Former Sen. Bill Bradley offers a compromise on health care reform

[rhombus]

Since the days of Harry Truman, Democrats have wanted universal health coverage, believing that if other industrialized countries can achieve it, surely the United States can. For Democrats, universal coverage speaks to America’s sense of decency and compassion. Democrats also believe that it will lead to a healthier and more productive country.

Since the days of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have wanted legal reform, believing that our economic competitiveness is being shackled by the billions we spend annually on tort costs; an estimated 10 cents of every health care dollar paid by individuals and companies goes for litigation and defensive medicine. For Republicans, tort reform and its health care analogue, malpractice reform, speak to the goal of stronger economic growth and lower costs.

The bipartisan trade-off in a viable health care bill is obvious: Combine universal coverage with malpractice tort reform in health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30bradley.html

This sounds like a good compromise. Republicans have made a bet to oppose President Obama getting a health bill passed this year at all costs. Now, if Obama puts malpractice reform on the table, Republicans are really, really, really going to look more rigid and inflexible, which will further turn off independent voters away from the GOP. The larger picture? --- afterall, Dems are NOW willing to touch their 'holy grail' while the GOP just slams the door on any compromise on reform.

[hedgehog]

1. If we reformed the way that doctors and hospitals are regulated,

we wouldn't need tort reform. It's a tough problem, every doctor has cases that go bad unexpectedly, and hindsight is 20/20. Still, when there is a pattern of bad results, something needs to be done before a patient gets hurt. Hospitals need to enforce simple measures like handwashing and use techniques developed by industry to prevent mix-ups.

[rhombus]

5. I believe the House bill calls for greater accountabilty from hospitals

Hospital reform and malpractice reform should both be addressed.

[hedgehog]

9. I think you're right - this is part of the health care reform that Obama

has been talking about since last year. It doesn't stop with paying for insurance.

[DrToast]

2. That was one of the first things Obama offered to get Republicans on board

No dice. Why? Because Republicans aren't interested in passing health care reform.

Can we stop pretending otherwise?

[stray cat]

6. maybe it will get enough dems on board?

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Dems tend to get contributions from trial lawyers, although certainly not always

[pot luck]

13. Of course they're not.

He should offer it again just for show. The reason we’re losing the healthcare debate is because we’re not as good at gaming the corporate whores in the media as the Republicans are. Obama and Congressional Democrats should be all over the airwaves offering this “great compromise,” and when the GOP refuse, it will expose them for being more concerned about politics than actually helping the American people. We would then have all the cover we need to do this alone. "We tried to compromise, but the GOP just weren’t willing to meet us halfway."

[stray cat]

3. I'm in favor of tort reform anyway - one reason doctors run tests is to avoid lawsuits!

even if the test isn't needed - it may avoid a lawsuit later on which is more expensive than the tests.

[hedgehog]

10. Thatr's an argument that's never made sense to me. If an x-ray

isn't really needed, isn't the patient being needlessly exposed to radiation? Maybe this is where the best practices committee can step in with some solid standards.

[boppers]

16. United Healthcare ran the numbers on radiation tests...

..and it turns out that they're *increasing* the amount of cancer in their patients, on the aggregate, with excess radiological tests. Even the corporate folks are on board against some forms of defensive medicine, because it eats into profits by damaging patients.

[Better Believe It]

44. You mean doctors order tests in order to find out what's ailing us? That must stop!

If they screw up due to neglect and malpractice their insurance might have to pay victims!

Can't have that.

[Sherman A1]

4. It certainly is a good place to start the discussion

of course the devil is in the details, but it's worth consideration.

[tritsofme]

7. I've always liked Bill Bradley.

We need more men of his breed in Washington.

[saltpoint]

11. Strongly agree.

The more like him we have the better off we'd all be.

He's a peach.

[DrToast]

8. June 15th, 2009 - Obama Open to Reining in Medical Suits

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/health/policy/15health.html

Republicans are interested in one thing: killing health care reform.

[Jakes Progress]

12. Bill remembers honest republicans.

In his day, they favored tort reform based on philosophical reasons. Today's republicans will not compromise for two main reasons.

First, it would give Democrats a victory that they could use to help win the next election.

Second, their new driving force is not an ideology but the money that comes from the corporate interests that will suffer if we get universal health care.

In the old days. This might have flown. Now, even if we volunteered to abandon all medical malpractice and legal recompense against doctors, pharma, and insurance, the republicans (and the blue dogs) would continue to lie and fight against anything that would help people over corporations. Since they have already said they are against even the co-ops, they will likely want to say they will let the insurance companies run the co-ops if we give them tort reform. Oh. And they want us to throw in more tax cuts for the wealthy. The problem is that with so many corporatocrats, they could probably succeed.

[rhombus]

14. The idea here is to further marginalize the GOP

Because if they won't compromise with Democrats with medical malpractice reform on the table, then it says to the larger public, and this matters a lot, that the GOP is opposed to Obama and health care reform at all costs.

[Jakes Progress]

25. I don't think it works that way.

DU people may know what is happening, and we could use this in a nice bar or coffee shop argument, but the truth is that the larger public gets its information from conservative controlled media. They won't report it that way. The larger public will only get the idea that the Democrats are weak and that the republicans are trying to block Democrats from ruining the world. That is how this will be reported. No one thinks the republicans will compromise; the MSM reports that as one of their strengths. Unless Obama is going to get up and start calling names and being very clear about what he wants and about why the politicians who oppose it are sell outs, then all the finagling will get eaten by the media and spit out with republican spin.

[karynnj]

34. Bradley quit the Senate citing the diminished civility in the late 1990s

He was disillusioned with both the Republicans and many Democrats.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter. And Bradley's been away from the game so long he doesn't know that.

It doesn't matter what concessions you offer, what compromises are incorporated, all, or at least 39, of the Senate Republicans will vote against cloture on the bill, any bill, and probably all 40 Senate Republicans will vote against the bill itself, any bill.

They have no problem with the status quo. They like the status quo. They don't care if the status quo doubles the cost of health insurance in less than twelve years.

[rhombus]

17. It matters in the long term picture of framing the GOP as nothing but obstructionists

It's all about getting the public on the side of the Democrats. Forget about the Republicans. Malpractice tort reform, which will be something of a major concession from Democrats, will even give conservative Dem senators and House Blue dogs enough political cover to jump on board. At this point, we are fighting a battle over defining what the two parties stand for, a battle with long-term implications.

[Davis_X_Machina]

21. The public is lost.

A majority already believes that:

-- the plans (HELP and/or HR 3200) would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants
-- they would lead to a government takeover of the health system
-- they would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions

A near-majority (45%) think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly.

This is going to have to get done despite the public.

[rhombus]

22. And that is why this is a long term fight

Once Obama signs a health care reform bill into law and the American people perceive it to be a net benefit, Democrats are going to be rewarded. This is why the fight is not about winning over the public in the short-term but the long-term. And yes, this is going to get done despite the public mood right now.

[last_texas_dem]

27. Unfortunately, I have to agree

Various Freudian slips from prominent Republicans, among other things, have revealed that their objective is not shape compromise legislation, but simply to torpedo reform legislation- with the objective, I suppose, of using its failure against the Democrats in the midterms. The reaction of the typical Repug to a concession by Democrats to include tort reform in health care reform legislation would no doubt be, "That's nice. What else are you wiling to give me on the bill I'm still going to oppose?"

[Laelth]

18. Tort law works on this principle: someone will pay for every injury.

If a tort suit is successful, the defendant who was negligent or reckless pays for the injury (usually his or her insurance company does).

