1) Don't know. I've just seen the written english of some.

2) To help make insurance cheaper for everyone (rich, middle class, and poor) not just a target voting base.

3) I would assume more than the current Baucus plan being that it isn't supposed to cover much more than what is covered currently.

4) Hardly anything since it isn't government making the solution.

5) how ever you want.

6) None of this actually addresses the healthcare costs, I don't know why you bring it up.

you're a joke.

if you can't name one GOP congressional leader advocating for a comprehensive reform bill, then either you're retarded or there is a real counter plan to the Democrats.

party of No anyone?

looks like you weren't really looking for a discussion, butanother deathmatch thread. be proud you're catching up with oak in posts. I hope this thread helps.

peter is smarter than I give him credit.

I am looking for a discussion - on what the GOP alternative is.

come back with specifics on what the GOP is pushing for if you want to participate. till then, stop wasting our time.

:yup:

very weak response, peter.

either you're comfortable in advocating for the GOP plan or you're not. you're clearly not and since that's the case, don't be surprised when people gravitate to the option on the table that is being effectively communicated.

No, he's read too damn many of your idiotic 'responses' in too many posts.

Most of do have too many other things to do aside from sinking our ship against the rocks of your stupidity (it's comedic value not withstanding).

You mean you have an opinion on something you haven't already researched? I'm asking you to share what you know. you shouldn't be starting from scratch at this point assuming you have a strong opinion one way or another.

interesting article, but it lacks the numbers necesary to to draw conclusions in comparison to what the Democrats are proposing. This is the problem with the GOP, they are more focused on shooting down real reform and not enough on getting good ideas included in a bi-partisan bill. if Congress could get 70 votes on real reform without a public option, one that covered more people, reduced costs, and improved care, they would be all over it.

as for the specific points in your article:

But the GOP proposals contain smart ideas to increase choice and competition in the health insurance market -- a powerful Republican counterpoint to the Democrats' expensive plans. The ideas include:

--Let insurers sell policies across state lines. That would loosen the strangling state-by-state regulations and unleash competition to drive premium prices down.

i'm not opposed to this idea, just no one has laid out a clear argument that shows how this would translate to the currently uninsured getting coverage.

--Give people who buy insurance in the private market the same tax breaks as those who get it through employers. Now, employers that offer coverage get a tax break on the premiums they pay for employees. And employees don't pay taxes on the value of the coverage they receive. People who want to buy insurance in the individual market should get the same tax breaks. That would help millions of people acquire coverage.

again, not opposed to this idea. but it appears to apply only to those who currently can afford coverage. how does it help those who are without now?

--Expand the ability of small businesses, trade associations and other groups to set up insurance pools to offer coverage at more attractive rates.

isn't this already proposed in the democrats legislation when they talk about exchanges?

--Control health costs in part by reining in the medical malpractice system that raises insurance premiums and forces doctors to order tests to protect themselves from lawsuits. Limiting certain kinds of damage awards would reduce spending on health care by about $11 billion in 2009, or about one-half of 1 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Think about that in human terms: Reform would save millions of patients the expense and trauma of unnecessary tests and procedures.

this is a very weak argument. First off, $11 billion in savings translates to what, a hundred bucks per household? that's not enough savings to justify the impact it would have on victims. Overall, medical malpractice premiums account for less than 1% of healthcare costs, so even drastically reducing it won't make a meaningfull impact across the board.

also, you don't need malpractice reform to encourage doctors to care better for their patients. Most malpractice lawsuits don't deal with doctor's who didn't do enough testing, they mostly deal with people who blantantly fucked up. and in CA, the largest state, penalties are already capped to $250,000 for pain and suffering, regardless of the type of injury or if the patient died, and CA probably has more uninsured people than any where else in the country.

Even though it lacks merit, Obama put it on the table for consideration for overall healthcare reform and NOT ONE republican will come forward and agree to support any of the 5 bills floating thru congress if they got this key GOP objective.

that's the party of no for ya

interesting read about the CA 250k cap and the impact it has families:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNT619P7NH.DTL

California medical malpractice law in spotlight
Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, September 21, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(09-20) 20:01 PDT -- Wayne Volkmuth learned what a "250 case" was while conducting research shortly after the loss of his 7-year-old son, Ryan, who died three years ago during a dental procedure at a Palo Alto clinic.

The "250" refers to $250,000, the most Volkmuth could recover in a medical malpractice claim over his disabled son's death, a limit set 34 years ago by California's landmark medical malpractice law. It's also the reason his case was turned down by most of the dozen medical malpractice attorneys he and his wife consulted.

"They basically said we can't do this. They said we believe you have a strong case and we could prevail at trial, but in economic terms it makes no sense for us to take it on," said Volkmuth of Foster City, who eventually found an attorney to sue the clinic and its staff for wrongful death and negligence. The case is set to go to trial Oct. 26.

