The health care debate continues to rage on, and we, the average Americans, must simply sit back and watch as the people in government make such an important decision for us. Let's face it, this isn't going to effect our representatives any great extent, they get their health care for free. A perk of being a representative of you and I. When their term in Washington is done they may have to foot the bill, but how many people in our government are not worth hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars?
President Obama prided himself on being in touch with Americans because his grandmother raised him on food stamps and welfare and he understood the average American and where they come from. That may have been true when he first started into politics, however he is a long way from food stamps and public housing now. Just last year he and his wife made over two million dollars. It is very easy to dawn those rose colored glasses and forget exactly how it was on the way up the mountain to rise above the clouds. It isn't just President Obama. All of the men and women who represent us are wealthy. This is a problem.
Fact Check: Health Care Reform Debate discusses many advertising campaigns and the money spent, along with the facts and fiction of the debate, to get the public support behind this idea. What I see is a grand attempt and lots of money spent to snowball the American public. It's like the people with the shiniest, most expensive toys are going to decide where the health care industry and the health and wellness of the American people are going to end up. I believe this should be decided by the American people, and the plan should come from the doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and other health care providers who actually work with the public and know the actual issues that are at hand. The politicians of this country are out of touch. They have lost a sense of reality while living in the political Disneyland that is Washington D.C. The American public has carried them on our backs for too long, and now they are going to repay us by breaking our backs and then refusing to fix them because only so many broken backs can be fixed in a year according to the socialized medicine rules.
As I have stated before there does need to be changes in health care. There do need to be regulations on health care, insurance pricing, and the sue happy people of this country. There are many issues that need to be addressed, however the people who need to address them are not the people who are so out of touch with you and I that they can only guess what they want or need. I do commend all of the representatives who voted the way they felt the people they represented wanted them to vote, especially those who crossed party lines. For all of those who simply voted yes because it meant a shiny new car or a favor in return, shame on you.
The day after the house approved the health care reform bill a woman that my husband knows received a letter from the hospital where she is a nurse stating her health insurance is going to increase from $91 a pay period (every two weeks) to $152 a pay period. The reason the letter gave was because of the passage of the bill in the house. Private insurance is going to be forced to increase so it is the same cost or more of the 'affordable' plan the government will extend to us. The second reason is those who have insurance are going to be responsible for paying for those who do not have insurance. The people the government decide have extra money are going to have to foot the bill for the insurance for those who don't.
There is a right way to do things, and a wrong way. This is not the right way. This is not the best for the American citizens and this will not create quality health care. What is the use in everybody having insurance when the quality of the health care is diminished?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
H.R.3962 Passes in the House
This week was a good one for Obama's health care reform plans. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/the-early-word-bill-passage-cao-and-next-steps/
The House passed the health care bill with a vote of 225 to 220. There is a list of what members and their party voted for or against the plan. Just to break it down a little, in Ohio, of the 18 members of the House there were 10 against, and 8 for. All who voted for the plan were Democrats, and of those 8, 4 were men and 4 were women. The 10 who voted against 9 were men and 1 was a woman, 8 were Republican and 2 were Democrats. Personally, I don't think party affiliation should have anything to do with it. A good idea is a good idea.
There was an amendment stating federal funds would not go to pay for abortions. This is one thing that troubles me. A group of people in the political arena decided federal health care should not include paying for abortion. The powers that be decide they want to get this passed, so whatever it takes, OK, it won't cover abortion. Done. It passes. Is this right? What favors were traded to get this through the house? What other areas are going to suffer or take a cut so that this got that yes vote? Favor trading has never been a secret, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Is that really the way to decide anything in this country? So federally funded insurance isn't going to pay for abortion. What about the next group that decides heart transplants are against their way of thinking, then those won't be covered either?
This plan claims to provide affordable health care to 96% of the American public, yet it is most likely going to cost more than private insurance, and we are going to have to pay higher taxes from our paychecks, so how is this more affordable? It started out being free, no it's more expensive than private insurance. It started out paying for itself with no tax increases because it was getting funding from Medicaid and Medicare being reworked, now it's getting its money from Medicare and taxes. Services are going to be limited in number, and now some are not going to be provided at all.
