Healthcare reform: Executive pay in way?

Could someone ask the supreme leader and the WH propaganda machine why no ones is addressing and demonizing the outlandish payoffs for the medical liability tort lawyers as a problem in healthcare costs? Why are they not demonized too? Everyone else is. Geez, the Dems. are trying to slip in 1.6 billion in tax breaks (tax deductions for expenses in the taxable yr. vs. after possible settlement, therefore eliminating possible loss of deductions or something nefarious that gives them a big tax break) by piggy-backing it on a obscure bill, passed in the night, oh how conniving and I thought we were spreading the pain). This is just another attempt to shift the blame (guess the Bush blame game is worn out, well check that, Obama keeps it alive and well) and divert the folks that Obamacare even with lipstick can't hide the pig.

Duh !! Was that a Republican asking that question? I bet it was !
Of course a CEO's pay affects the entire pay structure of a given corporation. If he is making that kind of money, we can only guess as to what his underlings, sub-execs and managers, are making.
Also, it is the whole gloomy, vampirish aura to making fortunes off of people's illness and their eventual deaths that is bothersome and loathsome. Is that the level, to which America's economy has sunk ! A major growth industry is founded in the hospitals and cemeteries of our nation. Come on, America, get back on track, demand that those manufacturing jobs be returned to America or refuse to buy their foreign-made replicas, until the price of these knock-offs are honestly priced !! CEOs should be making, at the most, 100X what the worker on the factory floor is making. It is that simple and that fair !! Don't give me any nonsense about their " great " descion-makings, to justify their obscene pay ratio !! Look what they did to our Steel industry, our Auto industry, our Manufacturing Sector, our Banking Sector or our Healthcare Industry !! Do you need any more proof !! That is how Mrs McCain and her cohort are able to have those 10-15 houses, called homes !! Wake up America, the oligarchy has stolen your country !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Bubba hit the nail on the head - CEO pay is just a small amount as compared to the obscene fees the trial lawyers receive.

Health insurance companies are spending billions of dollars to fight healthcare reform. It is in their interest to preserve the status quo. I'd like to see more ads showing how much money each member of Congress, including Senator Max Baucus, has accepted from health insurance lobbyists- more than any other Senator.

Just how old is that TV in the Republican ad? Vintage 1960? More proof that the small, narrow-minded party of old, white men is appealing to older Americans and the low intelligence voter, the soap opera crowd.

Party of No Republicans seem bent on scaring older Americans with terms like "government run healthcare," government takeover," "rationed care," "deny seniors the care they deserve," even "kill off older Americans"-- more fear-mongering, more lies.

Medical malpractice payouts are less than one percent of total U.S. health care costs.

Obama qualifications to reform health care:

No birth certificate

Cannot stop smoking

Difficulty telling the truth.

Narcissistic personality disorder

Therefore, I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at www.igormaro.org

Compare Obama Care vs Igor Care at Obama vs Igor Care

Congress should put a check on what the Corporations are passing on to the consumer, in the form of " business expenses ", such as propaganda ads, passing as business ads !! Our airwaves are being used against us, with us paying for the propaganda from the Corps, to defeat programs that are good for America, but bad for the bottom-line of Corporations !! Congress must reign in these attack ads, as business expenses. they are are brainwashing America.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Hi!
You might be interested in CNBC’s “Squawk In Session: Live From the U.S. Senate,” broadcasting live Tuesday, August 4th, at 6am-9am ET. CNBC’s Joe Kernen will host this special edition of “Squawk Box,” speaking to senators from both sides of the aisle to discuss and debate the President’s plans for health care reform and the economy. Check out a preview here: http://bit.ly/4E6Rbn.

Corporate Sponsored Wingnut Teabaggers Are Trying To Shout Down Health Care Reform At Town Halls

Wingnut teabaggers and other opponents of health care reform fro the middle-class and the poor are heckling members of Congress at their town hall meetings back home in an effort to sway the debate and drown out reform supporters.
.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/teabaggers-try-to-shout-down-health-care-reform-at-town-halls.php

You know the opponents of health-care reform for poor and middle-class Americans -- which obviously includes nearly every talking head who appears on Faux News -- are getting desperate when they start trying to scare elderly people by suggesting that President Obama's health-care plans will mean euthanization for old folks when they get hurt.

That's what the lunatic fringe crew at Faux & Friends did recently, led by "Faux News legal analyst" Peter Johnson Jr., and aided and abetted by Wingnut mouthbreathers Brian Kilmeade and Gretchen Carlson.
.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/07/fox-friends-crew-frighten-elderly.html

I guess here is one of those "corporate sponsored" protest Knox and Former are talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOLs7Cybnqw

One more of these "corporate sponsored" protest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0

These are not as genuine as say the protest that occur when ACORN buses in the protest

Government run healthcare is exactly as it sounds. The bill that congress has drafted should be stopped. Here are a few excerpts from that bill:

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

I'd feel much more comfortable with the private sector handling my medical insurance and not the government.

