Ohio's tort reform law hasn't lowered health-care costs

Heh. I was just watching the reconciliation conference on CSPAN 2, and all of the R reps were afflicted with what I call Tort Reform Tourette's. Guess they need to get another disease stat.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the House of Representatives prepares to vote Sunday on a package that Democrats say will make health care more affordable, critics insist the "big government takeover of health care" is not only unwarranted, but that a part of the solution is so obvious it's a crime Democrats failed to embrace it.

It's called tort reform, or putting the brakes on junk lawsuits. If doctors and hospitals don't need to worry about defending themselves against baseless malpractice lawsuits, they'll stop ordering needless, duplicative tests and halt the practice of defensive medicine, Republican congressional leaders say. It's an easy and necessary way to bring down costs for all Americans, they say.

The problem is, Ohio has already taken that step, as have many other states. Yet five years after a difficult but successful fight in Columbus to pass tort reform, health-care costs in the state have not gone down. And health policy analysts say it may not be possible to say whether costs would have spiked even higher had Ohio not passed lawsuit reform.

Costs climbed even after the legislature limited the size of jury verdicts for pain and suffering to $250,000 except in catastrophic cases, restricted punitive damages, and made it tougher to take a case to trial. In 2004, the year Ohio passed lawsuit liability reform, average premiums for employer-based family health plans were $9,590, according to data from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. By 2008, average family premiums were $11,425.

This means that four years after the state passed tort reform, health insurance for Ohio families in employer plans had gone up by 19 percent.

Health Care Reform Watch: Trial lawyers fight back on malpractice

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

Who wants to get all mature (so out of character for me, I know) and acquire some, you know, knowledge? Hands? Thanks to an old pal and reliable source, I've got some information to share with you.

Are we putting on our serious faces? Alrighty then, here we go.

The American Association for Justice (Trial Lawyers) is trying to prevent "tort reform" from ending up in the health care reform bill. Why? Because it would take away people's rights to lower health care costs. Studies show it doesn't lower said costs, so per usual, Americans get screwed in favor of Enormous Pharma/Gigantic Business.

The key point is this: 98,000 preventable deaths each year are due to medical malpractice. Instead of preventing them with regulation and improvement, they want to wish it away by banning your right to sue if they kill someone in your family. See? I told you this was serious:

With President Obama opening the door a crack to tort reform as part of a health care overhaul, the nation's trial lawyers are trying to slam it shut again.

The American Association for Justice announced today it is launching what it called the first phase of a nationwide ad campaign "to educate lawmakers about the epidemic of preventable medical errors and how tort law changes won’t lower costs or cover the uninsured."

Isn't that what I just said? Good, because it bears repeating.

Oh, and those 98,000 deaths from preventable medical errors? Per the AAJ, that's “like two 737s crashing every day for a whole year.” (See image at the top of this post.)

But the ad concludes: “Would we blame the passengers or the airlines?”

We would if we were Rushpublics owned by the airlines.

Obama, in his speech to Congress earlier this month, said while he didn't see malpractice reform as a "silver bullet," he was open to looking at ways to decrease "defensive medicine," when doctors order extra tests and procedures to avoid malpractice lawsuits.

Last week, the White House followed up by announcing $25 million in grants to help states and health care systems test models designed to compensate patients for malpractice but also reduce frivolous lawsuits and lower insurance premiums paid by doctors.

As for that Baucus bill supporting "tort reform" (via the e-mail):

On p.177 of the attached bill...ie 98,000 deaths per year because of medical malpractice, but somehow taking away the victim's right of "civil litigation" is going to solve that...

Don't sue when you're wronged, and magically the errors will go away!

And my source provides us with this:

SUBTITLE H—SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Current Law

No provision.

Chairman’s Mark

The Chairman‘s Mark would express the Sense of the Senate that health care reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance. The Mark would further express the Sense of the Senate that states should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the current civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes, and improving access to liability insurance, while preserving an individual‘s right to seek redress in court. The Mark would express the Sense of the Senate that Congress should consider establishing a state demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the current civil litigation system.

Okay, done. That's about as much seriousness as I can pump out right now. Consider yourselves educated.

Sen. Durbin: 'Variation' of public option could win 60 Senate votes

By GottaLaff

Thom Hartmann just now on the Radio Machine:

Maybe David Letterman can ask President Obama this tonight:

"Why is it that every country in the world with a public health care system makes it a crime if a for-profit organization handles the money?"

Now back to my regularly scheduled post already in progress:

Trigger was the name of a horse, not what the Senate should be offering instead of a solid public option:

The Senate will only be able to muster support for a "variation" of the public option, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Monday.

The Senate's second-ranking Democrat said that while there are intense feelings about the need for the public (or "government-run") option among Democrats, he is committed to moving forward the process of passing a health bill.

Durbin said during an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he could get a filibuster-proof 60 votes for a public option "if there's a variation on the theme, perhaps," mentioning nonprofit cooperatives or the "triggered" public option as possible variations. [...]

And while final healthcare legislation may include small pilot programs examining ways to reform medical liability insurance for physicians, Durbin dismissed the idea that this bill would include wholesale, national tort reform.

"It will be a separate bill," Durbin said [...]

Where's Roy Rogers to save the day when you need him?