The health-care law’s success story

The law has two overarching goals: Cover almost everyone, and slow the growth of medical care costs. The goals are equally important. Too little coverage, and premiums in the exchanges will be unaffordable; too rapid a cost increase, and the federal government will not be able to afford the subsidies.

Even as coverage efforts are sputtering, success on the cost front is becoming more noticeable. Since 2010, the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average in the prior 40 years

The Affordable Care Act is a key to the underlying change. Starting in 2010, the ACA lowered the annual increases that Medicare pays to hospitals, home health agencies and private insurance plans. Together, these account for 5 percent of the post-2010 cost slowdown

If cost growth continues at its low pace, the cumulative savings to the federal government would be more than $750 billion over the next decade. Such savings are likely to dwarf anything that comes out of Congress this year.

Hellsangel wrote:Dear WaPo Brigade, please don't try so hard. Aren't the enrollment numbers supposed to be out this week?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/politics/obamacare/index.html wrote:The wait is going to be a little longer for the official enrollment numbers from the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges. The Obama administration is expected to release them at some point this week but has yet to give an official time frame.

Hellsangel wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Dear WaPo Brigade, please don't try so hard. Aren't the enrollment numbers supposed to be out this week?

Oh well. Never mind.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/politics/obamacare/index.html wrote:The wait is going to be a little longer for the official enrollment numbers from the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges. The Obama administration is expected to release them at some point this week but has yet to give an official time frame.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Dear WaPo Brigade, please don't try so hard. Aren't the enrollment numbers supposed to be out this week?

Oh well. Never mind.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/politics/obamacare/index.html wrote:The wait is going to be a little longer for the official enrollment numbers from the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges. The Obama administration is expected to release them at some point this week but has yet to give an official time frame.

 
 
Keep in mind that it is VALUE based system not VOLUME based or for PROFIT operation. Main goal is to ensure that every American is covered.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Dear WaPo Brigade, please don't try so hard. Aren't the enrollment numbers supposed to be out this week?

Oh well. Never mind.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/politics/obamacare/index.html wrote:The wait is going to be a little longer for the official enrollment numbers from the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges. The Obama administration is expected to release them at some point this week but has yet to give an official time frame.

 
 
Keep in mind that it is VALUE based system not VOLUME based or for PROFIT operation. Main goal is to ensure that every American is covered.

You seem to forget that the insurance is offered by *private* insurance companies. Last I checked, their goal is still profit. Sorry, but we don't live in your Utopian commie land.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Dear WaPo Brigade, please don't try so hard. Aren't the enrollment numbers supposed to be out this week?

Oh well. Never mind.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/politics/obamacare/index.html wrote:The wait is going to be a little longer for the official enrollment numbers from the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges. The Obama administration is expected to release them at some point this week but has yet to give an official time frame.

 
 
Keep in mind that it is VALUE based system not VOLUME based or for PROFIT operation. Main goal is to ensure that every American is covered.

You seem to forget that the insurance is offered by *private* insurance companies. Last I checked, their goal is still profit. Sorry, but we don't live in your Utopian commie land.

Is Medicare run by commies?

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Oh well. Never mind.

 
 
Keep in mind that it is VALUE based system not VOLUME based or for PROFIT operation. Main goal is to ensure that every American is covered.

You seem to forget that the insurance is offered by *private* insurance companies. Last I checked, their goal is still profit. Sorry, but we don't live in your Utopian commie land.

Is Medicare run by commies?

Check your pay stub, the next time. You are contributing towards Medicare. If they don't have enough people, let alone young healthy people, signing up, Obamacare won't be solvent.  Next year when Insurance companies start dropping Small businesses thanks to Obamacare, we can talk about your VALUE based system.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote: 
 
Keep in mind that it is VALUE based system not VOLUME based or for PROFIT operation. Main goal is to ensure that every American is covered.

You seem to forget that the insurance is offered by *private* insurance companies. Last I checked, their goal is still profit. Sorry, but we don't live in your Utopian commie land.

Is Medicare run by commies?

Check your pay stub, the next time. You are contributing towards Medicare. If they don't have enough people, let alone young healthy people, signing up, Obamacare won't be solvent.  Next year when Insurance companies start dropping Small businesses thanks to Obamacare, we can talk about your VALUE based system.

 
Hmmm.. Obamacare is going to bankrupt Medicare, What's next? World is going to come to an end because of Obamacare.