To say the future will be interesting is an understatement. Socialism is an interesting concept.
The House passed the health care bill with a vote of 225 to 220. There is a list of what members and their party voted for or against the plan. Just to break it down a little, in Ohio, of the 18 members of the House there were 10 against, and 8 for. All who voted for the plan were Democrats, and of those 8, 4 were men and 4 were women. The 10 who voted against 9 were men and 1 was a woman, 8 were Republican and 2 were Democrats. Personally, I don't think party affiliation should have anything to do with it. A good idea is a good idea.
There was an amendment stating federal funds would not go to pay for abortions. This is one thing that troubles me. A group of people in the political arena decided federal health care should not include paying for abortion. The powers that be decide they want to get this passed, so whatever it takes, OK, it won't cover abortion. Done. It passes. Is this right? What favors were traded to get this through the house? What other areas are going to suffer or take a cut so that this got that yes vote? Favor trading has never been a secret, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Is that really the way to decide anything in this country? So federally funded insurance isn't going to pay for abortion. What about the next group that decides heart transplants are against their way of thinking, then those won't be covered either?
This plan claims to provide affordable health care to 96% of the American public, yet it is most likely going to cost more than private insurance, and we are going to have to pay higher taxes from our paychecks, so how is this more affordable? It started out being free, no it's more expensive than private insurance. It started out paying for itself with no tax increases because it was getting funding from Medicaid and Medicare being reworked, now it's getting its money from Medicare and taxes. Services are going to be limited in number, and now some are not going to be provided at all.
To say the future will be interesting is an understatement. Socialism is an interesting concept.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
No Government in Governemnt Reform
Go Senator Lieberman! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/01/no_reform_is_better_than_a_pub.html?hpid=moreheadlines
is the website for the Washington Post, and where one can read the article expressing the opinion of Senator Lieberman concerning government run health care. It is a short article, but pretty to the point. I agree with Senator Lieberman that no health care reform would be better than the public option which is managed by the government. Any person who has been in the military would agree, I think, that whenever the government gets involved things go from simple to complex. Two plus two no longer equals four, and if it does you have to come back to four by way of twenty-seven.
When discussing this point with my husband he asked, "How can we hope for the government to have a practical health care plan when there are all the ( I can say exactly what he said, so I'll say inefficiencies ) in Medicaid and Medicare?" He does have a point. His experience of being in the Army as well as working at the Veteran's Administration Hospital, and now going to the medical center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base has given him a great deal of insight into the system. I know of many people who say to carry your records with you always or it will take months to retrieve them, if they are to be found at all. A military establishment is not the most efficient place to receive treatment because of all of the disorganization. "The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. They have a dozen committees, each committee deciding if they need a committee to decide if they need to do something." (personal communication, 11-1-09)
We all know the hassle we have to go through any time we need to deal with the government, do we really want to go through that when we're trying to get health care?
There was another comment that concerns me, that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are on-board with this plan. That makes me VERY nervous, as a matter of fact. When Hilary Clinton suggested health care reform they were against her, but now they are behind President Obama? Yes, it makes me very concerned about what's in it for them.
There are several things which drive up health care costs. One is the money a hospital loses because they charge $9 for an aspirin. People without insurance can't, or don't, pay the hospital bill because it's $1,000 to go to the emergency room and get a Band-Aid. True, if you just need a Band-Aid you should not be in the emergency room, however the charges for any treatment at the hospital are outrageous. Some of the charges are what is passed on to others because of the people who can't or don't pay their bill, however if the bill weren't so high, it would be more likely to get paid.
My personal opinion is there is no need for a federally run health care system. As my husband pointed out the government has a hard time taking care of the plans it's already managing. What I believe needs to be done is health care reform on a more personal level.
In California there were very high auto emissions so the government said we need cars with lower emissions and a certain number of people to drive those cars. It's up to the car manufacturers to make sure it happens, and it happened, and emissions levels dropped. If the government were to say the same things to the insurance companies, this is what needs to be done and this is when it needs to be done by, it would happen. The same is true in lawsuits against doctors. As I have stated before, doctors are not infallible and should be able to make a certain degree of mistakes. The mentality of the population of this country that somebody made a mistake so somebody must pay through the nose for it is another factor driving health costs up, and something that should be examined closely and dealt with to help bring the cost down.
