docs 4 Patient Care, presents a common-sense three-point plan to combat the problem of abusive medical malpractice lawsuits. Fear of such lawsuits force physicians to practice defensive medicine that in turn increases the costs of our health care system by $200 billion to $400 billion per year.

The Obama plan to provide $1m per state to study the issue is too clever by a half. The President hopes to fool us into thinking he’s serious about med mal reform when the reality is that there is plenty of evidence that reform could save hundreds of billions of health care dollars each year. The President is both unwilling to stand up to the trial bar that funds his political operation and unwilling to shoot straight with the American public. No wonder his health care proposal is in such choppy waters.

Read Dr. Rubin’s full piece here.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

House Dems on Med Mal Reform: “Just Kidding!”

Remember President Obama’s talk about pilot programs to test medical malpractice reform as a way to control health care costs?  Well, it’s looking more and more like it was all done with a wink and a nod to the trial bar.

The Washington Times editorial “Chloroform for tort reform” exposes the truth:

With several restrictive qualifications and entirely at the discretion of the secretary of Health and Human Services, the provision, indeed, promises “an incentive payment” for states to try lawsuit reform. Then comes the kicker, though: The bill allows such incentive payments only if “the law does not limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”

This provision is a poison pill. Fee limits or damage caps are the two most popular lawsuit reforms in states across the country, and they are demonstrably effective at cutting malpractice-insurance rates and attracting more doctors to the states that embrace them. To pretend to encourage tort reform while punishing states that actually implement reforms is akin to encouraging a diet while assessing fines for losing weight. It’s dishonest, and it ought to be a deal killer.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is behind the ploy that suggests a cynicism beyond the pale.  While it’s heartening that the Congressional majority believes that publicly opposing legal reform is hazardous to one’s political health it’s equally distressing that they may just get away with their disingenuous plan to kill it with a poison pill.

It’s time to step up, speak out and shine a spotlight on this sham.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Trial Lawyer Congress to States: “Don’t Even Think About It”

It’s never a surprise when the Democrat Congress pulls a muscle carrying water for the trial bar. But now the lawsuit obsessed pairing is demanding that states embrace their agenda or pay a price.

The evidence is buried in Nancy Pelosi’s 1,900 page health care bill.  Why so long? Capitol Confidential at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government has a theory:

It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

The trial-lawyer majority in Congress is not only telling state’s how to do their own business, they’re banning a proven savings method simply because the trial bar doesn’t approve. The trial lawyers majority has exposed their true colors:  opposition to any meaningful reform of the medical malpractice system.

Since when do state’s need approval from Congress to try to control health care costs or run their own legal systems?

Medical malpractice reform is a proven two-fer.  It creates a more rational court system and could achieve huge health care savings according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. From the Washington Post on October 9, 2009:

Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today — a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama’s overhaul of the nation’s health system.

New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

Perhaps the lesson here should be never be surprised when Congress torpedoes a good idea - especially when the trial bar opposes the good idea.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

An 83% solution - that’s dead on arrival

Serious students of health care reform recognize you’re hard pressed to achieve meaningful savings without reforming the malpractice system that forces doctors to practice defensive medicine.

And serious students of politics realize that asking the party of the trial bar to embrace meaningful legal reforms is as likely as the Washington Nationals mounting a late run for the pennant.

Philip K. Howard lays it all out in a piece titled “Why Medical Malpractice Is Off Limits” from the Wall Street Journal.

The upshot is simple:  A few thousand trial lawyers are blocking reforms that would benefit 300 million Americans.

The American public also favors legal overhaul.  A recent Common Good/Committee for Economic Development poll found that 83% of Americans believe that “as part of any health care reform plan, Congress needs to  change the medical malpractice system.”

But of course the trial bar has a stranglehold on scores of Capitol Hill Democrats who are protecting their deep-pocketed benefactors at nearly every turn.

Congress now realizes it can’t completely stonewall legal reform.  But what has unfolded so far is a series of vague pronouncements and token proposals - all of which assiduously avoid any specific ideas that might offend the trial bar.

The real tragedy is that trial lawyer greed both hurts legitimate victims and is trumping a solution that so many different experts agree is worth a try.

But under the current system, 54 cents of the malpractice dollar goes to lawyers and administrative costs, according to a 2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine. And because the legal process is so expensive, most injured patients without large claims can’t even get a lawyer. “It would be hard to design a more inefficient compensation system,” says Michelle Mello, a professor of law and public health at Harvard, “or one which skewed incentives more away from candor and good practices.”

As for the trial bar’s cry that they’re the only guardian of victims of medical mistakes - well Howard puts that claim to the test.

Trial lawyers also suggest they alone are the bulwark against ineffective care, citing a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine that “over 98,000 people are killed every year by preventable medical errors.” But the same study found that distrust of the justice system contributes to these errors by chilling interaction between doctors and patients. Trial lawyers haven’t reduced the errors. They’ve caused the fear.