Medical malpractice reform is getting its moment in the spotlight during the ongoing debate to overhaul the country's health care system.

President Obama mentioned reforming malpractice laws in his Sept. 9 address to Congress as a way to lower unnecessary medical costs incurred by physicians to protect against litigation. And last week, his administration announced grants of $25 million to states and health care systems to experiment with methods to reduce excessive judgments and high malpractice premiums.

While announcing the grants, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted that medical malpractice premiums account for just 1 percent of overall health costs nationwide.

Mixed reviews
California's decadeslong experience with malpractice reform is either a national model or cautionary tale - depending on who you talk to.

The state's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, which was passed by the Legislature in 1975 and signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, caps the amount of damages for non-economic or "pain and suffering" at $250,000, but leaves unlimited the amount plaintiffs can seek for other damages such as medical costs and lost wages. It also doesn't restrict punitive damages, but such awards require proof of a conscious disregard for the safety of a patient and are difficult to obtain in medical claims.

For physicians and malpractice insurance companies, the law, often referred to as MICRA, has helped hold down insurance costs, prevent unreasonably high jury verdicts from sympathetic juries and kept doctors from fleeing the state.

At the same time, they say, the law allows them to be compensated for their true economic losses.

"California is the model for the rest of the country," said Dr. Dev GnanaDev, president of the California Medical Association, which represents about 35,000 physicians.

But patients and families who struggle to get an attorney to represent them contend the law stands in the way of justice.

"It's really a nightmare if you're an injured patient, or a patient's family member, and don't have large medical bills or large wage losses," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog in Santa Monica. "There is no justice."

Unadjusted cap
Critics object to the fact the $250,000 cap hasn't been adjusted for inflation in 34 years. They also argue that because the law allows unlimited awards for economic losses, such as lost wages and ongoing medical costs, it discriminates against children and seniors, who have limited earnings if any, as well as against the families of those who died and did not have high medical costs.

"It's economic suicide for a medical malpractice lawyer in the state of California to undertake too many or any cases that are capped at just 250,000," said Erik Peterson, a San Francisco medical malpractice attorney who agreed to take on the Volkmuth's case, even at a loss.

"The cases are incredibly expensive, they're well defended and when the defense gets to practice law knowing they have the parachute of MICRA," he said, "there's very little incentive for the insurance companies to settle or even to be fearful."

A 2004 Rand Corp. study found the law has cut payments to plaintiffs who win at trial by 30 percent. The study, based on an examination of cases between 1995 and 1999, found that plaintiffs received about 15 percent less overall due to limits on attorney fees.

Nicholas Pace, a researcher with the Rand Corp. who led the study, said there hasn't been enough unbiased research conducted to determine whether California's medical malpractice law has had a direct impact on health care costs in the state.

"It's hard to make a strong persuasive link between medical malpractice reform and significantly changing the amount consumers pay," he said.

Californians Allied for Patient Protection - a Sacramento group that represents many health care providers and medical malpractice insurance companies and was formed to protect MICRA - contends the loudest voices for amending the law to increase non-economic damages are those of personal injury attorneys. The organization cites a 2008 report that determined that doubling the amount to $500,000 would raise health care costs in California by $7.9 billion a year.

Better patient access
Supporters say the law has resulted in improved access to care for patients because it has persuaded doctors to stay in California without fear of skyrocketing insurance premiums.

Lisa Maas, executive director of Californians Allied for Patient Protection, pointed to her group's research, which shows the average annual premium for a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology in Los Angeles was about $90,000 last year, compared to nearly $195,000 a year for the same specialist in Nassau and Suffolk counties of New York, a state without medical malpractice reforms.

But to Volkmuth, the idea of other states looking to California as a shining example of success in reforming medical malpractice laws makes him shudder.

"It's ridiculous. You couldn't pay enough to compensate us for what happened to us for the loss of Ryan," he said. "But this is the only course of action we have available to us to try to ensure liability."

Malpractice reform in California
Q: What is MICRA?


A: It's California's medical malpractice law - the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act - passed in 1975 to control skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums.

Q: What does it do?


A: It caps non-economic damages, often referred to as "pain and suffering," that can be recovered in a medical malpractice trial to $250,000, a level that hasn't changed since the law was passed. It also limits contingency fees that plaintiffs' attorneys can receive based on a sliding scale.

Q: Has it worked?


A: That depends on who you talk to. For many doctors and insurance companies, it has controlled medical malpractice insurance premiums. But injured patients, consumer groups and trial attorneys contend the law thwarts justice by making it difficult to sue. There is no clear evidence that the law has resulted in lower health care costs.

:nope:

sorry, not interested

cutting costs to what extent with what tangible benefits to the consumer and those who currently can't afford anything.

God is in the details. Time to get specific.

Why is Anthony Weiner the "gold standard?" Do we want a government full of partisan populists that are either grossly disingenuous or outright stupid (take your pick)?