Mark Kirk: Health-care alternatives ready

and what did Palin have to say about health-care?

Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said ''taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street.'' A week later, she said ''ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy.''

During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being ''instrumental in bringing folks together'' to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said ''it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in.''

That's rich.

Health care "alternatives" from Replicans.

Isn't it a litte late?

Or, rather, way too little far too late?

His first plan, lower costs by reigning in lawsuits. These suits account for only about 1-2% of total medical costs. About 30 states already have enacted tort reform, with little effect on medical costs. This helps insurance companies a lot more than it actually helps people.

Kirk quote snipped:
"First, we could start lowering costs by reining in lawsuits in America,'' Kirk says in the GOP's weekly address. "We are the most litigious country on Earth. Lawsuit reforms can save billions in health care costs alone.(end snip)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words, Mark Kirk will do absolutely nothing to reign in the out of control health care lobby and the 47+ million of uninsured Americans but he will work to give these same crooks even more power and money by denying a person their day in court and their legal right to remedy injury caused by malpractice.
Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent medical errors in the first place and furthermore, he fails to explain how this cost-saving measure he advocates would trickle down to savings for the consumers.
.In the states which have enacted tort reform, malpractice insurance rates have not declined on red cent.and finallly, how does any of this help Americans in their struggle to afford healthcare. It does nothing but put more money into the industry.
Clearly, Mark Kirk favors no healthcare reform and doesn't care about those with no insurance,either.

Kirk quote snipped:
"First, we could start lowering costs by reining in lawsuits in America,'' Kirk says in the GOP's weekly address. "We are the most litigious country on Earth. Lawsuit reforms can save billions in health care costs alone.(end snip)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words, Mark Kirk will do absolutely nothing to reign in the out of control health care lobby and the 47+ million of uninsured Americans but he will work to give these same crooks even more power and money by denying a person their day in court and their legal right to remedy injury caused by malpractice.
Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent medical errors in the first place and furthermore, he fails to explain how this cost-saving measure he advocates would trickle down to savings for the consumers.
.In the states which have enacted tort reform, malpractice insurance rates have not declined on red cent.and finallly, how does any of this help Americans in their struggle to afford healthcare. It does nothing but put more money into the industry.
Clearly, Mark Kirk favors no healthcare reform and doesn't care about those with no insurance,either.

Marty,

The New York Times begs to differ:

The New York Times noted in 2007 that Texas lawsuit reform had predictably resulted in doctors "arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals." That’s healthcare reform for you; Texas- style.

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1727955.html

Ahhhh, the loons on the left continue to spew their ignorant hate.
Anyway, Mark Kirk will help lead the state of Illinois back into honor, integrity and decency.
Mark Kirk in 2010!!

terry the teabagger:
Marty,

The New York Times begs to differ:

The New York Times noted in 2007 that Texas lawsuit reform had predictably resulted in doctors "arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals." That’s healthcare reform for you; Texas- style.

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/1727955.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

that *news story* link was to an editorial. Do you know what the word "editorial" means? It's an opinion.

Tort reform is easy; if you loss you pay.

And selling insurance across state lines would do the most to lower cost.

My question, after reading this article, is can the GOP clean up the house? This paints a rather ominous picture of health care in Illinois.
Title: Health Care, Chicago-Style
http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=71894

You guys in the intellectual swamp. Ohio was legal swampland for docs until tort reform passed. Premiums were doubling and tripling. Physicians left the state or retired early, not because they wanted to. We weren't getting sued for negligence, but for medical complications. See www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com under Legal Quality.

Why didn't Republicans enact these "reforms" when they were in power? The fact is that Mark Kirk and many others in Congress are in the pockets of the healthcare lobbyists and only now when the Democratic congress is trying to get their reforms passed, are people like Kirk suddenly coming up with alternative reforms.

In other words, Mark Kirk will do absolutely nothing to reign in the out of control health care lobby and the 47+ million of uninsured Americans ...

Posted by: writerofwrongs | November 14, 2009 3:00 PM
______________________

Whoops. Another obamabot peddling out the "bumper-sticker statistic" of 47 million Americans.

One more time for 'writeofwrongs' and the other brainwashed obama-worshippers. The 47 million number INCLUDES roughly 10 - 12 million illegal immigrants. They are not American citizens. If they want state-sponsored healthcare they should demand it from their own countries' taxpayers and governments.

Please wake up 'writeofwrongs'.

