PDA

View Full Version : Sarah Palin talks about tort reform



ElMariachi
08-21-2009, 02:15 PM
Tort reform.
The seemingly forgotten subject in this whole debate on "health reform."



President Obama's health care "reform" plan has met with significant criticism across the country. Many Americans want change and reform in our current health care system. We recognize that while we have the greatest medical care in the world, there are major problems that we must face, especially in terms of reining in costs and allowing care to be affordable for all. However, as we have seen, current plans being pushed by the Democratic leadership represent change that may not be what we had in mind -- change which poses serious ethical concerns over the government having control over our families? health care decisions. In addition, the current plans greatly increase costs of health care, while doing lip service toward controlling costs.

We need to address a REAL bipartisan reform proposition that will have REAL impacts on costs, and quality of patient care.

As Governor of Alaska, I learned a little bit about being a target for frivolous suits and complaints (Please, do I really need to footnote that?). I went my whole life without needing a lawyer on speed-dial, but all that changes when you become a target for opportunists and people with no scruples. Our nation?s health care providers have been the targets of similar opportunists for years, and they too have found themselves subjected to false, frivolous, and baseless claims. To quote a former president, ?I feel your pain.?

So what can we do? First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, ?If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he'll need to reform the economic structures in medicine?especially programs like Medicare.? [1] Two examples of these ?economic structures? are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as ?high health care costs?) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.

Dr. Stuart Weinstein, with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, recently explained the problem:

?The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs. Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons?as well as one third of all orthopedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons?are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?? [2]

Dr. Weinstein makes good points, points completely ignored by President Obama. Dr. Weinstein details the costs that our out-of-control tort system are causing the health care industry and notes research that ?found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.? Dr. Weinstein writes:

?If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine. Excessive litigation and waste in the nation?s current tort system imposes an estimated yearly tort tax of $9,827 for a family of four and increases healthcare spending in the United States by $124 billion. How does this translate to individuals? The average obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) delivers 100 babies per year. If that OB-GYN must pay a medical liability premium of $200,000 each year (which is the rate in Florida), $2,000 of the delivery cost for each baby goes to pay the cost of the medical liability premium.? [3]

You would think that any effort to reform our health care system would include tort reform, especially if the stated purpose for Obama?s plan to nationalize our health care industry is the current high costs.

So I have new questions for the president: Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients? Do you want healthcare reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?

Many states, including my own state of Alaska, have enacted caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers. Texas enacted caps and found that one county?s medical malpractice claims dropped 41 percent, and another study found a ?55 percent decline? after reform measures were passed. [4] That?s one step in health care reform. Limiting lawyer contingency fees, as is done under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is another step. The State of Alaska pioneered the ?loser pays? rule in the United States, which deters frivolous civil law suits by making the loser partially pay the winner?s legal bills. Preventing quack doctors from giving ?expert? testimony in court against real doctors is another reform. Texas Gov. Rick Perry noted that, after his state enacted tort reform measures, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas ?skyrocketed by 57 percent? and that the tort reforms ?brought critical specialties to underserved areas.? These are real reforms that actually improve access to health care. [5]

Dr. Weinstein?s research shows that around $200 billion per year could be saved with legal reform. That's real savings. That's money that could be used to build roads, schools, or hospitals. If you want to save health care, let's listen to our doctors too. There should be no health care reform without legal reform. There can be no true health care reform without legal reform.

- Sarah Palin

all pro
08-21-2009, 02:21 PM
She's more dangerous to the liberals now that she's not governor anymore. The muzzle is off and the pit-bull has slipped the chain and is tearing them up.

Kane_89
08-21-2009, 02:26 PM
She's more dangerous to the liberals now that she's not governor anymore. The muzzle is off and the pit-bull has slipped the chain and is tearing them up.

You have no knowledge of American government.

what would you know what shes doing to the liberals?

wide lats
08-21-2009, 02:35 PM
I hope she never gets in power, she endorses the ariel slaughter of Alaskan wolves, she is a cold hearted old out of date slapper who has no morals.

all pro
08-21-2009, 02:40 PM
This message is hidden because Kane_89 is on your ignore list.

Beeewbs
08-21-2009, 02:40 PM
I wish people would make up their minds. When it's negative news about Palin, she doesn't matter. When Palin is the one with negative news about the left, she suddenly matters again.

ElMariachi
08-21-2009, 02:40 PM
I hope she never gets in power, she endorses the ariel slaughter of Alaskan wolves, she is a cold hearted old out of date slapper who has no morals.


