Health Care Reform – The Right Way
by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL)Over the last eight months, I worked to build a coalition in Congress to reduce health care costs and expand insurance coverage without increasing spending, raising taxes, rationing care, or putting the government between you and your doctor.
After months of hard work and consensus building, the Republican Tuesday Group developed the centrist Medical Rights and Reform Act to dramatically reduce the cost of health insurance for all Americans without bankrupting the country and without compromising the doctor-patient relationship.

Our plan would end lawsuit abuse, expand electronic medical records, allow Americans to buy health insurance across state lines, and give individuals who buy their own insurance the same tax breaks we give corporations.
And, most importantly, our plan would prohibit the government from rationing care or overruling the judgment of your family physician.
Before the President’s most recent address, I released four key questions I hoped the President would address.
First, how would the Democrat health care bill lower the deficit?
The Congressional Budget Office scored the Speaker’s bill at over $1 trillion, including a $160 billion cut for Medicare, a $587 billion tax increase, and a $295 billion increase to the deficit.
This Congress already gave us a $1.8 trillion deficit. America cannot afford to spend another trillion. We need to lower health care costs without spending money we don’t have and without raising taxes.
Second, since other countries restrict care to save money in their big-government health care programs, how will the Democrat plan protect the practice of medicine in America?
Democrats in Congress claim that any health care reform plan must include a “public option” to increase “competition” and help bring down costs.
Let us be clear – a government-run insurance program will not compete with the private sector; it will replace it. By the laws of economics, the private sector cannot fairly compete with the U.S. Treasury. Once a government-run health care system is in place, costs will be controlled by squeezing the suppliers of health care – that is, by rationing care to all Americans.
In a government-run health care system, the government decides what tests and treatment you need – not your doctor. This plan is unacceptable.
Third, since the Democrat plan cuts $160 billion from Medicare, how will it prevent harm to seniors?
H.R. 3200 cuts reimbursements for medical technology, especially imaging, which is vital in the early detection of disease. The U.S. would soon follow trends in Canada and Britain where access to medical technology is in short supply.
Last, since litigation and defensive medicine adds $300 billion annually to America’s health care costs, how will the Democrat plan reform lawsuits?
The Speaker’s bill has no lawsuit reforms for America. Recently, the former head of the Democratic National Committee reported that Congressional leaders could not include such reforms for political reasons.
Unfortunately, the President left my questions unanswered and ignored common-sense alternatives that could achieve many of his objectives without spending a trillion dollars, raising taxes, rationing care or cutting Medicare. Alternatives like our Medical Rights and Reform Act.
Without the government-run option and the 52 other programs established by the Speaker’s bill, our plan’s cost would be centered on the $300 billion widely recognized as needed to prevent the scheduled “Sustainable Growth Rate” cut for doctors practicing under Medicare. And it would be paid for by unobligated balances from the stimulus bill.
The Medical Rights and Reform Act would prohibit government rationing of health care. The main pillar of the Act protects the doctor-patient relationship in statute by banning action by Congress to interfere with medical decisions.
Our proposal would defend Medicare and prevent the scheduled 21% cut in reimbursements for doctors treating seniors.
Finally, our plan would contain extensive reforms to cut the $300 billion spent annually in defensive medicine and litigation.
Last month, while many of my colleagues were hiding from their constituents, I hosted two public health care town hall meetings in the largest city in my congressional district. I traveled across the State of Illinois visiting 40 cities in 27 days. At every stop, health care was at the top of the agenda.
All Americans – Democrat or Republican – agree with the President that health care costs are exploding and that we need reforms to lower health insurance costs and expand coverage to more Americans. The people I talked to want reform – but they don’t think the Speaker’s bill is the right approach.
In my view, there are a series of common-sense reforms that would dramatically reduce the cost of health care in America and expand insurance coverage to millions of our fellow citizens. Instead of pursing a partisan, trillion-dollar, big-government plan, it’s time to consider centrist proposals like the Medical Rights and Reform Act and get something done for the American people.





Subscribe via RSS
201 Comments
Thank you for your efforts Representative Kirk. It's plans like yours that will force the administration to start being more truthful about Republican efforts and ideas instead of pretending that Republicans want to do nothing.
Finally – the bill we've been asking for: TORT reform, competition by way of de-regulating state borders, and tax breaks. Not too sure I like the whole electronic med. record thing – HIPPA could be breached/become a problem – privacy. Hopefully no pork inside. We will have to see the WHOLE bill before we, the American people, decide.
I hope to see this implemented in full, January 2011.
Tort Reform is a great place to start. I'd also like to see published prices for each hospital, clinic, health department, ER, concierge practice, and any other place where health care providers provide health care.
When I go to McDonald's, I know exactly what I'm getting, and for how much. Nutrition info is available for me to view for every single item on the menu, and the price is posted in big, easy to read numbers. When I go to a clinic, I should know how much an office visit will cost ahead of time. I should know how much a CBC costs, or an X-ray, or an MRI, or a routine physical…
I should also get the "nutrition info" from these clinics and hospitals. I want to know how many people got MRSA in the last year. I want to know how many patients were readmitted to the hospital following surgery.
We need to open the doors for REAL competition. Not just among insurers, but also among the providers themselves.
don't listen to mark kirk, he is a rino who voted for crap and tax. while we know every politician that want to get re-elected, or to higher office (kirk wants to upgrade to the senate), this rino voted to tax all of us peons, and send more money to washington, to redistribute it to big business, and welfare queens. we don't want this brand of healthcare reform, but we don't want to hear it from a politician too stupid to know global warming is a hoax.
I work with two companies that use electronic medical information sharing (a transcription company and a testing lab) and with or without the government, widespread sharing of patient info is going to happen for efficiency's sake. One nice side-effect is making it difficult for people to game the system.
Seems to me the liar Obama if he wasn't so imcompetent would simply garner those huge savings from medicare, medicaid fraud and inefficiency. Ya know doing that first might have made his health plan something to consider.
To ask Americans to believe that for the first time in history the feds could run any public program cleanly and efficiently is just to much for us to swallow.
There is no example that says "Yes We Can"!!!!!
Do I need to count the examples that say "No We Haven't Ever And We Never Will" run any public program properly, efficiently, fairly, or inexpensively.
We Americans rest out case.
This PIECE OF CRAP supported CAP AND TAX. He is running for the Senate from my state. I was fortunate enough to get one of his mailers last week asking for donations. I sent it back letting him know that I think he is a PIECE OF CRAP and asked him to take me off his mailing list. Also, that I won’t vote for him EVER against ANYBODY.
You have to realize that he is basically a NORTH SHORE CHICAGO god damn liberal in Republican clothing. Is he any better than the other liberal scum? Nope – in fact he is worse because he wants you to believe he is a conservative. RINO RINO RINO.
While I applaud the content of Kirk’s message *today*, all the readers should know that Kirk truly is a RINO. I had the unhappy experience of being “represented” by Kirk as well as his predecessor John Porter for the 11 years that I lived in Chicago’s NW suburbs. Kirk votes consistently with Democrat policies ranging from Cap&Trade to just about any gun control bill.
Judge him by his record, not just his rhetoric.
Thank God I finally moved to Texas and am finished with Kirk, Blagojovich, and the rest of their Chicago-area cronies.
Mark Kirk supported Cap and Trade! Kirk is running for US Senate (Obama’s seat). Take a look at John Arrington for Senate and for contributions to biggovernment.com. We need change that we can believe in!
I'm not defending his vote, but you guys know that everybody in both houses knew for a fact it would never ever pass the Senate, right?
Based on my personal experience, EMRs are actually good for enforcing HIPAA. Remember Octomom? She was lucky enough to give birth at a hospital fully live with an EMR. A lot of employees got fired shortly after Octomom's delivery because they looked at her chart without a good reason. With electronic records, administrators can check who's looking at whose charts.
On paper, this is impossible. My wife told me a story about a clinic where she used to work where people would pass patients' charts around to share the interesting tumors/lesions. See http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2009... and http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/15/octuplet.mom.hos...
My big issue, is that Obama is real close with GE's CEO. GE makes an EMR product. I'm worried about buddy deals there.
I wouldn’t believe Mr. Kirk if he told me s**t stinks. He’s the poster child for RINOs and I would not take his word on health care or any other issue. He’s one of the eight Republican Cap-n-Traitors and he is rabidly anti-gun. One pro-gun group gave him a grade of F-…that’s right, F-minus! How is it possible for a true Republican to even accomplish that? I guess that’s all one can expect from one of Richard “Baby Dick” Daley’s minions!
Man, with regards to cap and trade adn his vote, I'm reminded of Indana Jones 3:
"He has chosen… unwisely"
Has anyone ever seen a study that shows how much the reduced reimbursement of medicare impact private iunsurance and reduced brand drug prices to other countries as well. The issues here are most likely the primary forces driving private insurance higher. There is no doubt there is a need for medicare reform and the first one is going to have to be a raising of retirement age. thie aging baby boomers will flood the ranks of medicare soon and there needs to be relief from this onslought. all the other points made by the congressman are excelent ad are a great starting point. But untill drug companies raise prices to other countries and medicare finds savings through whatever way it can without reducing care, there is really no way to solve the problem. Doctors are aging and there will be less and less younger doctors filling the ranks, so adding more onto insurance roles now is a terrible idea without adressing tax credits to doctors and nurses once they pass their state licenses and begin practicing.
Cut the "electronic medical records" thing and ensure that U.S. citizenship is a prerequisite for ANY health care service and I could see myself supporting this bill.
sounds like he's finally getting the picture and playing CYA
lots of peeps in DC are going to seem more conservative because they have seen their future and it's murder…. so to speak
that little crowd that gathered in DC to protest? They Vote. That fact can't be lost on ALL politicians.
Wow, what a disappointment to see an article by Kirk on this site. VERY BIG disappointment.
Mr. Kirk sounds like he is for less governement and for the people, I pray to God that is the case. I just have a hard time following him due to his vote on cap and trade. It seems to me that the LEFT hand and doesn't know what the RIGHT hand is doing.
It would be great if Mr. Kirk followed this bill up with one for term limits and limited benny's…
Government is not the solution, government is the problem……….
I mostly agree with the Rep. Kirk. Unfortunately, he, like most Republicans dredges up “tort reform” like Democrats dredge up “47 million (30 now?) uninsured.”
I’m not going to get into the details of my opposition to “tort reform,” just a basic overview.
If you believe that, when a person is injured through the fault of another, that he should be fully compensated for that injury, then you should be an opponent of “tort reform” since the goal of “tort reform” is to either reduce the number of claims made against doctors for their negligence/incompetence or reduce the compensation awarded when they are adjudged “guilty” of negligence/incompetence.
(By putting a “cap” on damages, what is really done? Who is really affected? Why…the persons affected are those who are HURT THE WORST, i.e., the very people who have damages SO GREAT that, normally, the amount which they would receive would EXCEED the amount which they are limited to by operation of law. That seems nice, doesn’t it?)