Hey, medical insurance, how about a link to the actual document? I call BS!

Republican Congressman who oppose universal health insurance should immediately relinquish their tax payer funded federal healthcare insurance. After all, these members of Congress have long enjoyed taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, a privilege that they apparently believe tens of millions of working, uninsured Americans and their families don't deserve.

If Republicans don't think being uninsured is a big deal, then they should go right ahead and try it out. And if they really believe a public plan is such a bad option, maybe they can persuade their parents to give up Medicare too.

And one final "corporate sponsored" protest

http://vodpod.com/watch/1969197-us-soldier-demands-apology-from-senator-claire-mccaskill-at-town-hall

“Medical malpractice payouts are less than one percent of total U.S. health care costs.”
* * * * *
Posted by: doc | August 3, 2009 12:26 PM
.
Now if the problem with medical malpractice were limited to “payouts,” your statistic would be useful and meaningful. But it is not. The threat of malpractice suits and the cost of malpractice insurance have inflicted significant damage on the health care system that cannot be neatly assessed in terms of dollar figures.
.
The threat of malpractice makes doctors look over their shoulders. They have clients who over-use the medical system and demand procedures that aren’t warranted. Doctors give into these demands out of fear that a failure to comply with the client’s wishes, or at least a frustration of the client’s expectations, could lead to a lawsuit. AARP tells us that the overuse of the medical system and the consequent use of unneeded medical procedures is the major reason for the expensive medical system we have now. There is, therefore, a direct cause and effect relationship between medical malpractice and the phenomenon of rising medical costs that is not represented in the figure you cite.
.
In addition, the threat of malpractice suits has caused a substantial number of doctors to either leave the medical profession, opt for early retirement, or changes their practice to a less “risky” one. Some doctors simply cannot afford their malpractice premiums. Others have changed their practice from a high risk specialty to that of a general family practice, or simply offer fewer services, so they can afford the insurance. Therefore, the loss of medical talent and services is also directly related to the issue of medical malpractice in a way that is not accounted for by your statistic. In fact, the loss of doctors and the resulting lack of sufficient practitioners is what will make the medical profession a mad house in the event that any of the current health care bills are passed and signed into law. There are already too few doctors, nurses and trained specialists to go around.

But John W, the commenters above complained of the attorneys fees. Anyway, doctors who commit malpractice should be sued; how can you justify eliminating the injured patient's right to sue? I'm sure there is a fair middle ground that could be negotiated, perhaps in regard to punitive damage awards.

Quack,

The point wasn't teh settlements it was "obscene fees the trial lawyers receive". Those pesky facts again

The settlements include the fees, idiot. How much are the alleged "obscene fees" smart boy?

Quack,

My statement stated the fees rec'd by the trial lawyers, not the judgement for victim - Pinhead.

* * * * *
Posted by: doc | August 4, 2009 9:01 AM
.
1. I never suggested eliminating the right to sue. Tort reform doesn’t have to mean barring tort recovery altogether. The law could be altered to provide for malpractice actions, but limit recovery for non-economic harm. (Awards for non-economic harm, such as “pain and suffering” are the stuff from which lawyers normally derived their fees and a lot of their motivation to litigate). In addition, procedural hurdles could be imposed to weed out frivolous medical malpractice actions (which also pose a serious problem). These types of limitations have proven effective in striking a proper balance between a patient's right to recover for injury and the public's interest in effective access to health care.
.
The need for this kind of reform will be especially acute under a health care system restructured by any one of the current health care bills. If we don’t limit tort liability, we will all pay for malpractice actions to one degree or another - because we will all be paying for insurance. In addition, taxpayers will pay a double share by paying taxes to support the governments “public option” or subsidies for insurance premiums. The social benefits that are reaped from allowing recovery to an injured plaintiff do not justify spreading the cost of that recovery to everyone who isn’t responsible for the harm, namely, us. It is equally true that making everyone pay for a doctor’s negligence - except for the doctor who caused the harm - isn’t going to deter medical negligence. It will, however, make the insurance company’s and doctors’ pockets deeper and, thus, make malpractice actions a more attractive nuisance. So, if we don’t do something to limit liability in this situation, we will be presiding over a very lucrative form of lottery, if not a health care system. We forget ourselves and our litigious nature (as a people) if we deny the possibility that this can happen.
.
PS - Awards for punitive damages are rare in malpractice cases because they are often available only in cases of intentionally or recklessly inflicted injuries. Most doctors don’t intentionally harm their clients. For those that do, it’s unlikely that their insurance will cover a punitive damage award anyway.

How much Terry?
That's a totally negligible issue, a distraction, IMO, sweetie. The fees would be about a third of the payouts, which is s tiny overall factor to begin with.

Quack,

First, I don't swing from that side of the plate.

A few billion is small change when you are talking about $2 Trillion of costs.

If the gov't runs healthcare, will the citizens be able to sue the gov't for its medical insurnace failures?