LULZ. God forbid we control an abundance of predator's whose population threatens to spiral out of control.


The great wolf debate swarmed into this small Indian village aboard a squadron of state-chartered airplanes today as Alaska officials sought to convince conservationists and the American public that wolf killing has a beneficial side.

Greeted by putt-putting snowmobiles, barking sled dogs and the howling wind off the swampy Minto Flats, some 30 participants and reporters who had come from the Alaska Wolf Summit conference in Fairbanks were ushered to a school gymnasium. There, Athabascan Indian speakers, taking time from preparations for a traditional funeral feast and the Miami-Buffalo game on satellite television, told of how their ability to keep moose meat on their families' tables was being threatened by those people from far away who want to protect wolves.

"For them to live in the city of San Francisco, or New York, and to say things like that about the way we live here in Minto, Alaska, which they probably never even heard of, that's a bunch of crock," said Ken Charlie, an Athabascan leader in his 40's. Debate, but No Agreement

After two days of debate here and in Fairbanks, the two sides could not agree on what should be done, if anything, with Alaska's wolves. State officials still want to shoot more of them; conservationists still want to let nature take its course. But in the meantime the environmentalists, sport hunters, tourism officials, wildlife biologists and reporters who attended had a chance to cross a cultural chasm in their brief visit to Minto.

Their five-plane junket from Fairbanks, 50 air miles away, came on the second day of the weekend wolf conference. The three-day meeting there was an effort by Gov. Walter J. Hickel to recover from the criticism the state's plan to shoot wolves from helicopters. Fewer Wolves, Better Hunting

Backers of the plan do not argue that there is an overpopulation of wolves. Nor is there an underpopulation of the moose and caribou that wolves prey on. Rather, the idea is that by reducing the number of wolves, the numbers of sport animals can be increased, hunting will improve and the state will benefit from increased tourism. In the plan approved by the Alaska Board of Game in November, up to 400 wolves were to be killed this year and hundreds more in succeeding years.

Tens of thousands of letters, telephone calls and faxes poured into the state in protest. The Fund for Animals began pushing an international tourist boycott of Alaska. By December, Governor Hickel, himself a hotel owner, called off the wolf hunt and the Fund for Animals called off its boycott.

Tourism is the No. 3 industry in Alaska in economic impact (oil and natural gas are No. 1 and fishing is No. 2). Officials estimate that had the boycott gone on, it would have cost the Alaskan economy $85 million this year.

Mr. Hickel, who ran for governor on the Alaska Independence ticket, called the Wolf Summit meeting in the hope that some consensus on wolves would emerge if only the sides in the issue could sit down together and hear each other out.

Though many of the people who traveled to Minto, including the 73-year-old Mr. Hickel, joined villagers in a traditional dance before the planes departed, the divide between the sides remained, and the state's efforts to bring the Indians into the debate may have backfired.



http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/02/10/debunking-the-myth-that-wolves-dont-bite/

Thinman
08-21-2009, 02:44 PM
I can't stand Palin, but I agree with her on this. Tort reform is a important part of health care reform.

ElMariachi
08-21-2009, 02:48 PM
I can't stand Palin, but I agree with her on this. Tort reform is a important part of health care reform.



And yet it is almost completely missing from the national conversation on healthcare reform. Obama basically dodged every question he received about tort reform........one of the simplest ways to cut the cost of healthcare and nobody wants to talk about it.

dizi24
08-21-2009, 02:52 PM
And yet it is almost completely missing from the national conversation on healthcare reform. Obama basically dodged every question he received about tort reform........one of the simplest ways to cut the cost of healthcare and nobody wants to talk about it.

Because that doesn't fit into his nice black and white view of America that our health care costs are too high because evil, greedy, horrible insurance companies are screwing over Americans.

kappakai
08-21-2009, 03:08 PM
I can't stand Palin, but I agree with her on this. Tort reform is a important part of health care reform.

even a stopped military clock is correct once a day.

the whole thing about the death panels invalidates much of what she has to say, but i'll throw her this bone. she's right about malpractice suits raising the costs of our health care. but please.... stop with the, our country has the greatest health care system in the world, because it doesn't.

Ephedra
08-21-2009, 03:12 PM
She's more dangerous to the liberals now that she's not governor anymore. The muzzle is off and the pit-bull has slipped the chain and is tearing them up.

5 star post would LOL again....