If you believe that all persons should be treated equally under the law, you should be an opponent of “tort reform” as it relates to medical malpractice since the goal of such “reform” is to separate doctors and other providers of medical care from all other persons, providing them with greater protection than any other class of persons/corporations from their own negligence/incompetence through the operation of law. As I see no MORAL distinction between being killed by a doctor negligently/incompetently operating a vehicle and a doctor negligently/incompetently wielding a scalpel, there should be no LEGAL distinction between them.
“Defensive medicine” is medicine practiced by doctors as a result of OTHER doctors having been SUCCESSFULLY sued because their FAILURE to provide that “defensive medicine” CAUSED INJURY to someone. Now, those doctors who formerly didn’t provide that “defensive medicine” DO — and fewer people are INJURED as a result of their FAILURE to do so. (This is akin to supermarkets being forced to have “spill patrols” policing their aisles for spills so that people don’t step in them and get hurt. Sure the cost of the “unnecessary” patrols is high, but the SAVINGS overall is considered to be COST EFFECTIVE since the FAILURE to have those “spill patrols” can be very high when a little old lady rounds a corner and slips in a 10 hour old Pepsi spill and is paralyzed. “Defensive medicine” is practiced generally because it is COST EFFECTIVE, i.e., giving this care (generally — in hindsight — “unnecessary”) costs LESS than failing to do so would when the failure causes INJURY to someone who, had the tests been given, would NOT have been injured.)
“Frivolous” lawsuits are a myth. In EVERY case in EVERY jurisdiction, the Judge has the power and the DUTY to ferret out lawsuits which have no basis in the law. When a Plaintiff files (and a lawyer signs) a lawsuit which IS “frivolous,” the judge has the power and the DUTY to SANCTION that Plaintiff and the LAWYER. If the lawsuit proceeds to JUDGMENT, it is BY DEFINITION, not “frivolous.”
“Outrageous judgments” are in the eye of the beholder. Obviously juries who award them, those who, you know, REVIEWED THE FACTS, didn’t think that the awards were “outrageous.” Regardless, EVERY case in which a jury awards an insane monetary judgment, the APPELLATE court has the power and the DUTY to reduce it to an amount in accord with law and reason. (Google the “McDonald’s old lady spills superheated coffee in lap” and see what the Appellate court did to that judgment. Appellate courts ROUTINELY reduce the judgments of “juries gone wild.”)
Do some research on how much the cost of medical malpractice judgments and settlements add to the cost of delivery of health care. (Approximately 1%)
Do some research on how much the cost of medical malpractice insurance adds to the overhead of medical businesses. (Approximately 4%)
Ask yourself whether other businesses have liability judgments which add to the cost of the delivered product, and whether other businesses must purchase liability insurance which adds to the cost of their overhead.
Ask yourself whether the major cost of medical malpractice insurance has anything to do with the approximate 100,000 to 200,000 people which are killed via medical malpractice EVERY YEAR (depending on who you believe, the 100,000 being an AMA figure…). Ask yourself whether, like a trucker who hauls propane pays more for his liability insurance than does one who hauls furniture, the RISK which medical malpractice insurance covers bears some direct relationship to its COST.
Yeah, but the problem is, they now had no reason to shut up (after being fired). The problem w/ EMR's also is that maybe my doctor or local hospital have access. But with EMR, anyone, anywhere can link in from any medical computer or worse – it connects on this network so that personally identifying info is avail. to hackers.
Identity theft at it's worst! I don't trust it.
Thanks for making that point…the records thing jumped out at me too. I was also disappointed not to see the US Citizen requirement.
I like ideas from both H.R. 2520 AND H.R. 3400… unfortunately the Democrats are holding them both in hostage in committee.. And doesn't Ron Paul have a bill sponsored right now that the CBO has said wouldn't out anything towards the deficit at all?
And the Dems say that Republicans aren't giving out any ideas…
Rep. Mark Kirk is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He is a wolf in sheeps clothing, nothing more than a Trojan, inserted here by The Great Leader.
Better wait to see what's actually in it. Don't be a lemming.
When the people connect all the dots: Obama, GE (parent company of NBC), Goldman Sachs, Cap in Trade, Al Gore, et al, they will find that the Cap In Trade Bill is worth about ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, for Goldman Sachs….
I told people in my post to "wait and see" because if we all just assume a blog is telling us everything that's in the bill, we're screwed and uninformed again. I called his office and there are some things on his "health care" link that are troubling.
While GE and Goldman Sachs recapitalize themselves off the backs of the American Taxpayer, they won't even let us buy an old fashioned incandescent light bulb. No siree, in their infinite wisdom, they outlawed them, in exchange for the new green bulbs that aren't worth a kerosene lamp. Imagine that, in America, land of the free and home of the brave, you can't even decide what type lightbulb you can burn in your own home……….
I bet you wish you could yell that at him for real. Good for you! Hope he sees this. Call his office in DC.
So……the whole excercise was what?
Wasting constituent time on posturing and positioning? Making huge headlines and pissing off half the population by playing games with unread legislation? Parking yourself in the political camp of Dear Leader and ManBearPig, over unsettled and dubious scientific basis?
Please.
Dear Huey,
Smart trial lawyers don't head to places like Omaha, Nebraska or Bismarck, ND to set up shop. They go to places like Detroit where the entire system including the judges is utterly corrupt.
A suit my childhood pediatrician had to weather was total crap but it cost huge amounts to defend him and in the end I think the insurance company settled. The laws are not exactly fair and balanced now, they're tipped way in favor of the trial lawyers, just like they paid the Democrats to make it.
Don’t forget, in addition to being a Chicago liberal cap and traitor. Mr. Kirk also abuses his position as a Congressman to facilitate 1 or 2 week “deployments” to Astan. See, Mr. Kirk is also a naval reserve officer.
Now some of you might say, “he’s serving his country, that’s great”. Name 1 other person, other than a Congressman that can go over for 1 week at a time. Real deployments, even for the Air Force are at least 4 months long, and for the Army can last up to 18 months or more.
No, he is abusing his position for a campaign point. As a true combat vet, I find him disgusting.
Drop out of the Senate race now Kirk. I’d rather vote for Burris than you.
There are some very basic issues concerning health hare that almost everyone agrees need to be addressed. These are non-partisan issues, and are the ones that we should address first. It is disingenuous to claim to be for health hare reform when these basic issues are not addressed, or entwined in an 'epic novel' size bill is magically offered, written by partisan special interest,s with the sole intent of expanding government – not reforming health care.
With all due respect to both parties – you OWE it to the American people to work with US – NOT special interest groups – to solve this problem. I understand that the Republicans, as the underdogs, can capitalize on being the "non-Democrats", but honestly, if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would not, and HAVE NOT, addressed this issue.
The time for partisanship is over. The Republicans should stop all progress on this health care reform movement, and the Democrats should abandon their plan, and BOTH parties take this common sense approach:
Form a bi-partisan committee of Congressmen to commission and oversee a one year study of the health care systems. This study should look at ALL aspects of health care, and get input from every sector involved with health care – Doctors, Nurses, Patients, Hospitals, Insurance Companies, TORT Lawyers, etc. After everyone has their input, the study group should then work on a plan that will address consensus issues with the most cost-saving, efficient changes to the health care system.
The American People have had enough. We NEED health care reform, but it must be done correctly. We are not stupid. Nothing this important should be ram-rodded through Congress, and that fact alone is the biggest outrage. If the current system continues, the worst thing that will happen is our health care costs will continue to soar. If the Congressional plan passes, the worst thing that will happen is our health care quality will collapse, we will be mired in a government-run system with no alternatives but to write off the elderly, then the chronically ill, then the 'unhealthy', leaving only the people who are fortunate enough to have never been sick the only ones with 'good health care'.
It's still audited. Anytime another health care facility needs access to your records at your facility, the EMR system will note that in your record. If someone looks at your chart inappropriately, they will get caught, and there will be fines. But again, what's to stop someone from doing that now, with your paper chart? Thus far, there's no real incentive, except for water cooler gossip.
As for hackers, I'm not sure why they'd want to hack into a medical system, but if they did, they'd need the specific emr software that that facility has to parse the data into a human readable format. Each different EMR company uses a different data structure, so the hacker would need to learn each vendor's data structure. Also, the patient's data is encrypted, which is another benefit over paper charts. I open a paper chart, I know immediately that it belongs to nancy27c. I hack into a digital chart, and I know everything there is to know about 471839xc3490, except the name of the patient.
The question of people accessing it with other users' credentials is still a problem, though. If I were to steal a physician's login and password, I could get unfettered access to the entire patient base. But, it's audited, and administrators would question why Dr John Pediatrician was looking at adult mental health patients. He'd get fined, he'd change his passwords, and he'd be a lot more careful about logging off in the future. It's still got flaws, but any way you slice it it's an improvement over paper. The only thing paper has is refuge in inevitability. There's no way to stop it, so there's no use being worried.
Health care "reform" tends to be what all other "reforms are when taken from the Obama/ACORN perspective:
Steps along the path to pure Marxism, as in "Embrace Marxism? YES! WE! CAN!" at http://firebreathingchristian.wordpress.com/2009/...
Let's hope that this whole ACORN story is the tipping point we've been waiting for.
Keep it up, BigGovernment.com! And keep your powder dry, liberty-loving Americans!
Let's roll!
Health care "reform" tends to be what all other "reforms are when taken from the Obama/ACORN perspective:
Steps along the path to pure Marxism, as in "Embrace Marxism? YES! WE! CAN!" at http://firebreathingchristian.wordpress.com/2009/...
Let's hope that this whole ACORN story is the tipping point we've been waiting for.
Keep it up, BigGovernment.com! And keep your powder dry, liberty-loving Americans!
Let's roll!
Health care "reform" tends to be what all other "reforms are when taken from the Obama/ACORN perspective:
Steps along the path to pure Marxism, as in "Embrace Marxism? YES! WE! CAN!" at http://firebreathingchristian.wordpress.com/2009/...
Let's hope that this whole ACORN story is the tipping point we've been waiting for.
Keep it up, BigGovernment.com! And keep your powder dry, liberty-loving Americans!
Let's roll!
Health care "reform" tends to be what all other "reforms are when taken from the Obama/ACORN perspective:
Steps along the path to pure Marxism, as in "Embrace Marxism? YES! WE! CAN!" at http://firebreathingchristian.wordpress.com/2009/...
Let's hope that this whole ACORN story is the tipping point we've been waiting for.
Keep it up, BigGovernment.com! And keep your powder dry, liberty-loving Americans!
Let's roll!
spoken like a true litigation attorney!!! Attorneys collect as much as 30-50% of the award, where is the justice in that. Edwards made millions pumping wierd science to uninformed, uneducated juries, he himself should be the poster boy for tort reform. Attorneys add nothing to our GDP and actually suck the life from it.
[...] Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) re-emphasizes this act on BigGovernment.com This thing has everything we need without the huge shadow of Government making decisions “on our behalf” (of which we do NOT WANT!). It has Tort reform, deregulation of the insurance industry by allowing competition across state borders, tax breaks for individuals purchasing independent insurance, etc… Over the last eight months, I worked to build a coalition in Congress to reduce health care costs and expand insurance coverage without increasing spending, raising taxes, rationing care, or putting the government between you and your doctor. [...]
Right, because hackers have never broken into a secure system before. Hmmmm. Just this summer 173 million credit cards got hacked.
Part of my point is, once they've looked at your stuff – then been fined and fired, what's to stop them from spreading your info all over the place? Nothing. It's not like there's jail time for this.
Okay, by the comments this guy is a RINO, who is coming from a left-leaning district where it seems unlikely a true conservative could get voted in.
Does this bill give you what you want? Would you approve of it if Democrats proposed it?
Just ignore his voting record for now, examine the proposals honestly. While the voice of conservatives is being heard and will change who gets nominated and elected, the public wants something now and the Republicans must offer something now. We will have our change in 2010 and 2012, but at this moment we must honestly evaluate this change being offered.
Besides, remember what happened the last time conservatives looked away because a RINO was involved? Say, last November? Do we really want to play at being liberals by repeating the same mistakes while thinking things will go better this time?
[...] Health care reform the right way. Anybody would sign onto this, I think. Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short [...]
So far it sounds like you are on the right track Mr. Kirk. I will say this much. If we are truly seeking reform would it not be a good idea to tackle the issues surrounding medicare and medicaid? Perhaps we can stop sending the tax revenue for medicare to the general fund where it has been frittered away. Likewise is there nothing that can be done to improve the medicaid program? Were it not for these deficiencies the left would not be howling about the current state of health care. May I also recommend we try and address the disparities between what health care professionals charge insurance companies and what they charge individuals. Were it not for the over charging of insurance companies perhaps the premiums would not be so high.
Meanwhile. Thank you for your efforts and keep up the good work.
Dear Mr. Kirk,
By glancing quickly at the previous posted responses to your article. . .
Do 'YOU' have the urine to waste as you piss on our 'collective' leg?
Your glomming onto to the recent popularity of BigGovernment.com is, imho, is a big phat failboat.
tahDeetz
Nathan, here's my MAIN point – haven't we put our TRUST in the "system" one time too many? We've seen corruption every time something becomes big and centralized, whether it's banks, gov't, MA Bell, insurance companies – so why would we want to centralize our PERSONAL medical information. Once centralized, and if it becomes corrupt, there is no going backwards. Once a huge system is in place, it's difficult to root out the problems – hasn't even the latest ACORN scandal taught us this? It's got so many arms to it, nobody knows where to start.
Yeah, I posted a longer post down the page (took me too long to write it!) echoing your sentiments. I don't want to hear anymore "Republican" or "Democrat" plans. I only want to see a 'Bi-Partisan" plan, or even better, a 'Non-Partisan' plan, and one that's created with the over-sight of Congress and the American people, not a bill that arrives in Washington pre-written by who knows what special interest groups.
It's time we look at political candidates like we do judges. Party should only be an afterthought. We need to put people in office because they represent our interests, NOT the interests of one of the two political machines. I would love to see the day when a politician's first inclination is to start a sentence by saying, "As an American…", instead of "As a Democrat", or "As a Republican".
Great Post!
Unfortunately, by your own admission, you've only traded one devil for another. The Chicago Gang are now in Washington, playing on a bigger field. I think they are making ready to impact us in ways we haven't even thought of yet.
Yours was a great post, but you must remember that when you moved on, others were not so fortunate. The issue isn't about moving out of his district, it is about making certain that he doesn't continue his ill advised policies.
Make lists, talk to everyone who will listen and work for Change in 2010. We do not want to live in a "Socialist" country. Everybody's vote counts….problem is, some might count two or three times…ala "Mickey", "Minnine" and "Goofy".
None of those people in Washington can say anything to impress me until they ALL pledge to go into whatever health care program they chose for us tax payers, and live with the plan, no options. Come to think of it, the executive, legislative, and courts would be a good text basis for the whole system they've decided on since they are all OUR employees!
Says the ambulance chaser. I don't have any objection to injured parties getting compensated for damages. I do object to allowing juries to award damages which do not reflect the actual damages suffered over the lifetime of the injury.
What's to stop them now? There's no financial gain to be had, unless you're hacking on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline. People are allowing their records to be hacked already with Microsoft HealthVault and whatever Google's personal health record is called. These two sites make money off of targeted ads to people with certain conditions.
My point here is that anyone who would care about your health already knows. Say, for example, Diabetes is on your problem list. Everyone you know already knows that because you've told them about your diet restrictions. Same for your back surgery. Remember the card everyone sent when you were in the hospital?
The biggest deterrent is the lack of returns on the hacker's investment of time. I can see how EMR would lead to a "Big Brother is Watching" feeling of unease, but I'm pretty sure Big Brother has his hands full keeping everyone else from finding out about his tax evasion, or his ties to controversial organizations, or actually doing his job.
Kirk shouldn't be lecturing anyone on the size of government. He had an opportunity to stand up for limited government on one of the biggest issues for liberal Democrats: cap-and-trade.
But rather than standing up for limited government, he voted for the monstrosity. Kirk is a shining example of what's wrong with the Republican Party in today's world.
Amen
when two people argue about say global warming. if i was to join in the argument, it means i must believe something must be done about it. look at minimum wage, when the argument is 4 bucks is too much, argument lost, because then the increase will be between 0 a 4. so by his voting on this, it leaves the door open for squishy rinos to argue how much global warming to cap and tax. by voting no, and it not passing, argument over. by voting yes, now you hope somebody in the senate will agree with you, and with the rinos in the senate behind john mclooser, and grahmnesty, are you sure it won't pass?? remember reid would rather lie than agree to stop taking more money from us. he lied to spector, he told him jump over here, don't worry about your pecking order. spector jumped, and then the dems said, back of the line arlen. so he screwed the repub's, and the dems screwed him, now the voters of pa are stuck with a former rino.
Just none that they want to listen to.
I like the idea of publishing all this information from health care providers!!!! What a great way to compare and force the providers to justify. Yes, Kirk needs to add this to the plan.
Why does congress need money for every legislation? Posts from Doctors, economists, Dick Morris, etc., have all proposed regulatory fixes. These fixes require no money. The agencies are in place, and less regulation means less agencies needed. Ergo, money saved. Even Republicans aren't getting it.
You need $300 billion? Take it out of the stimulus money. It isn't being used for anything else usefull.
There's stuff in place for that too. I admit I haven't read the health care bill, but current practice has each hospital keeping its own database. Say the Mayo Clinic needs a record from Kaiser Permanente, Mayo's system has to ask for permission to grab a record off of Kaiser's servers.
I don't know the details, but I don't think any one will stand for one big government database of health information, least of all healthcare providers. As long as each facility maintains its own database, I don't see this as being a problem.
Also, as long as the government says, "We can make you get an EMR, but we can't tell you which one to buy", many of these problems should be mitigated. The best EMRs have checks in place to prevent misuse, and are constantly updating their software to prevent future misuse. Competition takes care of most problems.
I was getting excited about a decent plan–but yes, we can't take their word for it–look what keeps happening to us. thans for the pullback reminder.
About a year ago, my son went to the hospital for a broken arm. A simple fracture that was on an angle. This is in downstate Illinois, Herrin/Marion area, to be exact. Not exactly an ER that is dealing with gang violence, large numbers of traffic accidents, etc. The entire process, which should have taken no more than two hours took 10 hours. A simple reduction procedure was accomplished by outpatient surgery. When it was all said and done, the total cost came to just short of $7000.00. $7000.00?!?!?! Where did that cost come from for less than 2 hours of a physician's time?
I got a head ache seeing this post from mark kirk……this is a new site that has already accomplished a tremendous amount of good. inviting cap and tax mark kirk to post eliminates some of this site's credibility.
So, going off your premise Gerard, when I like a candidate but know he's losing to an opponent by a far margin, I should just say "the hell with it – I'm not voting for him, I might as well vote for the winner!"
Sad if that's how people are thinking! What happened to standing for something and standing up for something?
You've had your opinion, and I've had mine. I'm not going to just keep this going to turn this into a personal blog for you.
No problem, I've been a victim of it too. I'm just trying to learn from my mistakes.
It's a choice now? I thought he was there to represent his constituency
See my posting & argument above w/ Nathan about EMR's – some have it all wrong. Glad to see you have it right!
How do we find out about those bills? Are they online?
I'm with you there, Cowboy! Hopefully the arms of ACORN will be searched too.
I've stocked up on incandescent bulbs. Got ready for it early. I don't like the fluorescent light and where are the environmentalists about the mercury in the bulbs?
Nancy, you are absolutely correct. Nathan is one of those people who has limited knowledge, but can't see the bigger picture. He may know his little piece of the pie inside and out, but how it fits into the entire pie is the concern here. I, as a computer geek, can see that he isn't concerned with the hacker's intent, just the value of the medical info.
The problem is, if a hacker gets in, he can get other info, such as bank balances and account info, credit card info and a host of other info. Also, what if someone is applying to a job and the prospective employer has his health care info? Good luck getting the job if you have anything serious in the past.
Chesterar: Kudos to you!
We can all learn from Congressman Jow Wilson; it is time for all good men to stand up and be counted. Time for US all to stand and shout "YOU LIE" so loud it will shake the Capital Dome !
Why can't we just try doing one thing at a time, to see how well it works? We know TORT reform work, due to pilot programs in Texas and California, but some of the other things might be best attempted alone, to see how they affect the bottom line, as well as the acceptance of the people.
It is great to see some politicians haven't lost sight of the fact that they work for US. I'm sick of those who think they are somehow made imperious because they won the vote. Another day, maybe they would have lost. I'm sure that if we, the people knew their intentions from the beginning, they would be in another line of work now.,
Jan: That is the simplest answer there is. If it is good for us, then they ALL need enrolled. No special benefits for the Elite Rulijng Class…………
Well Said! And Succinctly to the point!
phil: I disagree, it builds this sites credability! It offers a different opinion, but unfortunately for Mr. Kirk and his ilk, there are some very involved folks here, who are good researchers. We will not be misled any further; when the light of day is upon them, they scatter and slither away like roaches. Those that don't quite make it to their hidey holes will be flushed like the turds they are………………
Representative Kirk: Front and center, please. Your presence is requested to answer these legitimate questions. Where are you? Hiding out with McCain, Frum, Brooks etc. because you're afraid of us "right-wing nutjobs"?
How long did it take you to copy and paste that ? You forgot to give the source – careful, plagiarism!
Great point Jan – let's test everything on the legislature first, no matter the final product. Kinda like a BETA test.
He must have his own private F-8.
Illinoisan here.
Well, I just wrote a post detailing how divisions in the Illinois GOP gave us Barack Obama (he won his US Senate seat because the incumbent, the first Republican to win a US Senate seat in IL in 20 yrs., didn't run due to the IL GOP not supporting him) but it got 'lost' and I'm not writing it again.
The Democrats didn't win because they have a single vision (thank God for the Blue Dogs) and the GOP isn't going to win without devisions within the party.
Slam Kirk for Cap and Trade (I was angry), but support him when he's right. We need all the help we can get.
oops, that's 'divisions'.
Cowboy – agreed, that's why Saturday's tea party needs to be just the beginning!
True, these days our biggest claim to "privacy" is there are too dang many of us generating too much data to keep track of.
