Republican Senate candidate Ted Cruz

There is a Republican primary on Tuesday for Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s Senate seat, and my candidate is Ted Cruz. Tea Party leader Sarah Palin recently endorsed him.

Excerpt:

Sarah Palin told a cheering crowd late Friday that America needs to get back to its “clinging to God and guns” roots, as the tea pea party’s biggest names made a series of last-minute, high-profile appearances around Texas to support insurgent conservative U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz.

The former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate spoke to more than 1,000 boisterous and sweating Cruz supporters gathered under a mercilessly early-evening sun on a grassy knoll in The Woodlands, a well-to-do Houston suburb. She told them that “to make America great, we don’t need a fundamental transformation, we need a fundamental restoration.”

“Fighters like Ted Cruz can lead the charge for us,” Palin said.

Cruz, the former Texas Solicitor General, is locked in a fierce and increasingly nasty battle with the mainstream Texas GOP choice, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, for the Republican nomination to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. The pair face a runoff Tuesday because neither won a majority in a nine-Republican senatorial field during the state’s May 29 primary.

The conservative Club For Growth is backing Ted Cruz:

And social conservative leader James Dobson likes Ted Cruz, too.

Excerpt:

Today, we are excited to announce that national pro-life, family values leader Dr. James Dobson is endorsing our Senate campaign.

In his endorsement announcement, Dr. Dobson said: “I’m pleased to endorse Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate because he’s exactly the kind of candidate we need to turn this country around. Religious freedom is under assault every day. We need leaders with the courage to stand strong for conservative values in this battle. Ted Cruz is such a leader—one who will not only vote his convictions in the Senate, but will also lead the fight to defend life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty.”

Dr. Dobson added: “Ted Cruz stands out among conservative leaders across the country today. He has a consistent record of standing up for faith, family, and freedom, and winning values battles on a national level….I urge all Texans who love life, family, faith, and freedom to not only vote for Ted Cruz, but to work hard for his campaign.”

Even moderate conservative George Will thinks that Republican candidate Ted Cruz is the man to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas.

Excerpt:

For a conservative Texan seeking national office, it could hardly get better than this: In a recent 48-hour span, Ted Cruz, a candidate for next year’s Republican Senate nomination for the seat being vacated by Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, was endorsed by the Club for Growth PAC, FreedomWorks PAC, talk-radio host Mark Levin and Erick Erickson of RedState.com.

For conservatives seeking reinforcements for Washington’s too-limited number of limited-government constitutionalists, it can hardly get better than this: Before he earned a Harvard law degree magna cum laude (and helped found the Harvard Latino Law Review) and clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Cruz’s senior thesis at Princeton — his thesis adviser was professor Robert George, one of contemporary conservatism’s intellectual pinups — was on the Constitution’s Ninth and 10th amendments. Then as now, Cruz argued that these amendments, properly construed, would buttress the principle that powers not enumerated are not possessed by the federal government.

[...]At age 14, Cruz’s father fought with rebels (including Fidel Castro) against Cuba’s dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Captured and tortured, at 18 he escaped to America with $100 sewn in his underwear. He graduated from the University of Texas and met his wife — like him, a mathematician — with whom he founded a small business processing seismic data for the oil industry.

By the time Ted Cruz was 13, he was winning speech contests sponsored by a Houston free-enterprise group that gave contestants assigned readings by Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. In his early teens he traveled around Texas and out of state giving speeches. At Princeton, he finished first in the 1992 U.S. National Debate Championship and North American Debate Championship.

As Texas’s solicitor general from 2003 to 2008, Cruz submitted 70 briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he has, so far, argued nine cases there. He favors school choice and personal investment accounts for a portion of individuals’ Social Security taxes. He supports the latter idea with a bow to the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said such accounts enable the doorman to build wealth the way the people in the penthouse do.

Regarding immigration, Cruz, 40, demands secure borders and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants but echoes Ronald Reagan’s praise of legal immigrants as “Americans by choice,” people who are “crazy enough” to risk everything in the fundamentally entrepreneurial act of immigrating.

You can find out more about Ted Cruz on his positions page. I was interested in his stance on social issues, in particular.

Excerpt:

Ted Cruz has fought to protect innocent human life. He played a leading role in several important cases, including defense of the partial-birth abortion ban, parental consent laws, and prohibiting state funds from going to abortion. These cases have all been part of the ongoing effort to ensure that every child in America  receives the protection and respect he or she deserves.

• Authored an amicus brief for 13 states, successfully defending the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The ban was upheld 5-4 before the U.S. Supreme Court;
• Authored an amicus brief for 18 states, successfully defending the New Hampshire parental notification law. The law was upheld 9-0 before the U.S. Supreme Court [note: this brief was awarded the Best Brief Award from the National Association of Attorneys General for U.S. Supreme Court briefs written in 2005-06];
• Successfully defended Texas’s Rider 8, which prohibits state funds for groups that provide abortions, winning unanimously before the Fifth Circuit court of appeals.

Ted Cruz has worked hard in defense of traditional marriage, including his intervention in a case protecting Texas marriage laws. In addition, he has fought on the federal level to defend marriage between one man and one woman as the fundamental building block of society.

• When a Beaumont state court granted a divorce to two homosexual men who had gotten a civil union in Vermont, Cruz, under the leadership of Attorney General Greg Abbott, intervened in defense of the marriage laws of the State of Texas, which successfully led to the court judgment being vacated;
• Worked with Attorney General Abbott to send a letter to Congress in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

He has a solid recordconservative policies on that page: energy production, voter fraud prevention, border security, legal firearm ownership – you name it, this guy has been fighting for conservative principles. Like Michele Bachmann, he has actually tried to do pro-life and pro-marriage things. We don’t just have to take his word for it, he has the actions to prove his words.

There are two parts to the American health system ,the delivery of care and the financing of care. In other countries there is only one answer to “how do we deliver care and how do we finance it?” In the US there are many thousands of answers.

