And still, we are letting government decide on our health care.  Thanks to REd State for the story comme

And that, giving us false information, is what the leftwing media is doing fulltime.  They have learned that if you keep repeating the same lie over and over, people begin to believe it.  Remember that in the old Soviet Union, people who purported to be serious scientists claimed you could inherent acquired characteristics.  They believed a whole lot of other stuff because the government approved media decided it was true.  Those of us in the West with even a little bit of education wondered how they could get away with it.  NOw we know because "progressives" have taken over our dinosaur media and use it nearly full time to spread their lies.   

One of their techniques is to move the center.  It is as if they deliberately took my iPHone tipped it, and then told it, this is level.  The whole story in the leftwing media on Dede Scozzafava is part of that.  They keep calling her a moderate.  This is a woman who advocates Union card check.  This means no secret ballot election to decide if the workers will be represented by a union.  It is a far left idea.  Gay marriage is still a left wing idea.  Even Obama was afraid to be truthful and say he was in favor of gay marriage because he was afraid he would lose if he did. No, as conservatives keep saying Dede isn't a moderate.  She is a leftwinger.  Story after story in the left wing press portrays her as a moderate and more conservative than most GOP members in New York.  Not True.  True is  She is more liberal than most Democrats.  These same propagandists consistently refer to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as "extremists", but when you ask them to point to what extreme thing was said they either resort to made up quotes (as with Limbaugh) or to mere name-calling.  The real purpose of this constant drum beat is to move the measurement of what is liberal, moderate or conservative to the left.  Pretty much, these days, if you think the free market should be given a chance, you are an extremist.

What we fail to understand is that big companies are supporting this move because they think they will be the ones to benefit.  Big businesses have never been in favor of competition.  Teddy Roosevelt taught is that.  Small businesses like it because they ARE the competition.  They just want a chance.  But if you are a big pharmaceutical manufacturer, you are willing to trade regulation, which you think you will control because you are big, for hegemony.  A lot of big businesses are willing to do that, be they airlines, grocery stores, or insurance companies.  The new health care legislation is aces with some big businesses because they intend to control it and to do away with the uncertainties of the market place.  They understand that in a left controlled company they will be the sham targets but they will be able to work out deals where they own the markets.  There is no competition in the new health care plan and there is precious little extra coverage.  What there is a lot of is protection.  For friends of Obama. 

Here's the rub.  Texas and California have already adopted reforms that DO include caps on emotional harm awards and caps on attorney fees.  

While Texas may be known as a conservative state, it has not been conservative when it comes to litigation.  The largest ever known jury award was made in the great state of Texas.  In Pennzoil v. Texaco a Texas jury awarded over 10 Billion dollars to Pennzoil.  This was a business dispute, but Texas juries were no slouches when it came to medical malpractice awards either.   Despite claims made by plaintiff's malpractice lawyers, who disguise themselves as consumer watchdogs, caps on awards, among other reforms have resulted in lower malpractice premiums to doctors, which means lower fees to the public.

The cost of the actual jury awards is,  however, really just a tiny part of the cost of the current malpractice system in many states.  Most studies show that the majority of jury awards in malpractice cases are for the defendant (meaning the doctor or hospital).  So what's the complaint?  Answer-- the cost of defense is so high, that nobody really wins.  Speaking as a lawyer I can tell you that the cost in attorney fees and costs on the average malpractice case will run at least $100,000, and the insurance companies pay those costs.  Why does it cost so much? First, you have to look at a lot of medical records and you have to take a lot of depositions.  So one malpractice case engages not only a lot of attorney time but a lot of physician expert (other than the defendant ) time on both sides of the case.  In California, the insurance companies end up paying for a lot of that physician time.  If you take the decision of a physician expert, you have to pay the expert for his time, often at a rate of $1,000 per hour.  So a physician expert deposition can easily cost $5,000-- part for the attorney fees, part for court reporter fees and part for physician witness fees.  

All of the cost of defense in cases in which the doctors and hospitals WIN is paid by the insurance company.  This explains why doctors pay malpractice premiums of 20,000 to 100,00 per year.  

But the malpractice insurance cost is just a larger slice of the part of the iceberg that appears above water.  The other part is the procedures, limitations, extra tests, extra personnel devoted to documentation that go on because of malpractice claims.  

Of course those cases also cost plaintiff's personal injury lawyers.  Because the costs for these cases are so high, personal injury lawyers will only take cases where they expect a very big payoff.  Caps on fees and attorney fee awards discourage attorneys from taking cases with small injuries or which are lacking in merit. That's a good thing.