However, there already must exist some form of common format for electronic medical records, as already things are flowing to and from hospitals and doctors' offices. Thus our records are open to scrutiny by countless people, anyone who has a hand in any care we get, and this will only increase. I am pretty sure such privacy is already waived for the government in Medicare and Medicaid, and you sign off on access for SSI (government disability) claims. We need tighter control of our records now. Figuring out how to get it, now that is the challenge.
Not sure why my comments came across as sounding like I'm a Lib, or a Dem. I'm not. My cry for bi-partisanship is strictly based on being fed up with each party only promoting their agenda, and not real solutions. If you still don't buy it, JUST CLICK ON MY NAME AND READ MY OTHER POSTS!
As for putting things off and studying the issue, and doing it right – I'll grant you that there may already be answers, but it needs to be managed by the private sector, and only involve Congress as it requires legislative action. If you think Republicans can be trusted to do the 'right thing', then you just have more faith in them than I do. After all, Bush started this "Do it quick, no time to think about it, or the whole thing will collapse!"
If you've ever bought a house or a car, did you just have someone knock on your door, and hand you the papers to sign? Or, did you study what you need, decide what you want, and then shop around? Frankly, I'm suspicious of ANY existing legislation. Republicans are just being 'non-Democrats', and the Dems are just having their way with the American people. I'm just tired of both of them. If you feel that makes me a supporter of the Dems and Obama, I'm telling you you're wrong. If you still don't believe me, then I won't waste any more of your time, or mine, to convince you otherwise.
Yup… you can either go to Thomas.loc.gov to find any bill in any Congress up to the 101st Congress.
or you can go to govtrack.us and do the same thing… I like this one better because it highlights portions of the bill as you are reading (so I don't lose track of where I am) and there are ways you can track the bills progress through Congress.
H.R. 2520
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h11...
H.R. 3400
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h11...
There are more that Republicans have sponsored but I can't remember them all… There are elements that I like from both of these and some I don't… but that's par for the course.
The reason lawyers are ALLOWED to charge so much for "torts" is simple: (I say "allowed" because — in EVERY state there are ETHICAL rules against "unreasonable" fees and, in EVERY state, the ethics watchdogs (lawyers all, just as the "medical watchdogs" or "accountant watchdogs" are generally….doctors and accountants…) it has been deemed to be, in general, a SOCIETAL GOOD to have a system in which poor people who can't afford the hourly fees of lawyers ($200.00 per hour plus) as well as the court costs and the costs of expert witnesses but don't have a "slam dunk" case, might actually be entitled to legal redress for their injuries. Getting rid of contingency fee contracts would limit those poor from the ability to legal redress as lawyers wouldn't take "iffy" or "marginal" cases where they have a significant chance of losing (but think that their client has a case under existing law).
Personally, I think this is a good idea. I kind of like it where the poor people can actually go to a lawyer when they're injured through the negligence/incompetence of another without being concerned about the cost, leaving that concern to the lawyer who decides to take the case.
To honestly address your feelings that something to be done 'right now'… I can count on ONE HAND things that almost everyone agrees needs to be done, that could be done right now:
Portability
Eliminating Pre-existing Conditions provisions
Allow competition across state lines
Fixing Tax Credits for Health Care and Insurance costs
But the devil is always in the details, and government is out of control. IF they could create a bill to fix these four things, for instance… it's very likely the bill would get tagged with so many pork amendments and technicalities that no one would vote for it. We've got to fix government if we're ever going to fix Health Care, or anything else, for that matter.
"Without the government-run option and the 52 other programs established by the Speaker’s bill, our plan’s cost would be centered on the $300 billion widely recognized as needed to prevent the scheduled “Sustainable Growth Rate” cut for doctors practicing under Medicare. And it would be paid for by unobligated balances from the stimulus bill."
This is no good!
If that $300 billion in 'stimulus' spending can be stopped, please STOP IT, but DO NOT SPEND IT ON ANOTHER SOCIALIST PROGRAM!!! JUST STOP THE SPENDING!
Face the facts:
Medicare is SOCIALISM
Medicaid is SOCIALISM
Social Security is SOCIALISM
The right direction to go in is the direction which moves us closer to ending these wasteful, counterproductive, and downright harmful programs. The right direction to go in will move us all closer to providing for ourselves and our families.
MAKE GOVERNMENT SMALLER!
Two things:
1) Did you not read my post? Did you see the part about where JUDGES have the power and DUTY to dismiss "frivolous lawsuits" and SANCTION the Plaintiffs and lawyers who file them? Did you not see the part about APPELLATE courts having the power and DUTY to reduce "outrageous" awards to a size which comports with law and reason and that they ROUTINELY exercise this power?
2) How do you define "actual" damages? Economic only? (This is generally called "specific damages," which is a term for those damages which you can point to an actual figure, i.e., lost wages, lost future wages, medical bills, property damage, etc.) You are against non-economic damages? (This is normally called "general damages," which is a term for those damages where you can't produce a specific number, i.e., pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and what not.)
If you're against non-economic damages, why is that? Do you think that a person shouldn't be compensated for being forced to deal with daily pain because someone ran a red light? Should someone who can no longer walk not be compensated for that loss? Should someone who is scarred for life not be compensated for the looks of disgust that she faces every day when people look at her scarred and burned face?
How do you define "actual damages?"
good plan. I will lose my mind if "Obamacare lite" gets forwarded by the GOP. Any solution needs to increase individual ownership and back the fed off the mistakes they've made rather than doubling down.
I'm going to echo some others sentiments. Now is the time to prioritize. If he offers a healthcare alternative that looks good and you can get behind, do so. Let the Illinois voters deal with him on Cap and Trade and Guns.
Do some research. Really. Google some.
The cost that medical malpractice insurance adds to a doctor's/hospital's overhead is approximately 4%.
Every business has liability insurance. (Look it up.) It's simply a cost of doing business. The type of business someone is in bears a direct relationship to the cost of that liability insurance. A retail store which merely sells to the general public pays less in liability insurance than does the warehouseman who stores dynamite. The trucker who hauls propane pays more than the trucker who hauls furniture. The doctor who cuts on people pays more than the doctor who doesn't. The doctor pays more than the accountant. The lawyer more than the car wash.
It's really simple.
Oh..as to the cost….
Have you seen how much these guys MAKE? (Again, Google is your friend…)
I remember one time I went to the emergency room with a broken face. The doctor looked at me, took some x-rays and released me. Later, I got a bill for the radiologist who reviewed my X-rays several hours after I got released. I didn't ask him to review them, but I had to pay him. And the emergency room. And the emergency room doctor. Heck, my kidney stones cost me nearly $5,000.00.
We (those of us who have insurance) pay for those who do not. We pay for those on Medicare and Medicaid since the government mandates that hospitals take those patients but refuses to pay those facilities and the doctors who render the care the market rate for those services.
Take a look at 'class action' law suits and see who wins the benefit. Is it the 'class' or the attorneys? In each and every case those in the 'class' recieve 1-2% of the 'award' and the attorneys get the rest. Again I ask, why is the population of attorneys greatest in the US? We employ more than 50% of all attorneys in the world. Why can't Obama help the rest of the under developed nations by deploying attorneys to redress the gross injustice suffered by many in the world. The answer is that they would be the first to be lined up and shot. I also understand that prisoners of war in Afganistan are now given rights to redress their incarceration. The problem with congress and this administration is that we are now seeing what the world will look like if attorneys get to run everything.
Thanks!
Representative Kirk first i want to thank you for all your hard work, i like most of what i see here, but there are alot more issues on the table, cap an trade for one, from now on we will be looking at all voting records, i think all in congress are going to be suprised at how much we know just by the voting record. if you read this thank you for your time. WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY MORE OF THE SAME OLD WASHINGTON,THE LIES WILL STOP.
He's also very anti-gun. Of course he uses the catch-phrase "common sense gun laws." However, Kirk has a track record of anti-2nd amendment votes.
This is a complex issue, and you make some valid points. However, I know of at least 1 doctor who was an excellent Pediatric Neurosurgeon and one of the BEST doctors I had ever met, who had saved THOUSANDS of lives, and had his career destroyed by ONE malpractice suit.
The case involved a judgment call he was forced to make during a surgery for a deep-brain tumor, where the tumor was move extensive than thought when the surgery was started. The decision was to either try and remove the tumor complety, and risk blindness and paralysis, or, leave the tumor in place, 'cut his losses', and just tell the parents "Sorry – it wasn't worth the risk to save your child's life".
There is no right answer – but what you will have are doctors not willing to risk ANY surgeries if they believe there's the slightest possibility of an unfavorable outcome. And, by the way… if you've ever had surgery, you sign a form acknowledging that there are risks beyond the control of the doctor and facility, that outcomes could range from reactions to medications, to injury or death. Add to that the fact that people react to things differently. The quality of our medicine has allowed us to believe that outcomes should be guaranteed, but that's just not the case.
One final thought. Do you believe there will be ANY legal implications for doctors if we have universal health care run by government? Add to that the 50,000+ doctors that would be required to staff that public system – where do you think they will come from?? Perhaps all the doctors who've been run out of practice by malpractice law suits!
test
Done, your posts were read, and you did not have to shout about it.
test
You have fallen into the intellectual trap where one thinks that government can be smoothly run on intellectual principles, partisanship need not be involved. This leads to committees, group think, government by committee, and finally the separation of the "uninformed uneducated" electorate from government as something that keeps government from running smoothly and efficiently. Such has been seen in both the USSR and China, it produces very oppressive and heartless regimes.
Is that the best you can do? Not even an attempt to answer the arguments, just an accusation of "plagiarism?"
Really, y'all. I expect this sort of personal attacks on leftwing blogs. I understand that when a conservative strays from the reservation on such a "knee-jerk" button such as "tort reform" he'll be hammered by some who simply accept the Republican talking points without any critical analysis. But, always, I hope that conservatives will actually inform themselves on the issue.
I have made some simple points. Some of my points are ones which speak to our moral selves, i.e., what is "right." Others are simple statements of fact which are subject to a quick Google search.
I'll make them "bullet points" for those who think that actual critical thought on this issue is appropriate.
(Moral issues)
1) I posit that a person who is injured through the negligence/incompetence of another should be "fully compensated" for those injuries. Do you agree or disagree with this as a premise? If not, why not? If not, which category of persons are you willing to deny full redress for their injuries and why?
2) I posit that I see no MORAL distinction between getting injured by a doctor negligently/incompetently driving a car and a doctor negligently/incompetently wielding a scalpel. Seeing no MORAL distinction, I see no basis for a LEGAL distinction. Do you see a MORAL difference between the two examples? If so, how? Why? If you see no MORAL distinction, do you still support a LEGAL distinction? If so, why? Under what circumstances? To what degree?
3) I posit that the "cap" on medical malpractice damages actually hurts the ones who are hurt the worst since it in only those who are hurt the worst who receive huge "non-economic" damage awards for such things as "pain and suffering." Do you believe that it is a moral "good" to put a cap on the non-economic damages ONLY for those who are hurt the worst and, likely, need the money the most? If so, why?
4) I posit that all persons should be treated equally under the law and that "medical malpractice reform" creates a category of persons/corporations (doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical service providers in general) who have a degree of protection by operation of law which no other category of persons/corporations has. Do you think that it is a moral "good" to create such a protected class of persons? If so, why?