In the US, the delivery of care is regulated by the Department of Health  and the Department of Education in each State. Health Care providers are licensed to provide a defined service under a set of rules which include obtaining a level of education and experience and maintaining the proper facility and equipment. It is this part of the system that we point to when we say the American Health System is the best in the world.

However, the Financing of Care is regulated in many different ways. The Federal Government funds and creates the rules for Medicare. Each State receives some funding from the Federal Government for Medicaid coverage of the poor, while the State and Local Governments create the rules under which they will pay for that care.

Most people in the US get their coverage through private insurers, either through their employer or through an individual policy. Insurers can define the delivery system they will pay for, as long as they abide by the rules of their State for licensing of health providers and minimum regulations for reserves, showing that they can pay for the services they offered in their policy.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) seeks to refine the guidelines underwhich States receive Federal Funding for Medicare and Medicaid and to mandate minimum standards for private insurers. It also intends to raise revenue to fund the changes through a new tax.

There is no question that it is a complicated system for which those who are healthy and have coverage are perfectly satisfied. It only becomes a problem when you are sick and need to find funding for your care. The opposition’s suggestion as to an alternative to the ACA is to allow the purchase of insurance across State lines, which would nullify the protections established by the State who represents the needs of their constituents.

Their other suggestions is to reform the laws under which a patient could receive damages in the case of malpractice. Their claim is that providers could lower their costs, which may be true to some extent, but is defensive medicine the only driving factor in rising health care costs?

As a small business owner, I am disappointed that the reform path chosen by our Government did not provide for a Public Option or even better for the Single Payer system that works so well for other countries.  I am angry about the new tax.  I would agree to pay for getting a comprehensive coverage package and to pay for my share of protecting the poor, however I do not see the ACA accomplishing this.

I am happy that there is a discussion about what our health care system needs because I don’t see either side laying down their misinformatiom-disinformation and lies long enough to find a solution to our funding problems.

Written by Caryn Isaacs, Patient Advocate and Health Policy Expert. Reprinted from LinkedIn group; Adult Children Caring for Aging Parents, discussion started by Ray Ashton 2nd, Founder, STAR Preventive Wellness – CEO, AFFECTS LLC Houston, Texas Area

The Wall St. Journal reports:

“Until recently, Blitz USA—the nation’s No. 1 consumer gasoline-can producer, based in Miami, Oklahoma—was doing fine… Then the trial attorneys hit on an idea with trial-lawyer logic: They could sue Blitz when someone poured gas on a fire (for instance, to rekindle the flame) and the can exploded… Blitz paid around $30 million to defend itself, a substantial sum for a small company. Of course, Blitz’s product liability insurance costs spiked. In June, Blitz filed for bankruptcy. All 117 employees will lose their jobs…”

Something needs to be changed to our laws to prevent this kind of absurdity from happening.

“The Republican controlled Congress attempted to overturn the health bill – again. Hang it up and quit trying to hide the money you stole by your unscrupulous capitalist thievery.”

“We are the only first world country that does not have a health program for its poor. When will these selfish pukes ever learn, honestly, this is pathetic!” *And the fact that we DO NOT have a predominately state-run health-care system is precisely why people the world over are flocking here from those other first world countries.

“In fact, most second world countries have health care programs for their poor.” *Ahhh… it’s part of the reason they are second tier countries. Oh, did getting those health care programs (MOST of which are paid for and maintained by the United States of America) make them into first world countries… Has it elevated them above the levels before the US went in and started rationing their health care? Lemme give you the answer so you don’t have to struggle with it – NO! Show me one country that has seen a marked improvement in its healthcare after the US has gone in and ‘helped’ them with their healthcare – has not happened.

And since we are wringing our hands and all so concerned with the healthcare of our poor, let’s take a look at the level of healthcare the average British citizen gets.

Now before I go into the highly touted National Health Service of Great Britain, let me say that alongside the NHS there is a private healthcare system available to those who wish to opt-in to it. Along with the number of large private insurance companies providing private health insurance to those who’d like to have it (or whose companies want to offer it), there are private hospitals that are available throughout the country.

Under Obamacare this is NOT an option.

In England the stories are rampant of how shoddy the NHS is:

In a recent survey, the United Kingdom Homecare Association (UKHCA) found that “Elderly people are being put in danger after councils ordered care agencies to complete vital home visits in 15-minute time-slots to save money”. “Councils ordered care agencies…” can anyone say “Death Panels”…?

Seems that while people on the left were excoriating Sarah Palin for her ‘Death Panels” remark, there has been a lot of solid proof of them and their effects on healthcare in Great Britain. These “Death Panels” have caused long waiting periods for surgery due to the de facto rationing system that has been imposed on medical treatment there.

In one of the most detailed surveys of hospital deaths ever undertaken, The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine study found that “Almost 1,000 patients are needlessly dying in NHS hospitals each month as a result of poor patient care”.

An online publication – BMJ Quality and Safety Journal, published the new study which reported “that mistakes occurred because hospital staff made wrong diagnosis or gave out wrong drugs.”
The study also reported that “In some cases they failed to adequately monitor patients – such as failing to check a pulse or blood pressure – or react when their condition deteriorated.”

Just under a year ago, the National Health Service computer system was scrapped after years of work on installation and implementation. A little too late, and at a cost of £12.7billion, they found that the “One size fits all” model does not work.

Dame Julie Mellor, the parliamentary and health service ombudsman for England, told the Financial Times the NHS and other public service providers, “The top 10 complaint causes include poor records management, clinical care and treatment and failure to diagnose.”

And the complaints and failings of England’s state-run National Health Service boggle the mind.