I am all for lower health care costs, and for every person having health care, however I don't believe leaving it to the Federal government is the way to achieve those goals.
is the website for the Washington Post, and where one can read the article expressing the opinion of Senator Lieberman concerning government run health care. It is a short article, but pretty to the point. I agree with Senator Lieberman that no health care reform would be better than the public option which is managed by the government. Any person who has been in the military would agree, I think, that whenever the government gets involved things go from simple to complex. Two plus two no longer equals four, and if it does you have to come back to four by way of twenty-seven.
When discussing this point with my husband he asked, "How can we hope for the government to have a practical health care plan when there are all the ( I can say exactly what he said, so I'll say inefficiencies ) in Medicaid and Medicare?" He does have a point. His experience of being in the Army as well as working at the Veteran's Administration Hospital, and now going to the medical center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base has given him a great deal of insight into the system. I know of many people who say to carry your records with you always or it will take months to retrieve them, if they are to be found at all. A military establishment is not the most efficient place to receive treatment because of all of the disorganization. "The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. They have a dozen committees, each committee deciding if they need a committee to decide if they need to do something." (personal communication, 11-1-09)
We all know the hassle we have to go through any time we need to deal with the government, do we really want to go through that when we're trying to get health care?
There was another comment that concerns me, that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are on-board with this plan. That makes me VERY nervous, as a matter of fact. When Hilary Clinton suggested health care reform they were against her, but now they are behind President Obama? Yes, it makes me very concerned about what's in it for them.
There are several things which drive up health care costs. One is the money a hospital loses because they charge $9 for an aspirin. People without insurance can't, or don't, pay the hospital bill because it's $1,000 to go to the emergency room and get a Band-Aid. True, if you just need a Band-Aid you should not be in the emergency room, however the charges for any treatment at the hospital are outrageous. Some of the charges are what is passed on to others because of the people who can't or don't pay their bill, however if the bill weren't so high, it would be more likely to get paid.
My personal opinion is there is no need for a federally run health care system. As my husband pointed out the government has a hard time taking care of the plans it's already managing. What I believe needs to be done is health care reform on a more personal level.
In California there were very high auto emissions so the government said we need cars with lower emissions and a certain number of people to drive those cars. It's up to the car manufacturers to make sure it happens, and it happened, and emissions levels dropped. If the government were to say the same things to the insurance companies, this is what needs to be done and this is when it needs to be done by, it would happen. The same is true in lawsuits against doctors. As I have stated before, doctors are not infallible and should be able to make a certain degree of mistakes. The mentality of the population of this country that somebody made a mistake so somebody must pay through the nose for it is another factor driving health costs up, and something that should be examined closely and dealt with to help bring the cost down.
I am all for lower health care costs, and for every person having health care, however I don't believe leaving it to the Federal government is the way to achieve those goals.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Abort or Not to Abort
This week in my research I came across what is an interesting consideration, in my opinion. Should Federal money finance abortions? In reading the article "Health care debate likely to extend into next year" at http://www.examiner.com/ I learned that Congressman Stupak of Michigan is leading a group of about 40 politicians who will not allow the health care reform legislation to come to the floor unless there is allowed to be a vote on whether or not the legislation allowing federal funding for abortion be amended.
As we know there are those who are pro-life, and those who are pro-choice. Regardless of what your stand is on the issue in Ohio abortion is legal. Why would federal money NOT go to assist in paying for insurance that covers abortion, at least for the first one? With the exception of rape there should not be a second abortion unless medically necessary. Insurance pays for addiction clinics. Federal money would be spent to get people off of illegal drugs, for a month or so, so why not abortions? Again, only once, for any preventable reason. Abortion, addiction, whatever. You mess up the first time, I'm sorry, let me help you out. You mess up the second time, I'm sorry, help yourself out. Nobody learns from their mistakes if their mistakes have no consequences.
I say leave it to the states. If a state wants have abortions be legal, fine, if not, outlaw them then put a stipulation in the insurance that it will not cover abortions outside of the state. Is Congressman Stupak concerned about the taxpayers money being spent in ways he believes they won't approve, such as for abortions, or is he simply trying to force his opinion on the rest of us? By the way, Congressman, Medicaid pays for abortions every day.
