• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Republicans want to kill ALL healthcare reform?

Are Republicans against ALL forms of healthcare reform?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 17 51.5%

  • other

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • Total voters
    33
disneydude said:
Tort reform, while I agree should be part of the healthcare bill, amounts to less than 1% of the costs of healthcare. You can reform it all day long and it isn't going to amount to much of anything on its own.
If THAT is the GOP's answer, that explains why they have become such an insignificant party these days.
Click to expand...

Same response to Southern Democrat. I'd go farther, but it would help significantly. While the costs of lawsuits themselves are reletively small, this ignores the defensive medicine that goes on to prevent a risk of these lawsuits. Also, that isn't their entire idea of reform

disneydude said:
I think their other grand idea was "Try to reduce the costs of medical school". :doh
Click to expand...

Your party has plenty of "grand ideas" as well
 
disneydude said:
Tort reform greatly reducing the costs of healthcare is a myth. The costs of lawsuits amounts to less than 1% of all costs involved in healthcare.
Click to expand...

Really? You are saying the ridiculous cost of Liability insurance due to suites has only a measly 1% impact on healthcare? I would laugh watching you stumble trying to support that statement, but you wont, because you will just criticize what i have to say in this post instead of backing up your statement. Prove me wrong.

While I agree that it should be a part of any package, it is not going to greatly reduce the costs of healthcare.....which is also what I was inferring in reducing the costs of medical school.
Of course, everyone would love to reduce the costs for medical students, but if you think that this is going to account for much more that a drop in a bucket for reducing the costs of healthcare, you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

While it wont DIRECTLY drop the cost of healthcare, it will create many more doctors. More doctors wont drop the price of healthcare? Thats a dumb argument.

What is driving up the high costs of healthcare are the billions that are paid out to corporate CEO's of insurance companies and drug companies.
You are not going to do anything to reduce the costs of healthcare until you address those two issues.
Click to expand...

Two issues, I see one issue in your statement. and who is paying them these billions? Maybe if we got rid of taxes on healthcare then they would save these billions and wouldnt have to pay them. But the government is entitled that the money because, you know, they've earned it :roll:
 
MikeVFF said:
Really? You are saying the ridiculous cost of Liability insurance due to suites has only a measly 1% impact on healthcare? I would laugh watching you stumble trying to support that statement, but you wont, because you will just criticize what i have to say in this post instead of backing up your statement. Prove me wrong.



While it wont DIRECTLY drop the cost of healthcare, it will create many more doctors. More doctors wont drop the price of healthcare? Thats a dumb argument.



Two issues, I see one issue in your statement. and who is paying them these billions? Maybe if we got rid of taxes on healthcare then they would save these billions and wouldnt have to pay them. But the government is entitled that the money because, you know, they've earned it :roll:
Click to expand...

The fact is the liability insurance and costs of lawsuits amounts to less that 1% of the costs of healthcare.

However...if you look at the post above, Drunken Asparagus actually makes a very good point and that is, there are larger costs associated with this and that is that amount of additional procedures which doctors undertake to avoid lawsuits. THAT is a very valid argument and actually would have a larger impact on reducing the costs of healthcare.

This is why I say that Tort Reform absolutely should be part of any healthcare reform. But it cannot be the be all end all.
 
disneydude said:
The fact is the liability insurance and costs of lawsuits amounts to less that 1% of the costs of healthcare.

However...if you look at the post above, Drunken Asparagus actually makes a very good point and that is, there are larger costs associated with this and that is that amount of additional procedures which doctors undertake to avoid lawsuits. THAT is a very valid argument and actually would have a larger impact on reducing the costs of healthcare.

This is why I say that Tort Reform absolutely should be part of any healthcare reform. But it cannot be the be all end all.
Click to expand...

So, all in one post, you say tort reform would not drop costs, yet doctors raise costs by additional procedures to avoid civil suites. So explain to me how decreasing this fear of civil suites (tort reform), is not tort reform.
 
MikeVFF said:
So, all in one post, you say tort reform would not drop costs, yet doctors raise costs by additional procedures to avoid civil suites. So explain to me how decreasing this fear of civil suites (tort reform), is not tort reform.
Click to expand...


GO back and re-read....carefully this time. Nowhere do I say that decreasing the fear of civil suits (btw...not suites) is not tort reform.