Former Sen. John Edwards, for example, made a fortune bringing 16 cases against hospitals for babies born with cerebral palsy. Each of those tragic cases was worth millions in settlement. But according to a 2006 study at the National Institutes of Health, in nine out of 10 cases of cerebral palsy nothing done by a doctor could have caused the condition.

So as they used to say “follow the bouncing ball.”  It’s in the Democrats court now - unless of course the trial bar has already snatched it and hid it in their pocket.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The President’s Tort Two-Step

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL | OPINION JOURNAL

Opinion: Potomac Watch | September 11, 2009

Special-interests and the health-care status quo.

by Kimberley A. Strassel

On Wednesday the president told Congress “I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” In fact, the administration is standing by to allow its most special, special interest to drive this debate. What the tort bar wants, the tort bar gets. Health insurers should be so lucky.

The legal question has become the starkest symbol of a broken health discussion, and offers insight into this presidency. For Republicans, legal reform has become a litmus test, proof that Democrats have no interest in a deal, and therefore a reason to step back. For many Americans, legal reform has become proof that President Obama is more interested in an ideological triumph than his stated goal of lowering health costs.

Tort reform is a policy no-brainer. Experts on left and right agree that defensive medicine—ordering tests and procedures solely to protect against Joe Lawyer—adds enormously to health costs. The estimated dollar benefits of reform range from a conservative $65 billion a year to perhaps $200 billion. In context, Mr. Obama’s plan would cost about $100 billion annually. That the president won’t embrace even modest change that would do so much, so quickly, to lower costs, has left Americans suspicious of his real ambitions.

It’s also a political no-brainer. Americans are on board. Polls routinely show that between 70% and 80% of Americans believe the country suffers from excess litigation. The entire health community is on board. Republicans and swing-state Democrats are on board. State and local governments, which have struggled to clean up their own civil-justice systems, are on board. In a debate defined by flash points, this is a rare area of agreement. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

A Funny Bone: One Doc’s Prescription for the Legal Industry

With all the heat and light surrounding Obamacare, surprisingly little noise has come from the doctors on the front lines of providing health care. Until now.

In a Wall Street Journal piece titled “A Doctor’s Plan for Legal Industry Reform” Dr. Richard B. Rafal offers a hysterical, tongue-in-cheek look at how doctor’s might improve the legal profession.   The New York radiologist offers to turn the tables on the very lawyers that drive up health care costs with the filing of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

Since lawyers are key architects of the proposed health care reform, Rafal reasons that doctors ought to be able to return the favor and oversee reform of the legal industry.

“I will gladly volunteer for the important duty of controlling and regulating lawyers. Since most of what lawyers do is repetitive boilerplate or pushing paper, physicians would have no problem dictating what is appropriate for attorneys. We physicians know much more about legal practice than lawyers do about medicine.”

“Physician committees can decide whether lawyers are necessary in any given situation.”

Dr. Rafal’s eleven proposals for reforming the legal system include: Legal DRGs, the rationing of legal care, physician controlled legal review and others. They’re sure to elicit laughter from most everyone but the trial bar.

Check out the full piece to see how applying the proposed “reforms” to health care would affect the legal profession.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Selling out doctors to pay off trial lawyers

Politico

By NEWT GINGRICH & WAYNE OLIVER | 9/3/09 2:26 PM EDT

politicologo

Civil justice reform, which is sometimes referred to as “tort reform,” is not addressed in any health reform bill now being considered by Congress. As a matter of fact, civil justice reform is rarely being discussed even though it should be a critical component of every discussion and in every legitimate health reform bill.

Physicians understand its importance. And so do the American people. Many are beginning to wonder why it’s not in any bill.

Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, at a town hall meeting in Virginia last week said, “Tort reform is not in the bill because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers. And, that is the plain and simple truth.”

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Tort Reform Is Key To Health Reform

By TIGER JOYCE | Posted Monday, August 24, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Investors Business Daily

ibdeditlogoThough common-sense Americans have repeatedly raised the issue of tort reform while discussing health care legislation with members of Congress during town hall meetings this month, too many lawmakers and analysts still stubbornly insist that medical liability lawsuits do not contribute significantly to rising health care costs. These lawmakers and analysts are wrong.

A 2006 Harvard School of Public Health study found that four out of every 10 medical malpractice lawsuits filed in America each year were “without merit.” Nonetheless, defending against such lawsuits imposes costs on doctors, hospitals and insurers that invariably are passed on to health care consumers.

Beyond the obvious costs of litigation, more subtle costs related to the practice of “defensive medicine” are contributing to runaway health care inflation.

How much? In a Massachusetts Medical Society survey published last November, 83% of Bay State physicians cited the fear of being sued in their decisions to practice defensive medicine. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

data recovery software