THINGS YOU CAN CHECK FOR YOURSELF
1) Doctors (medical providers in general) kill between 100,000 and 200,000 people per year through their negligence/incompetence.
2) The cost of medical malpractice insurance adds only 4% to the overhead of a medical business.
3) Other businesses also have to pay for liability insurance which adds to their overhead.
4) The cost of liability insurance bears a direct relationship to the risk covered.
5) The cost of all all claims for medical malpractice only adds 1% to the cost of delivery of health care.
6) Every jurisdiction has a statute which grants the power and DUTY of judges to dismiss "frivolous lawsuits" and to SANCTION lawyers and Plaintiffs who file them.
7) Every jurisdiction has an Appellate court which has the power and DUTY to reduce "outrageous judgments" to an amount which comports with the law and reason, a power which is ROUTINELY exercised.
I know that opposition to "tort reform" causes some to revoke my "conservative" credentials. But, I'm sorry. I'm capable of actually exercising my mind and coming to conclusions which don't always conform to the party line.
So, sue me.
test
passion
test
Government must be passionate, because we are passionate. We wish to elect advocates, not bureaucrats. We need teams, those we can side with and against, and support them as well as we feel they support us. Government should never be a smoothly running cold machine, for then ordinary people get ground up in the mechanisms. Government is not a chess match, nor a "group exercise." It is a full-on contact sport, with injuries dealt and dealt with, those forced out, former players who become coaches and commentators, it is all in there.
test
socks
test
Government must reflect us for it to serve us, not we serve it. And we are human, and need human government
Huey seems concerned about how much doctors make. I know many attorneys who make as much if not more than doctors. When it comes to paying the piper, I would much prefer to pay the one who saves lives rather than the one who destroys them. I have two brother-in-laws who are doctors, one a surgeon the other was a family practice who quit to go into sports medicine. 10 years ago the surgeon brother-in-law had to pay $100,000 per year in malpractice insurance. I agree with Gonzo, when you villanize those who pursue a career in medicine, who will answer the call when the demand for their services increases and the pay decreases.
test
You want to argue for non-partisanship. We even have favorites for our supplier of socks.
I'm a Republican and from Illinois. Kirk is an opportunist who defines the term RINO he only jumps to the right when it saves his behind. He voted with the Dem's in a non-binding resolution to stop the surge in Iraq (this coming from a Naval reserve intel officer), he voted for Cap & Trade, and generally is happy to go along to get along.
Having said that, the plan he is writing about has merit. The key to reducing costs is to actually scale back the amount of government that ALREADY is in healthcare. The state by state insurance departments are little fiefdoms that do nothing but spiral costs upward with mandates ranging from benefits that have to be paid for to what the insurance carriers have to put on their forms. The carriers waste millions every year just to keep 50 sets of paperwork in compliance.
test
And you think what you are selling makes sense?
test
welcome
test
will welcome your help
First off, it sickens me to watch some Republicans pretend they suddenly re-discovered their conservative roots. They are exactly the thing that people were protesting against on September 12th. It is not just about government spending, or far left policies, it is about the systemic loss of honor and integrity in our representatives. Mr. Kirk, I respect your words on this issue, but your voting record leaves no doubt that you are not in step with your conservative constituents, and to claim otherwise is the height of dishonesty.
All of that being said, within the current debate of healthcare, I am surprised that few conservatives have looked at how Texas managed tort reform. After passing legislation to cap non-economic (punitive) damages, the state has since seen reductions of 24% in medical premium costs, and an increase of 14,000 new doctors since 1995 when the law was enacted. Bottom line, less excessive judgements beyond what a person truly lost means lower cost in insurance to doctors, which means more doctors come to the state, which means more competition, which means overall lower costs for everyone.
oh look – it's cap and tax RINO Mark Kirk.
go away Kirk.
where's Mike Ditka when ya need em.
Done, your posts were read, and you did not have to shout about it.
You have fallen into the intellectual trap where one thinks that government can be smoothly run on intellectual principles, partisanship need not be involved. This leads to committees, group think, government by committee, and finally the separation of the "uninformed uneducated" electorate from government as something that keeps government from running smoothly and efficiently. Such has been seen in both the USSR and China, it produces very oppressive and heartless regimes.
Government must be passionate, because we are passionate. We wish to elect advocates, not bureaucrats. We need teams, those we can side with and against, and support them as well as we feel they support us. Government should never be a smoothly running cold machine, for then ordinary people get ground up in the mechanisms. Government is not a chess match, nor a "group exercise." It is a full-on contact sport, with injuries dealt and dealt with, those forced out, former players who become coaches and commentators, it is all in there.
Government must reflect us for it to serve us, not we serve it. And we are human, and need human government. You want to argue for non-partisanship. We even have favorites for our supplier of socks. And you think what you are selling makes sense? The socialists will welcome your help, not me.
I tend to agree on "class action" lawsuits. I'm kind of torn in some respects, though.
My aunt worked in a place where she was exposed to asbestos. (She's very old.) She got a "judgment" as part of one of the many, many class action lawsuits filed over the years. She got like $87.00. I'm sure that the attorneys made multiple millions and few "plaintiffs" were compensated in any fashion related to their injuries.
But, by the same token, without class action suits where attorneys are able to get big awards, you wouldn't have attorneys who are willing to SPEND millions attempting to file suit on behalf of thousands (millions sometimes) of people who are injured by others — the majority of whom suffer minor injuries. Without such ability to win such huge fees, then lawyers wouldn't file and some corporations would "bean count" and simply continue their behavior. (I'm reminded of the Ford Pinto case (Google it…) Here the Ford company knew that its Pinto (and other models) had a tendency to "go boom" when hit from behind. There was a rather inexpensive "fix" for the problem. Unfortunately, to recall and "fix" all the cars, it would cost a LOT of money. The "bean counters" decided to count the beans and, after assigning a "value" of $200,000 for each death caused by the exploding gas tanks, decided that it was more cost effective to simply pay out whatever judgment they MIGHT have to pay out rather than the CERTAIN cost of fixing the problem.
That's what happens when there is no COST associated with such behavior, or people are allowed to "bean count" the company's behavior and decide that it's cost effective to continue injuring people. That's the PURPOSE of "punitive damages."
Why is everyone trying to translate for Obama?Some say this is what he meant to say…Others are saying ,he didn't mean that. Wouldn't you think that he could break it down so he understands it. You can tell he doesn't have a clue if this will work. If there is so much fraud in Medicare and Medicaid…why are we waiting so long to address it. Would you wait that long if someone stole your identity? PLEASE
Excellent point. If it's good enough for we the people then it should be good enough for our representatives. I find it insulting that our representatives would dare to exclude themselves from such potentially sweeping legislation. It's just another reminder how out of touch our "leaders" are. Do not profess to be looking out for us when the legislation being contemplated is not good enough for you to live by as well.
Does anyone know what Mark Kirk's stance was on Cap and Trade?
I just can't seem to find any information on that anywhere….
Man, if the government RUNS universal health care rather than just PAYING for it, we're in deep trouble.
Right now, if a doctor screws up and is PAID through Medicare/Medicaid, then you can sue him for his error. But, if it's the VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION or the ARMED SERVICES doctors who screw up….you just live with the error as the government hasn't waived sovereign immunity via the Federal Torts Claims Act except in cases of INTENT and GROSS NEGLIGENCE.
So, if the government runs it, we're out of luck on so many levels that it ain't even funny. Palin is right. There will be "death panels" by whatever name. (Look up N.I.C.E. in the UK and quiver in terror…) On top of that, we wouldn't even be able to sue them when they screwed up.
test
lists
test
social
And if the Dem's give him and so-called war hero John McCain these few puny few bones they want… they will vote 100% for every other one of the Draconian measures of this illegal and unconstitutional health scare bill!
Vote ALL the Crooks out!
Nice piece Mark, good luck next year!
Oh…as to the "outcome guaranteed" thing…
I agree that many people tend to believe that "doctoring" is some sort of science, or, better yet, like going into a medical "automobile repair shop" where they can tell the doc what's wrong and the doc simply "fixes" them.
I don't know where this belief comes from.
Doctoring is as much an "art" as a science, whether it's diagnosis or surgery. That's why the STANDARD for "negligence" is generally formulated as follows: "The doctor fell below the standard of care of other doctors who practice in the same area (or specialty) in the same community." Or variations on that theme.
And, it is ONLY another DOCTOR who can make this determination. If you don't get another DOCTOR to SAY that the defendant doctor actually committed malpractice, then you're out on summary judgment, or don't even get past the Medical Review Panel (or whatever it's called in your jurisdiction).
It's tough to win a medical malpractice case. Do some research. Less than 1 in 5 people who are hurt through medical malpractice even bring a claim. Less than 1 in 10 of those claims proceed to judgment.
Personally, I don't know of any other way to do it. Who but another doctor can SAY whether another doctor screwed up? Unfortunately, most doctors tend to think "There but for the grace of God, go I" or "Next time THAT doctor will be sitting in judgment of ME." Accordingly, and unfortunately, (as in the legal world) few practicing doctors actually POLICE their own, forcing injured plaintiffs to buy medical hired guns who essentially do nothing but testify for plaintiffs.
There HAS to be a way to police doctors and to compensate the people they injure WITHOUT making it so expensive that doctors choose to practice in places where it ISN'T so expensive.
I just don't think that limiting legal redress for those who are injured through the negligence/incompetence is the way to go.
According to Wikipedia, Reservists are "…drilled one weekend a month and two weeks of annual training during the year, but have done much more in times of war or national crisis….After the 11 September attacks of 2001, Reservists have been mobilized to support combat operations." So what I'm seeing is that his one weekend per month and two weeks during the year are standard part of his Reservist duty.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just in search of the facts.
Never speak ill of a fellow Republican. – Ronald Reagan
Take it up with the Gipper. He wasn't being forgiving of RINOs when he said it, he was being practical and far-sighted.
I hope if this guy is the republican candidate, he wins. As if some north shore Democrat won't be worse for our cause.
I'm not concerned about how much doctors make. I was responding to a post where someone complained about how much an operation cost by remarking that doctors make a lot of money.
Since the amount of money a person makes bears some relationship to how much an operation performed by that person costs, I thought that my remarks were actually on point.
You don't think so?
(There are a bunch of poor lawyers and a bunch of poor doctors. This has nothing to do with the fact that doctors are the HIGHEST PAID of all professions. Lawyers are like 17th overall.)
If you don't think that the amount of money a person makes bears a relationship to how much an operation performed by that person costs, then there ain't nothing I can do there, is there?
I imagine he did it for some political payoff, knowing it'd never become law, and really, really regrets it now because it was clearly not worth it.
Am I the only conservative with a sense of humor?
So sue me? Sounds like a lawyer to me.
I don't have time to read your ramble. This is supposed to just be a "comment", not a blog for you. Get your own blog or apply to be a writer for biggovernment, but nobody wants to read something this long…….*snore*
Well, put this quote with your previous comment of "I'm not defending his vote…" and I take it seriously.
Why do you assume I am Republican? This isn't a party thing anymore, but some of you, Gerard, just tow the party line no matter how much some have been screwed. Stop thinking party politics and look at individual canidates.