Seems that a lot of British citizens never saw the Michael Moore movie “Sicko” to find out just how ‘good’ they have there because record numbers of them are going abroad and paying out of their own pockets to obtain better health care. An estimated 200,000 “Health tourists” traveled to places like India, Hungary, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia, Poland and Spain in 2010. The British government will not even guess as to how high that number has risen since.

So why did I go into such detail on only one state-run healthcare system – because the United Kingdom National Health Service is something that I know a bit about on a personal level as I used to work in the healthcare IT field and the company I was working for bid and lost said bid to be the provider for their Unified Architecture healthcare system.

The United Kingdom’s NHS is also supposed to be the benchmark for which the Obamacare system is to be based upon – and it has long since been thrown on the ash heap of really bad ideas.

Ok, so when was the last time any of these caring, compassionate people called a hospital, doctors office, or their local church asking about playing someone’s medical bill? Have they talked to their pastor about how they could provide for those who the republicans have shut out from being healthy?

Nope, and do not think they ever will.

Instead, they will fall back and tell us that it’s the government’s responsibility.

Well, let’s think about that one for a minute shall we: who is it that funds the government? You and me and every other citizen of the country.

So what these people are saying is that they don’t want to do anything that involves their money, but they will come up with this grandiose idea – that uses YOUR money, and then when you cry foul, they scream that you are uncaring and greedy and… I won’t go into the disgusting names they call us because we don’t fall into lock-step with their money stealing schemes employed through the vast number of taxation vehicles built into this albatross.

“The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision…”

“The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility.”

So imagine that your family member is in a car crash and lapses into a coma and the medical facility decides that there is no benefit to life sustaining treatment (the irony of “life-sustaining” care being of no benefit seems lost on them).  The committee (?) determines to end all life-sustaining care and gives you notice.  Now you have 10 days to find another facility to agree to accept your family member and if you can find one (after the current one has already decided it is futile {I am sure the economics of care have nothing to do with the decision}) you get to pay for any cost incurred in transferring your loved one. If you don’t agree, you have the option to file a lawsuit to stop them.  Do you really think that will be what you are thinking about as your loved one is essentially starving to death as they cut off life support.

The people who supported the law and are now fighting against health care will say, well that is different or just because it is the law doesn’t mean it will happen.  Harris County Texas — a patient identified only as “Willie” died after the hospital cut off all nourishment after giving the proper notice.  Probably the family didn’t care – wrong they tried to get him transferred but couldn’t find a hospital willing to take him.  Well he must not have had insurance -  1st should it matter, but he actually had plenty of coverage, but the let him die.  Texas Right to Life spokesperson Elizabeth Graham stated “Willie” was dehydrated and starved to death against the family’s desire (Thanks to Jeffrey Kreisberg).  So when you think it will not happen, it already has to someone with a family who wanted to keep him alive and had insurance. As far as I know, no such action has taken place in Fort Bend County, Texas – yet.

In the last election for governor of Texas, Perry was asked about this and he claimed he wasn’t aware of the law and would make it priority to get it overturned.

If you are concerned about “death panels” you should be because if you are in Texas it is not a possibility it is a reality and not because of the liberal democrats, but because of the Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) group.  So be mad and take action against those who supported, sponsored and passed the bill.  Ask your representative if they are supporter of Texans for Lawsuit Reform and, if so, why they are in favor of these “death panels”.  I wonder if they will claim they didn’t know what they were supporting??

Finally, if you support (or know someone who supports) TLR I posted this question on Facebook – “What do you believe needs Reforming?”  I really would like some answers to that question.

Bill: HB3124/SB2638 (Public Ch. No.1046) (PDF)

Sponsored by Sen. Jack Johnson and Rep. Vance Dennis, and signed into law by Gov. Haslam, HB3124/SB2638 (Public Ch. No.1046) requires the court in a civil case, on a trial court’s granting of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, to award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred in the proceedings as a consequence of the dismissed claims to the party against whom the dismissed claims were pending. According to the new law, a judge in a civil case must assess the litigation costs to a party who successfully seeks dismissal of a claim that does not have a basis in fact or law (a frivolous lawsuit). Recoverable costs include reasonable and necessary attorney fees and are capped at $10,000.

Also: “Tennessee’loser pays’ bill gets final approval”

“Tennessee Adopts New ‘Loser Pays’ Rule”

From my comments:

Trevor Nagle, ABDsays:

And yet additional regulation is precisely what would have kept the latest financial crisis averted….interesting perspective. It was the unfettered greed and corruption in an deregulated banking system that is widely viewed as the culprit for the housing market (and subsequent global economic) collapse. You see, purely rational economics and pure free markets do not account for irrational (from a societal standpoint) economic behavior. Put plainly, from a system perspective, greed is NOT rational economics. Hence the need for regulation. It’s not about simply stealing from the rich to give to the lazy (as it’s too often framed), but rather to ensure the composite stability of a society based on the irrational economic behaviors of individuals.

 neenergyobserver says:

Sorry for the delay, Trevor, as always, you make me think, which is good. Anyway, I won’t concede your premise that additional regulation would have averted the financial crises, although regulators DOING their jobs might have. Most of that crisis was forced by Fannie/Freddie insisting on bad loans being made. If you loan an unemployed person a quarter mil to buy a house you shouldn’t be surprised when it doesn’t work out.

No, greed is not rational economics, even if we use the old catchphrase “All that the market will bear” that indicates that if I set my price point above a rational level, the market won’t bear it. And everything we purchase/consume is in that market basket.

Individual consumers will always behave irrationally (in my eyes or yours) but, it’s their money and their choice. If they want to eat at Mickey D’s, and live without electricity, it’s not my problem.

Healthcare has been perverted as a marketplace over the years.

First, FDR’s wage controls during WW II caused it to be turned into a corporate benefit when it should have been an individual choice.

Second, and possibly connected causally, health care became the equivalent of having automotive insurance cover oil changes, instead of catastrophic problems.