Hellsangel wrote:If they don't have enough people, let alone young healthy people, signing up, Obamacare won't be solvent.  Next year when Insurance companies start dropping Small businesses thanks to Obamacare,

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:If they don't have enough people, let alone young healthy people, signing up, Obamacare won't be solvent.  Next year when Insurance companies start dropping Small businesses thanks to Obamacare,

 
 
Does the above make any sense? Let's pretend for a minute that Insurance companies drop all Small businesses, where would they (employees) go, to Obamacare, isn't it? In which case Obamacare might end up with a surplus.
 
BTW, several small business owners are actually thinking of not offering health benefits, it's becoming too expensive for them, per several of them, Obamacare is a boon, they will reimburse a portion of premium and ask their employees to purchase individual plans.

the essence of the law - the health insurance that's available to people - is working just fine

confuzzled dude wrote:Insurance companies have routinely dropped coverage for 100s of thousands of insurers annually, back then repubs decried such practices as unethical however, now they became best buddies of insurance companies and attributing it to ACA.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Insurance companies have routinely dropped coverage for 100s of thousands of insurers annually, back then repubs decried such practices as unethical however, now they became best buddies of insurance companies and attributing it to ACA.

I will write to Obama ji to include all the Enrollees into the Medicare program but at a different premium. The pvt insurance can compete or gladly ignore the new customers.

They all know one thing:

Republicans - cut the budget for Obamacare

Tea Partyers - cancel obamacare.

Insurance industry - raise the premium

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Insurance companies have routinely dropped coverage for 100s of thousands of insurers annually, back then repubs decried such practices as unethical however, now they became best buddies of insurance companies and attributing it to ACA.

I will write to Obama ji to include all the Enrollees into the Medicare program but at a different premium. The pvt insurance can compete or gladly ignore the new customers.

They all know one thing:

Republicans - cut the budget for Obamacare

Tea Partyers - cancel obamacare.

Insurance industry - raise the premium

 
 
Medical care in India, a country with socialistic leaning, is competitive; You can shop around to get a better deal & pick the doctor/surgeon you like where as in capitalistic America there is no such option. Insurance companies call all the shots. Go figure.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote: Please dont talk about India ?  How is one supposed to shop around with nothing in his pocket ????

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Insurance companies have routinely dropped coverage for 100s of thousands of insurers annually, back then repubs decried such practices as unethical however, now they became best buddies of insurance companies and attributing it to ACA.

I will write to Obama ji to include all the Enrollees into the Medicare program but at a different premium. The pvt insurance can compete or gladly ignore the new customers.

They all know one thing:

Republicans - cut the budget for Obamacare

Tea Partyers - cancel obamacare.

Insurance industry - raise the premium

 
 
Medical care in India, a country with socialistic leaning, is competitive; You can shop around to get a better deal & pick the doctor/surgeon you like where as in capitalistic America there is no such option. Insurance companies call all the shots. Go figure.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Insurance companies have routinely dropped coverage for 100s of thousands of insurers annually, back then repubs decried such practices as unethical however, now they became best buddies of insurance companies and attributing it to ACA.

I will write to Obama ji to include all the Enrollees into the Medicare program but at a different premium. The pvt insurance can compete or gladly ignore the new customers.

They all know one thing:

Republicans - cut the budget for Obamacare

Tea Partyers - cancel obamacare.

Insurance industry - raise the premium

 
 
Medical care in India, a country with socialistic leaning, is competitive; You can shop around to get a better deal & pick the doctor/surgeon you like where as in capitalistic America there is no such option. Insurance companies call all the shots. Go figure.

yeah great point. on similar note, in india you have several choices of mass transport: rickshaw, autorickshaw, goods train, metro trains, buses, bicycle etc whereas in "free" america you are controlled by the tyranny of the automobile.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Insurance companies have routinely dropped coverage for 100s of thousands of insurers annually, back then repubs decried such practices as unethical however, now they became best buddies of insurance companies and attributing it to ACA.

I will write to Obama ji to include all the Enrollees into the Medicare program but at a different premium. The pvt insurance can compete or gladly ignore the new customers.

They all know one thing:

Republicans - cut the budget for Obamacare

Tea Partyers - cancel obamacare.

Insurance industry - raise the premium

 
 
Medical care in India, a country with socialistic leaning, is competitive; You can shop around to get a better deal & pick the doctor/surgeon you like where as in capitalistic America there is no such option. Insurance companies call all the shots. Go figure.

yeah great point. on similar note, in india you have several choices of mass transport: rickshaw, autorickshaw, goods train, metro trains, buses, bicycle etc whereas in "free" america you are controlled by the tyranny of the automobile.

