Yes, they will!

I went to a private school, then to an Ivy League college and another same-league grad. school; ran for public office in Allentown PA, and won 24,000 out of 27,000 votes cast. Allentown is the home of Mack Truck and is next-door to what was Bethlehem Steel. Blue-collar workers are not the Blue-man Band, deafened by their own drum-beat and plasticized by their anomolous anonimity. They love a cold beer, a good game and a straight message. They listen; they hear; they think, and they vote for a candidate who promises not just change, but hope!

I hadn't thought of it that way..

But then I don't find Andrew Dice Clay funny either.

Yes tort reform has to be at the core of any single payer system... after all it is not surprising that many doctors charge what they do to cover exorbitant malpractice insurance costs. A small hospital in my area shut down its OB/GYN department after the three doctors there decided they could no longer afford to practice profitably.

Limits on recoveries would be a good start.

In FL (as it may be elsewhere.. it don't know) there's a cap on what you can recover if you sue the State. Anything additional has to be approved by the legislature. I think that would be a good place to start. The lawyers won't like it but... nobody really cares. LOL

generics cost less

no key to success

the world in a mess

folks need a rest

Bush says he's "blessed"

for whiter teeth use crest

Obama - the best

It is my understanding that malpractice insurance costs are more closely related to the state of the investment market than they are to actual malpractice claims.

IMO, there is a lot of disinformation being bandied about regarding malpractice and the claims associated with such malpractice.

http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

The Republican answer to runaway health-care spending is to cap jury awards in medical malpractice suits. For the fifth time in four years, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tried and failed to cap awards at $250,000 during his self-proclaimed "Health Care Week" in May. But this time, the Democrats put a better idea on the table.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also want to save on health care. But rather than capping jury awards, they hope to cut the number of medical malpractice cases by reducing medical errors, as they explain in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. In other words, to the Republicans, suits and payouts are the ill. To the Democrats, the problem is a slew of medical injuries of which the suits are a symptom. The latest evidence shows the Democrats' diagnosis to be right.

The best attempt to synthesize the academic literature on medical malpractice is Tom Baker's The Medical Malpractice Myth, published last November. Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, argues that the hype about medical malpractice suits is "urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies." After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine.

I've heard (perhaps urban legends) that doctors were getting out of OB/GYN due to very high insurance costs. Is there price gouging going on and/or lots of litigation?

A recent Random link on the high cost of insurance:

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080317/OPINION/803170303/1076/OPINION03

Kate is as lost as Hillary. The reason the Democratic Party and LBJ even thought about the civil rights bill was because black people pushed them to recognize it.

The March on Washington, Fannie Lue Hamer, and the voting registration of blacks througout through out the south forced the hands of politicians like LBJ. He was only able to so call "slam through" the civil rights bill because the black power movement in the 60's were boycotting,threatning to riot,and use their voting power.

Hillary did try to down play the role of what the civil rights movement and Dr. King did to get LBJ to move. He would have never did anything if his hand was not forced.

Clinton assisted Walmart in its end-run around organized labor in this country, and her husband went the step further in helping to pass NAFTA. She is no working class hero, but I can think of a descriptor that fits. Starts with "C".

Thanks for the responses Fester, Sugarman, Sue & Maddie (and anyone else who posts subsequently).

It's a complex and tricky business. I have a herniated disc that took over a year and visits to 4 different doctors to diagnose. Why? Because the affected nerve caused both back and abdominal pain. So the first 3 doctors sent me for cheap (but quite unpleasant) abdominal tests. The 4th doctor (a female, btw, who actually believed I had pain, but I digress) was the only one willing to fight the insurance company in order to get me the more expensive MRI. There are certainly more horrible stories than mine, but I'm well aware that the system is broken.

Fester

The US may still have the coolest toys and most innovative techniques, but we're falling behind on basic quality of life measurements for the population as a whole.

Except if those toys and techniques save your life, you might not be so eager to give them up. I sometimes wonder if those countries with socialized medicine rely on the fact that the US does not so if there is really a need for that "innovative stuff", we can always go to the US for it. Just my natural skepticism at work.

Sugarman

it would probably be a floor-level health care system, better than we have now, but not boutique health care with very expensive tests, transplants and such

Same as above. So, does that mean if you need a transplant you just die? Or, if additional coverage can be purchased, then only the poor who need a transplant dies? I realize that might not be much different than the current system, but it still makes reform tricky.

Other considerations would be coverage for preventive care so high blood pressure could be treated more cheaply than the inevitable stroke, and some reasonable co-pay so that hang-nails could be treated with a 99 cent nail clipper rather than a trip to the doctor, etc.

Tort reform is also a tricky balance. Somewhere between getting zillions for spilling hot coffee in your lap, and getting $100 for having the wrong limb amputated. Some way to crack down on and/or expose serial malpracticers might help too.

Lastly, I really don't understand how Obama's plan could work. Assuming private insurance, not single payer, if the risk pool doesn't include young, healthy people, who can opt out, how do we keep costs from going through the roof?

Ah well, to be continued I guess. Thanks again y'all.