Transcript of Obama's speech to the AMA

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

womp

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
62
6/15/2009 Transcript of Obama's speech to the AMA:

From the moment I took office as President, the central challenge we have confronted as a nation has been the need to lift ourselves out of the worst recession since World War II. In recent months, we have taken a series of extraordinary steps, not just to repair the immediate damage to our economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting and sustained growth. We are creating new jobs. We are unfreezing our credit markets. And we are stemming the loss of homes and the decline of home values.

But even as we have made progress, we know that the road to prosperity remains long and difficult. We also know that one essential step on our journey is to control the spiraling cost of health care in America.

Today, we are spending over $2 trillion a year on health care – almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet, for all this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured; the quality of our care is often lower; and we aren’t any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend less than we do are actually living longer than we do.

Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.

It is unsustainable for Americans like Laura Klitzka, a young mother I met in Wisconsin last week, who has learned that the breast cancer she thought she’d beaten had spread to her bones; who is now being forced to spend time worrying about how to cover the $50,000 in medical debts she has already accumulated, when all she wants to do is spend time with her two children and focus on getting well. These are not worries a woman like Laura should have to face in a nation as wealthy as ours.

Stories like Laura’s are being told by women and men all across this country – by families who have seen out-of-pocket costs soar, and premiums double over the last decade at a rate three times faster than wages. This is forcing Americans of all ages to go without the checkups or prescriptions they need. It’s creating a situation where a single illness can wipe out a lifetime of savings.

Our costly health care system is unsustainable for doctors like Michael Kahn in New Hampshire, who, as he puts it, spends 20 percent of each day supervising a staff explaining insurance problems to patients, completing authorization forms, and writing appeal letters; a routine that he calls disruptive and distracting, giving him less time to do what he became a doctor to do and actually care for his patients.

Small business owners like Chris and Becky Link in Nashville are also struggling. They’ve always wanted to do right by the workers at their family-run marketing firm, but have recently had to do the unthinkable and lay off a number of employees – layoffs that could have been deferred, they say, if health care costs weren’t so high. Across the country, over one third of small businesses have reduced benefits in recent years and one third have dropped their workers’ coverage altogether since the early 90’s.

Our largest companies are suffering as well. A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble in recent decades were the huge costs they racked up providing health care for their workers; costs that made them less profitable, and less competitive with automakers around the world. If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke.

When it comes to the cost of our health care, then, the status quo is unsustainable. Reform is not a luxury, but a necessity. I know there has been much discussion about what reform would cost, and rightly so. This is a test of whether we – Democrats and Republicans alike – are serious about holding the line on new spending and restoring fiscal discipline.

But let there be no doubt – the cost of inaction is greater. If we fail to act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, and the rolls of uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans.

If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. In thirty years, it will be about one out of every three – a trend that will mean lost jobs, lower take-home pay, shuttered businesses, and a lower standard of living for all Americans.

And if we fail to act, federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare will grow over the coming decades by an amount almost equal to the amount our government currently spends on our nation’s defense. In fact, it will eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today. It’s a scenario that will swamp our federal and state budgets, and impose a vicious choice of either unprecedented tax hikes, overwhelming deficits, or drastic cuts in our federal and state budgets.

To say it as plainly as I can, health care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health. That is a fact.

And yet, as clear as it is that our system badly needs reform, reform is not inevitable. There’s a sense out there among some that, as bad as our current system may be, the devil we know is better than the devil we don’t. There is a fear of change – a worry that we may lose what works about our health care system while trying to fix what doesn’t.

I understand that fear. I understand that cynicism. They are scars left over from past efforts at reform. Presidents have called for health care reform for nearly a century. Teddy Roosevelt called for it. Harry Truman called for it. Richard Nixon called for it. Jimmy Carter called for it. Bill Clinton called for it. But while significant individual reforms have been made – such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the children’s health insurance program – efforts at comprehensive reform that covers everyone and brings down costs have largely failed.

Part of the reason is because the different groups involved – physicians, insurance companies, businesses, workers, and others – simply couldn’t agree on the need for reform or what shape it would take. And another part of the reason has been the fierce opposition fueled by some interest groups and lobbyists – opposition that has used fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to socialize medicine.

Despite this long history of failure, I am standing here today because I think we are in a different time. One sign that things are different is that just this past week, the Senate passed a bill that will protect children from the dangers of smoking – a reform the AMA has long championed – and one that went nowhere when it was proposed a decade ago. What makes this moment different is that this time – for the first time – key stakeholders are aligning not against, but in favor of reform. They are coming together out of a recognition that while reform will take everyone in our health care community doing their part, ultimately, everyone will benefit.

And I want to commend the AMA, in particular, for offering to do your part to curb costs and achieve reform. A few weeks ago, you joined together with hospitals, labor unions, insurers, medical device manufacturers and drug companies to do something that would’ve been unthinkable just a few years ago – you promised to work together to cut national health care spending by two trillion dollars over the next decade, relative to what it would otherwise have been. That will bring down costs, that will bring down premiums, and that’s exactly the kind of cooperation we need.

The question now is, how do we finish the job? How do we permanently bring down costs and make quality, affordable health care available to every American?

That’s what I’ve come to talk about today. We know the moment is right for health care reform. We know this is an historic opportunity we’ve never seen before and may not see again. But we also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what – who will use the same scare tactics and fear-mongering that’s worked in the past. They’ll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors. We’ve heard it all before – and because these fear tactics have worked, things have kept getting worse.

So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.

If we do that, we can build a health care system that allows you to be physicians instead of administrators and accountants; a system that gives Americans the best care at the lowest cost; a system that eases up the pressure on businesses and unleashes the promise of our economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, making take-home wages thousands of dollars higher, and growing our economy by tens of billions more every year. That’s how we will stop spending tax dollars to prop up an unsustainable system, and start investing those dollars in innovations and advances that will make our health care system and our economy stronger.

That’s what we can do with this opportunity. That’s what we must do with this moment.

Now, the good news is that in some instances, there is already widespread agreement on the steps necessary to make our health care system work better.

First, we need to upgrade our medical records by switching from a paper to an electronic system of record keeping. And we have already begun to do this with an investment we made as part of our Recovery Act.

It simply doesn’t make sense that patients in the 21st century are still filling out forms with pens on papers that have to be stored away somewhere. As Newt Gingrich has rightly pointed out, we do a better job tracking a FedEx package in this country than we do tracking a patient’s health records. You shouldn’t have to tell every new doctor you see about your medical history, or what prescriptions you’re taking. You should not have to repeat costly tests. All of that information should be stored securely in a private medical record so that your information can be tracked from one doctor to another – even if you change jobs, even if you move, and even if you have to see a number of different specialists.

That will not only mean less paper pushing and lower administrative costs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. It will also make it easier for physicians to do their jobs. It will tell you, the doctors, what drugs a patient is taking so you can avoid prescribing a medication that could cause a harmful interaction. It will help prevent the wrong dosages from going to a patient. And it will reduce medical errors that lead to 100,000 lives lost unnecessarily in our hospitals every year.

The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.

It also means cutting down on all the junk food that is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions. That’s a lesson Michelle and I have tried to instill in our daughters with the White House vegetable garden that Michelle planted. And that’s a lesson that we should work with local school districts to incorporate into their school lunch programs.

Building a health care system that promotes prevention rather than just managing diseases will require all of us to do our part. It will take doctors telling us what risk factors we should avoid and what preventive measures we should pursue. And it will take employers following the example of places like Safeway that is rewarding workers for taking better care of their health while reducing health care costs in the process. If you’re one of the three quarters of Safeway workers enrolled in their "Healthy Measures" program, you can get screened for problems like high cholesterol or high blood pressure. And if you score well, you can pay lower premiums. It’s a program that has helped Safeway cut health care spending by 13 percent and workers save over 20 percent on their premiums. And we are open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one.

Our federal government also has to step up its efforts to advance the cause of healthy living. Five of the costliest illnesses and conditions – cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, and strokes – can be prevented. And yet only a fraction of every health care dollar goes to prevention or public health. That is starting to change with an investment we are making in prevention and wellness programs that can help us avoid diseases that harm our health and the health of our economy.

But as important as they are, investments in electronic records and preventive care are just preliminary steps. They will only make a dent in the epidemic of rising costs in this country.

Despite what some have suggested, the reason we have these costs is not simply because we have an aging population. Demographics do account for part of rising costs because older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones. But what accounts for the bulk of our costs is the nature of our health care system itself – a system where we spend vast amounts of money on things that aren’t making our people any healthier; a system that automatically equates more expensive care with better care.

A recent article in the New Yorker, for example, showed how McAllen, Texas is spending twice as much as El Paso County – not because people in McAllen are sicker and not because they are getting better care. They are simply using more treatments – treatments they don’t really need; treatments that, in some cases, can actually do people harm by raising the risk of infection or medical error. And the problem is, this pattern is repeating itself across America. One Dartmouth study showed that you’re no less likely to die from a heart attack and other ailments in a higher spending area than in a lower spending one.

There are two main reasons for this. The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay. And a lot of people in this room know what I’m talking about. It is a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can’t spend much time with each; and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it’s not truly necessary. It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession – a calling – to a business.

That is not why you became doctors. That is not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That is not what brings you back to a patient’s bedside to check in or makes you call a loved one to say it’ll be fine. You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers – and that’s what our health care system should let you be.

That starts with reforming the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren’t paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up – because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes – so that we are not promoting just more treatment, but better care.

And we need to rethink the cost of a medical education, and do more to reward medical students who choose a career as a primary care physicians and who choose to work in underserved areas instead of a more lucrative path. That’s why we are making a substantial investment in the National Health Service Corps that will make medical training more affordable for primary care doctors and nurse practitioners so they aren’t drowning in debt when they enter the workforce.