I don't think Kirk has any idea how much he's alienated Illinois Republicans. Wait until we see who emerges as his opponent in the primary.
The Illinois GOP getting behind him means nothing to voters. These were the same fools who drove away US Senator Peter Fitzgerald, the FIRST REPUBLICAN US SENATOR from Illinois in 20 YEARS, and who gave us Alan Keyes (who wasn't from Illinois and didn't live in Illinois) just 86 days before the election, securing the election of Obama.
Once again, the IL GOP is backing a candidate a large number of Republicans won't, paving the road for a Democrat, even when the Blago/Burris debacle should make this the best opportunity for Republicans.
Just in case you didn't know, in 2008, Trial lawyers donated 635K to Democrats. They donated 5K to Republicans. Now you know why we can't get tort reform.
If you're incapable or unwilling to read a very short synopsis of a very complex subject, how is anyone to take you as a serious person?
Apparently, you're only capable of short, snide remarks made without actually reading what you're remarking upon.
That's too sad for words.
I am a retired Obstetrician and I can tell you that you are entirely wrong about the impact of liability insurance cost. My last year of practice, which is representative of most years I was in practice, my malpractice insurance premium was approximately $60,000. My entire gross income for the year was about $350,000. My take home pay for the year was $125,000. That amounts to 17% of gross and 48% of net. I do not believe that I am alone in those percentages. Additionally, you show little understanding of the enormous pressures our society brings to bear on the concept that a bad result always needs to be someone's fault. Life does not always have someone responsible for a bad result. It just can happen despite all best efforts. We, the Doctors are simply held responsible for any and all bad results. Even if the lawsuit is dismissed or the verdict is rejected by the judge(virtually never) – costs involved to get to those end results mount up in time, emotion and dollars. As you well know, the frivolous lawsuits are perpetrated by attorney's who know full well that the Insurance companies settle these things to get rid of them for "nuisance" value. They do not go away without some dollar expenditure. Tort reform would not interfere with the person who was injured, it would put aside the pot of gold for the lawyers. That is why it is so fiercely resisted. Lawyers of this kind are particularly disingenuous.
No, I read the first post and understood it. I just don't agree with it and think you are a sham. Who is paying you to post?
Kirk is not to be taken seriously, he is not conservative. Enough said.
Bravo! I've worked for a lawyer and saw how litigation inflates everything. Meanwhile, the taxpayers are also bearing the court costs of these (most) frivolous lawsuits. We need TORT reform to protect taxpayers in more ways than one. Guess where the litigation costs goes? Into higher malpractice insurance and higher negotiated rates with health insurance companies, which just means that the cost is passed onto the consumer anyway through higher premiums and copays.
I provided a "bullet list" of my points.
Which ones did you disagree with?
That people who are injured through the negligence/incompetence of others are entitled to full compensation regardless of who it is that injured them?
That it's wrong to create a special protected class of persons who, unlike every other class of persons, are NOT "fully" responsible for the injuries they cause to others through their incompetence/negligence?
That judges have the power and duty to dismiss "frivolous lawsuits" and sanction the attorneys and Plaintiffs who file them? (You're a "former legal secretary," so this one should be easy…)
That Appellate courts routinely reduce the amount of "outrageous judgments" to an amount in accord with the law and reason? (Again…legal secretary…easy…)
That medical malpractice claims only account for 1% of the cost of health care?
That medical malpractice insurance only accounts for 4% of the overhead for doctors and other medical service providers?
That every business has to pay liability insurance and is subject to judgments as a result of their negligence/incompetence and these costs, therefore, are simply a "cost of doing business?"
That much of the cost of medical malpractice insurance bears a direct relationship to the risk that the policy covers, resulting in higher premiums for people who cut on other people for a living than for those who flip burgers?
So….what part of that is disagreeable to you?
What about that post makes me a "sham?"
Why does this post make me a plagiarist?
What makes you conclude that, because I hold a different opinion on this subject than you do, that I'm a "paid" blogger?
As I said, I expect this sort of personal attack on leftist blogs (or by leftists on conservative blogs), but this tendency to attack someone simply because you disagree with him is counterproductive.
There IS an argument to be made that doctors (and other medical service providers) ARE "different" and that they SHOULD be treated differently under the law, making them a more protected class of persons than any other person in the country. After all, they ARE "different" and the services they provide are not only unique but ESSENTIAL to the well-being of the nation and every individual in it. Accordingly, those who provide medical services SHOULD be protected and not have to concern themselves with being sued, nor have to worry about such niggling things as "overhead" and "cost of doing business."
Of course, that argument flies in the face of "free market" principles, doesn't it? It argues against "limited governmental intervention," doesn't it?
But, regardless, THAT'S NOT THE ARGUMENT BEING MADE.
The argument being made is to LIMIT RECOVERY for those who are injured as a result of the negligence/incompetence of those who provide medical services.
That's the WRONG ARGUMENT. It has no moral foundation. There is NO MORAL ARGUMENT for limiting the right to legal redress for people injured through the fault of another. Especially when that argument is ultimately one of "bean counting."
We rise up when we hear "rationing" of medical care. Well, this is rationing of compensation, by operation of law, to those who are injured through the fault of another — to save a few bucks.
What should be done is simple. Those who are injured should have access to a COMMON FUND which bears no relationship to individual doctors. When a doctor screws up as determined by a panel of doctors who are TASKED with the SOLE JOB of policing fellow doctors (not practicing), the injured are fully compensated through this fund. The doctors who screw up receive NO SANCTION, pay NO MONEY, see no increase in premiums — but they are watched and, if they screw up enough, they have their license taken away.
This serves the dual function of fully compensating those who are injured through medical malpractice AND policing the doctors so that the bad apples are removed from the barrel.
[...] more about Kirk’s plan, which he developed with the Congressional Republican Tuesday Group, click here to read his blog post. Once you are done, we encourage you to leave the Congressman a positive [...]
A couple of points:
1) You brought home $125.000.00 after paying your premiums. Your premiums were a "cost of doing business" just as it is in EVERY business. Your premiums are simply higher than most (other specialties pay more, but not many. But, not many have the potential for harm that yours does — nor does as much business as yours does.)
2) My last year in practice as an attorney, my legal malpractice insurance was $15,000.00. The same year, my cost for my liability insurance for my brick and mortar retail store was less than $1,000.00. That's just the way it is. As an attorney, the harm I could do was much greater than the likely harm which I might do to someone selling them baseball cards.
3) 4% versus 17%. Averages, man….averages.
4) Bad results. I totally agree. Completely. Utterly. We have created a society in which everyone seeks redress for every ill (or perceived, or fancied) which besets them. This is insane. (I can't tell you the number of cases I've rejected over the years which I found to be without foundation in the law which were accepted by another.)
By the same token we have created a legal system in which lawyers pursue claims which have no basis in law or fact and are not penalized (in fact are rewarded) for doing so. But, "tort reform" DOESN'T ADDRESS this issue. Tort reform LIMITS COMPENSATION on those cases where the providers of medical services are found AFTER TRIAL to be negligent. Not "nuisance cases." Not "frivolous claims." ONLY those cases where the medical provider is determined to have been NEGLIGENT.
I agree that the legal system needs to be cleaned up. Judges need to do their sworn DUTY and ferret out those "frivolous lawsuits" and SANCTION the attorneys who file them as is their power in EVERY jurisdiction. Lawyers who continue to bring them should be DISCIPLINED and removed from the bar. Insurance companies should not have the power to settle "nuisance cases." (They really don't, but doctors who fight these small cases (and it's almost always small cases) would lose so much money in depositions, trial that the doctors agree to settlement — as it's COST EFFECTIVE.) These "nuisance cases" are in every walk of life, from automobile accident cases to food poisoning cases — even class action suits. But, again, this is not a "tort reform" issue. This is a "legal reform" issue.
I apologize for the caps… just thought I needed them so that sentence would stick out. How you got the impression from what I wrote that "your side has been snubbing us" and "your President just called us liars for calling him on his and the Democrats' falsehoods" left me perplexed. Especially when you say we need health care fixed now. Without bi-partisanship, the only alternative is Obamacare. Do you think the Dems will just wake up and realize that their master plan to socialize America is dead, and the best thing to do now is do the right thing?
As to your previous points, I agree with some of what you say, but at the same time, I believe government should – and is designed – to work most effectively when common ground is maintained. Partisanship works best when it prevents one party from going too far to one side too fast.
Given the extremes – the right believes the less government, the better (which I believe), while the left believes that government should manage as many aspects of our lives as possible, because we're just not smart enough to do it ourselves. They have now gotten so powerful, and so extreme, they seek to re-engineer our entire society into some Progressive Paradise.
I believe government works best when it's small and localized, and only follows the few basic dictates of the Constitution. I don't recall health care being mentioned in the Constitution, unless you want to include it under the 'welfare' clause. The danger there is 'welfare' is rather subjective, and could be interpreted to mean almost anything.
Ultimately, if partisanship gets extreme, as it is now, it becomes unstable. One party gets control, and ram-rods it's policies through. The other party waits for the inevitable failures of ruling party, and takes us the other way. I just don't see the problem with limiting government to the things we mostly agree on, lest one day we wake up to find the other party has been 'outlawed' by the ruling party.
Thanks for the debate. I enjoy engaging with people who take the time to go a little further than a bumper-sticker response. While we don't agree on everything, it just points out there's more depth to the issue than just R or D.
Guess I'll reserve judgment until I have personally read the whole piece of legislation. Like so many of us out here in flyover country read HR 3200.
It's "toe" the party line.
Supporting the Republican Party is the only real way to get done what I want done. The platform would look a lot different if I wrote it. But that's life in the real world of necessary compromise.
To have a Big Government Republican like Kirk posting on a web site devoted to being any-big government is quite a trick.
I have yet to meet an attorney that I liked. I cannot say the same for doctors. My own experience with attorneys caused me to walk away from a lucrative career, not becasue I had to but because I was so disgusted with the process. I cannot emphasize enough that the damage from these suits goes far beyond the monetary reward, time and aggravation are much greater. It took me years of replaying all the mischaracterizations and mis-steps of the attorneys on both sides. In the end it was all a game for them, knowing that at some point in the process the insurance company will 'pay to make it go away' leaving the parties damaged and on the side of the road. Litigation in this country has NOTHING to with finding TRUTH or JUSTICE, it is all just a game for the money.
Conservative friends – Kirk is a cap and trade voter and a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is trying to make up for his vote for cap and trade by making a lot of noise on healthcare. I'm in his district here in the Chicago area. Don't prop this guy up. He cannot be trusted. He is running for the senate now, I will vote against him every chance I get.
Lets hold this guy accountable for his vote on cap and trade please.
B.S. It's notworking!
Try somenting else.
Slowtrot
I just noticed This guy is from Chicago!
How much can he be believed?
Eliminaate congress.
ASlowtrot
–it would put aside the pot of gold for the lawyers–
Amen and who is the dimocrat party very beholden too. For that matter, congress in general.
In this discussion, I think we come to the same place. I agree that limiting damages seems unfair, especially if someone become permanently disabled or killed just by getting a flu vaccine… oh, wait… the vaccine makers are exempt from prosecution, even when one company 'accidentally' sent out live avian flu virus instead of vaccine.
