AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

In the scandal surrounding ACORN, how many death and murder scenarios are we talking about?

"In his address last week, President Obama said he had talked to some doctors and learned that medical procedures were being done that may not be necessary due to fear of medical malpractice lawsuits, and he entertained the idea of tort reform, saying we could try it in some states with pilot projects.

But there's no need for a pilot project. Texas enacted malpractice reform years ago. The president would benefit from a phone call to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).

Texas passed significant tort reform in 1995, and more reforms have been enacted since then. A 2008 study from the Perryman Group found that perhaps the most visible economic impact of the lawsuit reforms are the benefits experienced by Texans who have better access to high-quality healthcare. Doctors and hospitals are using their liability insurance savings to expand services and initiate innovative programs; those savings have allowed Texas hospitals to expand charity care by 24 percent.

The total impact of tort reforms implemented since 1995 includes gains of $112.5 billion in spending each year as well as almost 499,900 jobs in the state. The fiscal stimulus to the state from judicial reforms is almost a $2.6 billion per year increase in state revenue. In addition, these reforms are responsible for approximately 430,000 individuals having health insurance than would otherwise, and there has been an increase in the number of doctors, particularly in regions which have been facing severe shortages.

But there is more. Those the class-action lawsuits that result in hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs getting nothing more than a coupon also provides justice to the ambulance-chasing lawyers who file those suits. If filed in Texas, instead of getting six-figure attorney fees when citizens get coupons, the lawyers who file those bills get paid like the plaintiffs they abuse do -- in coupons.

Peggy Venable is the Texas director of Americans for Prosperity

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/16/AR2009091601286.html

The story behind tort reform success in Texas:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/

Americans, including President Barack Obama, know they can look to Massachusetts and Tennessee for real world examples of health care 'change'. Another "Laboratory of Democracy", Texas, allows us a look at tort reform.

Quote:

"In his address last week, President Obama said he had talked to some doctors and learned that medical procedures were being done that may not be necessary due to fear of medical malpractice lawsuits, and he entertained the idea of tort reform, saying we could try it in some states with pilot projects.

But there's no need for a pilot project. Texas enacted malpractice reform years ago. The president would benefit from a phone call to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).

Texas passed significant tort reform in 1995, and more reforms have been enacted since then. A 2008 study from the Perryman Group found that perhaps the most visible economic impact of the lawsuit reforms are the benefits experienced by Texans who have better access to high-quality healthcare. Doctors and hospitals are using their liability insurance savings to expand services and initiate innovative programs; those savings have allowed Texas hospitals to expand charity care by 24 percent.

The total impact of tort reforms implemented since 1995 includes gains of $112.5 billion in spending each year as well as almost 499,900 jobs in the state. The fiscal stimulus to the state from judicial reforms is almost a $2.6 billion per year increase in state revenue. In addition, these reforms are responsible for approximately 430,000 individuals having health insurance than would otherwise, and there has been an increase in the number of doctors, particularly in regions which have been facing severe shortages.

But there is more. Those the class-action lawsuits that result in hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs getting nothing more than a coupon also provides justice to the ambulance-chasing lawyers who file those suits. If filed in Texas, instead of getting six-figure attorney fees when citizens get coupons, the lawyers who file those bills get paid like the plaintiffs they abuse do -- in coupons.

Peggy Venable is the Texas director of Americans for Prosperity

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/16/AR2009091601286.html

Some backround:

Quote:

The story behind tort reform success in Texas:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/

JM

A national report that was released today says family health insurance premiums in Texas increased 91.6 percent since 2000 " 4.6 times faster than earnings.

The report by the nonprofit consumer organization Families USA says the rise in health care premiums for workers went from $6,638 for the average Texas family to $12,721 a year, but folks often got less for their money rather than more, according to the report. At the same time, median earnings of Texas workers rose from $23,032 to $27,573, a 19.7 percent increase.

“Our conclusion is that rising health care costs threaten the financial well-being of families across the country,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

The report argues throughout for health care reform, and as Pollack said, if it doesn’t happen soon, more families will be priced out of the market.

In a report last year, Families USA said health insurance premiums grew 5.8 times faster than earnings in Texas. This year, however, the growth rate in Texas is below the national rate in which premiums grew 4.9 times faster than income between 2000 and 2009.

Even so, Pollack said he doubted “anyone in the state will be delighted” by the results this year.

The report cited four key reasons why premiums have risen so quickly:

Increased spending on health care. The report says that nearly half of Americans have chronic conditions, with diabetes alone costing more than $174 billion annually.