Here is the text of the statute

SEC. 2531. MEDICAL LIABILITY ALTERNATIVES.

2 (a) INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAL LIABILITY

3 REFORM.—

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—To the extent and in the

5 amounts made available in advance in appropriations

6 Acts, the Secretary shall make an incentive payment,

7 in an amount determined by the Secretary, to each

8 State that has an alternative medical liability law in

9 compliance with this section.

10 (2) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—The

11 Secretary shall determine that a State has an alter12

native medical liability law in compliance with this

13 section if the Secretary is satisfied that—

14 (A) the State enacted the law after the

15 date of the enactment of this Act and is imple16

menting the law;

17 (B) the law is effective; and

18 (C) the contents of the law are in accord19

ance with paragraph (4).

20 (3) CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING EF21

FECTIVENESS.—In determining whether an alter22

native medical liability law is effective under para23

graph (2)(B), the Secretary shall consider whether

24 the law—

VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:05 Oct 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01431 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AHCAA_001.XML HOLCPC

October 29, 2009 (10:05 a.m.)

F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AHCAA_001.XML

f:\VHLC\102909\102909.022.xml (453769|4)

1432

1 (A) makes the medical liability system

2 more reliable through prevention of, or prompt

3 and fair resolution of, disputes;

4 (B) encourages the disclosure of health

5 care errors; and

6 (C) maintains access to affordable liability

7 insurance.

8 (4) CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LI9

ABILITY LAW.—The contents of an alternative liabil10

ity law are in accordance with this paragraph if—

11 (A) the litigation alternatives contained in

12 the law consist of certificate of merit, early

13 offer, or both; and

14 (B) the law does not limit attorneys’ fees

15 or impose caps on damages.

16 (b) USE OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.—Amounts re17

ceived by a State as an incentive payment under this sec18

tion shall be used to improve health care in that State.

19 (c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may

20 provide technical assistance to the States applying for or

21 receiving an incentive payment under this section.

22 (d) REPORTS.—Beginning not later than one year

23 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

24 shall submit to the Congress an annual report on the

25 progress States have made in enacting and implementing

VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:05 Oct 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01432 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AHCAA_001.XML HOLCPC

October 29, 2009 (10:05 a.m.)

F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AHCAA_001.XML

f:\VHLC\102909\102909.022.xml (453769|4)

1433

1 alternative medical liability laws in compliance with this

2 section. Such reports shall contain sufficient documenta3

tion regarding the effectiveness of such laws to enable an

4 objective comparative analysis of such laws.

5 (e) DEFINITION.—In this section—

6 (1) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

7 of Health and Human Services; and

8 (2) the term ‘‘State’’ includes the several

9 States, District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of

10 Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession

11 of the United States.

12 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

13 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

14 such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until

15 expended.

So, let me tell you what I found in the bill.  Read section 124 of the house bill.  It requires the Secretary of HHS to set standards for benefits to be offered by Qualified Health Care Benefit Plans.  That is it requires the Secretary to issue rules that set out what benefits must be offered by Qualified Health Care Benefit Plans.   That is, in reality, a who lives and who dies kind of proposition because it will dictate what kinds of benefits must be provided and what kind of benefits will not be provided  So, for example, if the Secretary decides that pacemakers will not be provided to people who are over 65, a lot of people who are over 65 will die for lack of a pacemaker.  

But, you say, health insurance plans don't have to be qualified Health Care Benefit Plans.  And you will be right and wrong all at the same time.  Section 102 of the plan provides for "grace periods" and phase in periods which allow people to keep the coverage they have now, FOR A WHILE.  But, eventually, everyone will be required, under penalty of taxation, to be a member of a Qualified Health Benefit Plan.  And those Health Benefit Plans will be tightly regulated by the Federal Government. 

If your coverage is denied for a particular procedure, you will have an appeal to an ombudsman.  Sure you can have judicial review after, but will you win?  95% of the time the answer is no because the courts will defer to an administrative body.

So, is Sarah Palin right, will there be panels deciding who gets health care and who doesn't?  Yes.  It won't be open and obvious at first, but it will be there.  There is a lot of discussion in the bill about "clinically appropriate" care and effectiveness research and high value procedures.  

It isn't the language so much that scares me, it is what is allowed by the language.  It allows the federal government to set up a series of agencies  that will make all of the decisions, and , as we have seen in England and Canada, those agencies will be panels deciding who gets health care and who doesn't.  And those panels, in England and Canada do discriminate against the aged and the disabled.  We see where this is heading and we don't like it.