Gee, what a great idea to allow insurance companies to operate across state lines! Why do we need 'state' insurance boards? Why not let the six or seven insurance companies out there merge into one? They'll be in a much better position, market-wise, right? So what if they can then dictate their own terms? Big deal! No one should be FORCED to buy health insurance, right? You can just go to an emergency room!

If you want to imagine what such a scenario would look like, try the credit card industry for a model.

Mark Kirk has changed his colors so much he stands for NOTHING.

Always wrong,

From that editorial I quoted the NYT note "in 2007 that Texas lawsuit reform had predictably resulted in doctors "arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals."

Within editorials, they often quote facts.

Terry 26

Always Wrong 0

Keep trying, a broken clock is right twice a day

Terry,

It may have resulted in more specialists locating to Texas due to lower costs for the doctors. But did that result in higher quality of care, or lower costs to patients?

http://www.maacenter.org/blog/tort-reform-show-us-results.html

Besides, 30 states have already done this. If it becomes nationwide, how big could the effect possibly be? Additionally, if it is nationwide, wouldnt states like texas possibly loose some of those doctors that moved there since they could now practice anywhere?

I don't disagree that it could have some effect, but it does not look like it has so far with 60% of the nation already doing this.

1. ""First, we could start lowering costs by reining in lawsuits in America,''
(So, when Dr. Dimwit takes out the wrong kidney or kills your child it's all forgive and forget?

2. "Second, Congress should grant the right to each American to buy coverage from any state in the union "
(Will the co-pays be eliminated so you don't pay 50/50 copays out of network? Why does this banjo retard think out of state insurance is any cheaper than the poor in state insurance?

3. ""Third, we should give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs."
(Those reforms involve covering fewer procedures and tests, lowering doctor office visits, denying basic care. And when he says less $$, he means less of an increase. The premiums will still go up and out of pocket $$ can be as high as $12k per year per person, not counting the premiums of $4k per year. That is 'non-insurance. I guess the 'freedom' the right wing talks about would be choosing no insurance at all.)

If we do nothing premiums will go up an average of 15% in '10. If the inflation rate is 3% (??) thats five times the inflation rate.

America; Too stupid to save itself.

Marty,

If you have taken Econ 101, go back to what you have learned. MOre supply of doctors means lower prices. Less operating costs for doctors means lower prices.

Billy,

I know you hold the view that BO does that doctors perform unnnecessary surgeries just to drive a Lexus, but if Dr Dimwit (I din't know Pelosi had a brother in the medical field) does a bad surgery, than yes he s/b sued. What lowers costs in tort reform is the need for all the defensive medicine that the docs have to do.

If you are allowed to cross state lines to buy insurance, I'm sure you will be able to find a policy you like out of the 1300 competitors.

I'm not sure where you get 15% inflation rate from - something from a BO speech?

If one chooses not to have health insurance, and millions do, that should be their right.

Your last sentence says it all - "America; Too stupid to save itself." Typical elite liberal that thinks they need to save Americans from their own stupidity.

In other words, Mark Kirk will do absolutely nothing to reign in the out of control health care lobby and the 47+ million of uninsured Americans ...

Posted by: writerofwrongs | November 14, 2009 3:00 PM
______________________

Whoops. Another obamabot peddling out the "bumper-sticker statistic" of 47 million Americans.

One more time for 'writeofwrongs' and the other brainwashed obama-worshippers. The 47 million number INCLUDES roughly 10 - 12 million illegal immigrants. They are not American citizens. If they want state-sponsored healthcare they should demand it from their own countries' taxpayers and governments.

Please wake up 'writeofwrongs'.

Posted by: Ben R. | November 15, 2009 11:28 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
more BS. The statistics on the number of UN-insured Americans ( got that, Ameican citizens, not illegals)
comes from none other than the US Census Bureau.

Where are you getting your statistics from ?

Terry,

Are you arguing that tort reform will somehow increase the supply of doctors? Unless that is your argument, econ 101 does little good here. Texas saw an increase in the number of doctors following its tort reform. Assuming this expands nationwide, where are the doctors going to come from? It appears that some doctors relocated to Texas due to lower insurance costs. If they can practice anywhere in the U.S., there is no gain, but perhaps some additional shifting. I just don't see where you think that will help lower costs.
And regardless, even after Texas saw an increase in doctors, there was no change in costs to the consumer. Isn't that the goal?

Hello T,
I'm CM, not Bill r.
Nice to meet ya.