Drunken Asparagus actually raises a very good point. But your argument didn't address the same issues.

Tort reform is a good part of any health reform package....but again, it cannot be the base because it simply is not going to make enough of an impact to make a difference without more.
 
disneydude said:
GO back and re-read....carefully this time. Nowhere do I say that decreasing the fear of civil suits (btw...not suites) is not tort reform.
Click to expand...

Do not start criticizing my grammar, i have not criticized your many grammatical mistakes in any of these debates we have had. Belittling my spelling wont win any your loosing arguments.

Drunken Asparagus actually raises a very good point. But your argument didn't address the same issues.
Click to expand...

Maybe to the uneducated person, but someone who knows what they're talking about would realize tort reform does address that issue.

Tort reform is a good part of any health reform package....but again, it cannot be the base because it simply is not going to make enough of an impact to make a difference without more.
Click to expand...

No-one said it was the base, but an option that would actually lower the costs. The public option is NOT. Killing every american would ELIMINATE the problem, but it is not a good idea.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Both sides in Washington want change. This is beyond debate
Click to expand...

Everyone wants change, no one wants to address the problems. They want a magic wand that they can wave and make everything better and that's just not going to happen.

In the same sense as we're never going to fix the economy until they're willing to actually tackle the underlying problems. Neither Republicans nor Democrats will though as attempting it is political suicide.
 
Last edited:
It hasn't been publicized very widely but the Republicans submitted H.R. 3400 on July 30 and it's still in committee.
I haven't read it yet but a Republican bill does exist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It hasn't been publicized very widely but the Republicans submitted H.R. 3400 on July 30 and it's still in committee.
I haven't read it yet but a Republican bill does exist.
Click to expand...

And the universe provides:

Text of H.R.3400 as Introduced in House: Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

I don't see anything in there that reforms the problem: insurance.

Like I predicted, Obama care and whatever sad pathetic excuse for a bill the GOP has will fail because neither party has the balls to take on insurance.
 
obvious Child said:
And the universe provides:

Text of H.R.3400 as Introduced in House: Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

I don't see anything in there that reforms the problem: insurance.

Like I predicted, Obama care and whatever sad pathetic excuse for a bill the GOP has will fail because neither party has the balls to take on insurance.
Click to expand...

What would be required to square crap out is Federal intervention in state territory, specifically with scope of practice laws and state mandates.

No one wants to touch the lightning rod issues so I don't expect much but more pushing for a government option and more pushing for credits or some other such nonsense.
 
No, I don't think Republicans want to kill it, but when you consider all of the riots in the streets of people screaming for health care reform worse than during the Vietnam war, I think we as a country need to make this our top priority and propose the government to intervene as the government knows best, otherwise it will be pure anarchy in the streets as health care is the number one issue that is facing our country, and maybe even the world and we need reform now. WHAT DO WE WANT? REFORM! I CAN'T HEAR YOU? REFORM!

And the Marxist pantsh&&ting continues, blah blah....
 
obvious Child said:
I don't see anything in there that reforms the problem: insurance.

Like I predicted, Obama care and whatever sad pathetic excuse for a bill the GOP has will fail because neither party has the balls to take on insurance.
Click to expand...

But it's not just the insurance industry, another massive problem is the ambulance-chasing lawyers and nobody has the balls to take on the legal industry either. That's why doctors have to carry so much malpractice insurance, costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in premiums a year to protect them from the scum-sucking lawyers who will sue knowing that most doctors don't have time to spend in court defending themselves and will just let their insurance pay out without a fight.

Maybe the biggest problem, the one that no one is even talking about, is the fact that current government healthcare isn't even paying it's bills. Getting state and federal programs like Medicare to actually pay out is horrible, they either don't pay at all or pay a small portion of actual costs, leaving hospitals and doctors out in the cold. The government requires that most providers take Medicare, then don't pay for it like they promised they would. I don't see any reason to think that even if we give the government all this money, they'll pay their bills either, they have proven they won't already. We shouldn't trust them with even more money when they screw up so horribly with the money they already get.
 
Cephus said:
But it's not just the insurance industry, another massive problem is the ambulance-chasing lawyers and nobody has the balls to take on the legal industry either. That's why doctors have to carry so much malpractice insurance, costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars in premiums a year to protect them from the scum-sucking lawyers who will sue knowing that most doctors don't have time to spend in court defending themselves and will just let their insurance pay out without a fight.

