By Kalispell Native on 10-15-09
Yeah, Max. Sure, whatever, we believe your smoke blowing braggadacio. Mm Hmmm.
By URBuddy on 10-15-09
I would’ve hoped that by now that the Beacon, after having used this photo with several stories, would’ve properly identified the man that Senator Baucus has his arm around NOT as a local official but rather, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Salazar, the former Senator from Colorado…
By Kalispell Native on 10-15-09
A Cabinet Secretary that has nothing to do with health care reform.
By Kellyn Brown on 10-16-09
The above photo has been changed to better reflect the story.
By Roark on 10-17-09
If Baucus-care passes Senator Baucus will be responsible for the ultimate downfall of our health care and our liberty. This man who swore to defend the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is fast tracking it to it’s demise via statism and everything our Founders thought despicable and contrary to freedom. Sadly, Montana will be the State of record who produced the Senator that caused the collapse.
By Vud on 10-17-09
Roark-
That seems alarming.
Not that there aren’t concerns. Here’s mine:
BILL MOYERS: Take a close look at that woman sitting behind Montana Senator Max Baucus. He’s the Democrat who’s the Chairman of the Finance Committee.
Liz Fowler is her name. And now get this. She used to work for WellPoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was Vice President of Public Policy. And now she’s working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want: higher profits, and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.
I’m not making this up. Here’s another little eye-opener. The woman who was Baucus’ top health advisor before he hired Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. Why did she leave the Committee?
To go to work—where else?—at a firm representing the same company Liz Fowler worked for WellPoint. As a lobbyist.
It’s the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. And it’s why they always win.
By woody on 10-17-09
tort reform is a red herring….Very few cases actually make it thru the courts to a large judgement for the patient.
And if you get your pro-corporate reform - it just makes the corporations even stronger and more powerful to do whatever the heck they want to you and you’ll have no recourse.
Great Idea - genius!
Lose a kidney when you were meant to get knee surgery and you’ll be able to receive only the amount they charged you on the surgery - no money for damages or to help with the consequences and costs for the botched surgery.
And tort reform ONLY applies to WE THE PEOPLE.
It won’t apply to the corporations ability to bankrupt us - that’ll still stand…...
just another fascist - corporate communist idea designed to destroy America.
By woody on 10-17-09
OK - if that’s what we’re basing tort reform in then let’s get rid of ALL Insurance as it adds costs to doing business. Worker’s comp? car insurance? home or business liabilty?
simple economics!
AS usual a 1 min thought process shows the fallacy of your neo-con brainwashed mind…..
What about the costs of medical malpractice? There are huge costs associated with that - but it doesn’t help the corporations or their bottom line -
especially when we find out the error was based on the corp. instituting a policy to save a nickle and knowing the problem was going to happen.
Give them tort reform and they have EVERY incentive to race to the bottom line. Our health be danged.
Without the ability to fine the company or doctor you are taking my rights as a citizen and consumer away from me.
It’d funny these rightwingers always want tort reform - IE - limit liabilities and costs to the corporations.
BUT
never do the “tort reforms” help WE THE PEOPLE
That’d be socialist!
these people were called the “economic royalists” by FDR and the Tories by the revolutionary heroes -
and they have ALWAYS been a threat to the middle class and democracy
By bluedog on 10-17-09
woody…..“brevity is the soul of wit.”
By TeeAitch on 10-19-09
Tort reform is more of a straw man than a red herring. I’ve heard all the arguments before, but what really resonates is that in the states which have enacted tort reform, there has been almost no difference. When a cap is placed on damage awards, the damage awards (to the injured patient) go down, but insurance premiums don’t. In fact, in states with tort reform, malpractice premiums rose 48% while in states without they only rose 36% in a recent study. California learned that insurance regulation was a much more effective tool for controlling malpractice insurance costs than was tort reform. California passed tort reform first, but it made almost no difference in premiums until regulation was passed that forced insurance companies to have their premium rates approved by the state commissioner. It is doubtful that any federal law regarding tort reform will pass constitutional muster unless it is confined only to those cases brought in federal court. Most med mal cases are brought in state courts.
The fact remains that only a tiny number of med mal cases result in large awards, and most of those (including the famous McDonald’s coffee case) end up being drastically reduced by appeals. Of course the news media only report the big damage, big headline cases as they are the only ones interesting enough to read about. Also, when the big damage awards are reduced, you never hear about it in the news.
Tort reform can easily be a baby/bathwater kind of deal in which injured patients who are hurt at the hands of medical professionals acting in a negligent manner are only able to receive a small award for what can be a lifetime of suffering. Often, these same plaintiffs end up getting public medical benefits once the damage award is exhausted. On the other hand, if insurance companies were held to rigid standards for setting premiums, based upon reasonble costs and allowing for reasonable profits (much as utility companies are regulated) it would make a much bigger difference at less cost to those who can least afford it.
Oh, and one other thing. No doctor has ever performed any test on me that I did not investigate, educate myself about, and approve. I do not consent to unnecessary tests and procedures.
By Vud on 10-19-09
Tee said:
“...that in the states which have enacted tort reform, there has been almost no difference.”
Glad you brought that point up. I’ve heard the same but haven’t checked on the numbers myself yet.
From my personal experience, damages are generally awarded based on Lost or Reduced earnings potential over time. And THIS is based on REAL numbers from the patients past earnings history.
That makes a ‘one size fits all’ limit to restricting.
If a 35 Y.O. person earning $20K / yr. dies from a misdiagnosed cancer and a 35 Y.O. patient earning $250K / yr. dies for the same reason, it makes it tough to fit it under a $300K or $500K maximum settlement.
I do however think that FEAR of litigation DOES add to the cost of healthcare itself in the form of defensive medicine.
I myself have refused a follow-up MRI after a CAT scan showed “no problem”. It takes a lot of uumpf to decide to refuse a doctors reccommendation though.
By Scott on 10-19-09
Doctors believe that patients on (poorer patients)medicare/medicaid are more likely to sue:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/policy/9211.pdf
Doctors have to not only practice defensive medicine but the cost of malpractice insurance is out of control:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0843/is_2_28/ai_84236557/
Guys like Woody will tell you that tort reform won’t do much to cut health costs but imagine the savings to doctors on malpractice insurance and imagine if doctors were able to practice less defensive medicine. 50 BILLION dollars:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100904271.html
As somebody who paid A LOT of state,federal and payroll(as an employer) taxes last year, I am more interested in seeing congress fight the lawyer lobbies, allow people to shop across state lines and digitize patient records.
The republicans had their chance to make all this happen when they had the majority and they blew it. Now the democrats have a chance to make all these things happen and instead they would prefer that the government take over 18% of the U.S. economy and cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars over the next 20 years.
By bluedog on 10-19-09
Many doctors in our state (Washington) have been priced out of the malpractice insurance market and many don’t carry it anymore. The claims are insane and the end result is unnecessary tests for CYA purposes. Even if the claims are later reduced in appeals…which is usually true..the cost of defense still sits there….thus the reason for the ridiculous premiums. You can’t have improvements in healthcare without including “serious” tort reform. We may pay twice as much in our state than we need to, but we aren’t allowed to shop across state lines. ( I was quoted by a Montana agency and it was less than half of what we paid for a similar program) Our “monthly” insurance bill that we pay is in the $38k range. Imagine if we could cut that back just $10k…that would allow us to employ two more people at a decent wage. It isn’t just from the insurance angle that hurts the economy, it’s the whole picture.
By Vud on 10-19-09
Scott said:
“Now the democrats have a chance to make all these things happen and instead they would prefer that the government take over 18% of the U.S. economy and cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars over the next 20 years”
A point that baffles me in the debate:
I trust you had the same concerns when GWB added $700+ billion directly to the defiect (that’s borrowed money, now) with the Medicare prescription drug program.
Seems to me the Democrats are getting beat up a lot because they are actually discussing ways to PAY (that would be Taxes, now) for their program?
—————————————————————————
REF:
Medicare chief Mark B. McClellan said the new drug package would cost $534 billion over 10 years. Last night, he acknowledged that the cumulative cost of the program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion, but he cited several major savings and offsets that he said will reduce the federal government’s bottom-line cost to $720 billion
By Scott on 10-19-09
“I trust you had the same concerns when GWB added $700+ billion directly to the defiect (that’s borrowed money, now) with the Medicare prescription drug program.”
Of course I did. We were and are borrowing money from the Chinese to fund these programs.
By Vud on 10-19-09
That’s what I thought…it’s actually more prudent to raise revenues and pay for your programs. Good, I was thinking that was lost in the debate.
I’m also curious as an employer do you provide your employees with healthcare benefits?
If not, where do they go for medical care…any stories to relate as an employer on the issue?
By senator blutarski on 10-19-09
Baucus’s bill is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the insurance ‘industry.’ As far as tort reform goes what if you or a relative suffered a life changing injury from an incompetent doctor? Should people victimized by a doctor’s incompetence be sentenced to a life of poverty?
By bluedog on 10-19-09
Senator Blutarski. It’s not “all” or “nothing” like you’re describing it. The way it’s set up now is bankrupting doctors even when the claims are unfounded. How fair is that?
The people that get hurt worst are small population states that have trouble attracting doctors to their communities with lower income offers to them. The doctors have to make an extraordinary amount of money in order to keep up the malpractice insurance as it is now. They can’t do that in Roundup MT. ..so the doctors don’t show up.
(This isn’t going to stop me from voting for you however)
By bluedog on 10-20-09
I didn’t even know Blutarski was running!
By Scott on 10-20-09
Vud,
To answer your question, we do provide our full time employees health care benefits. We will be watching closely to see what happens. I have a feeling that the 8% penalty that they plan to impose on small businesses who don’t provide health care to employees will still be less than our cost to provide insurance. We may decide to to take the 8% penalty imposed by the government and have our employees move to the “public option” if that is what they end up passing. We would still end up with +2% on revenue.