 
 
The most expensive healthcare among developed countries with mediocre outcome must be something to brag about.

goodcitizn wrote:Here's a flash for you guys. The two biggest lobbies are the insurance companies and the drug companies neither of which benefit from Obamacare as they cut into their potential profits. Now you know why the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare. Money is power and power is politics.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:Here's a flash for you guys. The two biggest lobbies are the insurance companies and the drug companies neither of which benefit from Obamacare as they cut into their potential profits. Now you know why the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare. Money is power and power is politics.

And you think Democrats are not in the pockets of the insurance lobby? How much did the insurance companies contribute to Democrats?

PS: Let us not even talk about Tort reform and how much the Trial Lawyers' association contributes to Democrats.

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:Here's a flash for you guys. The two biggest lobbies are the insurance companies and the drug companies neither of which benefit from Obamacare as they cut into their potential profits. Now you know why the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare. Money is power and power is politics.

And you think Democrats are not in the pockets of the insurance lobby? How much did the insurance companies contribute to Democrats?

PS: Let us not even talk about Tort reform and how much the Trial Lawyers' association contributes to Democrats.

In comparison, the republicans always had deeper pockets from the contributions of lobbyists including the oil lobby that enriched the coffers of the Bushes. Obamacare has the right motive to help those who aren't able to get coverage otherwise but very poorly implemented. The republicans are having a field day over it.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:Here's a flash for you guys. The two biggest lobbies are the insurance companies and the drug companies neither of which benefit from Obamacare as they cut into their potential profits. Now you know why the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare. Money is power and power is politics.

And you think Democrats are not in the pockets of the insurance lobby? How much did the insurance companies contribute to Democrats?

PS: Let us not even talk about Tort reform and how much the Trial Lawyers' association contributes to Democrats.

In comparison, the republicans always had deeper pockets from the contributions of lobbyists including the oil lobby that enriched the coffers of the Bushes. Obamacare has the right motive to help those who aren't able to get coverage otherwise but very poorly implemented. The republicans are having a field day over it.

There are only two ways Obamacare can go:
1) It will end up being a single payer system which will be a disaster in a country of 300 million.
2) It will jack up everyone's premiums because of the way it is implemented including that of those who get insurance through their employers.

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:Here's a flash for you guys. The two biggest lobbies are the insurance companies and the drug companies neither of which benefit from Obamacare as they cut into their potential profits. Now you know why the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare. Money is power and power is politics.

And you think Democrats are not in the pockets of the insurance lobby? How much did the insurance companies contribute to Democrats?

PS: Let us not even talk about Tort reform and how much the Trial Lawyers' association contributes to Democrats.

In comparison, the republicans always had deeper pockets from the contributions of lobbyists including the oil lobby that enriched the coffers of the Bushes. Obamacare has the right motive to help those who aren't able to get coverage otherwise but very poorly implemented. The republicans are having a field day over it.

There are only two ways Obamacare can go:
1) It will end up being a single payer system which will be a disaster in a country of 300 million.
2) It will jack up everyone's premiums because of the way it is implemented including that of those who get insurance through their employers.

Let us not buy into the fear that a national healthcare program is a commie concept that would bankrupt the country. There are numerous countries that have successfully covered their citizens nationally like Canada. A single payer system undermines the ability of insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors and proprietary hospitals from fleecing the citizens. Why should Medicare, Medicaid and government grants bear the brunt of such profit-mongering organizations whose contributions to elections are making their clocks tick? It is easier to infuse fear to sway the public opinion like Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify invasion than to give initiatives like Obamacare a chance.

When the government came out with the DRG's (drug related groups) in the 80's there was also the propaganda that calamity would strike healthcare since it went against the capitalist concept of profit-mongering. That initiative went a long way in reducing the cost of healthcare and lower the premiums. I don't buy into the fear tactics of lobbyists and politicians.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:And you think Democrats are not in the pockets of the insurance lobby? How much did the insurance companies contribute to Democrats?

PS: Let us not even talk about Tort reform and how much the Trial Lawyers' association contributes to Democrats.

In comparison, the republicans always had deeper pockets from the contributions of lobbyists including the oil lobby that enriched the coffers of the Bushes. Obamacare has the right motive to help those who aren't able to get coverage otherwise but very poorly implemented. The republicans are having a field day over it.

There are only two ways Obamacare can go:
1) It will end up being a single payer system which will be a disaster in a country of 300 million.
2) It will jack up everyone's premiums because of the way it is implemented including that of those who get insurance through their employers.