Vitalshok44
08-21-2009, 03:16 PM
even a stopped military clock is correct once a day.

the whole thing about the death panels invalidates much of what she has to say, but i'll throw her this bone. she's right about malpractice suits raising the costs of our health care. but please.... stop with the, our country has the greatest health care system in the world, because it doesn't.

read pages 325-375 of the proposed bill.

To call them death panels is a touch of the theater. But when reading those parts There is actually at least a reasonable case that can be made for why people think that such a thing exists.

kappakai
08-21-2009, 03:24 PM
read pages 325-375 of the proposed bill.

To call them death panels is a touch of the theater. But when reading those parts There is actually at least a reasonable case that can be made for why people think that such a thing exists.

i'll take a look at it in more detail when i get a chance. but, my understanding of the death panels is that they are consultative in nature. explaining and clarifying what should be done at point XYZ, for example, if i'm in a coma or eating through a tube. these panels aren't actually making decisions on whether a patient lives or dies.

actually, found the section here:
http://s3.moveon.org/pdfs/hr3200-sec1233.pdf

it seems like to me there is a gross misrepresentation of what the bill is actually proposing. of course, you wonder WHY palin or grassley would misrepresent these sections, but then, i can see how people would start to think that its a death panel. and you talk about death, that's when you touch on emotions, and start losing touch with logic, which is where this whole debate has gone now.

Vitalshok44
08-21-2009, 03:31 PM
i'll take a look at it in more detail when i get a chance. but, my understanding of the death panels is that they are consultative in nature. explaining and clarifying what should be done at point XYZ, for example, if i'm in a coma or eating through a tube. these panels aren't actually making decisions on whether a patient lives or dies.

actually, found the section here:
http://s3.moveon.org/pdfs/hr3200-sec1233.pdf

it seems like to me there is a gross misrepresentation of what the bill is actually proposing. of course, you wonder WHY palin or grassley would misrepresent these sections, but then, i can see how people would start to think that its a death panel. and you talk about death, that's when you touch on emotions, and start losing touch with logic, which is where this whole debate has gone now.

I certainly agree. All I'm saying is that to dismiss talk of some of these things as being completely made up is not quite true.

Are these people thinking with their emotions first? Yes, but consulting panel offers a recommendation, and as we all know people are taught to respect the authority of doctors policemen and firemen. Etc. etc. meaning that people would be more influenced by their statements.
Ergo the slippery slope angle begins to come in to play.

Not my stance. Just my theory on their reasoning.

r0gue6
08-21-2009, 03:58 PM
I loved the tort reform....Caps on punitive damages.

That only helps insurance companies, yeah, we can rely on them to pass the savings on to the consumer right.....right?

/me puts on trickle down economics tin-foil hat

AchillesNelli
08-21-2009, 04:00 PM
umm cliffs?

SomeRandomName
08-21-2009, 04:11 PM
I loved the tort reform....Caps on punitive damages.

That only helps insurance companies, yeah, we can rely on them to pass the savings on to the consumer right.....right?

/me puts on trickle down economics tin-foil hatAre you trolling or really that thick?

jf1
08-21-2009, 04:17 PM
Tort reform.
The seemingly forgotten subject in this whole debate on "health reform."


She's more dangerous to the liberals now that she's not governor anymore. The muzzle is off and the pit-bull has slipped the chain and is tearing them up.

LOL at paying attention to sarah palin!

VAPlowhorse
08-21-2009, 04:23 PM
I wish she would stay away from important issues. No need to become the bumbling mascot and kill your own side.

SDMuscleBuddy
08-21-2009, 04:37 PM
With her, we need Tart Reform.

jf1
08-21-2009, 04:38 PM
I wish she would stay away from important issues. No need to become the bumbling mascot and kill your own side.

all-pro seems to have this strange infatuation with all things palin.
it appears he thinks that she might actually matter...
:rolleyes:

Kane_89
08-21-2009, 04:41 PM
all-pro seems to have this strange infatuation with all things palin.
it appears he thinks that she might actually matter...
:rolleyes:

He has already said that she belongs in the White House.

that statement alone should be enough for a permaban.

Thinman
08-21-2009, 04:50 PM
She's more dangerous to the liberals now that she's not governor anymore. The muzzle is off and the pit-bull has slipped the chain and is tearing them up.

lol. She is more dangerous to everyone, including her own party.

jf1
08-22-2009, 05:28 AM
He has already said that she belongs in the White House.

that statement alone should be enough for a permaban.


unfortunately stupdity is not a bannable offense.
(not directed at 'all-pro', of course...just generalizing.)


the only white house she will ever see:
http://www.jaspernationalpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/jnp-igloo.jpg

grup910
08-22-2009, 06:07 AM
the only white house she will ever see:
http://www.jaspernationalpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/jnp-igloo.jpg

LOL - wish I could rep you again for that one. ROFLMAO :D :D

Devian
08-22-2009, 06:40 AM
LULZ. God forbid we control an abundance of predator's whose population threatens to spiral out of control.


So then I assume you support abortion.

jf1
08-22-2009, 07:20 AM
She's more dangerous to the liberals now that she's not governor anymore. The muzzle is off and the pit-bull has slipped the chain and is tearing them up.

LOL at clinging to the 'pit-bull' imagery...
pit-bulls dont quit until they are beaten literally into submission and defeated.
oh wait...
:rolleyes:

ibimusbtms
08-22-2009, 11:05 AM
I wonder if she is talking about an apple tort !?! j/k.

Ndel
08-22-2009, 12:42 PM
I wish she would just start making porn already =(

SomeRandomName
08-22-2009, 02:07 PM
Anyone who has ever worked in the health care industry or health insurance industry knows that tort reform will do nothing to curb costs. It will be great for doctors whose malpractice premiums will plummet, but will do nothing to curb health insurance costs.
So if doctors' costs go down, the money (that was previously printed on magical doctors' printing presses) just disappears or is pocketed by them rather than some of those savings being passed on to the consumer? OK.

SomeRandomName
08-22-2009, 05:13 PM
Exactly. (serious.)

Right now, for example, a neurosurgeon in my state makes $1 million/year. He also pays the highest malpractice insurance out of any specialty, at $300K. His taxes are $400K, so he comes home with $300K at the end of the year.

Let's say he gets his malpractice insurance reduced to half that, at $150K. Now he's making $450K a year instead of that $300K. Not a penny of that affects the consumer of his services.I'm calling bull****. Average salary of 1m/year? Don't think so.

And yes, they probably would pocket some of it. But that doesn't change the fact that hospital expenses also go down and expenses from defensive medicine decrease.

NaturalC
08-22-2009, 05:16 PM
Exactly. (serious.)

Right now, for example, a neurosurgeon in my state makes $1 million/year. He also pays the highest malpractice insurance out of any specialty, at $300K. His taxes are $400K, so he comes home with $300K at the end of the year.

Let's say he gets his malpractice insurance reduced to half that, at $150K. Now he's making $450K a year instead of that $300K. Not a penny of that affects the consumer of his services.

I think you misunderstood the whole entire reason of tort reform

Inev
08-22-2009, 05:20 PM
who is going to take sarah palin seriously on any semi-intellectual matter concerning our government? Or anyone else in power for that matter? All of our politicians are currently push overs who are owned by money and big business, not the people.

who gives a **** anymore? its hard for me to even care when people are so dumb . . .

ImMad
08-22-2009, 05:28 PM
I'm calling bull****. Average salary of 1m/year? Don't think so.

And yes, they probably would pocket some of it. But that doesn't change the fact that hospital expenses also go down and expenses from defensive medicine decrease.

You're 17.

89FoxBody
08-22-2009, 09:03 PM
I love how so many people stick to attacking her rather than addressing the actual message and the need for tort reform.

Congrats on being a sheep and perpetuating the status quo.

So much for 'change.'

LOL.

r0gue6
08-22-2009, 11:47 PM
I love how so many people stick to attacking her rather than addressing the actual message and the need for tort reform.

Congrats on being a sheep and perpetuating the status quo.

So much for 'change.'

LOL.

I attacked the tort reform point and was told I was "thick"

Capping damages does nothing except help insurance companies pay less money out and keep more profits.

California already has caps, yet our premiums go up every year.

SomeRandomName
08-22-2009, 11:56 PM
The salary is correct. I know two personally and one showed me his $81K monthly paystub, and this was three years ago.
The average salary for neurosurgeons is not 1m from what I can see... google turned up more like 400k


I attacked the tort reform point and was told I was "thick"

Capping damages does nothing except help insurance companies pay less money out and keep more profits.

California already has caps, yet our premiums go up every year.There is more to tort reform than capping damages.


You're 17.You're 19.

George Carlinian
08-23-2009, 12:12 AM
I wish she would stay away from important issues. No need to become the bumbling mascot and kill your own side.

^^^This.

I only clicked in this thread for the lulz and witty replies.