On the other hand, I don't think it's unfair to say that any 'expert opinion' can be bought. I'm sure there's plenty of doctors who would testify against another doctor. Doctors have no special exemption from being members of the human race.
Regarding the case I was personally aware of above – I asked a doctor in that same field how he felt about the situation, and he told me, "I will practice and do the best I can until I'm sued. After that, I won't be able to practice any longer, whether I'm found guilty or not. Just the suit is enough to end my practice. We know this when we get into this field that that's one of the risks." It's the same with OB/GYNs. Part of the risk of being in that field. That's why there's a shortage of those specialists.
The important point, I think, is TORT 'reform', not TORT elimination. There's got to be a better way to fix things without tuning the US into a Socialist country just to fix health care.
Kirk also introduced a new assault weapons ban in 2008. I am in Illinois and will never vote for this RINO.
"If you have any good suggestions, I want to hear them." "No one is offering any reasonable alternatives "
So says the (leader) of our country. Joe Wilson said it best– You Lie!
Thank you for your military service.
YOU SONOFABITCH! YOU'RE ONE OF THE EIGHT REASONS THIS SITE IS NECESSARY. TO VOTE FOR CAP&TRADE IS TO STRAP AMERICANS DOWN LIKE LILLIPUTIANS DID TO GULLIVER. WE'RE ABOUT FREEDOM AND FREE MARKETS BUT BECAUSE OF YOUR VOTE WE'RE NOW AT THE MERCY OF AN EVER INCREASINGLY OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT. GET THE HELL OFF THIS SITE AND DON'T COME BACK. NOW, BECAUSE OF YOUR VOTE, AMERICANS WILL HAVE TO ALLOCATE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO FEED THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX MONSTER. GET LOST AND STAY LOST. YOU STABBED US IN THE BACK. TURN YOUR REPUBLICAN CREDENTIALS IN AT THE DOOR, MR RINO.
To Allan: I’m sorry to hear that malpractice insurance costs you so much, but do you really think that the medical profession is so high and mighty that none of your own should be held responsible for malpractice?
I’ll make a modest proposal: eliminate state licensing boards, and treat medicine as merely a business rather than a profession. Undoubtedly, one of the major contributors to the excessive cost of business is that states require doctors to attend medical schools (which are expensive) and to pass the boards (which are time-consuming and costly). And don’t forget about Continuing Medical Education requirements.
If any hackjob can be a doctor, then people have no reason to sue for malpractice. Problem solved.
It's nice to hear Republicans talking about positive change, but why are the so silent on the issue of allowing the free market entities and charitable organizations carrying the burden here?
http://republicanredefined.com/domestic-issues/pu...
We must stop this!!!!! Our government is trying to grasp control of almost every aspect of our lives. They cant run a Post office and make money, balance a budget..no, help people that truly need it like when Katrina hit big NOOOOO!!!!!! (but they did seize the opportunity try to take more control of us). Bigger government (which by the way Obama swore he would make government smaller) leads to bigger government which leads to us losing our freedoms and our rights. I'm here to tell you all I for one will never stand for it. My rights were given to me a long time ago. And they will never be taken away from me or the people of this great nation. History does have a way of repeating itself. I think just because of human nature and the greed of some. Always remember we gave them there positions and we CAN take them back!!!!!!!!!!
I, too, applaud a call for Tort reform. It has to happen. Still, given your stance and support for the poorly thought out (I'm being nice) cap and tax bill and your efforts to support unnecessary gun control legislation without understanding the root causes of the violence it intends to address, makes me dubious of your motives. I will never support any legislation that does not reform the legal system, lock out illegal immigrants or insure that the quality of health care is even throughout the country. Not just in urban areas. I was born and raised in Chicago, congressman, and I do not trust any politician beholding to Chicago politics. The utter disdain you folks have for we "downstaters" is pathetic, quite frankly. My father is retired Navy and still lives in the burbs, so you'll always have his vote. He thinks you're the berries. As a retired Marine, well………let's just say, not so much.
Sure, but it opens the door to systematic discrimination against anyone that has elevated risk for expensive treatments. This is why the denial of coverage for prexisting conditions has to be eliminated. By "gaming the system" do you mean that you are in favor of catching people that omit declaring prior medical conditions for fear of being denied coverage? People that have been sick are not criminals. Insurance companies that use any pretext to avoid paying on claims should be.
Right on! You don't think for a minute that C&T and even the Obama health plan don't have some built-in revenue structures to benefit big money, do you?
Hey buddy, we have been trying to do things bi-partisan, and your side has been snubbing us. Pelosi has given up on pretenses and just rams things through, and your President just called us liars for calling him on his and the Democrats' falsehoods. There are the slightest hints of bi-partisanship in the Senate, and there it is only to scrape off a RINO vote or two.
The people want their reform now, this problem has been studied for years, commonsense solutions have been floated for years. Sending it off to committee for a year is not approving a solution, about all that will do is clear space on Barry's desk so he can concentrate on screwing us over some more, and give your side something to proclaim as a victory in the 2010 elections.
Now cut this nonsense out, we are not buying it. Democrats cry for bi-partisanship, and all it means these days is they want political cover if it fails and they will shout they forced us to do it if it succeeds. If we do not act now for any reason, you will scream we are the obstructionists. It smells and we will not buy, especially not with our taxpayer dollars at stake. If we can claim to have any left now that your side has spent even our grandkids' inheritance.
Kirk is a friggin RINO people……his opinion is irrelevant…as is the case for all Illinois politicians.
About a year ago, my son went to the hospital for a broken arm. A simple fracture that was on an angle. This is in downstate Illinois, Herrin/Marion area, to be exact. Not exactly an ER that is dealing with gang violence, large numbers of traffic accidents, etc. The entire process, which should have taken no more than two hours took 10 hours. A simple reduction procedure was accomplished by outpatient surgery. When it was all said and done, the total cost came to just short of $7000.00. $7000.00?!?!?! Where did that cost come from for less than 2 hours of a physician's time? It came from the ridiculous malpractice premiums that are required by the surgeon, the anesthesiologist and surgical nurses.
"Without the government-run option and the 52 other programs established by the Speaker’s bill, our plan’s cost would be centered on the $300 billion widely recognized as needed to prevent the scheduled “Sustainable Growth Rate” cut for doctors practicing under Medicare. And it would be paid for by unobligated balances from the stimulus bill."
UNACCEPTABLE. THAT $300 BILLION SHOULD NOT BE SPENT AT ALL.
DEREGULATE and BEGIN REDUCING GOVERNMENT PAID MEDICINE.
Just called the Congressman's office and this is not online yet as it has not been introduced. One thing is there seems to be a hodge podge on his website – while he supports the things in this article, he also supports things like stem cell research Fed. funding. If this is what is meant by bi-partisanship, I don't know. While I have an aunt w/ alzheimers and an uncle w/ Parkinsons and I have seen how hard both have been on family, I don't see this type of funding as good as it will promote abortion, because you know this will most likely include not just existing strains of stem cells, but the "right" to harvest more.
Gonzo's got a good point about extremes. The beauty of two parties hashing things out to keep each other honest is a great mechanism, but there has to be some sort of rationality and pragmatism to keep the country upright. Passion definitely has a place, but some of the rant and rave going on just promotes irrationality and opens the door for the rabble-rousers to target the mob at their enemies. Kadaka's point is good, as a single-minded government will, unopposed, pull everything off-balance. But just because some progressives in the USA try to solve the health-care problem by going after Big Medicine by trimming the profits in order to achieve a healthier nation, doesn't mean they're taking us down the road to communism. After decades of the health industry running pretty much unchecked in its quest to satisfy shareholders, regardless of how many patients end up in poverty or dead due to denial of care, when do the people get some help from the government they elected? The smoothly running cold machine is Big Medicine, and the Hill is a nest of bumbling bureaucrats and industry puppets. I'll tell you, whichever party gets off their butt first and gets health care done wins the race.
Are we ready for PalinCare?
Mr Kirk
You need to spend some time over at Climate Audit or Watts Up With That. Your belief in the religion of Global Warming and carbon nonsense is pathetic. Your vote for Cap and Trade was for the largest intrusion of the federal government into our lives, pathetic. John Arrington for Senate in Illinois. Kirk is a traitor trying to cash in on BigGovernment hype. I'll vote for Giannoulis before Kirk. At least I can count on Giannoulis always being a scumbag. Kirk is a scumbag when you need him to stand up to the statists.
Doctors who deliver babies have about the highest malpractice insurance of all. They tend to deliver LOTS of babies and the potential for causing major damage is correspondingly high.
As to "internet misinformation," yes, there's a lot of it. But, there's a TON of good information. You have to take what a site offers with a grain of salt along with a recognition of which axe it's grinding.
As to taking a Doctor's word over a lawyers…. I'm sorry? Don't doctors have a dog in this fight? Don't they have a financial interest in this debate? Lawyers do as well, of course. But, just because the "information" is coming out of a doctor's mouth doesn't make it more credible than out of the mouth of anyone else. Facts are facts. Take from them what you will, but don't ignore them and the reasonable conclusions one can draw from them.
I HATE insurance companies. Banks and Insurance companies. HATE them. Their JOB is to delay or deny a claim as long as they can. They charge as much as the market will bear (as do most businesses) and refuse to pay legitimate claims — settling frequently at the courthouse steps as the trial is about to begin.
But lawyers? You hate them ALL? You hate the guy who argued FOR desegregation and the guy who argued AGAINST it? You hated the guys who wanted to put O.J. away and the ones who wanted to keep him out of jail? You hate the lawyer who is attempting to win a medical malpractice case for his client and the one who is attempting to prevent the insurance company from paying out? You hate the DA who is prosecuting that guy for rape AND the guy who is trying to get his client off? The guy who argued FOR Roe or the one who argued AGAINST it?
I mean, come on….
Like any profession (ask Michael Jackson or Anna Nicole Smith) you have good lawyers and bad ones. You have corrupt ones and saints who take on clients who can't pay even though the lawyer is having trouble paying his OWN bills.
Like every other subset of the human race, it's a mixed bag.
Clearly, any expert testimony can be "bought." However, there are few "experts" who actually make a LIVING at it who will testify to things which cannot be factually supported. The payout on a single case simply isn't great enough for them to risk their "reputation" so that the NEXT GUY won't hire them because their testimony isn't credible. (We DO check these guys out…past depositions…past cases). In fact, the BEST "paid" experts are the ones who are highly reputable. They may be prostitutes for one side or the other, but they are GOOD at what they do and the FACTS support their position. (Of course, the facts can generally be made to support EITHER side. That's WHY there's a trial in the first place. If the FACTS can only support one conclusion, the case is going to be settled. No "expert" is going to subject himself to the humiliation of being undressed without mercy in front of the jury.)
As to your doctor who's going to quit once he's been sued…I'm sorry. That's just bs. (As set out.) There are FEW doctors (or lawyers or accountants) who have ANY volume of business who haven't been sued. As stated by another poster, in today's society, people expect there to be a right for every ill. If you've been in business of any kind for any length of time, it is a FLUKE if you haven't been sued by someone, rightly or wrongly. It's what professional liability insurance is FOR.
