I commented earlier about how tort reform for doctors seems like a good idea. This NYT editorial is informative on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17wed2.html

With regards to overall health-care spending, it looks like frivolous lawsuits (obnoxious as they are) don’t contribute much to the big problem we’re facing. “[The CBO] estimates that caps on damages would ultimately reduce malpractice premiums for medical providers but would have a ‘relatively small’ impact on total health spending, reducing it by less than half a percent.” So, Republicans who gripe about frivolous lawsuits with regards to the big honkin’ health-care money problem aren’t really swinging at the right piñata.

I Googled for doctor piñata.

But there IS a piñata worth swinging at here. Continue reading →

I wasn’t going to post about it, since the info is readily available elsewhere, but I might as well link to what factcheck.org says about Obama’s speech…

http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/

— Joe Wilson’s wrong and Obama’s right about whether the bill covers illegal immigrants. It doesn’t. But it’s not quite as simple as that; the GOP argues that the bill lacks a proper enforcement mechanism to make sure people taking advantage of the public option are US citizens, or even legal immigrants. Good point, except any illegal immigrant who applies for a public insurance plan is committing insurance fraud and taking on a rather huge risk of being caught. Would some still do it? Sure, there’s always weasels. But certainly not enough to constitute a significant drain on public resources. Seriously, I think Republicans have a secret crush on illegal immigrants or something.
Continue reading →

I liked Obama’s speech last night for a couple of reasons:

— He specifically named the lies being told about health-care reform, and called out the public officials who were spreading them. (Five points off for not naming names, though…)

— He correctly pointed out just how much common ground there is with regards to health-care reform. The public option is one controversial piece among a whole lot of not-so-controversial improvements to our system; I noticed how many times the Republicans stood to clap, and rightfully so.

I also liked his talk of tort reform for medical malpractice lawsuits, which seems as much of a no-brainer as any other piece, though apparently it’s a Republican cause célèbre. I sat on a jury in a medmal lawsuit a few years back; because a doctor made one screwup while in a stressful situation, we awarded $3 million to the plaintiffs. And felt dirty while doing it. Even simple caps on awards would be a win, in my book. (But I haven’t really looked into it.)

How bout that Republican jackass, eh? Not only yelling out “You lie!” in the middle of his speech, but yelling out “You lie!” regarding something about which Obama was very clearly not lying. We may have all witnessed the swinging of the pendulum; that seemed to be the exact moment where the jackassery of the truthiness-loving teabaggers was laid bare. One of the two people involved looked like a petulant child at that moment, and it wasn’t the president.

The whole thing made me more hopeful that some good reform will actually come out of this whole mess, public option or not.

Let’s talk about that money thing. Money can be tricky. Everybody went justifiably nuts when the Treasury department suddenly decided to lend $700 billion to banks that had more or less dug their own hole. Now it’s a year later, and lo and behold, we’re actually turning a profit on the whole endeavor. Nutty.

Health care is much more confusing. When we talk about its spiraling costs, we’re usually talking all sorts of transactions: patient out-of-pocket costs, government spending, costs for medicine, doctor salaries and insurance, etc. etc. Plus, some “expenses” are actually “missed revenue” (like the tax subsidies the government provides to cover private insurance). Confoosing.

So when people toss out the “trillion-dollar” number, where’s that money coming from and going to?
Continue reading →

Deconstruct my arguments, I deconstruct your face.

5. Universal health care ultimately would transform legislators into quasi health care practitioners.
Chuck’s point here is brief enough to quote entirely:

With government-sanctioned universal health care, legislators would become quasi medical practitioners because they would lead and guide the government-controlled medical boards, personnel and policies that would oversee the program. That would include abortive and end-of-life counsel and services. Federal politicians would rely upon relatively few chief physicians (appointed mostly by them), who in turn would oversee and implement the medical policies and procedures that they felt were best for the country.

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, I’m not sure how many different ways there are to say that this is not what we’re talking about. Continue reading →

One of the oddest leads I got when asking for health-care data from people was via my high-school buddy (and staunch conservative) Christie, who pointed me to a series of articles by none other than Mr. Chuck Norris. Chuck, if you didn’t know, is something of a political celebrity in right-wing circles. In between punching bad guys, he pitches for presidential candidates:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0]

And, turns out, he’s written a series of articles over at humanevents.com, the self-described “headquarters of the conservative underground.” Several are about “Obamacare.” Let’s pull the Walker Texas Ranger lever, shall we?
Continue reading →