There are a million articles out there, especially online, written by all sorts of people on all sorts of issues. Why in the hell would anyone want to rubberstamp a 'palin' to their cause / name ... I have no idea.

George Carlinian
08-23-2009, 12:19 AM
I love how so many people stick to attacking her rather than addressing the actual message and the need for tort reform.

Congrats on being a sheep and perpetuating the status quo.

So much for 'change.'

LOL.

It's because people hold her accountable for her words/speeches. She's a discredit to herself and that's why no one would/could/should respect her. I respected the pre-9/11 bush a lot more than her, and at that time I was still fuming over his attacks on McCain. She's a CLOWN and if you can't see that, you're just sad.

But of course, you get all sore and sour when people mention dubya's influence in current events also :rolleyes: come on man...grow up.

gjohnson5
04-02-2010, 08:02 AM
i'll take a look at it in more detail when i get a chance. but, my understanding of the death panels is that they are consultative in nature. explaining and clarifying what should be done at point XYZ, for example, if i'm in a coma or eating through a tube. these panels aren't actually making decisions on whether a patient lives or dies.

actually, found the section here:
http://s3.moveon.org/pdfs/hr3200-sec1233.pdf

it seems like to me there is a gross misrepresentation of what the bill is actually proposing. of course, you wonder WHY palin or grassley would misrepresent these sections, but then, i can see how people would start to think that its a death panel. and you talk about death, that's when you touch on emotions, and start losing touch with logic, which is where this whole debate has gone now.

And then the zealots go on the boards regurgitating Palin's falsifications. Yes, falsifications of the bill because they are intentionally misinterperting that

TheAdlerian
04-02-2010, 08:11 AM
I wonder if she is talking about an apple tort !?! j/k.

You must be on a cut.

Have a cheat day already.

Ephedra
04-02-2010, 08:23 AM
She's more dangerous to the liberals now that she's not governor anymore. The muzzle is off and the pit-bull has slipped the chain and is tearing them up.

5 star post would lol again.

sweepone
04-02-2010, 08:37 AM
I can't stand Palin, but I agree with her on this. Tort reform is a important part of health care reform.

Tort reform is very important but ranks 5th for the reasons why we have high health care cost.

#1 is utilization -people are not taking care of themselves.Obesity is rampant leading to diabetes, sleep apnea, HBP, gastric diseases etc.
#2 cost shifting. People without HC insurance are walking away from their bills.

sweepone
04-02-2010, 08:50 AM
The average salary for neurosurgeons is not 1m from what I can see... google turned up more like 400k



LMAO rolling on the floor.

I have a group of doc's insured and they work for the local hospital in my area. They are no where near neurosurgoens level (in terms of speciality)and they are making $450k per year plus another 100k per year is put in their pension plan by the hospital. The $550k they are making per year is their take home pay as the hospital they work for pays all their bills (malpractice etc)..

Jeesh we are friends with a drug rep who is pulling in $200k per year.

OH BTW I live in bumfuk egypt rural area and these docs I mentioned are pulling in $550K

TheAdlerian
04-02-2010, 08:56 AM
Tort reform is very important but ranks 5th for the reasons why we have high health care cost.

#1 is utilization -people are not taking care of themselves.Obesity is rampant leading to diabetes, sleep apnea, HBP, gastric diseases etc.
#2 cost shifting. People without HC insurance are walking away from their bills.

Yes, but I studied tort law in school and many of the cases addressed had to do with life long disability, or no ability, as a result of medical treatment that was negligent. So, this is yet another case of humans have no life and one body which gets ruined verses "cost" which is a hypothetical.

It does not make sense to limit awards because said award is supposed to compensate, possiblly, for the lifetime of the damaged person. If that person is not able to survive financially, then what will happen, they will go on welfare and tax payers will then support them. Meanwhile, the doctor and his insurance company, all private organizations, will be let off the hook.

On an even broader scale, no money is actually wasted as long as the person awarded the cash stays in the US. That's because they'll be spending here and sending money right back into the economy.

TheAdlerian
04-02-2010, 08:57 AM
LMAO rolling on the floor.

I have a group of doc's insured and they work for the local hospital in my area. They are no where near neurosurgoens level (in terms of speciality)and they are making $450k per year plus another 100k per year is put in their pension plan by the hospital. The $550k they are making per year is their take home pay as the hospital they work for pays all their bills (malpractice etc)..

Jeesh we are friends with a drug rep who is pulling in $200k per year.

OH BTW I live in bumfuk egypt rural area and these docs I mentioned are pulling in $550K

You're correct.