While listening to our President last night, I heard a very partisan person asking for a bi-partisan approach. I heard someone condeming anyone who dared to question his facts or his plan. I heard slight of hand causing one very frustrated Representative to inappropriately blurt out “You Lie” or something similar. President Obama has been stating for over a year that we have 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance and need to be covered. This number has all along included illegal aliens, yet all along the White House has stated that illegal aliens will not be covered. He simply can’t have it both ways. In last night’s speech the number of Americans without health care suddenly dropped from 47 million to 30 million. How did that happen?
The President in the past has indicated that a number of plans are working their way through the House and Senate, yet last night he kept saying “my plan” and “the Bill”. We must assume that the bill he is referring to is H.R. 3200—the only bill that is out of committee. The Democrat plan (H.R. 3200) is far too complicated, probably due to the incredible amount of social reform laced throughout the document. It does not include one word on tort reform, likely due to the strong financial tie between Democrats and the trial lawyers lobby and heavy contributions to Democratic candidates campaigns by trial lawyers. We really do not need a thousand page bill (H.R. 3200), because reform is simple, i.e. if you are not trying to re-engineer society with social reforms.
My simple plan:
Tort Reform
Bring on massive tort reform at the state level. Cap both plaintiff and defense attorney fees. Cap or eliminate punitive damages. Make the loser pay all court costs and attorney fees. Provide federal financial inducements to states that are proactive in passing this reform.
A Wall Street Journal article on defensive medicine can be found at: click here.
A PricewaterhouseCoopers study on waste in healthcare including defensive medicine revealed that defensive medicine was a significant part of the cost. An excerpt from the report follows.
“Our research found that wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent in the United States, more than half of all health spending. Defensive medicine, such as redundant, inappropriate or unnecessary tests and procedures, was identified as the biggest area of excess, followed by inefficient healthcare administration and the cost of care necessitated by conditions such as obesity, which can be considered preventable by lifestyle changes. PricewaterhouseCoopers’ paper classified health system inefficiencies into three “wastebaskets” that are driving up costs…”
You can read the full PricewaterhouseCoopers report including key findings at: click here.
Eliminate employer provided health insurance
Remove both the public and private employment sector from the burden of providing health insurance benefits – this includes our Representatives in Congress. Do this by taxing all employer provided medical benefits as income and providing a deduction for the cost of healthcare insurance to off set this sudden change. This taxation change becomes tax neutral for most tax payers and the federal government. Provide a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance for those under an income limit – this is far cheaper than turning health insurance on its ear. This places all Americans on an equal footing. This also allows for insurance portability, price, and plan selection.
Larger pools for health insurance bring down health insurance costs
Permit health insurance companies to sell across state lines. Many years ago the federal government established the National Banking System, wherein nationally chartered banks can operate across state lines without complying with local banking department regulations. Do the same for medical insurance by creating a National Health Insurance System, chartering insurance companies to operate nationally and simultaneously making them subject to national insurance regulations similarly to how national banks are regulated today. Generate a national level of competition.
Safety from loss of insurance when unemployed and from catastrophic loss
Often when you take a loan for a car purchase you are offered insurance that covers you for payments in the event of loss of income. Life insurance policies often have loss of income riders to insure premium payments are made when there is a loss of income. Offer with every health insurance policy an extra cost rider providing premium payments for a period of time to cover loss of income from a job loss. Make this premium tax deductible. Offer with every health insurance policy an extra cost rider providing catastrophic coverage to keep people from losing everything. Make this premium tax deductible.
This simple plan will dramatically lower the cost of healthcare making health insurance more affordable, allow plan portability and greatly reduce previous medical condition insurance issues, because fewer people will need to change plans. The bill to create this reform need not be over 100 pages. Most importantly, keep our representatives from extensive tinkering with our health care, for they know not what they do.
I was thinking more on the lines of providing an expanded form of medicaid to all those legal citizens who are unable to purchase insurance. The proof would be in their tax returns. No tax return,no insurance. Give at least 2 years for those unfortunates to get their own insurance and if unable they must again submit proof they are unable to afford it.
The Obama plan is to punish the 85% who have worked hard to purchase or be provided insurance through their work for the 15% that either can’t work or will not work.
None of this includes those retirees who have done their bit to keep America strong. These people will continue to receive medicare plus protection from discriminating against various types of diseases.
This isn’t very hard to do and would be much much cheaper for all of us. BUT something like this is not what Mr. Obama is looking for. His agenda is downright socialism in it’s worst form to be aligned with many other of his plans such as CAP and TRADE which will bring us down eventually to a third world nation.
“Cap both plaintiff and defense attorney fees.”
When the cost of litigation goes up how do these caps change.
“Cap or eliminate punitive damages.”
So that companies that are truly negligent can have immunity. Do we send executives to jail.
“Make the loser pay all court costs and attorney fees.”
When you talk about “loser” are you talking about lawyers or the plaintiffs. So in this case the only people that will be able to use the system will be those that have money.
Do not losers pay already. If a trial lawyer loses he is out of money because he does not collect.
People need to be careful or there rights will be taken away as mine have with the Reigel v. Medtronic ruling by the Supreme Court in 2008. I queston Republicans and tort reform because they will not support the passing of the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 restoring the rights of the state courts. If they were sincere about controlling tort costs and protecting my rights as a citizen against corporate power and politics I would expect them to support this bill.
All I want is my day in court. That is all I ask for my sixteen year old son. I want to the ability to discover the truth. If he was killed by his medical device or if there was any fraud or negligence in the manufacture of that device. Is that to much to ask.
robertsfight.com
Mark, you have had a family tragedy and for that I offer my condolences and hope that you are able to obtain what you seek. Your website is impressive, but I have talked with physicians who disagree with your website content. By the way, no-fault has worked in New York State for more than 20 years.
Yes the two or so year old Texas litigation reform, is similar to what I propose and it is apparently working, contrary to your website.
The goal of the loser pays everything is to prevent frivolous lawsuits, as you probably know. The caps allow reasonable litigation while preventing runaway judgements and keeps the attorneys, like John Edwards, from becoming rich on the backs of plantiffs and defendants in malpractice suits. A good case will have no problem getting an attorney to work the case, regardless of caps.
The actual amopunt of the cap and the escalation of the cap can be worked out with appropriate participants in each state’s bill preparation process. We disagree.
What’s up?. Thanks a bunch for the blog. I’ve been digging around for info, but there is so much out there. Yahoo lead me here – good for you i suppose! Keep up the good work. I will be popping back over in a few days to see if there is updated posts.