Let us not buy into the fear that a national healthcare program is a commie concept that would bankrupt the country. There are numerous countries that have successfully covered their citizens nationally like Canada. A single payer system undermines the ability of insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors and proprietary hospitals from fleecing the citizens. Why should Medicare, Medicaid and government grants bear the brunt of such profit-mongering organizations whose contributions to elections are making their clocks tick? It is easier to infuse fear to sway the public opinion like Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify invasion than to give initiatives like Obamacare a chance.

When the government came out with the DRG's (drug related groups) in the 80's there was also the propaganda that calamity would strike healthcare since it went against the capitalist concept of profit-mongering. That initiative went a long way in reducing the cost of healthcare and lower the premiums. I don't buy into the fear tactics of lobbyists and politicians.

What is the population of Canada? 1/10th that of the United States. In spite of that I have heard  enough Canadians who tell me the problems with their Government controlled healthcare especially for long term care. I know enough people who have been affected by the inefficiencies of the government controlled healthcare in the UK. What the UK system did was to destroy the incentive for people to work in healthcare. And their system to import healthcare workers is not going all that well either.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:In comparison, the republicans always had deeper pockets from the contributions of lobbyists including the oil lobby that enriched the coffers of the Bushes. Obamacare has the right motive to help those who aren't able to get coverage otherwise but very poorly implemented. The republicans are having a field day over it.

There are only two ways Obamacare can go:
1) It will end up being a single payer system which will be a disaster in a country of 300 million.
2) It will jack up everyone's premiums because of the way it is implemented including that of those who get insurance through their employers.

Let us not buy into the fear that a national healthcare program is a commie concept that would bankrupt the country. There are numerous countries that have successfully covered their citizens nationally like Canada. A single payer system undermines the ability of insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors and proprietary hospitals from fleecing the citizens. Why should Medicare, Medicaid and government grants bear the brunt of such profit-mongering organizations whose contributions to elections are making their clocks tick? It is easier to infuse fear to sway the public opinion like Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify invasion than to give initiatives like Obamacare a chance.

When the government came out with the DRG's (drug related groups) in the 80's there was also the propaganda that calamity would strike healthcare since it went against the capitalist concept of profit-mongering. That initiative went a long way in reducing the cost of healthcare and lower the premiums. I don't buy into the fear tactics of lobbyists and politicians.

What is the population of Canada? 1/10th that of the United States. In spite of that I have heard  enough Canadians who tell me the problems with their Government controlled healthcare especially for long term care. I know enough people who have been affected by the inefficiencies of the government controlled healthcare in the UK. What the UK system did was to destroy the incentive for people to work in healthcare. And their system to import healthcare workers is not going all that well either.

I know several canadians, both from having lived there and working with canadian customers - they all HATE their healthcare system with the long waits and subpar treatment (their words)

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:And you think Democrats are not in the pockets of the insurance lobby? How much did the insurance companies contribute to Democrats?

PS: Let us not even talk about Tort reform and how much the Trial Lawyers' association contributes to Democrats.

In comparison, the republicans always had deeper pockets from the contributions of lobbyists including the oil lobby that enriched the coffers of the Bushes. Obamacare has the right motive to help those who aren't able to get coverage otherwise but very poorly implemented. The republicans are having a field day over it.

There are only two ways Obamacare can go:
1) It will end up being a single payer system which will be a disaster in a country of 300 million.
2) It will jack up everyone's premiums because of the way it is implemented including that of those who get insurance through their employers.

Let us not buy into the fear that a national healthcare program is a commie concept that would bankrupt the country. There are numerous countries that have successfully covered their citizens nationally like Canada. A single payer system undermines the ability of insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors and proprietary hospitals from fleecing the citizens. Why should Medicare, Medicaid and government grants bear the brunt of such profit-mongering organizations whose contributions to elections are making their clocks tick? It is easier to infuse fear to sway the public opinion like Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify invasion than to give initiatives like Obamacare a chance.

When the government came out with the DRG's (drug related groups) in the 80's there was also the propaganda that calamity would strike healthcare since it went against the capitalist concept of profit-mongering. That initiative went a long way in reducing the cost of healthcare and lower the premiums. I don't buy into the fear tactics of lobbyists and politicians.

What is the population of Canada? 1/10th that of the United States. In spite of that I have heard  enough Canadians who tell me the problems with their Government controlled healthcare especially for long term care. I know enough people who have been affected by the inefficiencies of the government controlled healthcare in the UK. What the UK system did was to destroy the incentive for people to work in healthcare. And their system to import healthcare workers is not going all that well either.