The second structural reform we need to make is to improve the quality of medical information making its way to doctors and patients. We have the best medical schools, the most sophisticated labs, and the most advanced training of any nation on the globe. Yet we are not doing a very good job harnessing our collective knowledge and experience on behalf of better medicine. Less than one percent of our health care spending goes to examining what treatments are most effective. And even when that information finds its way into journals, it can take up to 17 years to find its way to an exam room or operating table.

As a result, too many doctors and patients are making decisions without the benefit of the latest research. A recent study, for example, found that only half of all cardiac guidelines are based on scientific evidence. Half. That means doctors may be doing a bypass operation when placing a stent is equally effective, or placing a stent when adjusting a patient’s drugs and medical management is equally effective – driving up costs without improving a patient’s health.

So, one thing we need to do is figure out what works, and encourage rapid implementation of what works into your practices. That’s why we are making a major investment in research to identify the best treatments for a variety of ailments and conditions.

Let me be clear: identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided. It’s about providing patients and doctors with the information they need to make the best medical decisions.

Still, even when we do know what works, we are often not making the most of it. That’s why we need to build on the examples of outstanding medicine at places like the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, where the quality of care for cystic fibrosis patients shot up after the hospital began incorporating suggestions from parents. And places like Tallahassee Memorial Health Care, where deaths were dramatically reduced with rapid response teams that monitored patients’ conditions and "multidisciplinary rounds" with everyone from physicians to pharmacists. And places like the Geisinger Health system in rural Pennsylvania and the Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, where high-quality care is being provided at a cost well below average. These are islands of excellence that we need to make the standard in our health care system.

Replicating best practices. Incentivizing excellence. Closing cost disparities. Any legislation sent to my desk that does not achieve these goals does not earn the title of reform. But my signature on a bill is not enough. I need your help, doctors. To most Americans, you are the health care system. Americans – me included – just do what you recommend. That is why I will listen to you and work with you to pursue reform that works for you. And together, if we take all these steps, we can bring spending down, bring quality up, and save hundreds of billions of dollars on health care costs while making our health care system work better for patients and doctors alike.

Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue. And while I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That’s how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.

These changes need to go hand-in-hand with other reforms. Because our health care system is so complex and medicine is always evolving, we need a way to continually evaluate how we can eliminate waste, reduce costs, and improve quality. That is why I am open to expanding the role of a commission created by a Republican Congress called the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission – which happens to include a number of physicians. In recent years, this commission proposed roughly $200 billion in savings that never made it into law. These recommendations have now been incorporated into our broader reform agenda, but we need to fast-track their proposals in the future so that we don’t miss another opportunity to save billions of dollars, as we gain more information about what works and what doesn’t in our health care system.

As we seek to contain the cost of health care, we must also ensure that every American can get coverage they can afford. We must do so in part because it is in all of our economic interests. Each time an uninsured American steps foot into an emergency room with no way to reimburse the hospital for care, the cost is handed over to every American family as a bill of about $1,000 that is reflected in higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher health care costs; a hidden tax that will be cut as we insure all Americans. And as we insure every young and healthy American, it will spread out risk for insurance companies, further reducing costs for everyone.

But alongside these economic arguments, there is another, more powerful one. It is simply this: We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women, and children. We are not a nation that lets hardworking families go without the coverage they deserve; or turns its back on those in need. We are a nation that cares for its citizens. We are a people who look out for one another. That is what makes this the United States of America.

So, we need to do a few things to provide affordable health insurance to every single American. The first thing we need to do is protect what’s working in our health care system. Let me repeat – if you like your health care, the only thing reform will mean is your health care will cost less. If anyone says otherwise, they are either trying to mislead you or don’t have their facts straight.

If you don’t like your health coverage or don’t have any insurance, you will have a chance to take part in what we’re calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This Exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that’s best for you and your family – just as federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a Member of Congress. You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. And one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.

Now, I know there’s some concern about a public option. In particular, I understand that you are concerned that today’s Medicare rates will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs. These are legitimate concerns, but ones, I believe, that can be overcome. As I stated earlier, the reforms we propose are to reward best practices, focus on patient care, not the current piece-work reimbursement. What we seek is more stability and a health care system on a sound financial footing. And these reforms need to take place regardless of what happens with a public option. With reform, we will ensure that you are being reimbursed in a thoughtful way tied to patient outcomes instead of relying on yearly negotiations about the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that’s based on politics and the state of the federal budget in any given year. The alternative is a world where health care costs grow at an unsustainable rate, threatening your reimbursements and the stability of our health care system.

What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system may be working. But I believe – and I’ve even taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief – that it is important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States. So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this – they are not telling the truth.

What I am trying to do – and what a public option will help do – is put affordable health care within reach for millions of Americans. And to help ensure that everyone can afford the cost of a health care option in our Exchange, we need to provide assistance to families who need it. That way, there will be no reason at all for anyone to remain uninsured.

Indeed, it is because I am confident in our ability to give people the ability to get insurance that I am open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance, so long as we provide a hardship waiver for those who still can’t afford it. The same is true for employers. While I believe every business has a responsibility to provide health insurance for its workers, small businesses that cannot afford it should receive an exemption. And small business workers and their families will be able to seek coverage in the Exchange if their employer is not able to provide it.

Insurance companies have expressed support for the idea of covering the uninsured – and I welcome their willingness to engage constructively in the reform debate. But what I refuse to do is simply create a system where insurance companies have more customers on Uncle Sam’s dime, but still fail to meet their responsibilities. That is why we need to end the practice of denying coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. The days of cherry-picking who to cover and who to deny – those days are over.

This is personal for me. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so it could get out of providing coverage. Changing the current approach to preexisting conditions is the least we can do – for my mother and every other mother, father, son, and daughter, who has suffered under this practice. And it will put health care within reach for millions of Americans.

Now, even if we accept all of the economic and moral reasons for providing affordable coverage to all Americans, there is no denying that it will come at a cost – at least in the short run. But it is a cost that will not – I repeat, not – add to our deficits. Health care reform must be and will be deficit neutral in the next decade.

There are already voices saying the numbers don’t add up. They are wrong. Here’s why. Making health care affordable for all Americans will cost somewhere on the order of one trillion dollars over the next ten years. That sounds like a lot of money – and it is. But remember: it is less than we are projected to spend on the war in Iraq. And also remember: failing to reform our health care system in a way that genuinely reduces cost growth will cost us trillions of dollars more in lost economic growth and lower wages.

That said, let me explain how we will cover the price tag. First, as part of the budget that was passed a few months ago, we’ve put aside $635 billion over ten years in what we are calling a Health Reserve Fund. Over half of that amount – more than $300 billion – will come from raising revenue by doing things like modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level it was at the end of the Reagan years. Some are concerned this will dramatically reduce charitable giving, but statistics show that’s not true, and the best thing for our charities is the stronger economy that we will build with health care reform.

But we cannot just raise revenues. We also have to make spending cuts in part by examining inefficiencies in the Medicare program. There will be a robust debate about where these cuts should be made, and I welcome that debate. But here’s where I think these cuts should be made. First, we should end overpayments to Medicare Advantage. Today, we are paying Medicare Advantage plans much more than we pay for traditional Medicare services. That’s a good deal for insurance companies, but not the American people. That’s why we need to introduce competitive bidding into the Medicare Advantage program, a program under which private insurance companies offer Medicare coverage. That will save $177 billion over the next decade.

Second, we need to use Medicare reimbursements to reduce preventable hospital readmissions. Right now, almost 20 percent of Medicare patients discharged from hospitals are readmitted within a month, often because they are not getting the comprehensive care they need. This puts people at risk and drives up costs. By changing how Medicare reimburses hospitals, we can discourage them from acting in a way that boosts profits, but drives up costs for everyone else. That will save us $25 billion over the next decade.

Third, we need to introduce generic biologic drugs into the marketplace. These are drugs used to treat illnesses like anemia. But right now, there is no pathway at the FDA for approving generic versions of these drugs. Creating such a pathway will save us billions of dollars. And we can save another roughly $30 billion by getting a better deal for our poorer seniors while asking our well-off seniors to pay a little more for their drugs.

So, that’s the bulk of what’s in the Health Reserve Fund. I have also proposed saving another $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending in several other ways. One way is by adjusting Medicare payments to reflect new advances and productivity gains in our economy. Right now, Medicare payments are rising each year by more than they should. These adjustments will create incentives for providers to deliver care more effectively, and save us roughly $109 billion in the process.

(continued)

Members don't see this ad.
 
(continued)

Another way we can achieve savings is by reducing payments to hospitals for treating uninsured people. I know hospitals rely on these payments now because of the large number of uninsured patients they treat. But as the number of uninsured people goes down with our reforms, the amount we pay hospitals to treat uninsured people should go down, as well. Reducing these payments gradually as more and more people have coverage will save us over $106 billion, and we’ll make sure the difference goes to the hospitals that most need it.

We can also save about $75 billion through more efficient purchasing of prescription drugs. And we can save about one billion more by rooting out waste, abuse, and fraud throughout our health care system so that no one is charging more for a service than it’s worth or charging a dime for a service they did not provide.

But let me be clear: I am committed to making these cuts in a way that protects our senior citizens. In fact, these proposals will actually extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by 7 years and reduce premiums for Medicare beneficiaries by roughly $43 billion over 10 years. And I’m working with AARP to uphold that commitment.

Altogether, these savings mean that we have put about $950 billion on the table – not counting some of the longer-term savings that will come about from reform – taking us almost all the way to covering the full cost of health care reform. In the weeks and months ahead, I look forward to working with Congress to make up the difference so that health care reform is fully paid for – in a real, accountable way. And let me add that this does not count some of the longer-term savings that will come about from health care reform. By insisting that reform be deficit neutral over the next decade and by making the reforms that will help slow the growth rate of health care costs over coming decades, we can look forward to faster economic growth, higher living standards, and falling, not rising, budget deficits.