Lack of regulation of the insurance industry. Insurance companies can charge more, plus refuse coverage to people based on a variety of factors, including dropping or denying people because of illness, the report says.

A lack of competition in the insurance market. The report says in some areas, too many companies have merged, leaving consumers with too little choice. The report claims health care reform will provide more options.

The “hidden health tax,” in which people with insurance help cover the uninsured. Last year, the portion that insurance companies charged families in insurance premiums to cover people who did not have insurance was $1,017.

Pollack said he believes insured people would pay less to cover uninsured people under health care reform.

Quote:

In the scandal surrounding ACORN, how many death and murder scenarios are we talking about?

Yeah but, yeah but, I heard from my aunt who was told by her plumber's ex-wife that she heard from a email group she subscribes to that ACORN is crooked.

And I'm just reporting it here. If the news media doesn't pick up on this how can we ever expect grass roots organizations like ours to stay planted and keep this the greatest ole country in the whole universe.

Xe spokeswoman Stacy DeLuke did not respond to questions seeking comment. Blackwater altered its corporate name to Xe Services after a series of use-of-force controversies, including a September 2007 shooting in Baghdad by five company security guards that left 17 civilians dead.

I have already said that I think the Human Events piece is right on, that Frank Luntz PhD has pretty well supported their thesis with his recent research, and that the thesis McG posted is provocative and provides some interesting points to think about.

So what are your thoughts on those pieces?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - September 8, 2009
Trial Lawyer TV Ads for Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Grew 1,400 Percent in Last Four Years, Study Shows

WASHINGTON, D.C."Television advertisements soliciting plaintiffs for medical malpractice lawsuits increased from about 10,150 ads in 2004 to more than 156,000 ads in 2008"nearly a 1,400 percent increase in four years, according to a new study released today. The study showed that spending for these ads increased from $3.8 million to nearly $62 million during this time period"a 1,300 percent increase in 2008-adjusted dollars.
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, which sponsored the study, said the finding is a window into what appears to be the growing role of medical malpractice cases in the overall litigation landscape. “Lawsuits are ultimately a business driven by the plaintiffs’ bar, and when you see the marketing of medical malpractice lawsuits exploding like this, it tells you that these lawsuits are a growing sector within the larger lawsuit industry,” she said.

The study was conducted by the Campaign Media Analysis Group. Evan Tracey, the firm’s president and veteran advertising analyst, said, “There is no question that the number of ads airing has increased dramatically,” said Tracey. “As with every other advertising sector, marketers tend to go with what is working,” he said.

This new evidence of growth in plaintiffs’ lawyer medical malpractice lawsuits comes amid an increased focus on medical liability reform"or lack thereof"in the larger healthcare reform debate.

In August, former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Dr. Howard Dean made a telling statement when he answered a question at a Congressional town hall meeting about the lack of medical liability reform in the current healthcare reform proposals. Dean responded, “The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people that wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth.”
“This study is yet another piece of evidence that we need meaningful medical liability reform as a key ingredient of any workable healthcare reform package,” said Rickard.
http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/component/ilr_media/30/pressrelease/2009/468.html

That comprehensive tort reform is a challenge to enact is an understatement. However, the societal benefits are well worth it. Just ask the people of Mississippi. In 2004, after four years of effort, Gov. Haley Barbour
signed comprehensive legislation into law. Often referred to as the “Mississippi Miracle,” tort reform had to overcome the significant trial lawyer presence in the legislature and the state which had earned Mississippi a
reputation for having the nation’s worst tort climate.

Before this law was passed, doctors (particularly specialists like obstetricians) left for states like Louisiana where malpractice insurance premiums were one-fourth of those in Mississippi, and seventy-one insurance
companies stopped doing business in Mississippi. In perhaps the most ironic example, after 60 Minutes aired an expose on the “judicial hellhole” known as
the 22nd judicial circuit, the local CBS affiliate, the show’s producers, and several individuals who relayed their experiences found themselves
defendants in a defamation law suit.

ALEC’s Civil Justice Task Force co-Chair, Mississippi Sen. Charlie Ross, was the primary author of the 2004 legislation and Chair of Judiciary Committee. Just one year after tort reform passed, Sen. Ross detailed the positive
changes on Mississippi’s economic climate in his September 15, 2005 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

Several insurance companies returned to the state including, Mass Mutual Insurance Group, St. Paul Travelers, and Equitable Life Insurance Co. Other
insurance companies eased restrictions and lowered rates. Medical Assurance Company of Mississippi, the largest medical insurance provider in the state, announced a five percent decrease for rates in 2006 after
having increased them by 20 percent the year prior to reform.

In addition, Mississippi has become successful in recruiting new business including FedEx Ground and Winchester Ammunition. In April of this year, Dr. Dan Jones, the dean of the University if Mississippi’s School of Medicine (the only medical school in the state), announced a plan to increase the number of students, residents, and faculty members by 30 percent in the next five years. Mississippi’s business and medical communities and consequently its citizens have benefited significantly from the 2004 reforms.
http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/July2007InsideALEC.pdf

Is It An Issue?

Even though proponents see billions in savings under tort reform, some say those savings are just a drop in the bucket. The CBO concluded in 2004 that malpractice costs make up less than 2 percent of all health care spending and reforms that reduced malpractice costs 25 to 30 percent would shave off only 0.4 to 0.5 percent of total spending. Additionally, the CBO said that reforms wouldn't curb rising premiums, which had more to do with rising costs.

Linda Lipsen, senior vice president of public affairs with the American Association for Justice, said those figures mean tort reform just isn't worth it.
"The current health care debate is focused on two tenets: lowering costs while improving care and covering the uninsured," Lipsen said. "Changing the legal system will not accomplish these goals and only make it harder for those injured by medical negligence, through no fault of their own, to seek legal recourse."

However, the CBO estimate did not account for defensive spending, which most proponents say eats up the real costs. In its 2003 report, HHS estimated that, between malpractice costs and defensive medicine, reasonable tort reforms would save the federal government between $28.1 billion and $50.6 billion a year. Projected out over 10 years, that's far more than CBO-estimated savings for replacing fee-for-service with bundled payments ($18.6 billion), setting up a health IT system ($34 billion) or a tax on the wealthy or insurance companies (about $100 billion).

"Even if it costs 2 cents, why wouldn't we want to eliminate those costs?" asked Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association. "In the grand scheme of things, it's not the mother lode of costs, but it's certainly not insignificant."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20090831_5711.php

Foxfyre wrote:

I have already said that I think the Human Events piece is right on, that Frank Luntz PhD has pretty well supported their thesis with his recent research, and that the thesis McG posted is provocative and provides some interesting points to think about.

So what are your thoughts on those pieces?

I too think that the thesis McG posted provides some interesting points to think about. As for the Human Events piece, it is just the typical farrago of lies, distortions, wishful thinking, self-delusion, hypocrisy, and internet tough-guy-ism that I've come to expect from the conservative crankocracy. So when you said that this article "pretty well sums up where I think American conservatives are mostly coming from these days," I find myself in the unaccustomed position of agreeing with you.

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I have already said that I think the Human Events piece is right on, that Frank Luntz PhD has pretty well supported their thesis with his recent research, and that the thesis McG posted is provocative and provides some interesting points to think about.

So what are your thoughts on those pieces?

I too think that the thesis McG posted provides some interesting points to think about. As for the Human Events piece, it is just the typical farrago of lies, distortions, wishful thinking, self-delusion, hypocrisy, and internet tough-guy-ism that I've come to expect from the conservative crankocracy. So when you said that this article "pretty well sums up where I think American conservatives are mostly coming from these days," I find myself in the unaccustomed position of agreeing with you.

Could you be more specific? I mean I can call the Easter Bunny a liar or accuse him of all those other derogatory terms and it doesn't necessarily make it so. Why do you call them lies, etc.? Is your opinion based on partisan talking points? Or ideological mantra? Personal prejudices? Or based on substance?

Why don't you give us an example of one or two lies from that Human Events piece I posted and let's see if we can agree?

I invite you to point out one or two statements from that piece and show HOW they are a lie or factually untrue. Just saying something is a lie won't cut it. You have to be able to show HOW it is a lie and back it up with something more substantial than your own prejudice or group mentality.

Could you be more specific? I mean I can call the Easter Bunny a liar or accuse him of all those other derogatory terms and it doesn't necessarily make it so. Why do you call them lies, etc.? Is your opinion based on partisan talking points? Or ideological mantra? Personal prejudices? Or based on substance?

Why don't you give us an example of one or two lies from that Human Events piece I posted and let's see if we can agree?

Texas for instance, since tort reform, is having trouble keeping up with licensing processes because there are so many physicians and medical providers wanting to move to that state. That can't be seen as a bad thing for Texas.

Good. Perhaps we can have a good discussion.

I don't know if I agree with every statement listed because I didn't evaluate that closely when I posted the piece. You apparently did since you seem to declare them all lies.

Good. Perhaps we can have a good discussion.

I don't know if I agree with every statement listed because I didn't evaluate that closely when I posted the piece. You apparently did since you seem to declare them all lies. I would just like to know which you consider to be assertions that are not true and a basis other than personal prejudice for your opinion.