If a tort suit is unsuccessful, the innocent plaintiff, who did nothing wrong, theoretically pays for the injury, but if the plaintiff is poor (most of us are too poor to bear the cost of a serious injury), then "We the People" of the United States pay the cost of the injury (through various social services). If plaintiff loses the suit, he or she normally becomes a massive burden on the state.

So, for every injury, we have a choice--either the state pays or the insurance industry pays. People like me (plaintiffs' attorneys) do our best to make sure that liable defendants pay for the injuries they cause. They usually do so through their own insurance, but I can go after their personal assets if they don't have adequate insurance. Defense attorneys try to make sure that their clients (the insurance companies) don't pay for the injuries their insureds caused. If the defense attorney wins, that means plaintiff bears the cost of the injury (and "We the People" usually pick up the tab).

Republicans favor tort reform as a means of protecting insurance companies. That's it. They want, as always, to privatize profits and socialize risks. They want the government to "bail out their rich clients" when they make mistakes. As usual. Tort reform (like caps on damages and various rules that make it harder for plaintiffs to win) merely shifts the burden for paying for injuries from the insurance companies to the state.

An additional benefit of tort law is that it makes the world safer. Companies that produce dangerous products get "punished" through tort law as a way to teach them to reform their behavior and act more responsibly. When you see a "ridiculous" award, that's usually the jury saying that the defendant acted very recklessly and should be punished for their outrageously unsafe behavior as a means of preventing similar behavior in the future. High jury awards are often effective as a means of making unscrupulous defendants behave like reasonable members of a civilized society. Without the risk of super-high jury awards, defendants will have little or no incentive to reform their dangerous, injury-causing behavior. In this way, tort law makes us all safer.

So Bradley proposes that "We the People" should socialize the costs of malpractice? Yet another way to bail out the criminal insurance industry. No deal.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Proud Liberal Dem]

19. The Pubs need to put up or shut up at this point IMHO

They need to go on the record and tell us once and for all whether they support ANY HCR at all. If the Pubs say they're for HCR, then they need to explain to everybody what they SUPPORT and what they're proposing and commit to and, more importantly, actually ENGAGE in genuine bipartisan negotiations.
If they refuse to do either/or, then the Dems should simply forget about them and push forward with what WE want to do and what a solid majority of the country wants done. They should be given until the end of this week to come out and tell us whether or not they support HCR at all and if they don't, then starting 9/08/09, the Dems should just move full steam ahead and pass the strongest and most comprehensive HCR proposal(with NONE of the concessions previously given to the Republicans during previous "negotiations") and whip the Blue Dogs into shape and get them to vote for it or at least allow a simple majority vote so that it can get done.

[Thrill]

20. Tort reform only for single payer

[flpoljunkie]

24. Fact: Tort Reform Has Not Lowered Health Care Costs in a Single State

Oh, and about those lowered health care costs, stimulated economies and new jobs? More than half of the states have passed tort reform laws, some more than 20 years ago, so we have a number of "laboratories" in which to see what tort reform really does. Let's take a look.

Fact: Tort reform has not lowered health care costs in a single state.

Limiting malpractice suits usually does lower the cost of medical malpractice insurance, which pleases doctors, but these savings are not passed on to the health care consumer. Tort reform doesn't appear even slow down the rate at which health care costs are increasing.

In April Newt Gingrich penned an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer in which he claimed tort "States that have enacted tort-reform measures have significantly improved access to health care, reduced costs, and strengthened economies." As Exhibit A he trotted out a comprehensive tort reform law enacted by Texas in 2003.

The problem with that picture is that health care costs in Texas not only continued to rise after 2003; they rose more than in most of the rest of the country. In 2008, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that Texans enjoyed the third fastest increase in health insurance premiums in the nation. And for many years Texas has led the nation in the percentage of its citizens without health insurance. The 2003 tort reform didn't change that.

But what about the cost of "defensive medicine"? All those extra tests and procedures doctors do to cover their butts in case they are sued? In a recent survey of physicians in Connecticut, 83 percent of doctors estimated that between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, etc. were ordered as a precaution against malpractice liability.