I know people are cynical we can do this. I know there will be disagreements about how to proceed in the days ahead. But I also know that we cannot let this moment pass us by.

The other day, my friend, Congressman Earl Blumenauer, handed me a magazine with a special issue titled, "The Crisis in American Medicine." One article notes "soaring charges." Another warns about the "volume of utilization of services." And another asks if we can find a "better way [than fee-for-service] for paying for medical care." It speaks to many of the challenges we face today. The thing is, this special issue was published by Harper’s Magazine in October of 1960.

Members of the American Medical Association – my fellow Americans – I am here today because I do not want our children and their children to still be speaking of a crisis in American medicine fifty years from now. I do not want them to still be suffering from spiraling costs we did not stem, or sicknesses we did not cure. I do not want them to be burdened with massive deficits we did not curb or a worsening economy we did not rebuild.

I want them to benefit from a health care system that works for all of us; where families can open a doctor’s bill without dreading what’s inside; where parents are taking their kids to get regular checkups and testing themselves for preventable ailments; where parents are feeding their kids healthier food and kids are exercising more; where patients are spending more time with doctors and doctors can pull up on a computer all the medical information and latest research they’d ever want to meet that patient’s needs; where orthopedists and nephrologists and oncologists are all working together to treat a single human being; where what’s best about America’s health care system has become the hallmark of America’s health care system.

That is the health care system we can build. That is the future within our reach. And if we are willing to come together and bring about that future, then we will not only make Americans healthier and not only unleash America’s economic potential, but we will reaffirm the ideals that led you into this noble profession, and build a health care system that lets all Americans heal. Thank you.
 
That starts with reforming the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren’t paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up – because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes – so that we are not promoting just more treatment, but better care.

How the hell do you measure the overall disease outcome? Whats happens to the compensation when the patient is non-compliant? How is this going to affect specialties that don't treat many diseases with good outcomes?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
How the hell do you measure the overall disease outcome? Whats happens to the compensation when the patient is non-compliant? How is this going to affect specialties that don't treat many diseases with good outcomes?

1. You can't.
2. Goes down the tubes, leading to physicians cherry picking patients.
3. They're hosed. Good luck.

Everyone should appreciate the fact that this has been tried, and failed, before. DRG's. Capitation. Miserable failures. Say hello to the new federal HMO. Progressives (and private insurance executives) believe that the failure of HMO efforts was due to expectation mismanagement; the failure to rein in the expectation of choice on the part of the patient resulted in a shift from HMO to the PPO model. They also believe that these measures will work significantly better if they are backed by mandate, along with the full weight and force of the federal government. No one argues with Medicare, we just do as told like good little soldiers.
 
obama is a raging idiot
 
I guess i should get back to studying for step I so I can match into plastics since the rest of medicine will be going down the tubes.
 
6/15/2009 Transcript of Obama's speech to the AMA
Been waiting for the details of his plan for some time, thanks for posting this. Now for the most egregious parts:

Part of the reason is because the different groups involved – physicians, insurance companies, businesses, workers, and others – simply couldn't agree on the need for reform or what shape it would take. And another part of the reason has been the fierce opposition fueled by some interest groups and lobbyists – opposition that has used fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to socialize medicine.
Well, they have entirely different agendas. Asking insurers to participate in writing the new plan is a laudable diplomatic effort, but taking their suggestions seriously is foolish. Do they have ANY incentive to tweak things in other way than the method that will maximize their profits the best? Since when do insurance companies know what's best for patients?

The question now is, how do we finish the job? How do we permanently bring down costs and make quality, affordable health care available to every American?
The answer is we can't...but guess what, neither can we give every American a Mercedes...I too dream of a world where my future children are automatically handed a Mercedes after learning the ABC's...but most people recognize this is impractical. Huh..

A recent article in the New Yorker, for example, showed how McAllen, Texas is spending twice as much as El Paso County – not because people in McAllen are sicker and not because they are getting better care. They are simply using more treatments – treatments they don't really need; treatments that, in some cases, can actually do people harm by raising the risk of infection or medical error. And the problem is, this pattern is repeating itself across America. One Dartmouth study showed that you're no less likely to die from a heart attack and other ailments in a higher spending area than in a lower spending one.
Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That's a real issue. And while I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who've been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That's how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.
Whats interesting here is Obama talks about eliminating defensive medicine in order to increase efficiency, but mentions nothing about tort reform (unless that was implied and I missed it) nor eliminating unfunded mandates like EMTLA.
These changes need to go hand-in-hand with other reforms. Because our health care system is so complex and medicine is always evolving, we need a way to continually evaluate how we can eliminate waste, reduce costs, and improve quality. That is why I am open to expanding the role of a commission created by a Republican Congress called the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission – which happens to include a number of physicians sellouts. In recent years, this commission proposed roughly $200 billion in savings that never made it into law. These recommendations have now been incorporated into our broader reform agenda, but we need to fast-track their proposals in the future so that we don't miss another opportunity to save billions of dollars, as we gain more information about what works and what doesn't in our health care system.
So let me get this straight--the best way to find out what works and what doesn't is to make it easier for people to make rash decisions and quickly implement laws, basically bypassing the system of checks and balances? What?

I am here today because I do not want our children and their children to still be speaking of a crisis in American medicine fifty years from now. I do not want them to still be suffering from spiraling costs we did not stem, or sicknesses we did not cure. I do not want them to be burdened with massive deficits we did not curb or a worsening economy we did not rebuild.
SIGH...I really like Obama...many people do...he means well and he's intelligent. I think most people share his goals. The problem is that he is trying to achieve them in a very idealistic way. Healthcare reform will most likely become increasingly 'socialist' in nature, and there doesn't seem to be any way to reverse the course. Hopefully, shortly after the effects of this plan are seen, REAL reform will take place.
 
Last edited:
Let me translate:


Obama takes podium: Wonk..wonk...wonk and wonk. There simply ISNT enough anal lube for what Im about to do to you all physicians. We are in a fiscal crisis of epic proportions and the price of commodities such as KY jelly is simply a luxury I cannot, I WILL NOT force on the American people for your benefit.
Wonk...wonk, wonk and wonk.

Now is the time for you all to step up and work for America, like those people who used to the be the able-bodied engine of Southern cotton production..forgetting who they were for a minute..wonk wonk. Hmm, I need some water, one second. Wonk.

Now, I WILL support you personally, those chains they have on the slave ship Amistad are heavy, or so I hear (loud applause from the crowd).
Hold it, lets NOT get ahead of ourselves! You still have to wear those chains, we cant have you all escaping on us. But I will have Hillary look into lighter and more comfortable restraints (crowd looks around in bewilderment, boos begin echoing around).

Hey, guys listen: some people will tell you this is Socialism or worse. Dont listen to them, this is as American as apple pie, Marylin Monroe's honkers and David Carradine in a dress with rope around his johnson! (a chuckles heard from the crowd, Obama smiles and leaves the podium).
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, he's incredibly bright. You've simply misidentified the goal.

You've mistakenly assumed that all of society has the same goal.
 
1. You can't.
2. Goes down the tubes, leading to physicians cherry picking patients.
3. They're hosed. Good luck.

Everyone should appreciate the fact that this has been tried, and failed, before. DRG's. Capitation. Miserable failures. Say hello to the new federal HMO. Progressives (and private insurance executives) believe that the failure of HMO efforts was due to expectation mismanagement; the failure to rein in the expectation of choice on the part of the patient resulted in a shift from HMO to the PPO model. They also believe that these measures will work significantly better if they are backed by mandate, along with the full weight and force of the federal government. No one argues with Medicare, we just do as told like good little soldiers.

It's going to pass MOHS, whether the physicians like it or not. Obama and his team have learned the lessons from 1992. They won't allow this to be derailed.

They are trying to GET support now, as they would prefer a bipartisan congressional initiative for this, HOWEVER.

I bet, if they haven't achieved this by August 8th, which seems increasingly unlikely (Especially based on the phone call I just had with a republican congressman whose dogmatic ideological dialogue made me want to ask him if he was really impersonating Rush Limbaugh, and whose gross stupidity was surpassed ONLY by his absolute ignorance of the facts.), then Obama will push this through with budget reconciliation.

They will not lose this opportunity, we will see health reform, we will see pay for performance initiatives, and we will see a public plan alternative. The devil remains as to WHAT public plan alternative, we support an extension of the federal employees BC/BS plan, which is well funded and well administered, we do NOT support an extension of medicare in it's current form. Unfortunately, this is what Rahm wants. Hopefully, better minds will prevail (Orszag)
 
physasst,

You may be right. Rahm does seem to be the thrust behind the throne. I still believe that they are being very misleading and disingenuous regarding the intent, purpose, and ultimate outcome desired with its passage. It most definitely will not be a positive measure for providers. I take issue with the supposition that politicians pandering for votes or academians who practice within a bubble can either argue from a position of moral superiority or presume to know the only path to success. I take further issue with the imposition of the burden of financing this reform on the back of providers as well.

If Obama attempts to push through one of the largest expansions of federal entitlements in history via some legislative loophole, then the political fallout will hopefully be extreme.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
They will not lose this opportunity, we will see health reform, we will see pay for performance initiatives, and we will see a public plan alternative. The devil remains as to WHAT public plan alternative, we support an extension of the federal employees BC/BS plan, which is well funded and well administered, we do NOT support an extension of medicare in it's current form. Unfortunately, this is what Rahm wants. Hopefully, better minds will prevail (Orszag)

:rolleyes:

What makes you think a new plan will be any better than medicare? I'm one to think that something should be streamlined if it's been in existence for over 70 years. If it can't be, then it shouldn't exist. Do you think this new entitlement will be any different? My guess is no.

I know you're involved in Health Policy and you tend to argue "facts", but what I rarely ever see you arguing on philosophical/political logic. Like, how does our constitution allow for such policy? What is your moral basis for the forced implementation of such a plan?