Third, even at the state level, the requirements to offer a policy are often ridiculous. Why should a single 59 yo man (That’s me) have coverage for contraception, which in some states I would be required to.

SOLUTION:

First, cross state marketing, If you want some unusual coverage you can probably find it.

Second, Tort reform. No don’t make anybody immune but, make it difficult to file and carry our silly suits, such as suing MacDonald’s for serving hot coffee.
This, to me, is one of the weaknesses of single-payor; they can not be held responsible for their choices.

Prosecute fraud with all the severity of the law. If an insurance company doesn’t honor the contract, let the AG fix it. I can remember Ford Motor Company being criminally indicted for Pinto gas tanks, so it’s not impossible.

Obviously, I don’t have all the answers but, I think this is the direction we should be heading. Thanks for your comment.

Related articles

• First Steps In The Post Obama Era: Repeal & Collapse By The Glass Steagall Act! (politicalvelcraft.org)
• How Much Of ‘Obamacare’ Can Republicans Repeal? (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Maine Republicans Bring Down Health Insurance Premiums By Deregulating Market (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)

Read More . . . 236 More Words

Source:  STUDY: Texas Tort Reform Did Not Reduce Health Care Costs.

This post is brought to you from The Brad Hendricks Law Firm as a service to provide legal and other information of public interest. If you have any questions about this or any other post, please contact our firm at (501) 221-0444 or (800) 603-5100 or email us. Our firm provides legal counsel in the areas of Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Social Security, Bankruptcy, Business Law,Employment Law, and Family Law, among others.

See Report Link Above – Bending the Curve: 12 Ways the New Health Care Law Will Tackle Runaway Costs

Attached above is a report on the steps ObamaCare takes to stop out of control healthcare costs.

When I’ve talked to doctors about Obamacare, I’ve gotten mixed reactions – some positive on it, some negative. I’ve formed an opinion from my discussions that some doctors who oppose Obamacare come from a self-interested perspective, and tend to serve high-income areas where most people have insurance.  While I admit this may be generalization, it is clear that the current healthcare system’s inefficiency generates additional income for doctors and hospitals, which results in burdening the general public with the runaway healthcare costs that the wastefulness produces.

Much of Obamacare seeks to curtail costs for the general public through increased accountability and transparency requirements for doctors and hospitals. Therefore, there’s a financial incentive for doctors and hopitals to oppose Obamacare in order to avoid the new requirements, sustain the inefficiencies that burdens the rest of us, thus maintaining the flow of additional income.

One example from the attached report of Obamacare’s new accountability requirements imposed on doctors is - Warranties on care and medical error reporting requirements. As the report notes -

Tens of thousands of medical errors are committed every year, ranging from gross errors such as the amputation of the wrong leg to infections in the hospital because someone didn’t take the time to wash his or her hands. As many as 98,000 Americans die each year from these errors—a figure higher than the death toll from car accidents or breast cancer.

Part of the reason the error rate is so high is because mistakes are rewarded. Unlike a car or a refrigerator, medical services don’t come with a warranty. Instead, doctors are paid for the services they provide, not for the results.

This “fee for service” system means that doctors are paid twice if they make a mistake: once for the original procedure and again for fixing it. Another reason errors are high is that no one is keeping track. Doctors and hospitals are not required to report most kinds of mistakes, which means there are few public records by which to hold providers accountable. Health reform will reduce medical errors and costs in two ways. First, it will limit the payments hospitals can get from Medicare or Medicaid if a patient is readmitted to the hospital for what is considered a preventable reason. For example, if a patient is back in the hospital because a cardiac stent was improperly implanted, a hospital won’t get paid the full amount (or may get nothing) for fixing this mistake. The health care law also contains proposals to limit or bar Medicare or Medicaid payments for health conditions acquired as a result of care. For example, a hospital would not get paid (or be paid less) for treating an infection a patient acquires as a result of hospitalization.

The new law also requires providers to report the number of hospital-related infections to the Centers for Disease Control. This measure would encourage hospitals to do what Dr. Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Harvard Medical School and a medical writer for  The New Yorker, proposed in Boston. Everyone involved in a surgical procedure runs through a simple, two-minute safety checklist that has significantly reduced mistakes: “There are a thousand ways things can go wrong…We miss stuff. We are inconsistent and unreliable because of the complexity of care… [Using checklists] we get better results. Massively better results.”

This  ”warranty on care” requirement holding doctors and hospitals responsible for errors seems fair and beneficial to the general public. But it’s obvious why some doctors might not be high on it. I would imagine tort reform might bring more of them on board.

• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
• McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
• From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to sensitive areas of their anatomies;
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then required temperature;
• The plaintiff’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
• McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.
• The “runaway verdict” the plaintiff received was reduced by a judge and the parties ultimated settled for a smaller amount.

The movie “Hot Coffee” shows periodically on HBO and reveals startling facts about the McDonald’s case plus three other cases which cast serious doubt on the misconception that juries are out of control and lawsuits are mere lottery tickets.  View the trailer for the movie and order the DVD.   You can check for movie showings in your area or otherwise learn more about the case. 

“Hot Coffee” illustrates why we should not make statements or jump to conclusions based on hearsay and partial facts.  Jury service and elections are two key ways that the average citizen can have a direct impact on the ability to receive compensation for injuries and other damages resulting from the conduct of another.  And we must not to give in to the fallacy of the tort reform movement.  If we fall prey to the Chicken Little claims of “jackpot justice” and the ill-conceived tort reform movement, the justice system in the United States will erode and we will lose a valuable means of exacting corporate and individual responsibility.  We teach our children to take responsibility for their actions when they affect others so why should be send a different message regarding our justice system?   Hmmmmm………get involved, get educated, and stay involved and educated.

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors’ fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not onlycurb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.

Tort reform is a controversial topic likely to be resurrected by Republicans and doctors’ groups who hoped to make it part of the 2010 federal health care law.

The researchers’ findings come after a report  last fall in which the Ralph Nader-founded consumer group Public Citizen said it found Medicare spending in Texas rose much faster than the national average after tort reform. Critics of that study said that tort reform leaders never promised health care spending would decline and noted that caps on damage awards brought steep drops in malpractice insurance rates for doctors and large increases in new doctors coming to Texas.

Another study yet to be published on physician supply and tort reform, also by Silver’s group, agrees that malpractice suits and payouts sharply dropped after tort reform. But that study strongly disputes claims of a mass exodus of Texas doctors before tort reform and huge increases afterward.

On the question of health care costs, Silver’s group focused on the federal government’s Medicare program, which makes up 20 percent of the $2.5 trillion spent on U.S. health care.

That group — consisting of two Republicans, a Democrat and a foreign national, according to the researchers — analyzed data at the county level in Texas, said Tom Baker, author of a 2005 book, “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” and a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania.

“This is a very highly regarded study, and this team is highly regarded,” Baker said. The study was paid for by the researchers’ universities, Silver said, and the paper was published this month in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

“Their results didn’t surprise me at all,” Baker said.

Medicare spending up

The researchers assumed that doctors who faced a higher risk of being sued — those in counties that had larger numbers of malpractice cases — would perform more tests and procedures than necessary to protect themselves from lawsuits. With tort reform, which limited damage awards against doctors, the need to practice such “defensive medicine” would decline, the argument goes.

But in comparing Texas counties in which doctors faced a higher risk of lawsuits with counties where the risk was lower, the researchers found no difference in Medicare spending after tort reform and indications that doctors in higher-
risk counties did slightly more procedures.

“If tort reform reduces spending, it would have the biggest effect on high-risk counties,” Silver said. He noted that those tend to be large and urban.

“This is not a result we expected,” said Bernard Black, a co-author and a professor at Northwestern University’s Law School and Kellogg School of Management.

Health care spending has increased annually everywhere, the researchers said, including in the states with caps on malpractice payouts — now at 30, counting Texas, said David Hyman, a co-author and professor of law and medicine at the University of Illinois.

But, said Hyman, who worked on health policy for President George W. Bush at the Federal Trade Commission, “we found no evidence that Texas spending went up slower in comparison to all other states and may have had an increase.”

The researchers said their study suggests that Medicare payments to doctors in Texas rose 1 to 2 percent faster than the rest of the country, Black said.

Since tort reform, some Texas residents have complained that they cannot find a lawyer to pursue a malpractice case because of the $750,000 cap on payouts for pain, suffering, disfigurement and mental anguish. The limit often makes litigation cost prohibitive, patients and lawyers said. That concern was not raised in the paper, although the researchers said claims of huge malpractice payouts and rampant “frivolous” lawsuits before tort reform are greatly exaggerated by its advocates.

Silver said he was “very pessimistic” that policymakers will heed the study. “The rhetoric on both sides tends to be very extreme,” he said.

Numbers of doctors

Jon Opelt, executive director of Texas Alliance for Patient Access, said tort reform in Texas has benefited patients by adding nearly 5,000 more physicians than can be accounted for by population growth. Opelt also said that patients have greater access to specialists in high-risk fields of medicine, and more emergency room doctors are willing to be on call because their fears of lawsuits have been reduced.

Before the 2003 reforms, “55 Texas counties saw a net loss of physicians and … some 99 counties lost a high-risk specialist,” Opelt said. “An estimated 5,000 high-risk specialists restricted their practice due to liability concerns.”

Silver and his fellow researchers’ unpublished study says Texas Medical Board data that Opelt cites on new physician applications and licenses do not account for doctors who left the state or retired, creating vacancies for their jobs; physicians who don’t treat patients but do research or administrative work; and physician growth compared with other states. When those factors are weighed, Texas saw the number of direct patient care doctors grow more slowly after tort reform than it did before, the study says. Afterward, Texas did slightly worse than other states in attracting doctors, the study says.

Linking tort reform to the health care costs is a “straw argument,” Opelt wrote in an email, saying his group never promised that. He noted the study says there could be an effect on health care spending in the future.

“We did not and we have not led lawmakers and voters astray,” he said.

Opelt’s group was the largest contributor to a campaign to persuade voters to approve tort reform, Yes on 12, donating $1.2 million.

“Yes on 12″ materials said consumers should expect health costs to go down. “Your YES vote on Proposition 12 means: Lower costs and more security in our health care system,” one flier says. Another, in the form of a letter from Gov. Rick Perry, says that “Texans can help make health care more affordable and accessible” by voting for tort reform.

Opelt said his group had nothing to do with the fliers and directed questions to campaign leader Ted Delisi. He did not return a call.

The governor issued a statement through spokesman Josh Havens calling tort reform “a huge success.”

Contact Mary Ann Roser at 
445-3619

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-2402096.html

Disappointing, because TX took such a hard line in 2003 that if there were good results to show we would have them by now.

Medical malpractice claims can result in life-threatening and sometimes even fatal injuries. These types of claims should be taken seriously and patients should not be scared out of making claims because of tort reform. If you or someone you know has been injured as a result of medical malpractice, Dixon Law Office can help. Grant Dixon, attorney and founder of Dixon Law Office, has the experience to ensure that your case is handled with professionalism and care. Contact us at 888-354-9880 or through our website to schedule an appointment.

Supporters of tort reform had claimed that capping damage awards would not only curb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, but lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.

Instead, all tort reform apparently did was reduce litigation and line the pockets of health care providers, who faced smaller malpractice insurance premiums.

For more, read here: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-2402096.html

Health care reform will have to go hand in hand with a reform of the tax code and of entitlement programs.

The US Supreme Court will release its decision on Obamacare this month, and if the judges do their jobs, the law won’t stand a chance. However, with Obamacare gone, legislators will yet again be faced with a pressing question: what should the US do about health care?

Health care premiums are rising at a faster rate than ever before, and thanks to the economic malaise and the not-so-Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans have lost their health insurance and are now considered to be uninsured. A complex regulatory system hampers progress on cost control, and legislative gridlock prevents any real cost cutting measures.

However, after the November election, Republicans can reasonably expect to gain control of all three crucial legislative powers: the House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the presidency. Such a majority will open the door to the kind of drastic reform that is desperately needed to solve America’s health care crisis. A comprehensive overhaul of America’s entitlement, immigration, and taxation systems, the enacting of tort reform, and a variety of changes to the health care system itself are all steps that will reduce health care costs and increase care quality for all Americans.

The health care plan that I am proposing to you today is one that focuses not only on lowering health care costs as a whole but also on increasing the ability of consumers to meet these costs themselves. By replacing Medicare with a medical savings account system, the US government would allow Americans to keep more of their money and to save up for their own medical needs however they may please. A person could draw funds from his or her tax-exempt account to cover trips to the doctor or a health insurance policy. Another way the government could empower consumers would be through a reform of the tax code. By removing regulatory burdens on corporations (which provide medical products and services) and individuals, as wel as by lowering both corporate and individual tax rates, the US government could effectively provide every American with the means of purchasing their own health insurance. Such an action would also prove to be a boon for the US economy.

Reforming immigration would also help lower costs in our medical system. Countries like South Korea and Taiwan have vigorous math and science programs, which produce an abundance of doctors and nurses. Many of these professional practitioners apply for US citizenship, but thanks to our byzantine immigration process, most of these people never make it to the US. And with fewer Americans than ever joining the medical field in the United States, this lack of foreign expertise is particularly damaging, causing wages to inflate dramatically for medical practitioners and causing health care costs to balloon. If immigration is reformed so that these highly-skilled foreigners can easily gain US citizenship, health care costs will decrease significantly for consumers.

Tort reform is another crucial action that must be taken with regards to the health care industry. Frivolous lawsuits and malpractice suits cause a great deal of pain for health care providers, who oftentimes are forced to choose between a lifesaving action and legal safety. Enacting “loser pays” legislation, which forces the losing side of a legal suit to pay a fee to the winning side, would reduce strain on these medical institutions to continually defend themselves legally from even the most frivolous and outrageous lawsuits.

And finally, the health care system itself needs dramatic change. Regulatory burdens on health care providers should be dramatically reduced so that these groups can focus on caring for their patients rather than on paperwork. Health care insurance companies should be allowed to compete for the service of their customers, particularly Medicare recipients, who would receive a stipend from the federal government to help them purchase insurance, if necessary. Competition among health care providers themselves must be fostered, as it is this competition that truly unleashes the spirit of American innovation and that really improves the quality of healthcare.

It is crucial that we do not depend on a government-centered approach to try to solve our current health care woes. These problems can be easily solved, as long as we utilize an approach that emphasizes the free market and takes advantage of competition and the consumer’s own personal spending desires to lower costs and increase care quality for everyone. This approach will work, but first, we need to give it a chance.

From swimming pools to toys, guns to healthcare, peel back a few layers and behold an individual or organization that has been sued for doing or not doing something.

Among the many issues discussed during campaign seasons, tort reform receives its due attention but it stops at actually making it happen on a national scale.

We have no liberty if we don’t have tort reform.

“The reason is probably the best argument ever for a reform of our country’s lawsuit-happy culture. You see, the owner of the property had previously allowed Kannisto to maintain his creation, and still has no particular argument with Kannisto’s mission or his choice of symbol. However, because Kannisto is 94 and could easily hurt himself on the trek up to maintain his creation, the owner of the property is worried he’d be legally liable if Kannisto did get hurt, and wants to protect himself from a lawsuit, hence his commitment to ban the veteran from his land.

But this reasonable fear has had a horrible consequence – Kannisto is so upset at not being able to maintain his creation that he can’t even talk about it without bursting into tears, as this report from Fox News clearly shows”

94-Year-Old Arvo Kannisto Forced to Stop Maintaining the Hillside Memorial Cross He’s Kept In Shape for 31 Years | Video | TheBlaze.com.

But this erodes faith in the whole justice system in some ways, as everyone comes to see the justice system as something that’s only available to the big boys, those with deep pockets, and maybe a judge in one of those pockets. Everything else, perhaps so important to you personally, is petty and unimportant, really. And the conservative right – the business guys, not the social-family-religious right perpetually apoplectic about abortion and gays and Hollywood movies and smelly Mexicans – has long argued that all the problems with our healthcare system can be fixed by tort reform, making it legally impossible to sue doctors for malpractice, or hospitals for killing your child when they screwed up and administered the wrong medicine. That would bring the cost of healthcare down, immediately. And they have long argued that American businesses would thrive again if consumers were forbidden, by law, from filing frivolous lawsuits – you know, about defective products that end up killing people and that sort of thing. This has been a longstanding and somewhat quixotic quest – people do, for some reason, want justice – so most of their talk for the last decade or two is about capping jury awards. Sure, that shiny new family sedan suddenly and for no reason blew up and killed your wife and kids – but a few thousand dollars should be enough for you. Having to pay multimillion dollar judgments can kill a fine corporation, and maybe kill a whole industry, and thus bring business in America to a halt – and no one wants that. Everyone wants America to be a thriving place, with commerce humming along and prosperity for all. So there’s a reason these guys protect big oil and big tobacco and the giant pharmaceutical corporations – there’s a principle at stake here. Maybe they do wrong now and then, and make mistakes, and stretch the truth now and then about the nature of their products or services – but that sort of thing happens and you don’t kill a corporation or a whole industry over it. Hell, do that and no one would do any business. They’d be afraid of their own shadow.

