Continuing to arrange the legislative corpses of BarryCare so as to make them look like they perished more heroically, we bring you to fresh, complimentary, but ultimately non-starter stories. First, a national public option with a state opt-out clause…

I think you’re the shady one.

Jimbo3 on October 8, 2009 at 5:16 PM

despite steady increases in malpractice claim frequency and severity

From the CMA…
Don’t believe everything the CMA says:

Recent studies on California alone showed that about 20,562 malpractice suits were filed against physicians. This is about 11% of the total number of medical malpractice suits filed in the whole country.

The cap was there; yet the number of cases exploded, along with the number of cases that “maxed” out. The dollar amount also per case increased.
One state has 11% of the nations suits…25 years ago it had about 7%.
They didn’t address the worst abuser, class action law suits…

Jimbo3 on October 8, 2009 at 5:16 PM

California has the Authority to create Tort Reform, CONGRESS does NOT, nor is FEDERAL tort reform constitutional under the 7th Amendment. Trying to tell a civil jury how they can and cannot rule is dangerous business for the Federal Government to be involved in.

Federalism is the concept here: do it without the federal government if you truly want LESS federal government ‘help’. This allows for organizations that can handle wider markets to do so, while protecting localized organizations that are well adapted for their particular areas to not suffer the need to go national but allows those insurers who can serve wider markets to do so. By getting the federal government out you hold companies accountable at the State and local level which should be far more responsive than waiting for federal bureaucracy to take its sweet time to do anything. That does require us to stop thinking about this as a national problem and, instead, as a series of local problems to which no single solution will fit.

There is no magic bullet to cancer.

There is no magic solution to health care because it is as diverse as the people of the US. Tort reform would be a big help, but the States can do that on their own as Texas has demonstrated by doing that and lowering costs. Why anyone wants to push more power into DC is beyond me: the federal government has demonstrated its incompetence amply in many venues and has demonstrated itself to be the least accountable form of government around. And if its such a big problem, our States should deal with it FIRST and ‘mandates’ from on high should be the LAST thing anyone wants.

A ‘window’ for ‘compromise’ sounds more like defenestration when you are 20 stories up. And we are the ones getting tossed out the window… the landing is something we will not survive.

In 1975, the California Legislature adopted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA. Under that, noneconomic damages — that’s “pain and suffering” — were capped at $250,000. Lawyers’ fees were also limited.

See http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&SECTION=Article_Archives&CONTENTID=1793.

I think you’re the shady one.

–I did read the bill. Here’s what it says about pre-existing conditions: “Covers pre-existing conditions – Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified
pools are expanded.” It doesn’t require anyone to grant policies that cover pre-existing conditions.

Seriously, the GOP need to push an alternative perspective.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Do you know why people have no respect for you…why they laugh at you, and ridicule you.
Because of posts like this.
You have been told probably a dozen times of H.R. 3400, and yet you continue with your outright lie that Republicans do not have a bill.
There can’t be any other explanation…you are lying about saying there is no other alternative being pushed…it just isn’t being pushed by the liberals….duhhhhh!
It solves most all the problems…except it is a Republican bill and people like you would rather tell an lie, pretend you don’t know, then to report that this is a bill that addresses most every issue…and it is not government laden….sheeesh, you are such a troll…

And there is no real world evidence that tort reform reduces health care costs to the consumer. It didn’t in Texas or in California.

Jimbo3 on October 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM

It was never implemented in California…the attorney got the bill revised…either you did not know that, or you are a little “shady”…just sayin. There was no real tort reform anywhere in the U.S.

There are really no good GOP alternatives. None of the GOP alternatives effectively deal with pre-existing conditions. Giving money to states and allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines doesn’t require any insurance company to offer insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. That’s basically all that the GOP bills do.

And there is no real world evidence that tort reform reduces health care costs to the consumer. It didn’t in Texas or in California.

The problem is that the GOP are trying to put perfume on their horse turd bills.

Jimbo3 on October 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Hey pal…better look at H.R. 3400, that bill covers pre-existing.
It allows selling across state lines, reduction in legal fees and costs (limits on what attorney get, not the patient), gives credit for medical students who will serve as public doctors for a certain amount of time…it creates competition between insurance companies, allows low income students the ability to become doctors, it assists pre-existing, you can take your coverage with you, or change it to a better coverage at a new job.
It essentially takes away all the “government” angles, and allows the free market, while limiting the greedy attorneys.
Apparently you have not read the bill…

And there is no real world evidence that tort reform reduces health care costs to the consumer. It didn’t in Texas or in California.

The problem is that the GOP are trying to put perfume on their horse turd bills.

Yesterday, the CBO scored the Baucus “concept” and gave a preliminary analysis that it would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years. However, the CBO insisted that this was only a conceptual analysis, as none of the Baucus plan has been translated into legislative language as of yet. Until the legislative language exists, the CBO cannot properly score its impact.

So…why did the CBO publish their fantasy numbers and why are you reporting on it, Ed? With all due respect…eff it.

Well said.

How do we tell these people that we don’t trust them to do anything and want our country back?

Johan Klaus on October 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM

You can choose not to drive. That is a safety/compensation issue for others.
Income and property taxes are for government functioning.

The case with Insurance mandate is different. You have to buy it because government says you have to. Supposedly it’s for your own good. I think that is unconstitutional.

Why do we automatically assume that health care reform is a government issue? It isn’t.

jimmy2shoes on October 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM

What do you propose for the millions of American citizens who do not have health care insurance?

See Mike Pence, Eric Cantor, hell go read HR 3400

The arm twisting Pelosi is doing is unprecedented IMO
the Blue Dogs will; likely all lose their seats in 2010

I predict EPIC EPIC turnover in da house.

Sarah, btw, needs to push a real reform bill RIGHT NOW.

One that will probably not please the “constitutionalists.”

But one that will provide a solution, a real solution.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Why do we automatically assume that health care reform is a government issue? It isn’t.

One that will probably not please the “constitutionalists.”

But one that will provide a solution, a real solution.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM

If it is unconstitutional is , how can I say this, unconstitutional.

I say we put all the versions of the bill in one big pile and shoot it at the moon.

LibTired on October 8, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I say we put all the bill writers in one big pile and shoot them to the moon; it ought to fullfill all their cap and tax fantasies, too. There’s no CO2 on the moon.

This is as close as you’ll ever come. Blue Dogs are real. They are gun-shy on this legislation.

This is it.

Seriously, the GOP need to push an alternative perspective.

AnninCA on October 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM

I know there are moderate and conservative Democrats. That’s why this bill is in trouble.

There are at least three different Republican health care reform bills in Congress. How much has the public heard about them from the MSM?

Also mandates are unconstitutional. Government CAN NOT not force you to buy anything. No matter what crappy logic is applied.

antisocial on October 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Try the following. 1.Driving without insurance.
2. Hiring who you want.
3. Serving who you want.
4. Not paying income tax.
5. Not paying property tax.
6. Using you own property as you choose, when there is an endangered species.(real or imagined.) Ect., ect., ect……….