Maybe the biggest problem, the one that no one is even talking about, is the fact that current government healthcare isn't even paying it's bills. Getting state and federal programs like Medicare to actually pay out is horrible, they either don't pay at all or pay a small portion of actual costs, leaving hospitals and doctors out in the cold. The government requires that most providers take Medicare, then don't pay for it like they promised they would. I don't see any reason to think that even if we give the government all this money, they'll pay their bills either, they have proven they won't already. We shouldn't trust them with even more money when they screw up so horribly with the money they already get.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that, the real problem though is that no one is taking on the whole problem of "Fee for Service". If don't do that, we will never get costs under control. Basically, right now we have a system where insurance companies don't have to compete with each other in many markets, doctors many times focus on giving you more services (many unnecessary) rather than better and more targeted care, individuals have no economic incentives to improve their own health (for example, why do smokers pay the same medicare premiums that non-smokers pay), trial lawyers result in defense medicine, and the costs for the uninsured just get passed on the rest of us.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I agree with all that, the real problem though is that no one is taking on the whole problem of "Fee for Service". If don't do that, we will never get costs under control. Basically, right now we have a system where insurance companies don't have to compete with each other in many markets, doctors many times focus on giving you more services (many unnecessary) rather than better and more targeted care, individuals have no economic incentives to improve their own health (for example, why do smokers pay the same medicare premiums that non-smokers pay), trial lawyers result in defense medicine, and the costs for the uninsured just get passed on the rest of us.
Click to expand...

The reason for the high costs, outside of the ridiculous malpractice insurance, is that insurance and Medicare don't pay their bills. Say a medical procedure costs the hospital $200. They perform the procedure and bill the insurance company or Medicare for $200. Medicare or the insurance say screw you and pay $20, if they pay at all. It doesn't take the hospital too long to realize that if they want their $200, they have to charge $2000 for the procedure. They get paid the $200 it actually costs and everyone is happy, except the guy who comes in the door with no insurance and still has to, by law, pay the $2000 fee.

The only reason it's $2000 is because Medicare and the insurance companies aren't paying what they're supposed to be paying and it increases the costs for everyone.
 
Cephus said:
The reason for the high costs, outside of the ridiculous malpractice insurance, is that insurance and Medicare don't pay their bills. Say a medical procedure costs the hospital $200. They perform the procedure and bill the insurance company or Medicare for $200. Medicare or the insurance say screw you and pay $20, if they pay at all. It doesn't take the hospital too long to realize that if they want their $200, they have to charge $2000 for the procedure. They get paid the $200 it actually costs and everyone is happy, except the guy who comes in the door with no insurance and still has to, by law, pay the $2000 fee.

The only reason it's $2000 is because Medicare and the insurance companies aren't paying what they're supposed to be paying and it increases the costs for everyone.
Click to expand...

That is certainly a contributing factor, but its not the only one. You still have the whole problem of "Fee for Service". You still have tons of unnecessary procedures and tests being performed just so providers can rack up the bill more. You still have consumers completely disconnected from the actual costs of the health care services they are consuming.

What you are describing helps to explain the high out of pocket costs for the uninsured, it doesn't explain why health care in this country consumes 16% of GDP.
 
The fact is the liability insurance and costs of lawsuits amounts to less that 1% of the costs of healthcare.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand that just claiming so does not make it true. Where is the factual evidence that shows what you are claiming (that TORT reform would only amount to 1% of the cost)
 
Lakryte said:
I don't think you understand that just claiming so does not make it true. Where is the factual evidence that shows what you are claiming (that TORT reform would only amount to 1% of the cost)
Click to expand...

According to a new study from Public Citizen, medical malpractice payments to patients who have been injured due to medical errors declined for the third year in a row. The study further shows that the payouts total between merely 0.18% and 0.6% of the overall medical costs in this country.

Is this decline the result of better medical care? Unfortunately, no, according to the study. Instead, fewer injured patients are being compensated. Approximately 98,000 people are killed every year in this country due to medical mistakes, but payouts only go to about 11,000 of them. If there is a medical malpractice crisis in this country, the core of the crisis is sloppy medicine, not frivolous lawsuits, notes the study:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB_Report_200907.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom