1. "The Obama administration argues that making government medical officials personally liable for damages would make it harder to recruit people to work for the Health and Human Services Department's Public Health Service and other government medical jobs."

Speechless.

It's like when ACORN fought for an exemption to having to pay the minimum wage because it would mean they couldn't hire as many people. Duh.

Posted by: Gary on September 30, 2009 02:46 PM

2. I'm a navy veteran and have private health insurance. I'm also in the VA medical system. In June of this year I had my annual physical at the VA and told them that I suspected that I had a hernia. I got a cursory exam at best and the PA that performed the physical didn't find it. She said she would set up an appointment for me to get an ultrasound. Two weeks later I get a letter telling me that I had an ultrasound appointment on January 6. That's a six month wait. So I used my private insurance and within two weeks saw a surgeon who confirmed that I did have a hernia. Two weeks later I had the surgery from which I'm now recovering. For all you fans of government run health care I'll bet you have never experienced it. I'll also bet none of our elected officials use the VA even if they are qualified to do so.

Posted by: Jim T. on September 30, 2009 06:07 PM

3. this is SO the thinking of these pols. Sue the private doctors. But we don't want to sue the govt. officials, do we???? I despise their double-standard and their attacks on the private sector while being wholly irresponsible at the govt. level. And they wonder why we are disgusted with them.....

Posted by: Michele on September 30, 2009 06:08 PM

4. Hmmmm, What is wrong with this government? They want to investigate and persecute CIA members and then make government medical officials totally exempt from any damages....

Posted by: Tim on September 30, 2009 07:22 PM

5. This just shows that the government has lost any semblance of civility. Kanye West might as well be the Press Secretary for the POTUS. Their attitude is that it is my way or the highway re:Tort reform. They do not seem to care what those who they "serve" want, as evidenced by virtually all of the polls.

They are only looking at the end game - rig the system so that Democrats can win regardless - their utopia. Diabolical, but this scheme has little chance of success, but only if the people rise up and make themselves heard.

Scare tactics ? They come from both sides, but manifest themselves in different ways. The Independents and Conservatives are saying be vigilant or this country could be transformed into an irreversable statist nation and the left says - the opposition is racist or does not want to pass any new health care reform, wants to harm mother earth from not passing Cap and Trade(Tax) - all of them scare tactics - take your pick.

Posted by: KDS on September 30, 2009 07:45 PM

6. Mr. Obama talks to Americans saying that we gotta get "some skin in the game". Which is fine I suppose, but for once in his life, he should actually hold himself and his family to that lofty standard and start walking his talk.

Posted by: Rick D on September 30, 2009 08:01 PM

7. Obama is right. Doctors come into the military or public sector because they get a steady paycheck every 2 weeks for 30 years and don't have to worry about getting sued or some insurance company screwing them with sky high malpractace premiums. Doctors tend to be idealistic, lawyers tend to be pragmatic. The idea that all doctors are evil is primitive.

Advocates of single payer car insurance who want to deal out the racketeering and profiteering of the insurance firms face the threat of those firms exiting the malpractice market which would expose doctors to legal liability. They can also threaten to pull out of the flood and hurricane markets in Florida. If the Federal torts claims act were transfered to the civilian side, lawyers would lose out on the gravy money from trivial out of court settlements and insurance firms would lose out on the ability to buy off lawyers. Lawyers like easy money. Lawyers such as Geoff Fieger that do hang on like sharks tend to get attacked. Obama wants to maintain both the power of the insurance firms to lock out real grass roots reform and to allow lawyers to game the system through trivial out of court settlements.

The deal on Casteneda is that he was an inmate and is entitled to treatment as provided for by applicable law for inmate care. Since the employer may have violated regulations, that employer may be liable for punitive sanction, but the employees probably are not, nor are they liable for civil sanction. The employer may be liable for civil sanction if Casteneda were legal but that depends on due process rights as they apply to aliens. I don't expect the Supreme Court to find for Casteneda.

Posted by: donbless on September 30, 2009 11:48 PM

8. Ahh, the onion is peeled back far enough to expose another layer of their reasoning.
If doctors opt to work for the government, the government grows.
Typical dem tactic. Anything to make themselves bigger.
Oh, and I'm sure a doctor working for the government will have to become a union member.

Posted by: PC on October 1, 2009 07:16 AM

9. The DOJ lawyers are arguing in defense of sovereign immunity. Obama didn't invent this concept and his DOJ isn't the first to argue in its defense. It's a legal principle that's been around for longer than the country. One thing it means is that government employees can't be held personally liable for acts committed in performing their jobs. (In some cases, you can still sue the govt, just not the employee.)