Also, on a more practical note...how do you impose such an entitlement and not deficit spend? Do we raise taxes even further? The truth is, you pay for healthcare either way. Whether we pay for it ourselves or through taxes WE'RE paying for it!

I don't know if you've ever been officially involved with a government plan, but I have. It was called Tricare (what all military people got). It was an HMO and worse - a military HMO. I suggest you try it for a year and come back and tell me what you think.

On a satirical note, why would anyone ever choose to leave the healthcare plan they have now to join a public plan? This is like asking me to leave my nice 3 bedroom home on a quiet road to go live in the projects because it's "free".
 
:rolleyes:

...

On a satirical note, why would anyone ever choose to leave the healthcare plan they have now to join a public plan? This is like asking me to leave my nice 3 bedroom home on a quiet road to go live in the projects because it's "free".

Chandu,

They won't be given "a choice". Once the plan is in place, and the rules are written in pencil, the lowest cost option always wins out. When competing with any public option, the playing field cannot be level, as the gov't is clearly OK with running deficits and always has the taxpayer to fall back on. Businesses will opt for the lowest cost option else face a competitive disadvantage; hence, the slow but persistent march toward government dominated healthcare financing.
 
Chandu,

They won't be given "a choice". Once the plan is in place, and the rules are written in pencil, the lowest cost option always wins out. When competing with any public option, the playing field cannot be level, as the gov't is clearly OK with running deficits and always has the taxpayer to fall back on. Businesses will opt for the lowest cost option else face a competitive disadvantage; hence, the slow but persistent march toward government dominated healthcare financing.

So basically, incremental-ism at its best? Lovely. :thumbdown:

Am I the only one completely outraged at this crap? Sometimes I wonder if I'm going into the right field (medical school starts in 1 week). I have an innate desire to want to help others get better, but stuff like this really scares the **** out of me. I don't understand how one group of uneducated voters can vote in guys who believe in these things? If only we could go back to where there was no income tax and only property owners were allowed to vote. Sigh :(
 
why would anyone ever choose to leave the healthcare plan they have now to join a public plan? This is like asking me to leave my nice 3 bedroom home on a quiet road to go live in the projects because it's "free".
HOPE AND CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!! CaN YOU FEEL IT?

Sometimes I wonder if I'm going into the right field (medical school starts in 1 week). I have an innate desire to want to help others get better, but stuff like this really scares the **** out of me.
on a more serious note...I totally feel you on that. This plan probably sucks the most for people who went into medicine having no idea that these changes would take place. Somewhere down the line of suckage are the people like us who honestly cannot see ourselves doing anything else...nothing...even after trying a few things maybe...it pisses me off because I do find med school foolish knowing what I've learned this past year--but I can't think of anything else I'd rather do :lame:
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

What makes you think a new plan will be any better than medicare? I'm one to think that something should be streamlined if it's been in existence for over 70 years. If it can't be, then it shouldn't exist. Do you think this new entitlement will be any different? My guess is no.

I know you're involved in Health Policy and you tend to argue "facts", but what I rarely ever see you arguing on philosophical/political logic. Like, how does our constitution allow for such policy? What is your moral basis for the forced implementation of such a plan?

Also, on a more practical note...how do you impose such an entitlement and not deficit spend? Do we raise taxes even further? The truth is, you pay for healthcare either way. Whether we pay for it ourselves or through taxes WE'RE paying for it!

I don't know if you've ever been officially involved with a government plan, but I have. It was called Tricare (what all military people got). It was an HMO and worse - a military HMO. I suggest you try it for a year and come back and tell me what you think.

On a satirical note, why would anyone ever choose to leave the healthcare plan they have now to join a public plan? This is like asking me to leave my nice 3 bedroom home on a quiet road to go live in the projects because it's "free".


I think an extension of the current federal employees BC/BS plan is acceptable, although to be honest. Although Mayo does not support a single payor initiative, I support Zeke's plan. Which yes, does mean more taxes, to a degree. Our constitution does not really state this anywhere, but it doesn't really state that our tax dollars should be levied to build roads, and maintain freeways either. I would love to see a 2/3 majority however, and an amendment passed. This unfortunately, is a pipe dream.

A Moral basis, and decisions arising from it, becomes a more difficult path, I think that healthcare, while initially not deemed a "right", has become to be thought of that way by MANY americans. I think that economically, the costs associated with healthcare are hampering our businesses, and citizens, and that the technology we have today, and future technology is becoming more and more complex, that while perhaps increasing treatment options, and improving outcomes, also create a financial drain that cannot be met by the individual. Not anymore. This creates a moral, and ethical quandry for practicing providers, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, and the suppliers of medical technology. I think that all stakeholders deserve fair and decent compensation, but that EVERYONE involved also needs to answer to a slightly higher calling than the almighty dollar. Those that are only concerned with business should go into another line of work. The patient COMES FIRST....always, nothing else really matters.

I don't propose deficit spending, and while some is okay to a degree, the rate of current deficit spending will create substantial problems down the road with devaluation of the dollar, and subsquent inflation. I actually like Zeke's idea of a 10% VAT national sales tax.

I was in the military, so I know quite a bit about Tricare (Champus), I actually think the plan was fairly decent by most measures. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but better then many civilians have.

The public plan alternative, depending on WHICH one makes it through, will not be free. It will be a discounted plan, that will be available to purchase and prorated by income. The real worry, and the thing that has folks like MOHS worried, is the Lewin Report. This basically describes what will happen if a Medicare style plan is implemented, which won't work well. The decreased reimbursements, and the decreased rates that patients will pay, will FORCE private insurers to lower the reimbursments and rates. Otherwise, companies and individuals will switch en masse to the public plan.

You do realize that we not only have 47 million uninsured, but an additional 25.2 million UNDERINSURED patients. This is close to 75 million people who either don't have, or don't have adequate healthcare coverage. Approximately 25% of our population, and it is increasing by double digits percentage points every year. AS are our costs.

So, if you are against Obama's proposals, lemme ask you. How would you fix the current problems?

Let's face it, we are all going to get a pay cut.
 
So basically, incremental-ism at its best? Lovely. :thumbdown:

Am I the only one completely outraged at this crap? Sometimes I wonder if I'm going into the right field (medical school starts in 1 week). I have an innate desire to want to help others get better, but stuff like this really scares the **** out of me. I don't understand how one group of uneducated voters can vote in guys who believe in these things? If only we could go back to where there was no income tax and only property owners were allowed to vote. Sigh :(

HOPE AND CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!! CaN YOU FEEL IT?

on a more serious note...I totally feel you on that. This plan probably sucks the most for people who went into medicine having no idea that these changes would take place. Somewhere down the line of suckage are the people like us who honestly cannot see ourselves doing anything else...nothing...even after trying a few things maybe...it pisses me off because I do see it as being foolish to go to med school knowing what I've learned this past year--but I can't think of anything else I'd rather do :lame:

No, you are not the only one outraged by this. Based on what I see on SDN (as poor an indicator as it is) the only people who are still weepy-eyed over The Sun God Ra-Obama are the premed crowd. The word on the street says that this is not going to pass. Even the democrats are getting squeemish about Obama's spend happy shop-a-holic spree. But that doesn't mean that they won't try again and that they won't try to shaft doctors every way they can. I maintain that while the AMA isn't perfect. It is the best form of political clout that we have and the more doctors and medical students who join and become active, the more clout it will have.

We can no longer trust the powers that be to represent our interests. They need a scapegoat, that is how you get power, and like the Jews with Hitler, nobody has love for "rich" white men. We will be hung out to dry as soon as they take what they can from us. We cannot afford to let lawyers and politicians dictate our future. Take a stand!
 
I don't understand how one group of uneducated voters can vote in guys who believe in these things? If only we could go back to where there was no income tax and only property owners were allowed to vote. Sigh :(


Please elaborate?

Last I saw, Obama carried the vote in many areas where educated professional working people lived and worked. I'm not going to recite every single district on here, and I certainly didn't vote for him, but I didn't vote for the idiot McCain either, cause between them Obama is definitely the winner.

I voted for Barr.
 
No, you are not the only one outraged by this. Based on what I see on SDN (as poor an indicator as it is) the only people who are still weepy-eyed over The Sun God Ra-Obama are the premed crowd. The word on the street says that this is not going to pass. Even the democrats are getting squeemish about Obama's spend happy shop-a-holic spree. But that doesn't mean that they won't try again and that they won't try to shaft doctors every way they can. I maintain that while the AMA isn't perfect. It is the best form of political clout that we have and the more doctors and medical students who join and become active, the more clout it will have.

We can no longer trust the powers that be to represent our interests. They need a scapegoat, that is how you get power, and like the Jews with Hitler, nobody has love for "rich" white men. We will be hung out to dry as soon as they take what they can from us. We cannot afford to let lawyers and politicians dictate our future. Take a stand!

It won't pass congress, at least not likely too.

However, it will be enacted. Obama will use Budget Reconciliation to push this through.
 
even budget reconciliation requires it to pass Congress, albeit with a simple majority. It does not afford executive order status....
 
I think an extension of the current federal employees BC/BS plan is acceptable, although to be honest. Although Mayo does not support a single payor initiative, I support Zeke's plan. Which yes, does mean more taxes, to a degree. Our constitution does not really state this anywhere, but it doesn't really state that our tax dollars should be levied to build roads, and maintain freeways either. I would love to see a 2/3 majority however, and an amendment passed. This unfortunately, is a pipe dream.

Who said I was for public transportation? And what ammendment do you propose?

A Moral basis, and decisions arising from it, becomes a more difficult path, I think that healthcare, while initially not deemed a "right", has become to be thought of that way by MANY americans.
Many Americans believed in manifest destiny. Many Americans believed in slavery (that one was supported by the supreme court) as a basis for an economy. I think you see where I'm going with this. A majority doesn't make something a right. Your logic here is extremely flawed.

I think that economically, the costs associated with healthcare are hampering our businesses, and citizens, and that the technology we have today, and future technology is becoming more and more complex, that while perhaps increasing treatment options, and improving outcomes, also create a financial drain that cannot be met by the individual. Not anymore.
Cite source please. Or is this just your opinion?

This creates a moral, and ethical quandry for practicing providers, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, and the suppliers of medical technology. I think that all stakeholders deserve fair and decent compensation, but that EVERYONE involved also needs to answer to a slightly higher calling than the almighty dollar.
And you feel the government can mandate a "slightly higher calling"? I don't pretend to be motivated by money, but to suggest I have to bend over in terms of earning potential because I "need" to is patently ridiculous.

Those that are only concerned with business should go into another line of work. The patient COMES FIRST....always, nothing else really matters.
Yes, they do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYbNWDtDzHg&feature=PlayList&p=DEC3F78336709D34&index=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYbNWDtDzHg&feature=PlayList&p=DEC3F78336709D34&index=0

I don't propose deficit spending, and while some is okay to a degree, the rate of current deficit spending will create substantial problems down the road with devaluation of the dollar, and subsquent inflation. I actually like Zeke's idea of a 10% VAT national sales tax.
Okay, but I don't understand how you can call yourself a Libertarian.

I was in the military, so I know quite a bit about Tricare (Champus), I actually think the plan was fairly decent by most measures. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but better then many civilians have.
If you think Tricare was decent then I just don't know what to say to you.

The public plan alternative, depending on WHICH one makes it through, will not be free. It will be a discounted plan, that will be available to purchase and prorated by income. The real worry, and the thing that has folks like MOHS worried, is the Lewin Report. This basically describes what will happen if a Medicare style plan is implemented, which won't work well. The decreased reimbursements, and the decreased rates that patients will pay, will FORCE private insurers to lower the reimbursments and rates. Otherwise, companies and individuals will switch en masse to the public plan.
You still have yet to answer my question...which was..

"What makes you think a new plan will be any better than medicare? I'm one to think that something should be streamlined if it's been in existence for over 70 years. If it can't be, then it shouldn't exist. Do you think this new entitlement will be any different?"

You do realize that we not only have 47 million uninsured, but an additional 25.2 million UNDERINSURED patients. This is close to 75 million people who either don't have, or don't have adequate healthcare coverage.
Approximately 25% of our population, and it is increasing by double digits percentage points every year. AS are our costs.
Please cite source. And what does Underinsured mean? Last time I checked people can opt for more insurance. They just have to pay for it.
I have to be honest, I don't care if you're an uninsured American. Your need is not a claim check on other people's productivity.

So, if you are against Obama's proposals, lemme ask you. How would you fix the current problems?
1. I would get started on Tort Reform.
2. I, as well as MOST other Libertarians, would let the market decide for itself. Having a volatile market breeds educated consumers.
3. Get rid of medicaid and medicare altogether. They're currently determining market rates.

Now, you may not like my suggestions, but that's what a Libertarian would do.

Let's face it, we are all going to get a pay cut.
I don't care about getting a pay cut. I care about people getting screwed.
 
Last edited:
Please elaborate?

Last I saw, Obama carried the vote in many areas where educated professional working people lived and worked. I'm not going to recite every single district on here, and I certainly didn't vote for him, but I didn't vote for the idiot McCain either, cause between them Obama is definitely the winner.

I voted for Barr.


Who said I was talking about Obama? I was referring specifically to Congress, probably should have made that more clear. However, if you'd like to argue that the majority of Americans are truly educated in terms of government we could do that.

How could you vote for Barr and support any sort of legislation which supports a government funded program? I REALLY don't understand this.
 
Last edited:
as much as I like free-market economics, it can only work if we as a society are alright with letting people die without doing anything, as a civilized society we cant allow this.
 
Who said I was for public transportation? And what ammendment do you propose?

Many Americans believed in manifest destiny. Many Americans believed in slavery (that one was supported by the supreme court) as a basis for an economy. I think you see where I'm going with this. A majority doesn't make something a right. Your logic here is extremely flawed.

Cite source please. Or is this just your opinion?

And you feel the government can mandate a "slightly higher calling"? I don't pretend to be motivated by money, but to suggest I have to bend over in terms of earning potential because I "need" to is patently ridiculous.

Yes, they do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYbNWDtDzHg&feature=PlayList&p=DEC3F78336709D34&index=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYbNWDtDzHg&feature=PlayList&p=DEC3F78336709D34&index=0

Okay, but I don't understand how you can call yourself a Libertarian.

If you think Tricare was decent then I just don't know what to say to you.

You still have yet to answer my question...which was..

"What makes you think a new plan will be any better than medicare? I'm one to think that something should be streamlined if it's been in existence for over 70 years. If it can't be, then it shouldn't exist. Do you think this new entitlement will be any different?"

Please cite source. And what does Underinsured mean? Last time I checked people can opt for more insurance. They just have to pay for it.
I have to be honest, I don't care if you're an uninsured American. Your need is not a claim check on other people's productivity.

1. I would get started on Tort Reform.
2. I, as well as MOST other Libertarians, would let the market decide for itself. Having a volatile market breeds educated consumers.
3. Get rid of medicaid and medicare altogether. They're currently determining market rates.

Now, you may not like my suggestions, but that's what a Libertarian would do.

I don't care about getting a pay cut. I care about people getting screwed.

I propose an amendment making healthcare a right in this country. It won't happen, but I think it should.

As far as the underinsured.

http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...10/25-million-americans-are-underinsured.html

Where did I claim that simply because the majority believe in something that it automatically makes it a right? I don't believe I did, although re-reading my post, I can see how that might have been inferred. It is my personal belief that healthcare IS a right, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.


As far as business expenses, one of the reasons, not even close to the ONLY one, for GM's demise, was their legacy costs, and their burgeoning healthcare costs, but I'll start another thread about costs, and expenditures.

I am libertarian on almost EVERY issue, EXCEPT healthcare. It doesn't work. The only way truly free market economics works in healthcare, which BTW, we don't have now anyway. We have a mixed payor structure, which is likely the worst of all worlds. But, I digress, the only way that free market economics work, is that some patients, thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands will have to go uncovered, untreated, and suffer from their ailments. If you, as most people in this country have, say that this is unacceptable, than you have already accepted some level of government involvement in healthcare, and you cannot have a true free market.

Yes, I do think that physicians, PA's, all of us, need to bend over a little.

Here's the thing, if we all do that collectively, and give back say, 1% of our earning capability, we gain enormous ground politically, and gain a favorable opinion with the american people. It's a give and take thing, THEN, when they want to really slash, we have that card to play. It's politics man. You gotta play the game to some degree.

1. You do realize that tort reform won't accomplish much correct? The data we have now suggests that even if you completely and utterly ELIMINATE malpractice filings, and eliminate defensive medicine practices, you will save about 7-8% of total healthcare expenditures....or, with a predicted rate of a 6.9% increase in healthcare spending in 2008, you would see stagnation in the growth in healthcare spending for a little over one year. That's it. Then we would be RIGHT back to where we are.

2. Free market models only work if the society as a whole can accept the fallout. Which they have overwhelmingly showed in the past that they are unwilling to do.

3. Medicare and Medicaid aren't working, but not because of market rates. There are some real problems with the structures of both, and they need to be overhauled.
 
I propose an amendment making healthcare a right in this country. It won't happen, but I think it should.

It is my personal belief that healthcare IS a right, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I'm sorry but it makes no sense to call yourself a libertarian and then make exceptions for industries that you have a personal stake in. A libertarian would not want his personal beliefs imposed on the rest of the nation. Maybe you could clarify this.

Medicare and Medicaid aren't working, but not because of market rates. There are some real problems with the structures of both, and they need to be overhauled.
What is the logic of replacing a huge bureaucratic cluster**** with an even larger govt cluster****????????????

for people who are saying that what bothers them about a free market model is that people would not receive care--do you want your wages garnished until there are no more starving children in world? It's no different..it doesn't make the free-market advocates heartless *****holes. If you want to support these people donate to charity, but don't blindly hand your paycheck over to the govt to mismanage, waste, and embezzle.
 
I'm sorry but it makes no sense to call yourself a libertarian and then make exceptions for industries that you have a personal stake in. A libertarian would not want his personal beliefs imposed on the rest of the nation. Maybe you could clarify this.


What is the logic of replacing a huge bureaucratic cluster**** with an even larger govt cluster****????????????

for people who are saying that what bothers them about a free market model is that people would not receive care--do you want your wages garnished until there are no more starving children in world? It's no different..it doesn't make the free-market advocates heartless *****holes. If you want to support these people donate to charity, but don't blindly hand your paycheck over to the govt to mismanage, waste, and embezzle.


Well, perhaps I should call myself a liberal republican than. Would that fit better? My beliefs do not transcend across all issues.

Perhaps this would be a better description:

I am a social liberal, and fiscal conservative. That's probably the most apropos.
 
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
I propose an amendment making healthcare a right in this country. It won't happen, but I think it should.
You're right, it won't. There's no way it would get 2/3 of the house and 3/4 of the states.
Okay, where to begin with this article. First off here's how they define "underinsured"...
.

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]being underinsured means spending more than 5 percent of income on out-of-pocket medical costs ".

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]That's what the article says, here is what the actual study said....

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](1) out-of-pocket medical expenses for care amounted to 10 percent of income or more; (2) among low-income adults (below 200 percent of the federal poverty level), medical expenses amounted to at least 5 percent of income; or (3) deductibles equaled or exceeded 5 percent. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]of income.".

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They were surveying people (over the phone) who were ALREADY ELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT PLANS! And by the way, when you set out 3 different ways of classification in a study you're either lazy or have an agenda. Furthermore, the study (citing their method) says something interesting about their polling procedures....​

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The survey consisted of twenty-five minute telephone interviews administered in English or Spanish, according to the respondent's preference.".​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]After reading this, I have to make at least a possible inference that not all who were surveyed were U.S. Citizens. . [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And the BEST part of the study was when it said.....

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Using the same methods as in 2003, the survey oversampled adults from telephone exchanges in areas with a high density of low-income households.".

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yay for non representative samples! . [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then the study said....

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Compared to older age groups, adults ages 19–29 continue to be most at risk of being uninsured"
.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Not a real surprise here. First off, 19-29 year olds tend to be HEALTHIER in terms of EVERYTHING compared to a 64 year old. Secondly, 19 to 29 year olds (I know, I am one) tend to be less responsible. Which I'm guessing would be the group most heavily relied upon to make this comment (in the article)......​

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Among the underinsured, 45 percent reported having difficulty paying bills, being contacted by collection agencies for unpaid bills, and curtailing their way of life to pay their medical bills".​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Truth, Lies, and Statistics.
Where did I claim that simply because the majority believe in something that it automatically makes it a right? I don't believe I did, although re-reading my post, I can see how that might have been inferred. It is my personal belief that healthcare IS a right, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
.​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You didn't claim that. It was late when I wrote it. However, rights are not based on beliefs. Come on, you're a Libertarian!.​

"[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" .​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
As far as business expenses, one of the reasons, not even close to the ONLY one, for GM's demise, was their legacy costs, and their burgeoning healthcare costs, but I'll start another thread about costs, and expenditures.
.​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]GM's legacy cost is directly related to it's union. Lord Bless the UAW. A GOVERNMENT backed union. .​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
I am libertarian on almost EVERY issue, EXCEPT healthcare.
.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Dude, come on! If you were arguing that you were pro-life that would be one thing, but free market economics is a FUNDAMENTAL of being a Libertarian. Healthcare is a SERVICE. Services are bought and sold. It doesn't matter what the service is. .​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It doesn't work. The only way truly free market economics works in healthcare, which BTW, we don't have now anyway. We have a mixed payor structure, which is likely the worst of all worlds. But, I digress, the only way that free market economics work, is that some patients, thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands will have to go uncovered, untreated, and suffer from their ailments. If you, as most people in this country have, say that this is unacceptable, than you have already accepted some level of government involvement in healthcare, and you cannot have a true free market.
.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Uncovered and Untreated are two COMPLETELY different things. I'll let you in on a little secret. I donate both time and money to charity. You think this will be any different when I'm a doctor. NO. My time in that instance is particularly more valuable than my money. People will get treated. It may not be the best, but it's better than being FORCED to treat them for low pay. I believe it's perfectly acceptable for people to go uncovered btw. It's a choice they make. Never lose sight that everyone must be held accountable at some point in their life for their own actions. .
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yes, I do think that physicians, PA's, all of us, need to bend over a little.
.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Why? .​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Here's the thing, if we all do that collectively, and give back say, 1% of our earning capability, we gain enormous ground politically, and gain a favorable opinion with the american people. It's a give and take thing, THEN, when they want to really slash, we have that card to play. It's politics man. You gotta play the game to some degree.
.​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You call it politics. I call it a Faustian Bargain.
.[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
1. You do realize that tort reform won't accomplish much correct? The data we have now suggests that even if you completely and utterly ELIMINATE malpractice filings, and eliminate defensive medicine practices, you will save about 7-8% of total healthcare expenditures....or, with a predicted rate of a 6.9% increase in healthcare spending in 2008, you would see stagnation in the growth in healthcare spending for a little over one year. That's it. Then we would be RIGHT back to where we are.
.​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What data? And you wouldn't be right back to where we are. It's a slick tactic you're trying, but I have to assume that 6.9% increase in healthcare spending factors in DEFENSIVE medicine. .​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
2. Free market models only work if the society as a whole can accept the fallout. Which they have overwhelmingly showed in the past that they are unwilling to do.
.​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I'm willing to accept the fallout. And I'm willing to help, if you ASK me (nicely). Don't make me. This is the fundamental difference between someone who believes in individual liberty and someone who does not. .​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
3. Medicare and Medicaid aren't working, but not because of market rates. There are some real problems with the structures of both, and they need to be overhauled.
.​
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I wasn't saying they weren't working because of market rates. I said they're SETTING market rates. Which, is part of the problem healthcare isn't working. They're not working because they deny human nature (on both sides). .
 
Last edited:
on a more serious note...I totally feel you on that. This plan probably sucks the most for people who went into medicine having no idea that these changes would take place. Somewhere down the line of suckage are the people like us who honestly cannot see ourselves doing anything else...nothing...even after trying a few things maybe...it pisses me off because I do find med school foolish knowing what I've learned this past year--but I can't think of anything else I'd rather do :lame:


This is EXACTLY how I feel. Wow, it's nice to know that I'm not alone.
 
...

I am libertarian on almost EVERY issue, EXCEPT healthcare. ...

Yes, I do think that physicians, PA's, all of us, need to bend over a little.

Here's the thing, if we all do that collectively, and give back say, 1% of our earning capability, we gain enormous ground politically, and gain a favorable opinion with the american people. It's a give and take thing, THEN, when they want to really slash, we have that card to play. It's politics man. You gotta play the game to some degree.

....

2. Free market models only work if the society as a whole can accept the fallout. Which they have overwhelmingly showed in the past that they are unwilling to do.

3. Medicare and Medicaid aren't working, but not because of market rates. There are some real problems with the structures of both, and they need to be overhauled.

It is fine to want to bend over for "the common good", but to force those who do not share in that belief to bend over is... what is the word for bending someone over against their will... ah, yeah -- it's rape.

I would be a non-issue if they were talking about guaranteed payment and a 1 or 2% drop in reimbursement, but no one is talking about "1 or 2%". What they are talking about is cutting substantial portions from the topline -- 10-20% initially for anyone shifted from private to the new public plan, assuming that MC rates remain flat... which is a suspect assumption at best.

Everything cannot be provided for everyone and expect solvency or continued viability. It does not matter what the commodity is being discussed.

Medicare and Medicaid are not working because they attempt to provide too many services for every enrollee and are frankly underfunded. Restrictions and rationing are needed, and until they are willing to accept that fact they will continue to be epic failures.
 
It is fine to want to bend over for "the common good", but to force those who do not share in that belief to bend over is... what is the word for bending someone over against their will... ah, yeah -- it's rape.

I would be a non-issue if they were talking about guaranteed payment and a 1 or 2% drop in reimbursement, but no one is talking about "1 or 2%". What they are talking about is cutting substantial portions from the topline -- 10-20% initially for anyone shifted from private to the new public plan, assuming that MC rates remain flat... which is a suspect assumption at best.

Everything cannot be provided for everyone and expect solvency or continued viability. It does not matter what the commodity is being discussed.

Medicare and Medicaid are not working because they attempt to provide too many services for every enrollee and are frankly underfunded. Restrictions and rationing are needed, and until they are willing to accept that fact they will continue to be epic failures.


I agree completely with many of your points. Which is why I support rationing. I've said that on here before. Christ, I just published an editorial on rationing. It needs to be done, and already is, but it could be done better. I agree that 10-20% cuts are unacceptable, and I don't believe that I have ever agreed to such cuts. I never would. That, to me, is unacceptable.
 
I agree completely with many of your points. Which is why I support rationing. I've said that on here before. Christ, I just published an editorial on rationing. It needs to be done, and already is, but it could be done better. I agree that 10-20% cuts are unacceptable, and I don't believe that I have ever agreed to such cuts. I never would. That, to me, is unacceptable.

Here is where my problem has always been -- those advocating for this "reform" often do not have a thorough understanding of the changes being proposed or, if they do understand the implications involved, have a fundamentally different belief and value set than I. The proposals that I have read do virtually nothing to curb costs or utilization; they simply extend coverage to a greater number of people. There is no way to "save" money by paying for more services for more people. Again, these changes are political in nature, not "reform", and constitute both corporate and social welfare, not cost containment or control.

Kennedy's plan calls for the creation of a public plan whose fee schedule is to be set at 110% MC; private insurance pays physicians, on average 120-125% MC (varies widely according to geographic location). This is a sizable cut in itself as a result of costshifting. Further, MC's fee schedule is a moving target due to the systematically flawed nature of its calculation.
 
Here is where my problem has always been -- those advocating for this "reform" often do not have a thorough understanding of the changes being proposed or, if they do understand the implications involved, have a fundamentally different belief and value set than I. The proposals that I have read do virtually nothing to curb costs or utilization; they simply extend coverage to a greater number of people. There is no way to "save" money by paying for more services for more people. Again, these changes are political in nature, not "reform", and constitute both corporate and social welfare, not cost containment or control.

Kennedy's plan calls for the creation of a public plan whose fee schedule is to be set at 110% MC; private insurance pays physicians, on average 120-125% MC (varies widely according to geographic location). This is a sizable cut in itself as a result of costshifting. Further, MC's fee schedule is a moving target due to the systematically flawed nature of its calculation.


is why I don't support Kennedy's plan.

Let me be clear. I think EVENTUALLY, a singly payor system with proper funding, and control that is not in the hand of congress. IE; Zeke's plan is the way to go.

IN the interim, I agree with our policy at Mayo's policy center, which is that IF a public plan option is on the table, than a WELL funded, and WELL administered plan like the Federal Employees BC/BS plan is the way to go. So far, Obama's funding plans are a joke. Which is my big problem with them.

Got a copy of this letter today.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10019/06-16-HealthIndustryStakeholdersrorWeb.pdf
 
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You're right, it won't. There's no way it would get 2/3 of the house and 3/4 of the states..
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Okay, where to begin with this article. First off here's how they define “underinsured”....

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]being underinsured means spending more than 5 percent of income on out-of-pocket medical costs “.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]That's what the article says, here is what the actual study said....

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](1) out-of-pocket medical expenses for care amounted to 10 percent of income or more; (2) among low-income adults (below 200 percent of the federal poverty level), medical expenses amounted to at least 5 percent of income; or (3) deductibles equaled or exceeded 5 percent. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]of income.”.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They were surveying people (over the phone) who were ALREADY ELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT PLANS! And by the way, when you set out 3 different ways of classification in a study you're either lazy or have an agenda. Furthermore, the study (citing their method) says something interesting about their polling procedures....​




“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The survey consisted of twenty-five minute telephone interviews administered in English or Spanish, according to the respondent’s preference.”.​


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]After reading this, I have to make at least a possible inference that not all who were surveyed were U.S. Citizens. .[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And the BEST part of the study was when it said.....

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Using the same methods as in 2003, the survey oversampled adults from telephone exchanges in areas with a high density of low-income households.”.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yay for non representative samples! .[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then the study said....


“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Compared to older age groups, adults ages 19–29 continue to be most at risk of being uninsured”.​




[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Not a real surprise here. First off, 19-29 year olds tend to be HEALTHIER in terms of EVERYTHING compared to a 64 year old. Secondly, 19 to 29 year olds (I know, I am one) tend to be less responsible. Which I'm guessing would be the group most heavily relied upon to make this comment (in the article)......​




“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Among the underinsured, 45 percent reported having difficulty paying bills, being contacted by collection agencies for unpaid bills, and curtailing their way of life to pay their medical bills".​




[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Truth, Lies, and Statistics. .​


OF COURSE they were. Underinsurance only affects patients when they are unable to afford their bills. People who are underinsured, yet can afford their other expenses don't qualify as a problem. This is a study looking at people whose insurance does not completely cover their medical bills, and because of their low incomes, have this severely negatively impact their budget.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You didn't claim that. It was late when I wrote it. However, rights are not based on beliefs. Come on, you're a Libertarian!.​




“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” .​




[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]GM's legacy cost is directly related to it's union. Lord Bless the UAW. A GOVERNMENT backed union. .


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Dude, come on! If you were arguing that you were pro-life that would be one thing, but free market economics is a FUNDAMENTAL of being a Libertarian. Healthcare is a SERVICE. Services are bought and sold. It doesn't matter what the service is. .​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Uncovered and Untreated are two COMPLETELY different things. I'll let you in on a little secret. I donate both time and money to charity. You think this will be any different when I'm a doctor. NO. My time in that instance is particularly more valuable than my money. People will get treated. It may not be the best, but it's better than being FORCED to treat them for low pay. I believe it's perfectly acceptable for people to go uncovered btw. It's a choice they make. Never lose sight that everyone must be held accountable at some point in their life for their own actions. .


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Why? .



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]You call it politics. I call it a Faustian Bargain. .​


Morally, I cannot accept that medicine is ONLY a service. This is a fundamental area that we will disagree with.


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What data? And you wouldn't be right back to where we are. It's a slick tactic you're trying, but I have to assume that 6.9% increase in healthcare spending factors in DEFENSIVE medicine. .



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I'm willing to accept the fallout. And I'm willing to help, if you ASK me (nicely). Don't make me. This is the fundamental difference between someone who believes in individual liberty and someone who does not. .



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I wasn't saying they weren't working because of market rates. I said they're SETTING market rates. Which, is part of the problem healthcare isn't working. They're not working because they deny human nature (on both sides). .​

I've posted data on Malpractice reform on here before. Total malpractice costs = less than 2% of total medical expenditures, Defensive medicine costs, can be estimated to possibly equal 5.8% of total healthcare spending.

I will post again later if you want.
 
Please elaborate?

Last I saw, Obama carried the vote in many areas where educated professional working people lived and worked. I'm not going to recite every single district on here, and I certainly didn't vote for him, but I didn't vote for the idiot McCain either, cause between them Obama is definitely the winner.

I voted for Barr.

I didn't vote for Barr, because I always sort of thought that using a failed republican as a candidate was a bad idea for the libertarians. I did however vote for Badnarik during the whole Bush-Kerry debacle. Our mutual history of voting libertarian is somewhat interesting considering our reasonably opposing views on this matter.
 
Yes, I do think that physicians, PA's, all of us, need to bend over a little.

Here's the thing, if we all do that collectively, and give back say, 1% of our earning capability, we gain enormous ground politically, and gain a favorable opinion with the american people. It's a give and take thing, THEN, when they want to really slash, we have that card to play. It's politics man. You gotta play the game to some degree.

1. You do realize that tort reform won't accomplish much correct? The data we have now suggests that even if you completely and utterly ELIMINATE malpractice filings, and eliminate defensive medicine practices, you will save about 7-8% of total healthcare expenditures....or, with a predicted rate of a 6.9% increase in healthcare spending in 2008, you would see stagnation in the growth in healthcare spending for a little over one year. That's it. Then we would be RIGHT back to where we are.

2. Free market models only work if the society as a whole can accept the fallout. Which they have overwhelmingly showed in the past that they are unwilling to do.

3. Medicare and Medicaid aren't working, but not because of market rates. There are some real problems with the structures of both, and they need to be overhauled.

Physicians in many specialties have given back 50% of their net earning capability in the last decade, and I haven't seen a lot of political leniancy on that point. I will also point out that since med mal is in many cases determining the standard of care, it is essentially impossible to design a study showing how much in cost savings there would be if physicians practiced in a non-controlled environment without fear of reprisal. I'm not a fan of the idea of eliminating all liability in medical practice, but to pretend that the number is anywhere near as low as these studies claim can't possibly be genuine. I don't know how medicine is practiced in Rochester or rural Minnesota (I've never been there personally), but I can tell you that the number where I'm coming from is astronomical. I'd love to read some of these studies myself if you could send me a link or a citation, but I sincerely doubt they have an effective measure for determining soft admissions, borderline cardiac work-ups, and some of the ridiculous imaging that is becoming the standard of care (an example here might be the use of CT scans to confirm appendicitis in young healthy patients who are more likely to get cancer down the line from the CT scan than have serious surgical complication). Those numbers don't pass the sniff test.

The other point here is that you keep lumping society together. There is no society in the sense that you've made it out to be. Different individuals have various degrees of tolerance, and I'd argue that the majority of people would feel quite differently on some of these issues if they were actually the one's dealing with many of the individuals in question. Asking survey questions like, "do you believe that everyone should have health insurance?" inevitably elicits a feel good answer with little reflection about the consequences. I'll also point out that before Medicare and EMTALA, there wasn't blood in the streets. Society may have approved of these programs on their proported merits, but it certainly got along fine before they came along.

Medicare also clearly does influence market rates and Medicare/Medicaid are now 50% of the market. Inappropriate rate selection (an inevitability when the government takes over the market and has no way to determine the true market value of anything) may be related to structural problems, but it still is a problem in and of itself.

Finally, even if everything were simply a structural problem in the current government run systems with a real and maybe even obvious solution, what makes any of us think that the government is capable of implementing that solution? If they are capable, why will they not simply screw it up during the next legislative session? We've both admitted numerous cases of the political classes pandering to their constituents in the face of all common sense and decency. Why should any of us believe that they would run the system with any more sense than they've used to try and implement it? This administration in particular has done nothing in the past 6 months but promise loads of entitlements to people who support it with money it doesn't have.

P.S. a 10% VAT will do much more damage in the long run to the bottom line for business (with repetitive taxation at each level of production) than health insurance costs ever could. There are a lot of levels of production in a car. GM would I'm sure feel the heat.
 
Last edited:
I know it is not popular to look out for oneself or one's interest in the post Adam Smith new era but 1-2% my ass. In Anesthesiology it has been repeatedly proven that medicare rates are 33% of private insurer's rates... yes that would mean essentially a 67% pay cut for my specialty (or lets be fair a 60% pay cut after taking into account that 10% increase in medicare rates under the Kennedy plan). Since our specialty is evil there is no chance for special negotiating as well. Want proof? Here it is . So ya maybe in Obamanomics 1-2% = 60%, but not in the real world.

How can someone possibly estimate the cost of defensive medicine? I would love to see that methoidology. However, let us assume your total cost of 7.8% for all malpratice and defensive medicine spending out of the entire health care budget. What again is the entirity that goes to physician fees? Oh ya around 20% of the entire health care budget. So according to your low numbers med mal and defensive medicine costs the system over 1/3 of what is paid to physicians in entirety. Thats not the end of the story though. Because physicians have to pay for all their overhead out of their physician fees as well There is no way they see more than two thirds of that number (and that is likely much lower). You can't just spout statistics, you have to examine them in context right?
 
I know it is not popular to look out for oneself or one's interest in the post Adam Smith new era but 1-2% my ass. In Anesthesiology it has been repeatedly proven that medicare rates are 33% of private insurer's rates... yes that would mean essentially a 67% pay cut for my specialty (or lets be fair a 60% pay cut after taking into account that 10% increase in medicare rates under the Kennedy plan). Since our specialty is evil there is no chance for special negotiating as well. Want proof? Here it is . So ya maybe in Obamanomics 1-2% = 60%, but not in the real world.

How can someone possibly estimate the cost of defensive medicine? I would love to see that methoidology. However, let us assume your total cost of 7.8% for all malpratice and defensive medicine spending out of the entire health care budget. What again is the entirity that goes to physician fees? Oh ya around 20% of the entire health care budget. So according to your low numbers med mal and defensive medicine costs the system over 1/3 of what is paid to physicians in entirety. Thats not the end of the story though. Because physicians have to pay for all their overhead out of their physician fees as well There is no way they see more than two thirds of that number (and that is likely much lower). You can't just spout statistics, you have to examine them in context right?


it's an extremely CRUDE methodology, and I will be the first to admit that..

With malpractice, you really have two integers or values.

1. DIRECT expenses or expenses that are easily measured- insurance rates, expenses, and awards. In 2002, according to the CBO:

"Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small"

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

and

2. INDIRECT expenses, impossible to accurately measure, best estimate only- mostly associated with defensive medicine practices secondary to provider concerns about risk exposure, and limiting liability.

This is much harder to measure, and any figure is going to have some variance with it, but it has been done. The HHS, looked at this in 2005, and found that we might save between 60 and 108 billion.

"Depending on which side of the political divide you sit, federal medical malpractice reform limiting noneconomic damages on medical cases to $250,000 would:
  • Carve a whopping $60 billion to $108 billion in annual health costs, largely by eliminating the need for defensive medicine. Twenty-eight billion dollars of that amount would be saved by Medicare and Medicaid. Or:
  • Perhaps take some of the sting out of the increase in malpractice insurance rates, which account for barely 1 percent of overall health care costs. But the Congressional Budget Office won't go even that far and most critics shrug off the impact as infinitesimal. "
http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0503/0503.regulation.html

NOW, even if you say, WAIT, how did the CBO account for all of this. Well, the CBO's accounting for the total relative cost of malpractice, including, awards, tort filings, premiums, etc. is quite accurate. The estimates by the HHS as pertains to defensive medicine is more difficult to figure. It is a much more elusive figure, but here is something more to ponder.

The Mass. Medical Society release a report in November of 2008 that suggests defensive medicine costs of 1.4 billion. Criticisms include the fact that figures counted are only from 8 specialties, and only represent 46% of practicing physicians in Mass.

http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template....MPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=23559

But, even if you DOUBLE that to 2.8 billion in costs, and then multiply by fifty states (VERY crude, I know, but even figuring some states like California and Florida will have higher figures, they will be offset by smaller, lower populated states, like wyoming, montana, and the dakotas), you STILL only get 140 billion. Or approximately 5.8% of total healthcare expenditures.

So, you will likely achieve, assuming that the rate, or percentage of medical expenditures related to malpractice costs has remained relatively constant, and has increased at the same rate as medical spending, about 7.5-8% savings.

NOT small change, but not enough to make a serious impact on healthcare spending.

Think of it this way..with average increases in healthcare spending of approximately 6.9% annually, an 8% savings would cause stagnation in healthcare growth for about a year and 2 months.....

THAT'S IT, then we would be RIGHT back to where we are. Also, that assumes that we COMPLETELY ELIMINATE malpractice, which isn't ever going to happen.

Now, before you start, yes it's very, VERY crude estimation at it's best, and I wish I had more concrete data. If anyone does, PLEASE share, I'd actually really like to see it, however, this is the data we have to work with.
 
It's so crude, that it frankly doesn't count.

On a secondary note, a health system growing at close to 7% a year!?!?!?

Net physician income (after overhead) id between 8 and 10% of healthcare spending. That means that healthcare is growing at a rate of around 80% of all physician real income annually. This is in the face of declining physician reimbursements and no significant change in the number of physicians. Where is the money going!? Find whatever that is, and I'll show you where to cut costs. I'll also point out that this study estimates med mal to be similar to the entire cost of all physician income in the entire system. I'd call that signficant. If it's not, why is the government trying so hard to nickel and dime physician payments? Why can't we just add another insignificant 7.9% of the entire budget to physician payouts if it doesn't matter? It would certainly win a lot more friends.
 
It's so crude, that it frankly doesn't count.

On a secondary note, a health system growing at close to 7% a year!?!?!?

Net physician income (after overhead) id between 8 and 10% of healthcare spending. That means that healthcare is growing at a rate of around 80% of all physician real income annually. This is in the face of declining physician reimbursements and no significant change in the number of physicians. Where is the money going!? Find whatever that is, and I'll show you where to cut costs. I'll also point out that this study estimates med mal to be similar to the entire cost of all physician income in the entire system. I'd call that signficant. If it's not, why is the government trying so hard to nickel and dime physician payments? Why can't we just add another insignificant 7.9% of the entire budget to physician payouts if it doesn't matter? It would certainly win a lot more friends.


It is extremely crude. I am starting to work on a paper right now about Medical Malpractice, and how reform efforts might effect or impact the healthcare industry economically. Unfortunately, from what I have found, there is not much "hard" data. Especially as pertains to defensive medicine practices. However, I would postulate that my estimation is not likely to be that far off the mark, based on the fact that the HHS looked at this, and only estimated 60-108 billion. My estimation is about 32 billion higher, but still only 5.5% of healthcare spending.

I am not saying that it won't help. HELL, I'd LOVE to see malpractice reform, as I am in NO way defending attorneys. I don't like the thought of being sued, although it is a reality that I live with. And you are right 7.8 percent is not chump change, but it won't have a LASTING impact. And that of course assumes that we COMPLETELY eliminate malpractice, which will never happen.

What I AM saying, is that despite intuitive notions to the contrary, it will not be the financial panacea that some believe.

You sound shocked by the 6.9% growth...Healthcare spending has risen every year for the last decade at a rate around or above 6%. Which is a large part of WHY we are where we are now.

See my other thread about healthcare data.
 
See my other thread about healthcare data.

Seriously though, thank you for data, it is very helpful. It would be easier to understand your position if you would focus less on details and more on the trend and implication. I think that's kind of what rabbmd was getting at earlier.
 
It is extremely crude. I am starting to work on a paper right now about Medical Malpractice, and how reform efforts might effect or impact the healthcare industry economically. Unfortunately, from what I have found, there is not much "hard" data. Especially as pertains to defensive medicine practices. However, I would postulate that my estimation is not likely to be that far off the mark, based on the fact that the HHS looked at this, and only estimated 60-108 billion. My estimation is about 32 billion higher, but still only 5.5% of healthcare spending.

I am not saying that it won't help. HELL, I'd LOVE to see malpractice reform, as I am in NO way defending attorneys. I don't like the thought of being sued, although it is a reality that I live with. And you are right 7.8 percent is not chump change, but it won't have a LASTING impact. And that of course assumes that we COMPLETELY eliminate malpractice, which will never happen.

What I AM saying, is that despite intuitive notions to the contrary, it will not be the financial panacea that some believe.

You sound shocked by the 6.9% growth...Healthcare spending has risen every year for the last decade at a rate around or above 6%. Which is a large part of WHY we are where we are now.

See my other thread about healthcare data.


It's not that I'm shocked. I've seen that statistic many times before. It's that when you say it out loud within the context of this discussion, it becomes the 800 lbs gorilla in the room.
 
It is extremely crude. I am starting to work on a paper right now about Medical Malpractice, and how reform efforts might effect or impact the healthcare industry economically. Unfortunately, from what I have found, there is not much "hard" data. Especially as pertains to defensive medicine practices. However, I would postulate that my estimation is not likely to be that far off the mark, based on the fact that the HHS looked at this, and only estimated 60-108 billion. My estimation is about 32 billion higher, but still only 5.5% of healthcare spending.

I am not saying that it won't help. HELL, I'd LOVE to see malpractice reform, as I am in NO way defending attorneys. I don't like the thought of being sued, although it is a reality that I live with. And you are right 7.8 percent is not chump change, but it won't have a LASTING impact. And that of course assumes that we COMPLETELY eliminate malpractice, which will never happen.

What I AM saying, is that despite intuitive notions to the contrary, it will not be the financial panacea that some believe.

You sound shocked by the 6.9% growth...Healthcare spending has risen every year for the last decade at a rate around or above 6%. Which is a large part of WHY we are where we are now.

See my other thread about healthcare data.

I appreciate the statistics no matter how rough. Defensive medicine is the 800lb gorilla in the box no non-healthcare provider understands the scope of the problem. Everyday I order consults or tests I likely would not order and could defend medically if the specter of legal action was not over my shoulder.

Ok then, the implication here is that if it will not make any lasting benefit to eliminate this problem, then why all the implication on reducing physician salaries? Why is the Kennedy plan proposing to cut anesthesia reimbursement rates 60% (medicare is 67% of private payers and a 10% increase of that medicare rate is still a 60% cut)?
 
It is extremely crude. I am starting to work on a paper right now about Medical Malpractice, and how reform efforts might effect or impact the healthcare industry economically. Unfortunately, from what I have found, there is not much "hard" data. Especially as pertains to defensive medicine practices. However, I would postulate that my estimation is not likely to be that far off the mark, based on the fact that the HHS looked at this, and only estimated 60-108 billion. My estimation is about 32 billion higher, but still only 5.5% of healthcare spending.

I am not saying that it won't help. HELL, I'd LOVE to see malpractice reform, as I am in NO way defending attorneys. I don't like the thought of being sued, although it is a reality that I live with. And you are right 7.8 percent is not chump change, but it won't have a LASTING impact. And that of course assumes that we COMPLETELY eliminate malpractice, which will never happen.

What I AM saying, is that despite intuitive notions to the contrary, it will not be the financial panacea that some believe.

You sound shocked by the 6.9% growth...Healthcare spending has risen every year for the last decade at a rate around or above 6%. Which is a large part of WHY we are where we are now.

See my other thread about healthcare data.

Lets crunch the numbers. Total healthcare spending per year is about 2.5 trillion. So 5.5% of total health spending is 137.5 billion spent per year on malpractice and the resulting defensive medicine. The price tag of healthcare reform according to CBO is 1.6 trillion over 10 years. If you assume total elimination of malpractice and accumulate the savings over ten years (not even including inflation) then you get almost 1.4 trillion in savings, which is not chump change.

Now congress won't benefit from these saving because they don't finance malpractice cases or collect taxes from them (I could be wrong on this). However, lets say malpractice reform happens and malpractice premiums decrease by a fifth. (Thats about 275 billion in savings over ten years). This reduction in overhead for hospitals and doctors would allow the medicare cuts proposed at 300 billion to take place less painfully for providers. Heck, decrease malpractice by 2 fifths and cut medicare payments by 600 billion and hospitals and doctors will come out about the same.
 
Top