Hellsangel wrote:A quick question to you GC - How much does litigation factor into high healthcare costs in the US according to you? Especially malpractice insurance premiums.

Propagandhi711 wrote:I know several canadians, both from having lived there and working with canadian customers - they all HATE their healthcare system with the long waits and subpar treatment (their words)

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:A quick question to you GC - How much does litigation factor into high healthcare costs in the US according to you? Especially malpractice insurance premiums.

THAT'S A BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT NO ONE WANTS TO SEE.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:A quick question to you GC - How much does litigation factor into high healthcare costs in the US according to you? Especially malpractice insurance premiums.

THAT'S A BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT NO ONE WANTS TO SEE.

And guess which group of politicians benefits from the lobbying group that likes to keep it that way.

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:A quick question to you GC - How much does litigation factor into high healthcare costs in the US according to you? Especially malpractice insurance premiums.

THAT'S A BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT NO ONE WANTS TO SEE.

And guess which group of politicians benefits from the lobbying group that likes to keep it that way.

I am curious to hear your take on it.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:A quick question to you GC - How much does litigation factor into high healthcare costs in the US according to you? Especially malpractice insurance premiums.

THAT'S A BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT NO ONE WANTS TO SEE.

And guess which group of politicians benefits from the lobbying group that likes to keep it that way.

I am curious to hear your take on it.

It is very simple. Democrats don't want to touch Tort Reform with a mile long pole. They are probably the only recipients of contributions from Tort lawyers. (I will have to recheck that). And Tort lawyers contribute heavily. In fact quite a few of them are tort lawyers turned politicians.

If they began addressing that, it would go a long way towards lowering health care costs.

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:THAT'S A BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT NO ONE WANTS TO SEE.

And guess which group of politicians benefits from the lobbying group that likes to keep it that way.

I am curious to hear your take on it.

It is very simple. Democrats don't want to touch Tort Reform with a mile long pole. They are probably the only recipients of contributions from Tort lawyers. (I will have to recheck that). And Tort lawyers contribute heavily. In fact quite a few of them are tort lawyers turned politicians.

If they began addressing that, it would go a long way towards lowering health care costs.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I think we have problems on both sides of the floor. I have consistenly been vocal against the artificially set malpractice premiums that play into the pocket books of attorneys who specialize in this field. Tort reform is badly needed.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:And guess which group of politicians benefits from the lobbying group that likes to keep it that way.

I am curious to hear your take on it.

It is very simple. Democrats don't want to touch Tort Reform with a mile long pole. They are probably the only recipients of contributions from Tort lawyers. (I will have to recheck that). And Tort lawyers contribute heavily. In fact quite a few of them are tort lawyers turned politicians.

If they began addressing that, it would go a long way towards lowering health care costs.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I think we have problems on both sides of the floor. I have consistenly been vocal against the artificially set malpractice premiums that play into the pocket books of attorneys who specialize in this field. Tort reform is badly needed.

I found the figures on how the Tort Lawyer's association contributes:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000065&cycle=2012

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:I am curious to hear your take on it.

It is very simple. Democrats don't want to touch Tort Reform with a mile long pole. They are probably the only recipients of contributions from Tort lawyers. (I will have to recheck that). And Tort lawyers contribute heavily. In fact quite a few of them are tort lawyers turned politicians.

If they began addressing that, it would go a long way towards lowering health care costs.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I think we have problems on both sides of the floor. I have consistenly been vocal against the artificially set malpractice premiums that play into the pocket books of attorneys who specialize in this field. Tort reform is badly needed.

I found the figures on how the Tort Lawyer's association contributes:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000065&cycle=2012

True but very small compared to the fact that $700,000 per day is spent by lobbyists in insurance and hmo industries to kill healthcare reforms.

http://www.campaignmoney.org/HMO_insurance_spend_to_kill_reform

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:It is very simple. Democrats don't want to touch Tort Reform with a mile long pole. They are probably the only recipients of contributions from Tort lawyers. (I will have to recheck that). And Tort lawyers contribute heavily. In fact quite a few of them are tort lawyers turned politicians.

If they began addressing that, it would go a long way towards lowering health care costs.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I think we have problems on both sides of the floor. I have consistenly been vocal against the artificially set malpractice premiums that play into the pocket books of attorneys who specialize in this field. Tort reform is badly needed.

I found the figures on how the Tort Lawyer's association contributes:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000065&cycle=2012

True but very small compared to the fact that $700,000 per day is spent by lobbyists in insurance and hmo industries to kill healthcare reforms.

http://www.campaignmoney.org/HMO_insurance_spend_to_kill_reform

Here are the figures from 2005 to 2008:

http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=421&ext=2#tableid1

They contribute quite a bit to Democrats as well. But when you look at how Tort Lawyers contribute, the figures are quite skewed in favor of Democrats. I think any healthcare reform should begin by addressing tort reform.

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I think we have problems on both sides of the floor. I have consistenly been vocal against the artificially set malpractice premiums that play into the pocket books of attorneys who specialize in this field. Tort reform is badly needed.

I found the figures on how the Tort Lawyer's association contributes:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000065&cycle=2012

True but very small compared to the fact that $700,000 per day is spent by lobbyists in insurance and hmo industries to kill healthcare reforms.

http://www.campaignmoney.org/HMO_insurance_spend_to_kill_reform

Here are the figures from 2005 to 2008:

http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=421&ext=2#tableid1

They contribute quite a bit to Democrats as well. But when you look at how Tort Lawyers contribute, the figures are quite skewed in favor of Democrats. I think any healthcare reform should begin by addressing tort reform.

The numbers are as high as $1.2 million/day in contribution by insurance companies and health organizations to thwart any move toward reforms. There is no question that tort reform is also badly needed.

goodcitizn wrote:HA: Cherry picking aside, the fact is that the republicans received substantially more money from health insurance, health professionals and pharma than the democrats to bar healthcare reforms while the democrats got more from law firms to thwart tort reforms. Ultimately it is the public that ends up being bereft of any benefits that reforms could bring in.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:HA: Cherry picking aside, the fact is that the republicans received substantially more money from health insurance, health professionals and pharma than the democrats to bar healthcare reforms while the democrats got more from law firms to thwart tort reforms. Ultimately it is the public that ends up being bereft of any benefits that reforms could bring in.

Maybe so. But what is really annoying is when Obama koolaid drinkers want to act all holy and pious as if Democrats have the best interest of the public in mind.

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:HA: Cherry picking aside, the fact is that the republicans received substantially more money from health insurance, health professionals and pharma than the democrats to bar healthcare reforms while the democrats got more from law firms to thwart tort reforms. Ultimately it is the public that ends up being bereft of any benefits that reforms could bring in.

Maybe so. But what is really annoying is when Obama koolaid drinkers want to act all holy and pious as if Democrats have the best interest of the public in mind.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:HA: Cherry picking aside, the fact is that the republicans received substantially more money from health insurance, health professionals and pharma than the democrats to bar healthcare reforms while the democrats got more from law firms to thwart tort reforms. Ultimately it is the public that ends up being bereft of any benefits that reforms could bring in.

Maybe so. But what is really annoying is when Obama koolaid drinkers want to act all holy and pious as if Democrats have the best interest of the public in mind.

It probably would help if repubs make a wee bit sense and stop kowtowing teabaggers. They act as if website itself is the law.

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:HA: Cherry picking aside, the fact is that the republicans received substantially more money from health insurance, health professionals and pharma than the democrats to bar healthcare reforms while the democrats got more from law firms to thwart tort reforms. Ultimately it is the public that ends up being bereft of any benefits that reforms could bring in.

Maybe so. But what is really annoying is when Obama koolaid drinkers want to act all holy and pious as if Democrats have the best interest of the public in mind.

It probably would help if repubs make a wee bit sense and stop kowtowing teabaggers. They act as if website itself is the law.

Really? Too much of reading just the Pravda on the Potomac does that to your knowledge.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:HA: Cherry picking aside, the fact is that the republicans received substantially more money from health insurance, health professionals and pharma than the democrats to bar healthcare reforms while the democrats got more from law firms to thwart tort reforms. Ultimately it is the public that ends up being bereft of any benefits that reforms could bring in.

Maybe so. But what is really annoying is when Obama koolaid drinkers want to act all holy and pious as if Democrats have the best interest of the public in mind.

It probably would help if repubs make a wee bit sense and stop kowtowing teabaggers. They act as if website itself is the law.

Really? Too much of reading just the Pravda on the Potomac does that to your knowledge.

I guess only faux news followers are recognized as geniuses in conservative circles.

confuzzled dude wrote:I didn't know that but I do know that faux replaced Hannity with her; looks like faux realized that people are sick and tired of these rightwing nuts thus attempting to move to the center with such moves.