President Obama says chance for healthcare overhaul is slipping away

But healthcare reform requires a prerequisite- tort reform.

Until we visit and resolve tort issues around healthcare, there cannot, in my opinion, be any meaningful discussion about healthcare itself.

Doctors are so busy protecting themselves from specious lawsuits that they no longer practice medicine in any meaningful way. That is not to say that there are not some suits with merit. But those with merit are seriously outweighed by those without.

The goal of medicine is to treat the whole patient. The goal of re-thinking healthcare delivery should be held to the same standard. Until I hear that someone is willing to do this necessary thing, I cannot support ANY plan fro reform.

It's time to consider the WHOLE issue, not just the minor bits that are chewing at our ankles. Only then will we be able to find any meaningful and supportable change.

EDIT- Oops

in charge of if they can be sued or for how much?

Tig, of all people, who I know not to be a medical doctor, but who has gone to great and serious lengths to know medically of least herself. This "medical professionalism" of which you both quarrel, belongs only with each of us, that we may choose.

Same goes for "legal professionalism".

Do I have to shout it in your ears?

If Congress doesn't act this year, it won't act next year.

Next year is an election year for a third of the Senate and all of the House. Those incumbents will want all the campaign money they can get out, including donations from the established medical finance system (insurers, pharmaceuticals, etc). Congress won't do anything next year that might upset those big-dollar donors.

In this respect, a health care initiative is no different from any other legislation that upsets any of the big industries.

I doubt that any of our legislators can read the full content of any Bill.
I'm all for healthcare reform. I don't know where to start. I can guarantee you that I personally don't want to see caps on the amount I could collect if some doctor screwed up and permanently hurt or killed my wife. That cap on lawsuits is out for me.
Hasn't healthcare reform been sort of on the agenda for the past 30 years? Seems to me that in that period of time there were probably some good attempts to pass decent legislation. Sure, times have changed but it seems as if President Obama could empanel a large group of experts from all affected areas and have them develop a long term, cohesive plan instead of creating a slap-dash plan that is likely to cost more than it should.
From my perspective, the poor and people living on fixed incomes are going to be hurt with any more out of pocket expense. Some more than others. I know that I'm not going be thrilled to have to pay hundreds/month for insurance.
I don't want to hear about tort reform being the solution to all of our problems. As I said, I'll sue like a madman if someone hurts or kills the one I love. It's going to take more than a few hundred thousand to placate ME! What if she required in-home or nursing home care for the rest of her life? She's young yet. Should a doctor's screw up cause us/me to go broke taking care of her? What if our house required serious modification for her to get around. Same question as before.
Speaking of tort reform, as I understand it, speaks in favor of the medical profession and not in favor of those it serves. If I'm not mistaken medical errors kill more people each year than guns do. Outlaw doctors and nurses!

separate the valid cases as you pointed out from the fraud and frivolous.

[i]President Obama over the last few days has stated how urgent they quickly move forward his agenda of a government run health before the chance can slip away, not to return for generations. His words, paraphrased of course.[/i]

Of course... ;)

[i]My question for supporters of Obama has two parts.

One, if his plan is sound, why would something that complicated be done in such a rush?[/i]

Well, it might be to perhaps get it through Congress before Pelosi, Graham, Boxer, et. al., have time to put their grubby mits on it and put in pork that their "constituency" (put in parentheses, because I really meant to say ... PACs/SIGs/lobbies/etc) influences them.

[i]Two, if his plan is sound, why would it either pass now or not be available again for generations?[/i]

Probably because if we don't take the tax monies that will be raised by the $1+ put on a pack of cigarettes by the US government, Congress will figure out a way to blow that on something like they have Social Security's funds.

[i]Or is he rushing things through so people don't have a chance to see what is really in the plan, like he did with his non-stimulating stimulus package?[/i]

Could be. But like I said, it is probably more likely to push it through before too many committees have time to write absurd pork into it.

Of course, I don't like it either way. It needs to be done right, if we are going to have social healthcare. Otherwise, we'll end up with a system like Canada has...rather than something better done like the Dutch, Italians, or Australians have.

Can you imagine being in another country, and rather than having to wait til the next morning to get your child's prescription for antibiotic like you have to in the United States (even at some hospitals the pharmacy closes at night), you can go to the local foreign pharmacy and call a number on the wall and the pharmacist lives less than 5 mins away and will drive down anytime to fill your order day or night?

Well, that's how it happened for Gary Dell'Abate (Howard Stern's radio show's executive producer) when he was in Italy. Free medical care for sick tourists, $4 antibiotic, and a pharmacist who was there and filled the prescription within 15 minutes late at night.

If we do social healthcare, we have to make sure it's done well. Otherwise, we'll end up with 1-2 year waits for needed surgeries.

is not allowing to shop for coverage across state lines, intentionally reducing competition.

because the last year of life is the most expensive, TheObama is recommending people march into a hospice instead of end of life medical treatment.

Who would have thought it, TheObama, getting his healthcare ideas from MontyPython?
[b]
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD! (CLANG!)

I'm not dead yet!

He says he isn't dead yet....

That's not paraphrasing, you are perhaps paraphrasing Michael Steele but not Obama.

Why should it be done in a rush? Obama merely said it needs to regain momentum, 'RUSH' is just your own word to generate the wrong impression for Obama's comments, thus the paraphrase instead of quote.

His actual words were quite short, why not simply quote him accurately or is that less effective in pursuing your cause?

Especially after half-witted Michael Steele and his cronies run an ad campaign against it.
Of course he needs to push and keep momentum, in politics things dissolves under such a barrage of counter attacks quickly, whether warranted or not.

You gotta look at the guy who echoes you own comments too, Steele.
Most of what he supports you oppose, however you jump right on board with him and the RNC here. While he takes baseless shots at the theory without addressing the actions themselves.

[b]Michael Steele[/b]
He's a conceptual flake, on the fence and just a puppet that plays lip service.

He opposes a law against gay marriage and feels it is a state issue, he supports stem cell research if no embryos are destroyed. He supports a gas tax, but opposes the THEORY of GW (suggesting it's cooling instead) because Greenland had to get its name somewhere, what a nutter! He supports greater gun law enforcement but not tighter laws but he does oppose the need for assault weapons. What a flake!

He is on the fence and so careful with his every word so as to retain the broadest demographic possible without showing any commitment to his comments. I thought you were one who was proud of convictions and values. Yet you echo the comments of a virtual moron, I mean this guy is ready to take on Bush for most the blatant idiot of the century award.

Did you get to act in his anti-health care advertising campaigns too? There is such a push on by this right wing nutbag that Obama HAS to act now of the program loses momentum. It's not for fear of a weak plan, when the opposition is creating BS ads against your ideas. You seem to forget, politics is not about facts and proof, it is about fear campaigns. Create any sort of fear or doubt in people's minds, whether valid or not, and nothing moves forward.

So to quote Obama:

Obama said [i]"seize this opportunity -- one we might not have again for generations -- and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009."[/i]

You asked: [b]Why such a rush, why would it either pass now or not be available again for generations?[/b]

YOu just needed ot relax and read on instead of getting all excited about your post instead.

"[i]"Reforming the United States' $2.5 trillion health care industry is Obama's signature domestic issue, [b]but he is running out of time to get the enabling legislation passed this year.[/b] A delay to 2010, a congressional election year, could make it harder to win a final deal.[/i]

Suppose you didn't read that far?

Surely you have the capacity to work that out for yourself though and are just adding more s**t to the pot to stir up.

Bureaucratic red tape stops so much advancement in the world as it is, Obama KNOWS that, to get things done, you just have to sit down and get things done.

Would you prefer a president who makes claoms and offers promises but doesn't act upon them and see them through to fruition?

It seems that when ever Obana acts on his promises, you question why he is acting quickly.

But when it was Bush forcing issues in haste (as he has did numerous times despite multi-national requests)you find a way to support his hasty action.

You are so politically two-faced you want have your cake and eat it to. Bush can have all the lenience he needs, Bush can act out without explanation (hey, it's national security and all that mumbo jumbo afterall).

Obama can't make changes at all. if Obama makes a change it is ot the detrmiment of teh nation so he has to do so quickly before people realize he's screwing them over.

Man, you need Lithium to sort out all the voces and contradicting thoughts in your head.

Or at least just start trying to be consistent with your values.

Don't worry you won't need a butt plug.

I was looking at my dental costs from last year and my proposed work thsi year, full veneers etc. and as it is elective I won't get good coverage form my insurance. (we pay private dental here, though dentists are regulated for time and charges and can't rip you off)

So I was also lookign at options should i say, move back to England in March 2010. Right now, if i moved back without work, I could collect the pogey and it would get me a full set of free veneers! From YOUR back pocket! It only lasts 6 months when I move back, after that I have ot take care of my own, but it would be good for a year than move back here if I missed the endless trees, lakes and mountains too much.

Hey, I'd even promise to send you a postcard of my new, perfect smile! (or sh** eating grin whatever you want to call it).
;D

I recognize that I am responsible for insuring that I get the healthcare I need when I need it. But I don't believe that to be the issue here. I think that the present system of healthcare delivery is broken and needs to be reconsidered. But that is one person's opinion and not necessarily a shared opinion.

There are things that I am able to do for myself to provide for some of my needs. The other side of that is that I recognize that there are some needs that I alone cannot provide.

But then I have always known that you and I see eye to eye on this.

Ask JCK how much it would be for private hurricane insurance, and what impact government had in it.

1. This is not an election year. In an election year, it is not possible to pass any law that significantly changes anything. And American health care takes one dollar in six in the American economy, so a lot of people have a vested interest in no change. It is possible to vote major change really in only the first and third years of a presidency. Other times, re-election concerns sideline everything else.

2. He's rushing because his popularity (he won the election, remember, as did a majority of democrats in both houses) will fade quickly with time, and passing anything this big will require the commitment of the full personal and political strength of the presidency. Senators and congressmen will become more divided and parochial as time goes on, and will feel less of the cohesive force of the mass popular wave that created overwhelming majorities.

3. Even a sound plan will not pass Republican oversight. Republicans see it in their interest to disable any major Democratic program they can, even if it leaves the country weaker, because they sense that if the Democrats get stronger, THAT would make the country weaker.

is controlled by the state...and to practice law, practice medicine, sell insurance, etc., you usually have to be licensed/bonded/insured/registered in the state of operation when you set up a practice there.

Hence, the US government can not under states' rights tell a state how to certify or regulate businesses operating within their jurisdiction. nor can they force them to give right to operate within a state without such approval as setup under their own law (unless deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).

Besides that...would you really want a company from Idaho selling you homeowners insurance on a house in Florida when they have no idea of the conditions, weather, risks and hazards down here?

Same goes for health insurance. I don't think you will ever have the risk of dying in a hurricane. And, I don't think MI has had the big incidence of cancer clusters like they've had all over FL.

There's just a lot of particulars. And if you let all this cross-state free business happen, you'd have a LOT of businesses selling stuff without doing things right...and then trying to bailout of it when big problems hit.

Florida has had that happening lately with homeowners insurance. 100,000s of people paid premiums on homes for 20-30 years here...never had a claim...and the insurer just closes up and leaves...e.g.-Nationwide, State Farm, etc.

Pretty sad there's no accountability to make them keep their customers here til they get another provider and leave them without.

Then a guy like me pays taxes to fund the state-backed insurer because corporations come and profiteer here then pull up stakes and leave when their wallet is full.

I don't need to pay more taxes to the system for the benefit of suits. I already gotta do that for the banks and car companies now.

is why you, in your bloodlust for Bush only care enough about what he did, to bring it up when someone talks about ANY Democrat?

And I don't think the way TheObama is going is improving anything, and yes, I think McCain would have been horrible as well. I didn't vote for either of them.

I don't think they are worthy of a special. Maybe worthy of a wall and firing squad though. :p ;\

Being in your words "the present system of healthcare delivery", I am not surprised you are unsure of where I am going.

I am jettisoning your entire framework, and every argument here pro and con appertaining thereto.

You will remain unsure until you let go your premise of "delivery".

My preference, my call.

Government calls too much as it is. We don't need babysitting.

Evidently, you are complacent with letting private enterprise do it daily and you have no say-so who runs corporations.

Why not have people telling you that from a government whose people you have a say in electing?

At least you have some control of government.

Or, don't you agree?

(BTW, I think doctors should decide what is best medically...not bureaucrats or businesses)

AMEN!!!!!! :^0

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!! :^0

I'm really kind of tired of this fear mongering.

Really the rest of the western world has government assisted health care in one form or another.

Do you know of any instances where those nasty government people keep people out of hospitals and put them into hospices?

It certainly does not happen in my experience in Canada, in fact its usually the other way around, but for reasons that have nothing to do with cost. Doctors like to win, and they want to keep patients in hospitals right up to the end so they can exhaust every possible option. Here at least the patients decide whether or not to go to a hospice, and frankly I doubt that in most situations anyone at a hospital would even mention that alternative. Personally, we all die, and in many scenarios I can see hospices as a preferable alternative to a hospital room. But it isn't my place to decide that for others.

Edited to add:

A fundamental misunderstanding of how our system works is this. Unlike the HMOs in the US, it is the Doctors who make decisions on what treatments are needed, what specialists are required and so on. No one calls a government official and asks for approval on a procedure. That and the complexity of billing is why the administrative side of healthcare is so much more expensive in the US than elsewhere.

James

for half the cost. I can then whittle away on THAT getting rid of stuff I don't need.

Unfortunately, that "half" is higher than the 25% I am paying now.

That's part of the problem... people don't realize what they're really paying... they think they're paying their $300 a month and the employer is "giving" the rest to them. They're not. They're paying for it, out of money they could be paying you!

Once insurance carriers don't have the "captive consumer", they will lower prices, or risk losing to the competition.

Oh, and this will mean less administrative costs for the company too.

[i]Besides that...would you really want a company from Idaho selling you homeowners insurance on a house in Florida when they have no idea of the conditions, weather, risks and hazards down here?[/i]

They have the Weather Channel in Idaho too, you know... :)

No, they'll simply TELL them. Oh, and they'll tell you too.

are where they know something now that they didn't know then but are suing knowing they can't win but also knowing that it'll be cheaper for the company to settle than to fight.

Any cost or tax imposed on any company is going to come from YOUR pocket. All these people who chant "Tax the rich. Tax the rich." are too stupid to know they're shooting themselves in the foot.

You know what it is... too many people today weren't spanked as children... That knocks the blood back up into the head, and children become smarter :)

While there are aspects to healthcare that one may take individual charge of, there are myriad others that do require a system of delivery, whatever that may look like. Speaking for my own case, I required someone else to excise the cancer, define the chemo protocol, and make a determination of my state of health. Even if I had sufficient knowledge to do those things, I would still have required intervention from an outside resource.

The reality is that there are going to be people who will see medicine as a service. This is not a bad thing on its face. While mostly considered a caring profession, medicine is, in fact, a service.

Regardless of how I as an individual choose to see healthcare, the reality is that my vision is not the only vision and that others see things differently. When direction is chosen to revamp the system in general, it is very unlikely that my vision will be the template.

That's plural.

One who decries so loudly is quickly dispatched...

One point that is rarely surfaced is that there is a good number in the US that choose not to carry insurance. I carried no insurance until I started a family. My medical needs were so low that I could simply place into savings what I needed. Many of my single peers still do the same. Therefore, the number of uninsured is useless. Frankly, I wish we were all uninsured. We would then be more responsible and probably live better lives.

But again, most of the surge in healthcare cost has come from insurance and law suits.

Another thing that has ruined healthcare is the belief that it is a right. Healthcare, especially as good as it is here, is a privilege.

[i]"News flash, he's accepted by more Americans and FAR more people worldwide, than Bush ever was. "[/i] You really think his numbers today which are dropping daily, are higher than Bush ever was? And you base this upon what? And no, I don't give a ratsass about "worldwide" and people like you approving of him or having Bushaphobia before.

Nothing I put in the title or the initial post or any other post was a lie. You being to stupid or dishonest to see that is your problem.

As for my sources, you just amplify your ignorance by assuming anything, and again, show how dishonest your attempts to look cool here are.

as more people see that he didn't have a real plan from the beginning.

that it doesn't matter what I say, your desire to argue outweighs your ability to have an intelligent conversation.

Someday you will learn to express your views in a logical fashion instead of thinking every post has to be a flame/attack.

Until then, enjoy yourself.

such as medicaid / medicare / VA, or even the Social Security program, I will believe that "The Government" is better able to run something such as the proposed single payer system.

They have shown (ALL political parties) that none of them are willing to make any meaningful changes because they will lose their stumping material.

How is "The Governments" war on poverty or drugs going?

PLEASE name ANY program that was taken over and run by "The Government" that LOWERED it's costs.

How are public schools doing on per student spending vs private schools, and which as the better results?

This will be more of the same, and it will all be bad.

[i]People in the Auto industry and state/federal employees are the ones that have the free ride and the license to thrill that has driven the costs through the roof.[/i]

I can't speak for the auto industry, but I can speak for everybody else.

State employees, at least in SC (and probably most other states) do [u]not[/u] receive a free ride. When I was teaching, family medical coverage equivalent to what I receive from Tricare Prime (and I pay for that!) was available for a monthly premium of $383.75/month. That was in 2000. The current monthly premium is $629.70. http://www.eip.sc.gov/publications/2009ACTIVERATES.pdf?ts=620753150 (50kb PDF)

Federal employees (except the military) also pay premiums for their health insurance: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp. The only federal employees who pay no health insurance premiums are active military, and even they have to pay premiums for family dental care.

Wind dies, sail flaps, boat dead in water.

they have a sweet package, and I am surprised that it wouldn't be consistent with the rest of the teachers union.

I have family that will have that coverage with a full retirement in less than a year.

Otherwise, it will never get done when he becomes bogged down in other issues.

His plan is, at best, a work in progress. Too big, too expensive so far. Private companies could do it better.

I think this is too fast for me.

AV

Now it's the end of the year....

In other news, over 40 Republicans co-sponsored an addendum that would require members of congress to use whatever single-payer plan they voted for... not one Democrat would sign on.

Gee, I wonder why not!