I got the 15% average for '10 in my morning paper last month.
Mine (personally) went up 25% for '10. (Already informed)
In '09 it went up average 5%. (Mine, more. Only way to cut cost was to reduce coverage even more.)
In 08 and 07 I think it went up an average 13%. (Mine less those years, only 9 or 10%)

Are you really claiming that rates won't skyrocket under the current system? They already are.

The lesson America is not learning?
The current system is broken and killing us financially.

I always enjoy the conservatives definition of 'freedom':
The freedom to have no health care.
The freedom to send the kids to bed hungry.
The freedom to lose you home, retirement, well, you get it.

Enjoy your new found freedoms, America.

In spite of the above, I don't like the bill winding it's way to BHO's signature. It's so weakened, watered down and compromised that it may indeed do more harm than good.
There are a couple good reforms but the public option is way way too weak to do any good what so ever. It is included in word only to try to please we Dems that actually want single payer NHI, the reasoning being that a robust public option would force the privateers to provide cheaper yet better coverage.
Instead we have a Dem congress producing a bill every Republican could like, yet won't have to vote for, and can blame the Dems when it inevitably fails to provide better coverage for less $$ while enhancing the profits of the insurance industry.

I think BHO should employ some of the great powers handed to him by GWB and issue some of those 'signing statements' when he signs the bill. He can then clearly state that he intends to provide the most robust public option possible, in spite of the bill's language.

My 'America too stupid' remark is simply an expression intended to cajole or shock America into displaying it's innate intelligence. I know it's sleeping out there somewhere.

Here's that 15% article. It was syndicated in our little home town rag.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/business/smallbusiness/25health.html

I know you will be able to parse the wording, but get ready; It's a comin'.
As stated, mine is already up 25% for '10.

Always wrong,

"The statistics on the number of UN-insured Americans ( got that, Ameican citizens, not illegals)
comes from none other than the US Census Bureau." - According to rthe U.S. Census bureau 2007 report attached (see page 30), there are 9.7 million foreighn born non-citizens that are included in the non-insured pool 46 million uninsured. Where are you getting your statistics from?

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

Marty,

If tort-reform would go national, then the coverage of doctors could be more economically spread across the country. Also, with lower costs, more students would choose medicine as a field to enter.

Apparently the party of 'no' now wants to be a part of the policy development. Too late for that. In fact, had they gotten in the act earlier they could have been the champion of a public option that would hold costs down and run in the black. http://cli.gs/23yYaM/

Terry,

I just don't see how that would make a huge difference in healthcare costs. If it has not resulted in lowered costs in the 30 states that have it now, why would it if more are added?

I'd love to see some info on the number of students discouraged from pursing medical school due to insurance costs though, please feel free to post that.

"If tort-reform would go national, then the coverage of doctors could be more economically spread across the country. Also, with lower costs, more students would choose medicine as a field to enter.
Posted by: Terry | November 16, 2009 1:14 PM"
Great argument for national health insurance, Terry.

Marty,

If you had taken Econ 101, you see the logical conclusion. Go seek help at your local JC.

CM,

Too bad the wholly owned subsidiary of the trial lawyers couldn't find any room for anything resembling tort-reform in the 2,000 pages.

T,
I don't think the Republic politicians are any more serious about so called tort reform than the Blue Dog Dems are about health care reform.
It's political posturing.
Most Republic congressmen are lawyers, just like the Dems.

BTW,
I have now posted that '15% increase' link three times since October, so stop asking me to prove the claim again and again. It's an obviously disingenuous rhetorical tactic on your part. It's a fact; Under the current health insurance system we will all be buried in a few short years.

CM,

Thanks for the link - I had never heard the 15% number before. First time I have seen your link. I don't read your hometown rag. So your from NY - explains a lot

I don't think the GOP is using tort reform as a talking point since they don't rake in the campaign cash from the Trial lawyer asscoiations like the dems do. You hit on a problem with Congress - too many lawyers

terry the tabagger:
(snip)

Too bad the wholly owned subsidiary of the trial lawyers couldn't find any room for anything resembling tort-reform in the 2,000 pages.

Posted by: Terry | November 16, 2009 7:12 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's a states rights issue and doesn't belong in a federal bill.
Maybe you need to take a civics class at your local JC ?

T,
I'm not from NY. You couldn't be further from the truth or farther from the location.
I read a syndicated version in the local rag.

Always wrong and getting dumber,

If tort reform is a state right, please explain where in civics class that learned that providing health insurance is a gov't responsibility?

Back to 5th grade civics class with you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703740004574513752760366872.html?mod=googlenews_wsj