28 July 2010, 8:20 pm
All I remember reading was getting rid of "junk" lawsuits, which has a negligible effect on costs, and buying insurance across state lines, which could inflict inadequate insurance on many employees. (If you work in a state, like Maine, with fairly good coverage, do you really want your employers to have the option to trade that in for cheaper insurance plans from somewhere like Mississippi? Yes, it may be cheaper for you and your employer, unless you get sick.) Do you really think you'd be able to keep your existing insurance from your employer, if 3 or 4 other states offer cheaper plans? Please, don't just say "it'll be better", or "anything would be better", I seriously want to know specifically what you think would be better, or what I missed. ABC - do you seriously believe that ALL lawsuits would be dismissed? I think they would all still be required to carry malpractice insurance. Ask me... - We didn't get British or Canadian health care, we didn't even get a public option. From the CBO: Several studies have found that various types of restrictions on malpractice liability can indeed reduce total awards and thereby lead to lower premiums for malpractice insurance. By themselves, however, such changes do not affect economic efficiency: they modify the distribution of gains and losses to individuals and groups but do not create benefits or costs for society as a whole. The evidence for indirect effects on efficiency--through changes in defensive medicine, the availability of medical care, or the extent of malpractice--is at best ambiguous. And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine I'm sorry, but seriously, do you people still believe that the health care bill provides a government option?... Read More »
Share on del.icio.us
Share on digg
Share on Technorati
Share on reddit
Share on Yahoo!
Share on Furl
