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
Got a Tip?
212 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!
You must be logged in to post a comment.