I agree that the OVERHEAD for being a OB/GYN is high, this overhead including the cost of professional liability insurance), and agree that this is something which drives doctors into other, MORE LUCRATIVE and LESS RISKY lines of business (and what drives those doctors TO such venues as Texas where their LIABILITY is reduced through "medical malpractice reform") Who wouldn't (if they can) move to a state where they have less overhead and less risk of professional and personal liability when they screw up? (It's the same reason most corporations incorporate in Delaware — the laws are simply more favorable to them there.)
The cost of professional liability insurance is too high. No question. But, that cost bears a direct relationship to the risk covered. What is needed is some way to DISENGAGE the cost of medical malpractice from the doctor's overhead.
There should be an IMPARTIAL MEDICAL PANEL made up of retired doctors, medical professors, and other doctors who NO LONGER PRACTICE but who keep up with the current state of the profession. This would be nationwide. A case of potential malpractice comes up. This case is sent to three members of the specialty in which the malpractice is alleged to have been performed. They, having no fear of later being judged by other doctors AND being charged with being "watchdogs" of their profession, look at the case and determine whether or not the offending doctor breached the standard of care. If so, THEN there would be a trial — but ONLY on the issue of DAMAGES.
Something such as this is necessary to ensure that people who are legitimately injured through the negligence of doctors are fully compensated AND ensuring that doctors who can't adhere to the proper standard of care are found and, either retrained or have their license taken away.
Doctoring is a "game for the money" as well. Most jobs are.
It's unfortunate that you haven't met any lawyers you like. There are a ton of good ones and, by virtue of their profession, tend to be well versed in many schools of thought.
Being a child of divorce in a time when "fault" had to be shown in order to obtain a divorce, I know just how much the fight to win (on both sides) can scar the parties. Having represented some people who have been destroyed by overzealous DA's, I fully understand how it is.
But, lawyers have a DUTY to "zealously represent their client." Failure to do so is an ethical violation as well as a breach of duty (and contract…and no lawyer wants to be sued by his client because he fought with "kids' gloves").
Texas has done far more than that. But, just to take it as you have stated, what has happened is that people who WIN a medical malpractice case, i.e., those who have established to a jury that their doctor committed malpractice and injured them have their "non-economic damages" limited to $250,000.00.
Now, in Texas, $250,000.00 is a LOT of money. Juries who award such huge sums (around EIGHT TIMES the average yearly salary) only do so in cases where the Plaintiff is hurt badly.
Very badly.
This figure is for things like: Pain and suffering, mental anguish, wrongful death, permanent scarring, and whatnot.
You know. For those people who are paralyzed for the rest of their lives. Maybe those who are rendered incapable of ever having sex again. Those for whom every step is anguish, who can no longer mow their yard, clean their gutters, or pick up their grandkids because it simply hurts too much.
Can't go swimming. Can't go hunting. Can't go fishing.
You know. Have the remainder of their lives (if they weren't killed outright) utterly ruined.
It is THOSE people who have their damages capped. Not the ones who have minor injuries. THEY get fully compensated.
And, the "punitive" damages issue….sigh. A jury is only ALLOWED to award "punitive" damages when the behavior is GROSS NEGLIGENCE or INTENTIONAL, and the award is to PUNISH the offender not COMPENSATE the victim. Why anyone thinks it's a "good idea" to get rid of PUNITIVE damages befuddles me.
If there is a MORE wrongheaded way to address this issue, I don't know what it is.
OF COURSE more doctors want to practice there! They have NO personal liability. They ONLY have to purchase professional liability insurance up to $250,000.00. (I couldn't get a LEASE for a retail store unless I provided proof that I had TWO MILLION in liability insurance….)
Also ClimateDepot is excellent
I get so angry when Obama says that the Republican party hasn't given him any idea's or plans. If tort reform is not implemented, then they can't be serious. Also, you can bet that every illegal alien will be a citizen because that is his agenda. He won't make them legal until it comes closer to his time of re election……then they will get their free healthcare.
If Kirk voted for Crap and Tax, vote him out!!!!!!!!!
Speaking of GE, I went to the store to buy light bulbs and there is not one light bulb that is not GE. The competition is gone! I believe this is called "GOING GREEN!"
YEA! YEA! VOTE THEM OUT!
I think you can go to google and put Mark Kirk voting record. I did that when President Obama was running for the presidency and he didn't vote on anything. That was so no one would find out about his socialistic views. He really fooled alot of people!
I am inclined to agree with you but,,,,from my own life experience I have met far more sleazy lawyers than I have doctors. Lawyers, in my opinion (specifically the litigation branch) do alot to defeat the core value of self-suficiency. The growing nember of people who are dependent is growing. I believe in helping the less fortunate in our society but the great society and all the other government experiments in social engineering are engineered by the heart without any thought as to those pesky unintended consequences. When they made it economically beneficial to be a single parent family vs a struggling low income two parent family, they unintentionally drove the father out of the scene. They never talk about the self-esteem robbing quality that welfare delivers so well. Tell someone they can't do it on their own and sooner or later they will bllieve you and then you will be able to show you were right.
That's a very thoughtful answer. I can see you're much more familiar with the subject than I am, so my input is purely based on opinion and limited personal experience.
As for the Dr. I was referring to – the one that said he would stop practicing – it wasn't because he wanted to stop, he just said that the cost of his malpractice insurance would become prohibitive, and he could no longer afford to practice.
Ultimately, if we are to reform the health care system without resorting to Socialist, Government-run health care, everyone will have to accept some goring of their ox for sake of keeping the government out of it. It's a lot easier to fix the current system, than to try and reverse government run health care once they get control of it.
[...] that the GOP has no ideas, he is incorrect. The GOP does have ideas, such as Illinois Republican Mark Kirk’s plan. Bill Golden has also shared that there are other ideas that the GOP have placed at a special [...]
Has anyone tried to get their senior mother into see a new Internal medicine doctor lately. The are not taking medicare patients. They loose money on them. I have a mom who needs a Dr. Great Health care?
Well, 4% vs. 17% seems a pretty big difference. Thanks, Doc. Huey, no offense and nothing personal at all, that's why I despise ALL lawyers. Is it your contention that insurance companies are the major problem? I see the itemization of some medical bills and it's ridiculous. Each itemized cost on that bill reflects insurance costs from the drug maker to the scrub nurse to the chef in the stinkin' cafeteria. I'll rely on a Doctor's experience. Google is full of misinformation right now, especially. I'll go as far as to say that the cost of medical school is way out of wack.
I agree completely with your last paragraph.
I stand corrected – "Toe the party line." I honestly always thought it was "tow" because that is a word that indicates action as opposed to the common use of "toe" which is usually a noun.
And supporting the Republican party may not be the only way Gerard. Remember the 1996 when the Republicans had a "Contract with America?" They broke that contract. I remember because I voted for them. They forgot their base.
It's time to throw out all the bad eggs and start from scratch! Maybe a third party or all Jr. Congressmen and Senators.
A link to Mark Kirk's speech at a recent DuPage County GOP Rally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPZ6oRK_6lk
Good stuff!
From the looks of some of the comments here, you might enjoy this article from chicagogop.com
http://www.chicagogop.com/blog/1440-Whats-In-A-Na...
Mark Kirk is a nothing but a scum sucking bottom feeder…please take a look at John Arrington. He is a good conservative gentleman that is running against Mark Kirk in the primary.
I appreciate that there are actually republicans trying to do something for the sorry state of american healthcare. I personally don't see a bill happening unless its so watered down that it still protects the insurance companies. Hopefully we pass a Bill with some form public option no one should have to go without health care.
Another little secret congress isn't talking about is the F.E.H.B. ( Federal Employees Health Benefits) An insurance exchange set up for the president, congress, and 8 million federal employees, that offers 250 different plans from over 200 private ins. co's across the U.S. The gov. pays 75% of their premiums. Just open the exchange to the other 1100 private ins. co's and include the 10 million uninsured. ( the true no.) And presto we have competition, low cost, no uninsured, and no gov. option. Add a few proposals like tort reform, and portability, problem solved! Call congress and ask why their not using this huge existing system already in place!!!
Peteee, you sound just like the wounded criminals in the ACORN incidents: malign the messenger and forget about the message. When will you wake up?
Hey whatever Kirk is, isn' important right now. We need to tell congress to use these proposals that he listed and then you can vote him out in 2010. Here is a grassroots # that will connect you with each one of your congressmen. This bill is probably coming to a vote sooner than we think and we need to act now. let them know that a yes vote on any of the bills on healthcare in congress by the democrats means pack your crap and hit the road!!! " in or out in 2010" 1-800-833-6354 Long live teabaggers
I would like to know how to post a e-mail that was sent to me by a person that tells about how the townhalls have become less than 'open' with 'local' input but overwhelmed by SIEU and other Organizations. Many times at the direction of the White House.
[...] Reduce medical malpractice suits and make sure citizens aren’t denied for preexisting conditions. (See Rep. Mark Kirk’s (R. Illinois) plan) [...]
First of all, thank you for your service to our country, no one can diminish that noble position. Unfortunately I have to inform you that as far as your political position on anything goes,give it up! You betrayed the people of Illinois and these beautiful United States and the conservative party. You have an R next to your name, but yet you voted with the radical left agenda, Cap and Trade.This bill will destroy whats left of the capitalist free market and the hard working tax paying Americans! RINO!!!!!!!! Go away, pull an Arlen Sphincter. The Libs need you now, not us. Your opinions mean nothing. RINO!!!!! Better yet, maybe you can find a position with King Daley's dynasty. RINO!!!!!
mr. kirk and all of the rest of you seem to forget that insurance is a business that is entirely separat from health care. if the concern is for people that are not able to pay for health care,,,,because all are able to go to the emergency room and recive health care,,,,then why dosent the goverment offer guarented loans for health care,,,like student loans are..they would be financed through banks not taxes. all doctors would see all paticents because payment would be guarenteed,,,and it would improve the credit and finantial status for those that participated in the program….people would have the power to shop costs and it would provide direct compition to insurance costs,,,,,,i agree with a need for al of the issues that mr kirk mentioned ,,,but all of those issues were caused by goverment involvment in the first place…..
Warning: Glenn Back "Meet Up Groups" are out of control.
One of your "MEETUP" Groups, outside of Boston has been, and continues to use racist remarks about African Americans, Muslims, and the Chinese, to name a few, and who have apparently mobilized into a mob-like organization urging its members to engage in harmful acts against the President.
Additionally, they have circulated a form letter asking its members to call their Senators and fraudulently state that they are a school nurse in an attempt to urge their concern about the Health Care vote.
I will be contacting the US Secret Service to notify them of any pending threats.
I'm sure neither Glenn Beck, or Fox News do not want his or their name associated with the Holyoke chapter of a new version of the KKK. I have copies of all of these tragic tactics which I rec'd in just 36 hours.
Ron DeJohn
860-436-9203
http://www.BlackoutLive.Com
That's what they said about McCain-Feingold.
They said Bush would never sign it.
It's currently being challenged in the Supreme Court and it's looking cautiously optimistc good.
Just an amazing site!
==
Follow us on twitter http://www.twitter.com/cooliohigh