(For statistics on abortion go to http://www.abortionfacts.com )
As we know there are those who are pro-life, and those who are pro-choice. Regardless of what your stand is on the issue in Ohio abortion is legal. Why would federal money NOT go to assist in paying for insurance that covers abortion, at least for the first one? With the exception of rape there should not be a second abortion unless medically necessary. Insurance pays for addiction clinics. Federal money would be spent to get people off of illegal drugs, for a month or so, so why not abortions? Again, only once, for any preventable reason. Abortion, addiction, whatever. You mess up the first time, I'm sorry, let me help you out. You mess up the second time, I'm sorry, help yourself out. Nobody learns from their mistakes if their mistakes have no consequences.
I say leave it to the states. If a state wants have abortions be legal, fine, if not, outlaw them then put a stipulation in the insurance that it will not cover abortions outside of the state. Is Congressman Stupak concerned about the taxpayers money being spent in ways he believes they won't approve, such as for abortions, or is he simply trying to force his opinion on the rest of us? By the way, Congressman, Medicaid pays for abortions every day.
(For statistics on abortion go to http://www.abortionfacts.com )
Sunday, October 18, 2009
A new kind of insurance?
This week I found a website I had not visited before, and I'm sure I will be utilizing a lot in the months to come. It seems like a fairly obvious place to start looking at health care issues, www.barackobama.com , but for whatever reason I just took a look at it this week, and found a couple of interesting things.
First, there is an issue that is addressed that goes a little something like this:
* Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.
Now to me this is saying that all people who can afford to buy health care insurance HAVE to buy health care insurance. This concerns me for two reasons. First, on paper we have an ample income, however on paper we don't have a Vectren bill that skyrockets to $800 a month, dance classes, gas for the vehicles, car insurance, homeowner's insurance, and whatever else the government says doesn't count in our monthly expenditures. On paper we have money to burn, in reality, not so much.
Another little item is that the plan:
* Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
ummmmm, what? Was I wrong in thinking that health care reform was for all of us who didn't have it because we couldn't afford it, but we still have to buy it? I thought the socialized health care system was all about using a 'free' socialized health care system, much like the one in England and other countries, (which doesn't cost the English a pence out of pocket, other than taxes). So, we are supposed to pay for the insurance, plus pay more in taxes, plus be told where to go, what we can have done, and there will be limits to procedures, etc.? Am I the only one who has a problem with this?
Since I don't want to be the bearer of everything gloomy and doomy, and since I am trying very hard to support the President of the United States, I have found comething positive:
* Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
I completely agree there needs to be medical malpractice reform, as I have said in previous postings. It would be a great thing for the doctors to worry about their patient's rather than how much they think their patient's will sue them for if they say or do the wrong thing.
On another website, www.healthreform.gov , the issue of passing on the debt of people who don't pay to the people who do in the form of a tax. This brings to mind a story. In 2003 my husband and I were blessed with twins. Miami Valley Hospital, in all it's wisdom, double charged us for everything. I can see charging for two babies in the N.I.C.U., but two delivery charges, two room charges, two ultrasound charges, double everything. Well, needless to say we only paid half of what we were told we owed. The insurance company denied the charges, and when I asked for proof of the charges they charges of course they couldn't give us any. These charges, and charges like them, are part of what is being added in taxes to others accounts. These are the kinds of things that need to be changed in the healthcare system, the kinds of things that need to be address and resolved, and the issues that need reform.
First, there is an issue that is addressed that goes a little something like this:
* Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.
Now to me this is saying that all people who can afford to buy health care insurance HAVE to buy health care insurance. This concerns me for two reasons. First, on paper we have an ample income, however on paper we don't have a Vectren bill that skyrockets to $800 a month, dance classes, gas for the vehicles, car insurance, homeowner's insurance, and whatever else the government says doesn't count in our monthly expenditures. On paper we have money to burn, in reality, not so much.
Another little item is that the plan:
* Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
ummmmm, what? Was I wrong in thinking that health care reform was for all of us who didn't have it because we couldn't afford it, but we still have to buy it? I thought the socialized health care system was all about using a 'free' socialized health care system, much like the one in England and other countries, (which doesn't cost the English a pence out of pocket, other than taxes). So, we are supposed to pay for the insurance, plus pay more in taxes, plus be told where to go, what we can have done, and there will be limits to procedures, etc.? Am I the only one who has a problem with this?
Since I don't want to be the bearer of everything gloomy and doomy, and since I am trying very hard to support the President of the United States, I have found comething positive:
* Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
I completely agree there needs to be medical malpractice reform, as I have said in previous postings. It would be a great thing for the doctors to worry about their patient's rather than how much they think their patient's will sue them for if they say or do the wrong thing.
On another website, www.healthreform.gov , the issue of passing on the debt of people who don't pay to the people who do in the form of a tax. This brings to mind a story. In 2003 my husband and I were blessed with twins. Miami Valley Hospital, in all it's wisdom, double charged us for everything. I can see charging for two babies in the N.I.C.U., but two delivery charges, two room charges, two ultrasound charges, double everything. Well, needless to say we only paid half of what we were told we owed. The insurance company denied the charges, and when I asked for proof of the charges they charges of course they couldn't give us any. These charges, and charges like them, are part of what is being added in taxes to others accounts. These are the kinds of things that need to be changed in the healthcare system, the kinds of things that need to be address and resolved, and the issues that need reform.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
A Look at the State Opt Out Plan and Wheelchairs.
On October 2, 2009 at http://voices.washingtonpost.com there is an article titled Senate Finance Committee Releases Its Final Text of Health-Care Bill. Within this article is the text of the health care bill that committee members will be voting on next week. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_amended_100209.pdf
This is a very good document to look at if you are curious about just what it is that will be voted on. I, however, had a little trouble understanding all of it.
One thing I did notice was the state opt out plan. This allows for the individual states to come up with their own healthcare options for their residents and, if the Federal government approved it, that could be offered instead of the Federal plan. One prerequisit was that the insurance must be available to all residents in the state. That is good, I suppose, although I am still undecided about illegal immigrants being eligible for free medical care. Children, absolutely, the adults, if it is life threatening, absolutely. Otherwise, I'm undecided. Sounds harsh, I guess, but as an American citizen I am not eligible for healthcare unless I have insurance, unless it is a life threatening condition, so why should the standards be different for others?
There is also a condition of the state opt out which is that a ten year budget must be introduced that is neutral to the Federal government. There is to be no cost to the Federal government for the state provided insurance. Really? Does that not make sense to anybody else? It seems to me that if there is a plan in place through the government and they are planning to use the money in those states for healthcare regardless, shouldn't that money be given to the states then? Maybe the Federal taxes in those states will be lower because we all know taxes are going to go up to pay for this healthcare if is to be provided. It would really be not right to have to pay the taxes then get no benefit. Almost unAmerican. Almost.
Another item I found interesting is regarding wheelchairs. At present a person may get a wheelchair through medicare and it will be paid for through either a monthly rental, or in one lump sum. I would think if you are a person who knows you're going to be in a wheelchair for an extended period of time the lump sum would be the way to go. Apparently the government and I disagree on this too. On pages 184 and 185 the issue of wheelchair rental versus lump sum payments is addressed. All wheelchairs, with the exception of the complex, rehabilitative wheelchairs, are to be rented on a monthly basis. Only these heavy duty, costly, do it all for you wheelchairs would be paid off in a lump sum.
Again, I am no financial genius, but it seems to me it is a lot more cost effective to pay something in a lump sum than to pay monthly payments for many, many months. Perhaps the government has paid for a lot of wheelchairs in a lump sum when they were only necessary for a few months so the government lost money. I guess a look at the prognosis and an estimation of the amount of time the wheelchair was necessary should have been looked at. I know that would have occured in a private insurance scenario.
Just a note with regard to last week's blog about medical malpractice. There is mention of that in this document on pages 207 and 208, however it says that is up to the states to deal with.
This is a very good document to look at if you are curious about just what it is that will be voted on. I, however, had a little trouble understanding all of it.
One thing I did notice was the state opt out plan. This allows for the individual states to come up with their own healthcare options for their residents and, if the Federal government approved it, that could be offered instead of the Federal plan. One prerequisit was that the insurance must be available to all residents in the state. That is good, I suppose, although I am still undecided about illegal immigrants being eligible for free medical care. Children, absolutely, the adults, if it is life threatening, absolutely. Otherwise, I'm undecided. Sounds harsh, I guess, but as an American citizen I am not eligible for healthcare unless I have insurance, unless it is a life threatening condition, so why should the standards be different for others?
There is also a condition of the state opt out which is that a ten year budget must be introduced that is neutral to the Federal government. There is to be no cost to the Federal government for the state provided insurance. Really? Does that not make sense to anybody else? It seems to me that if there is a plan in place through the government and they are planning to use the money in those states for healthcare regardless, shouldn't that money be given to the states then? Maybe the Federal taxes in those states will be lower because we all know taxes are going to go up to pay for this healthcare if is to be provided. It would really be not right to have to pay the taxes then get no benefit. Almost unAmerican. Almost.
Another item I found interesting is regarding wheelchairs. At present a person may get a wheelchair through medicare and it will be paid for through either a monthly rental, or in one lump sum. I would think if you are a person who knows you're going to be in a wheelchair for an extended period of time the lump sum would be the way to go. Apparently the government and I disagree on this too. On pages 184 and 185 the issue of wheelchair rental versus lump sum payments is addressed. All wheelchairs, with the exception of the complex, rehabilitative wheelchairs, are to be rented on a monthly basis. Only these heavy duty, costly, do it all for you wheelchairs would be paid off in a lump sum.
Again, I am no financial genius, but it seems to me it is a lot more cost effective to pay something in a lump sum than to pay monthly payments for many, many months. Perhaps the government has paid for a lot of wheelchairs in a lump sum when they were only necessary for a few months so the government lost money. I guess a look at the prognosis and an estimation of the amount of time the wheelchair was necessary should have been looked at. I know that would have occured in a private insurance scenario.
Just a note with regard to last week's blog about medical malpractice. There is mention of that in this document on pages 207 and 208, however it says that is up to the states to deal with.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Insurance Reform
In my search for information on healthcare reform this week I have come across a memo from President Barack Obama for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The memo can be seen in its entirety by following the following link: http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/memorandum/medicalliability.pdf
I find it interesting, though not surprising, that healthcare reformation and the current medical liability system go hand in hand.
In the memo it is stated that between 44,000 and 98,000 patients die each year from medical errors. These numbers may be true, but there are several words I would like to see added to the phrase "die each year from medical errors", and then see what the numbers are. Intentional is one, or preventable, avoidable, foreseeable, the list goes on. Yes, people die from medical mistakes. Yes, some of those mistakes are avoidable. Yes, doctor's are human and make mistakes, so why is it that when they do they are to not be allowed those errors? For every mistake that occurs with regard to patient care there is a potential lawsuit. From a paralegal student perspective, that is a good thing. It means lots of work for attorneys, which means they need to hire lots of paralegals. From a personal standpoint, and with a family member working within the medical industry, and in the direct line of fire of such lawsuits, this is not such a good thing.
In the memo there is a mention of the high cost of medical malpractice insurance and the need for doctors to practice defensive medicine. I know of instances where practicing defensive medicine has caused the demise, near demise, or deteriorated condition of a patient. All of the situations could or would have had a different outcome if the medical personnel could have been more concerned with the matter at hand than the worry of what that would mean in terms of a lawsuit. If the doctor works quickly and the patient dies, the doctor is at fault for moving too quickly. If the doctor takes the slower route to extinguish all possibilities and the patient dies, the doctor is at fault for not moving quickly enough. If a risky elective procedure is performed, such as gastric bypass, and there are complications, the doctor is at fault, even though it was purely the patient's choice to undergo the procedure and take the risk knowing the risks involved.
After reading this memo I began to wonder, is there really a need for government healthcare? I do believe there is a need for reform, but would it be better and more cost effective for the reformation to be within the insurance and judicial systems rather than the medical system? Yes, there are measures in place to reduce the filing of frivolous lawsuits, and this is a start. My definition of frivilous, anything that any person of reasonable intelligence and training could and should have been able to avoid. Example: A Florida man has his right leg amputated, his left leg had gangrene and was the one that should have been removed. Gangrene is a rotting of the flesh with a discoloration and odor associated with it. Even if the doctor could not read, he should have been able to see that the leg he was removing was not discolored. If the doctor could not read and was blind, he probably should not have been operating in the first place.
I believe there should be a bit of room for error in the medical profession. If you are a baseball player and throw a wild pitch that hits somebody in the chest and causes their heart to stop are you sued for wrongful death? Probably not. It may sound callous, but accidents happen and people are human, and therefore not infallible.
The following link is for a medical malpractice website and gives a pretty good definition of medical malpractice and how broad of an idea it is, which makes a medical malpractice lawsuit for about any reason possible.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/medical-malpractice-lawsuits.html
While typing I had a thought. What if instead of the doctors carrying the insurance there was a provision in our own medical insurance that covered us in the case of medical malpractice? I don't mean the gleaming errors that are obviously the fault of a medical individual, but the ones that occurred simply because there was not enough information, or because somebody made a simple, honest mistake.
Just as a side note, I found the disclaimer at the end of the memo rather interesting.
I find it interesting, though not surprising, that healthcare reformation and the current medical liability system go hand in hand.
In the memo it is stated that between 44,000 and 98,000 patients die each year from medical errors. These numbers may be true, but there are several words I would like to see added to the phrase "die each year from medical errors", and then see what the numbers are. Intentional is one, or preventable, avoidable, foreseeable, the list goes on. Yes, people die from medical mistakes. Yes, some of those mistakes are avoidable. Yes, doctor's are human and make mistakes, so why is it that when they do they are to not be allowed those errors? For every mistake that occurs with regard to patient care there is a potential lawsuit. From a paralegal student perspective, that is a good thing. It means lots of work for attorneys, which means they need to hire lots of paralegals. From a personal standpoint, and with a family member working within the medical industry, and in the direct line of fire of such lawsuits, this is not such a good thing.
In the memo there is a mention of the high cost of medical malpractice insurance and the need for doctors to practice defensive medicine. I know of instances where practicing defensive medicine has caused the demise, near demise, or deteriorated condition of a patient. All of the situations could or would have had a different outcome if the medical personnel could have been more concerned with the matter at hand than the worry of what that would mean in terms of a lawsuit. If the doctor works quickly and the patient dies, the doctor is at fault for moving too quickly. If the doctor takes the slower route to extinguish all possibilities and the patient dies, the doctor is at fault for not moving quickly enough. If a risky elective procedure is performed, such as gastric bypass, and there are complications, the doctor is at fault, even though it was purely the patient's choice to undergo the procedure and take the risk knowing the risks involved.
After reading this memo I began to wonder, is there really a need for government healthcare? I do believe there is a need for reform, but would it be better and more cost effective for the reformation to be within the insurance and judicial systems rather than the medical system? Yes, there are measures in place to reduce the filing of frivolous lawsuits, and this is a start. My definition of frivilous, anything that any person of reasonable intelligence and training could and should have been able to avoid. Example: A Florida man has his right leg amputated, his left leg had gangrene and was the one that should have been removed. Gangrene is a rotting of the flesh with a discoloration and odor associated with it. Even if the doctor could not read, he should have been able to see that the leg he was removing was not discolored. If the doctor could not read and was blind, he probably should not have been operating in the first place.
I believe there should be a bit of room for error in the medical profession. If you are a baseball player and throw a wild pitch that hits somebody in the chest and causes their heart to stop are you sued for wrongful death? Probably not. It may sound callous, but accidents happen and people are human, and therefore not infallible.
The following link is for a medical malpractice website and gives a pretty good definition of medical malpractice and how broad of an idea it is, which makes a medical malpractice lawsuit for about any reason possible.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/medical-malpractice-lawsuits.html
While typing I had a thought. What if instead of the doctors carrying the insurance there was a provision in our own medical insurance that covered us in the case of medical malpractice? I don't mean the gleaming errors that are obviously the fault of a medical individual, but the ones that occurred simply because there was not enough information, or because somebody made a simple, honest mistake.
Just as a side note, I found the disclaimer at the end of the memo rather interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)