However, there is no empirical evidence that significant numbers of physicians stop ordering extra stuff after tort laws have been "reformed." There is evidence that some physicians order extra stuff when such orders increase their revenues. For a must-read analysis, see "Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum" by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker. See also "The Defensive Medicine Myth" from Americans for Insurance Reform.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mahabarbara/2009/06/seducing-the-states-with-tort.php

[falcon97]

26. Put it on the table!

When they walk away from that, too, the curtain will be drawn back on the people the Blue Dogs are carousing with.

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. "Tort reform" is corporatist Republican bullshit.

If a lawsuit has no merit, let the court throw it out. But to say that there can be NO legal recourse is completely wrong and just another turn in the downward spiral to fascism.

[karynnj]

33. Tort reform is NOT no legal recourse

I know the 2004 ticket had tort reform as a plank with Kerry advocating adopting a system that works in MA to filter out frivolous suits. It would actually be smart politics to settle on a reasonable reform to take away the Republican talking point - even though it is not a major cost to healthcare.

[Becky72]

29. Bradley's recommendation is useless. To him, the public option is optional

When are we going to learn how to read ENTIRE articles? He doesn't even call for a public option. He said, "Universal coverage can be obtained in many ways — including the so-called public option."

Translation: As long as we get universal health coverage, no matter how, things will be alright. The article might as well have been written by Baucus or Conrad.

Let's make up our minds. Do we want a public option or not?

[karynnj]

31. Bradley was my Senator, and he was NO Conrad or Baucus

Bradley ran on universal healthcare when he ran against Gore - he was the liberal candidate.

[Becky72]

32. Tell me what his position is on the public option

According to the article. Does he want a public option? Or does he want anything that can give us Universal coverage?

[karynnj]

36. He has said very little about the current bill other than this oped

He has been out of public life for about a decade - so there are many things he did not comment on.

My point is that in the years he was in public office or running for it he was clearly a member of the Kennedy wing of the party - not the centrist wing which dominated the party in the Clinton years.

[Becky72]

38. But I wasn't speaking about his days as a Senator

I said that this particular article may as well have been written by Baucus or Conrad, because Bradley doesn't see the public option as necessary.

[karynnj]

39. Only because you are reading more into that sentence than is there

[Becky72]

40. What did I say about the sentence?

I said that Bradley does not consider the public option necessary. If he did, he wouldn't have said that there are "many ways" to achieve universal health care. What did I say that qualified as "reading too much" into that sentence?

You admit to not knowing what Bradley proposes as regards the public option. Or do you know?

[saltpoint]

42. I don't think you'd last very long as a politician.

You've slammed the door in the face of a long-standing public servant. Bradley is excellent at negotiation and problem-solving. Has been for a good while, in fact.

You aren't obligated to love his proposal but a rational and pragmatic person might be considered deeply enough invested in health care reform for self and others to consider more than one approach to the temple. Bradley has met criteria for citizenship here. Your shallow reaction doesn't.

Instead you backhand the proposal and bray like a jackass against a good man.

[jenmito]

30. K&R. The Repubs. have been crying about wanting tort reform. If they get it and STILL say no,

this just makes it even MORE obvious that they'd say no to ANY bill.

[Colobo]

35. Sounds good to me.

[Mass]

37. There are no Republicans to negotiate with.

Independently of whether it is a good compromise or not (a different question), the Republican party is not ready for whatever compromise.

[depakid]

41. Oh, that's just fucking brilliant- give away Americans rights

to hold people and corporations to account for harms done to them- call it reform- and then get damn near nothing back in return.

Now, if there was universal single payer coverage along with caps on pain and suffering damages- that might be another matter... but that ain't going to happen anytime soon.

[Clear Blue Sky]

43. Good suggestion from Dollar Bill...nt

[mzmolly]

45. An interesting suggestion.

:hi: