Discuss Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform

Suggestions for Reducing Healthcare Costs

Two additional suggestions for reducing healthcare costs. First, modify the malpractice lawsuit process. I believe there is a better system for imposing accountability on healthcare providers than taking them to court where the attorneys more so than the patients profit. In place of this process, I suggest we create medical review boards which function to receive and review complaints and make a determination as to whether or not a doctor is negligent. There would be no attorneys for the plaintiffs or the defendants, hence this would eliminate the cost of paying the attorney’s fees which normally amount to 30–40% of the judgment. These boards would be similar to the Federal district courts in that there would be one for each region and the board members would be appointed by the Federal government. Some of the members would have medical expertise and others would have legal expertise. If the doctor is found negligent, the board would fine the doctor or possibly also revoke his license. The fine might or might not be relinquished to the family. It would depend upon whether or not the injury hindered the income of the individual or the individual's family. Family members should not be awarded money to compensate them for the emotional stress of having a loved one injured or killed. This current practice encourages greed and debases human affection. In the event that the fine is not relinquished to the family, the money would be surrendered to the Federal government and used in the funding of these medical review boards. This system would impose accountability upon physicians and reduce costs by eliminating attorney fees and lessening the number of frivolous lawsuits.

Second, impose limits on the amounts which healthcare providers can charge for their services. The above review boards would determine these limits. When physicians make 2 and 3 times that of PhD’s in physics, chemistry and engineering, even after payment of malpractice insurance, this means their financial compensation is far greater than what can be justified by their training. They essentially have us over a barrel. We either pay what they demand or we loose our lives or our health. Our society long ago defined such threats to set the price of a product as predatory and illegal. We do not allow drinking water to be sold for a $100/gallon in a disaster area even though the residents, in their desperation, would pay that price. The American public is failing to see the injustice of this situation because for many of us the entire payment is not coming directly from our own wallets. The cost is being shifted either to the government or to the insurance companies which in turn or shifting it to the corporations. But in the end, the public is paying and unless we accept that these fees are unfair and that the government must use its power to restore equitable rates, the fees will continue to rise at a rampant rate and fewer and fewer people will have access to quality healthcare.

depend space vectors home 2009

back release burning early study paleoclimatology

Dean is out of touch- again.

Howard Dean, as always, is out of touch. His comments "the only place where people stand between a patient and a doctor is in the private health insurance industry. That doesn't happen in government" and "lots of times insurance companies refused payment - no such problem with that in Medicare" are the most recent and obvious examples. Medicare (government run healthcare) indeed has many rules on office visits, testing and indications for procedures. I see the exact opposite in my medical practice. If the rules/government criteria are not met, payment is indeed DENIED. From his recent propaganda laced interview, I am led to assume that Howard Dean and the DNC will guarantee procedures to all patients and payment to all providers that are denied by the current "government option". It is also interesting the the Democrats, the party of the American Bar Association, conveniently leave tort reform out of the discussion. Coinicidence??