By TeeAitch on 10-20-09
I just heard Jack Cafferty on CNN mention that the Finance Committee’s bill was posted on the internet, and was 1500 pages. Jack wondered what would be wrong with removing the antitrust exemption from health insurers and extending Medicare to all those who want it. Jack said “That would only be one page.” The simplest solution is often the best.
If you want to reduce health care costs, eliminate the middle man who is draining profit from the system. If you need to regulate the cost of malpractice insurance premiums, regulate the insurance companies, not the poor injured patient. Think about it! The insurance industry (a laughable term, when you realize that they don’t produce anything, only consume) screams like a stuck pig, and cries about all the lost insurance company jobs that would entail. What about all the lost jobs from companies that folded because they couldn’t afford health care costs for their employees? Industries go under and disappear as they become outmoded all the time. My wife’s grandfather used to proudly tell anyone who would listen that he was a “certified full fashion hosiery knitter.” He got specialized training as a young man, and worked in a factory knitting women’s silk hosiery. Along came nylon, and boom! No more silk hosiery. But he survived, learned another trade, and prospered into retirement.
The bottom line Scott, is that you should not, under any scenario, be responsible for your employees’ health care costs or any part of them. That whole system was an ill-conceived system that may have worked at some level at one time, but hasn’t worked even close to reasonably well for decades.
For the life of me, I don’t really even see why there is a controversy here at all. We value national security, so we fund a military, a state department, the CIA and all other necessary components to providing that security. We value health care, so why can’t we fund health care? It’s really not that complicated.
By Vud on 10-20-09
Scott:
Thanks much for taking the time to reply.
I’ve been trying to solicit ideas from (local) small business owners as to the pro’s and con’s that THEY see looming in the
developing legislation. Your post gives good insight into the process.
I re-read your original post and see where you believe the changes should be made.
Finally, one would hope that a future public-option’s coverage would be comparable to what you offer your employees now - it may end up being a decision between the 2% revenue and happy employees?
However, with the right public-option maybe BOTH will be achievable. I hope so.
By senator blutarski on 10-21-09
The Netherlands switched from a single payer system to one based on private insurance and it even got positive reviews from the Wall Street Journal, no bastion of left wing thought. The program is based on equalized risk and the insurance companies are regulated and cannot get away with the shenanigans they routinely get away with here. (denying coverage, dropping policyholders when they get sick etc.) The program even covers out of country care if a procedure is not available in the Netherlands. The program makes a lot of sense, probably too much sense for our politicians who onlu seem concerned with preserving the obscene profits of the insurance ‘industry.’
By Vud on 10-22-09
A thought on Scott’s excellent post:
“We may decide to to take the 8% penalty imposed by the government and have our employees move to the “public option” if that is what they end up passing. We would still end up with +2% on revenue.”
———————————————————————————————-
When I initially read this I thought that IF there were a robust public option - with good health benefits - and assuming the numbers in Scott’s quote; that this would, indeed, generally be a Win-Win situation for employers and their employees.
However, it occurs to me (I’m slow.) that one of the Republican’s arguements against a public-option is that
the senario above WOULD happen and employees would ‘lose their employer based healthcare plans’.
I see the risk involved. It seems a ROBUST public-option significantly reduces that risk. No?
A good link on Employer-Employee costs of healthcare:
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2009/7937.pdf
By bluedog on 10-22-09
The Netherlands approach is the best system we could copy…and as the Senator said…it’s based on “private” insurance… which is what the Repubs are saying. The left is who wants the government running the insurance business. This is why the WSJ endorses this plan.
The insurance biz should be “regulated” heavily by the government… but not run by the government. Imagine the Post Office with bedpans…as someone once described it.
By senator blutarski on 10-22-09
By the way premiums for the Dutch insurance plan run about 150 euros per month which is about $225 at current exchange rates and that’s for a family. For those who cannot afford the premiums there is a subsidy but most Dutch working people enjoy a much higher standard of living than their American counterparts. The program would probably work well here once the insurance ‘industry’ is regulated. Also prescription drug prices are negotiated by the government resulting in lower prescription costs.
By Scott on 10-22-09
While it is true that we may gain 2% in revenue by ” “asking” employees to take the public option, I am a little weary because there are generally large personal income tax increases that come with large government programs. The VAT tax that they have been talking about is something else that I find distasteful. They have put a lot of time and effort into health care reform so we will have to see what happens because they will pass something. What that “something” is going to be by the time they blend the bills from the two houses, nobody knows.
By Vud on 10-22-09
Sadly the debate has been more about what DOESN’T work in other countrys.
Reminds me of a quote by Churchhill, I believe:
“Trust the American to always do the right thing…after they’ve
exhausted all other possibilities.”
Scott: I cretainly won’t disagree with your last statement.
By bluedog on 10-22-09
If the public option is implemented…“as advertised”. Our comptroller has figured our average employee will be dinked an extra $1100 in withholding taxes per year.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.