It's not clear what Mark is arguing for here. Does he want to abolish sovereign immunity? Fat chance of that, but doing so would mean being able to sue federal agents personally for any harm or perceived harm that occured as a result of their actions. Is that what he wants?

Posted by: scottd on October 1, 2009 08:38 AM

10. scottd, sorry to be so obtuse. Let me dumb it down for you.
I don't think the government should be the only entity to get tort reform.
Obama is so concerned about losing doctors because they're afraid they might get sued that he wants sovereign immunity. Fine, I've got absolutely no problem with that. The problem I have is that private sector doctors are getting sued over ridiculous things and "victims" are being awarded exorbitant awards for pain and suffering. You can't put a price on human life so why even try? Cap pain and suffering awards at $200,000, make loser pay legal fees and watch how fast malpractice insurance rates and, by default, health insurance rates, drop.

And not that it's on topic but I find it interesting how Obama is all about the sovereign immunity when it comes to PHS doctors but not when it comes to people in the defense and justice department who may have thrown some water in a terrorist's face to save the lives of countless innocent Americans.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 1, 2009 08:49 AM

11. Well, that's certainly dumbing it down...

The government doesn't "get tort reform". It has sovereign immunity -- always has. You seem to think this is an Obama creation or that his is the first administration to defend this ( "Obama is all about sovereign immunity" ), but you're just wrong on that.

So, you're basically arguing that because there are restrictions against suing govt employees for doing govt jobs, there should also be restrictions against suing private individuals and corporations for their negligence or other harmful acts. That's a complete non sequitur. You can argue against torts if you want, but the practice of sovereign immunity has nothing to do with it.

You also argue that tort reform will reduce malpractice insurance rates, but MI costs are a miniscule fraction of health care expenses, so even if MI rates dropped to zero it would have little effect on the overall cost of health care. Can you point to a state that has passed tort reform and thereby enjoyed lower overall health care costs? Texas has tort reform, yet some Texas counties have the highest medical costs in the nation.

You're arguing from emotion -- how about some data to back up your claims?

Posted by: scottd on October 1, 2009 09:21 AM

12. I guess I'm still not being clear enough so let me try spelling it out one more time.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH BARACK OBAMA SUPPORTING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY!

In fact, I wish he'd support it even more (in regards to members of the CIA as referenced in my comments above).

You see, not all of us evil Republicans are against everything Barack Obama is for. Heck, I even support him wanting to send more troops over to Afghanistan!

As for tort reform, no, it's not a cure all and I never said it was. It's just one piece of the pie along with getting more people into health savings accounts and allowing purchasing of health insurance across state lines (it's pro-choice, dontcha know).

And yes, it will reduce health care costs. Washington state has almost no OBGYNs left because MI rates for them in this state were so high that they all left for greener pastures. And what happens when the supply goes down and the demand stays the same? I'll let you re-read your ECON-101 notes for the answer to that one.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 1, 2009 09:41 AM

13. Mark: Your emotion is causing you to get offtrack. I haven't said anything about you or evil Republicans being against everything Obama is about.

You can make all the arguments you want for tort reform, but I'm looking for data. Show me a state with tort reform where medical costs have gone down as a result.

Posted by: scottd on October 1, 2009 09:50 AM

14. From the Investor Business Daily

Doctors' Best Medical Cost-Cutting Ideas: Tort Reform, Tort Reform And Tort Reform

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506988

But you're right. I'm sure doctors don't know anything about health care.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 1, 2009 10:03 AM

15. Here's some more data for you.

http://www.tlrfoundation.com/files/tlr_perryman_factsheet_final2.pdf

Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 1, 2009 10:21 AM

16. Remember all you mind numbnuts.

Although Obamacare is bad...

Romneycare is good...

Posted by: Beth on October 1, 2009 10:27 AM

17. No Beth, Romneycare is not good. Not all of us march lockstep with the Republican party. In fact, I'd say one of the main reasons the Democrats won such large victories in 2006 and 2008 is that Republicans weren't acting conservative enough and many of us just stayed home.

And perhaps you don't remember the big outcry from the right over Reichert's vote for Cap & Trade?

Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 1, 2009 10:35 AM

18. Beth, I could also say,

When Obama increases troop strength in Afghanistan: good.

When Bush increases troop strength in Afghanistan: bad.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 1, 2009 10:38 AM

19. Mark, you quoted two biased sources for data on tort reform. Your Texas paper is absurd -- linking malpractice reform with economic growth in the most casual of ways. Correlation, you may believe, means causation. But that's not how the world actually works.

I am fine with some malpractice reform. I do think some GOP ideas are good -- special courts with doctors to decide cases. If the GOP were in the mood for compromise, I bet it could get that.

But every serious study of the issue shows that it has almost no impact on costs. States like California with malpractice limits have much higher costs then states like WA without malpractice limits. To be blunt, it is a GOP talking point and not a solution at all. I have yet to see an actual serious GOP proposal that would change a single thing in a positive way. John McCain's proposals were far better than the trivial nonsense we're being offered now.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 10:44 AM

20. See, I told you you were right, John. Doctors don't know anything about health care reform. They're just biased!

So I concede. You are a worthy foe. I can't win an argument against someone who refuses to listen to logic.

Posted by: MarkGriswold on October 1, 2009 11:01 AM

21. Mark, any thing you read in the op-ed pages of Investor's Business Daily is partisan. They said that if Stephan Hawking lived in the UK, he would be dead. The famous scientist of course lived his entire life in the UK and is sustained by the NHS.

One doctor writing an op-ed piece does not reflect the truth, no more than the blatantly stupid paper regarding Texas you cited reflects reality.

This is not an editorial, it is not an op-ed: The direct costs of malpractice lawsuits — jury awards, settlements and the like — are such a minuscule part of health spending that they barely merit discussion, economists say. But that doesn’t mean the malpractice system is working.

...

All told, jury awards, settlements and administrative costs — which, by definition, are similar to the combined cost of insurance — add up to less than $10 billion a year. This equals less than one-half of a percentage point of medical spending.

Costs are not significantly lower in states with malpractice laws. Things should be fixed, for the reasoned mentioned in the article I linked to. But the claim that reforming malpractice cases would significantly reduce costs is contrary to real-world evidence and research. It's a GOP talking point, nothing more.

Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 11:20 AM

22. Mark: You've said that tort reform would lower the cost of health care. I've asked for some data to support this claim, but so far, you've failed. In fact, you seem to be missing the point of my question.

You pointed me to an IBS article that says that doctors don't like paying malpractice insurance premiums and they think that tort reforms might reduce those premiums. That's not surprising and I haven't disputed that. What I've asked is, how much will tort reform reduce overall health care costs? The article doesn't address that issue.

You also pointed to a study from Texas which claims that tort reform there has improved the business climate, expanded the economy, and reduced MI costs. Maybe, maybe not -- but it doesn't say that tort reform has reduced overall health care costs.

This shouldn't be so hard. Republicans tell me that tort reform will lower my health care costs. I want to know, how much? It shouldn't be hard to come up with an answer. Several states have implemented tort reform. Have their Medicare costs dropped as a result? (Not in Texas.) How about health insurance premiums? Give me some hard data and I might listen to you.

Posted by: scottd on October 1, 2009 12:01 PM

23. #22 - Why do you need data to support Mark's claim ? Only because you are missing common sense and are too proud and too much of an ideologue to admit that you are wrong and let go of it. Even if Mark provided data, you would find a way to twist it and point out flaws in your opinion.

We don't need to waste our time with you - you don't matter - you are a statist and pro-single payer and nothing will change your distorted and lack of common sense thinking.

Posted by: KDS on October 1, 2009 09:06 PM

24. kds: Thanks for the laugh!

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

Posted by: scottd on October 1, 2009 09:40 PM

25. scottd:
You have already seen facts and its evident that wouldn't know one if it stared you in the face.

Do you have any more dopey conspiracy theories to dispense ?

Posted by: KDS on October 2, 2009 07:53 AM

26. There isn't any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. . . .
Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on October 2, 2009 03:09 PM

27. communal action --> Communism

Posted by: KDS on October 3, 2009 10:27 AM

28. KDS, so families who were too poor to survive on their own during the Great Depression, and who joined with other similar families in order to survive, were Communists according to your definition? I just want to make sure I understand the definition of Communism correctly. Please educate me.

Posted by: TonyT on October 4, 2009 03:45 PM

29. KDS, so families who were too poor to survive on their own during the Great Depression, and who joined with other similar families in order to survive, were Communists according to your definition? I just want to make sure I understand the definition of Communism correctly. Please educate me.

Posted by: TonyT on October 4, 2009 03:45 PM

30. The Depression was far different from today. Communal action then is not the same as it would be today. It was more honest, without community organization groups like ACORN involved. Thus, today's communal action has the potential to lead to communism thanks largely to today's corruption involved in the communal action. Social justice is one of these premises of marxism or if you will communism. Social insurance is a new phrase, which appears to underscore social justice. Just sayin'

Posted by: KDS on October 4, 2009 07:32 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?