And tort lawyers are the enemy. Those are the guys who offer the tear-jerking sad stories that have juries awarding twenty-five million dollars a pop to some poor jerk whose kid got her foot caught in a defective pool drain in the back yard. Actually that was one of John Edward’s famous cases – the three-year-old girl was disemboweled. And yes, the right has always hated him – for his career before he got into politics, out there ruining America, by making it impossible for business to, well, do business.

And given all this it’s no wonder we only pay attention to the big court cases – everything else is petty or mysterious, and probably shouldn’t be heard in court anyway, or so we’ve been told. And that’s what makes the case of John Edwards, in court as a defendant of all things, so odd:

John Edwards’ campaign-finance fraud case ended in a mistrial Thursday when jurors acquitted him of one of six charges but were unable to decide whether he misused money from two wealthy donors to hide his pregnant mistress while he ran for president.

Minutes after the mistrial was declared, Edwards delivered a confession and an apology on the courthouse steps with his family at his side.

“While I do not believe I ever did anything illegal … I’ve done an awful, awful lot that was wrong,” he said.

The jury couldn’t decide if he did anything wrong and he got all sleazy-maudlin and everyone went home, and that was that:

The eight men and four women deliberated for more than 50 hours over nine days before telling U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles on Thursday afternoon that they were deadlocked on five of the charges. Just 20 minutes after the judge asked them to try to reach unanimous verdicts, the jurors returned to report they remained hopelessly deadlocked.

And this will probably go no further:

The Justice Department must now decide whether to retry Edwards on the five counts. A spokeswoman said the department had no immediate comment. But one law-enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said federal prosecutors are unlikely to retry the case.

Edwards, 58, the 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, was charged with “knowingly and willingly” accepting illegal campaign contributions from two wealthy donors to help hide the affair and save his campaign for the 2008 nomination from collapsing in scandal. He had faced up to 30 years in jail and $1.5 million in fines if convicted on all counts.

Edwards’ lawyers conceded he was a philandering husband who had lied to his cancer-stricken wife and to voters. But they said the payments were private gifts intended to hide the affair – and Frances Quinn Hunter, his daughter with Rielle Hunter – from Elizabeth Edwards, who was in failing health. She died of cancer in December 2010.

So it was sensational, and tawdry, and pathetic – and useless. It’s no wonder people see the justice system as something remote and surreal. And Slate’s Emily Bazelon argues that the trial was really about the wrong thing:

Loathsome but not a criminal – that’s the glorious tagline John Edwards can write for his obituary now that the jury has found him not guilty on one of the six counts of violating campaign finance law that he faced, and hung on the rest. I suppose I should cheer the sputtering end to this trial, since charging Edwards always meant stretching the law. Yet somewhere along the way, I lost my appetite for railing against overzealous prosecutors. Not because Edwards behaved like an utter cad, though he did. But because in this election season in which politics is awash in money as never before, it was a small relief to imagine that someone, somewhere, could still get smacked for crossing the legal line.

And maybe he did cross the line:

Edwards was accused of violating campaign finance laws by taking nearly one million dollars from two rich pals, Bunny Mellon and Fred Baron, to keep his mistress, Rielle Hunter, from going off the reservation. Much of the money was spent after he dropped out of the race to be the Democratic candidate for president, but some of it came in while he was still in the running – Hunter, for example, moved into a home Mellon’s funds paid for in the fall of 2007 and got a BMW and credit cards. She also flew on Baron’s private jet in December to escape the wrath of Elizabeth Edwards, who by then knew about the affair. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race in January 2008, and, as we all now know, he and Hunter had a baby a month later.

But were the gifts campaign donations, miles above the individual contribution limit? Maybe, maybe not:

OK, fine, Mellon and Baron were friends, not donors – or friends as well as donors – and that was good enough for the FEC. An agency audit, issued after Edwards was indicted, treated the money Mellon and Baron gave as though it were for Edwards’ personal use, rather than requiring him to report it as a contribution. This meant that at the trial the prosecutors were forced to argue, “Whatever the FEC determined is not relevant to the criminal charges.” Never mind that they were talking about a fellow federal agency’s determination on exactly the point crucial to deciding Edwards’ guilt.

Bazelon finds this just absurd:

I am so frustrated by the mockery that is campaign finance law in the wake of Citizens United and a key lower-court opinion that followed it that I’m having trouble remembering why we want to ensure that everyone can contribute freely to every campaign. Super PACs, Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump – it’s these images that loom large at the moment, not disenfranchised voters trying to write their checks for $50. Against that backdrop, it is just hard to care about sparing John Edwards from strict enforcement of a confusing law. Maybe the FEC is wrong to exempt gifts from being campaign donations because of a past pattern of giving. Maybe we should have an individual contribution limit and stick to it.

On the other hand, when people and corporations and unions are spending hundreds of millions on elections through super PACs and issue-advocacy groups, that sounds quaint. So if I’m not cheering for John Edwards and his defense, I’m also not eager for the unlikely possibility that the prosecution will try again to convict him of the remaining five counts. He has suffered enough for our campaign finance sins. It’s time to move on from 2007 and his $900,000, and worry about the hundreds of millions pouring into this November’s election instead.

And Amanda Marcotte agrees:

With the news of Karl Rove crowing about how he intends to spend $1 billion in untraceable funds to beat Obama in 2012, it looks particularly ridiculous for the government to waste resources on a showboat prosecution. Even the conservative news magazine National Review had to denounce the prosecution as a waste. John Edwards has been disgraced, humiliated and run out of politics. Bringing the full force of the law down on him on top of it all just seems greedy.

And Digby (Heather Digby Parton) piles on:

In my opinion it was a witch trial, done more to exorcise society’s demons than to serve as a rational application of the law. Edwards behaved abominably and his life is ruined because of it. But I long ago stopped being shocked by people who, in the midst of personal crisis, behave with a lack of character and morals. I’m afraid that at this stage in my life I’ve seen too much of it to be so very, very sure that I can sit in judgment from afar.

But there’s more to it:

Arcane federal election law is flouted every single day in ways that seriously threaten our democracy; using it merely to further humiliate an unpopular cad is a serious misuse of resources. But I suppose we have to give credit where credit is due. Wall Street gamblers and high flying bankers have so far been smart enough not to do the one thing that can get important, high-profile, white males in trouble with the law: get caught paying for unauthorized sex.

Other than that, it’s clear that pretty much anything goes.

No one has faith in the law.

But sometimes things do work out. And it seems the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is on its last legs. As you recall, that was signed into law by Bill Clinton – the states could define marriage anyway they liked, but the federal government, by law, would only recognize marriages between a man and woman, no matter what any flaky state did – which had all sorts of implications in terms of tax law and personal rights. The Obama administration decided the thing was clearly unconstitutional – just in terms of basic rights – and they would make no effort to defend it in court when it would surely be challenged. The right was appalled and there was a bit of talk about impeaching Obama over this – his job description involves defending and upholding the law after all. But it turns out that Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, got it right:

A federal appeals court ruled unanimously Thursday that the federal law declaring marriage to be a union solely between a man and a woman discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples – a ruling that could set the stage for the Supreme Court to review the issue as early as next year.

The decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, will have no immediate effect because the court stayed its ruling in anticipation of an appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal experts said the justices could agree as early as this fall to hear the case and arguments could come next spring, making it the first case involving the same-sex marriage law to be decided by the court.

While the case dealt narrowly with the question of federal benefits for same-sex couples – not with the legality of same-sex marriage itself – many scholars said it was a significant moment in civil rights.

“It is another illustration of the growing consensus of the judiciary about the unconstitutionality of discriminating against gays and lesbians in the realm of marriage,” said Geoffrey Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago.

The law may be remote and surreal at times, but sometimes it’s useful. And Ian Millhiser in this item comments on the key judge in this matter:

Boudin goes to great pains to deny that a law that systematically excludes gay couples from the dignity of full marriage rights is motivated by “hostility to homosexuality.” … Ultimately, however, Boudin’s opinion is a cause for optimism. The last federal appeals judge to strike a blow for marriage equality, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, is a well-known liberal crusader with little influence over the conservative justices. Boudin, by contrast, is a Republican appointee who’s clearly still uncomfortable with Constitution’s promise of equality throughout America. And yet he just published an opinion striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. This bodes well for gay couples when DOMA comes before the Supreme Court.

And Scott Lemieux likes this slow and steady rather conservative approach:

Like Judge Reinhardt’s opinion ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Boudin’s opinion tries to work within the framework of existing Supreme Court precedent rather than pushing the envelope. But this is more likely to appeal to a Supreme Court with a conservative median vote, and the fact that it comes from a respected Republican jurist is even more promising. The chances of DOMA surviving its date with the Supreme Court have just gotten worse, and for people who care about justice and equality this is unequivocally good news.

And the gay activist, Dan Savage, imagines some interesting consequences:

You would think that opponents of marriage equality in states like, say, North Carolina (which recently passed an anti-gay marriage amendment to its state constitution), or Kansas (where loving Christian ministers are calling on the federal government to execute gay men and lesbians), would be delighted at the prospect of a DOMA stripped of Section Three. A Section-Three-free DOMA would create a huge incentive for same-sex couples to leave shitholes like Kansas and Mississippi for saner places like Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Washington D.C. – and soon (fingers crossed) Washington state, Maine, and Maryland.

Well, you have to read the whole thing for the details, but this was a day that, in spite of that absurd Edwards trial, the courts weren’t entirely useless.

But that wasn’t all:

A federal judge on Thursday blocked a controversial Florida law signed by Gov. Rick Scott that sharply curtailed third-party groups’ ability to register voters and forced many of them to discontinue their voter-registration drives.

In a 27-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle said there was little justification for a “harsh and impractical” 48-hour deadline for organizations to deliver applications to voter-registration offices. Granting a preliminary injunction, Hinkle said such restrictions “effectively prohibit an organization from mailing applications in” and “impose burdensome record-keeping and reporting requirements that serve little if any purpose.”

“The short deadline, coupled with substantial penalties for noncompliance, make voter-registration drives a risky business,” Hinkle wrote. “If the goal is to discourage voter-registration drives and thus also to make it harder for new voters to register, the 48-hour deadline may succeed. But if the goal is to further the state’s legitimate interests without unduly burdening the rights of voters and voter registration organizations, 48 hours is a bad choice.”

So the little old ladies of the League of Women voters can continue to do their thing – trying to get as many people as possible to vote, so everyone has a say in things. And Rick Scott is very unhappy – that means more of the elderly and the poor and those black and brown people will be voting – far too many of them likely to vote for Democrats. Rats! Foiled again!

And then there was Scott’s decision to purge the state’s voter rolls of eligible voters – lists of tens of thousands of people who were told they could never vote again, unless the showed up at a court hearing where they could attempt to prove they were really citizens – a burden those elderly and the poor and black and brown people would surely not want to face, as we’re talking time and money, and perhaps finding a lawyer to represent them in the hearing. You may have voted all your life, but if you had a funny-sounding last name this was just not worth the effort. That Scott fellow is pretty clever. Sure the lists he used were flawed – that elderly Brooklyn-born WWII hero with the Bronze Star and Purple Heart was pretty miffed when he was told he could never vote again unless he showed up for a hearing, with the proper notarized documentation. But it was a brilliant political move that had every Republican in the country smiling ear-to-ear.

But it turns out that it was illegal:

The Justice Department sent a letter to Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner Thursday evening demanding the state cease purging its voting rolls because the process it is using has not been cleared under the Voting Rights Act…

DOJ also said that Florida’s voter roll purge violated the National Voter Registration Act, which stipulates that voter roll maintenance should have ceased 90 days before an election, which given Florida’s August 14 primary, meant May 16.

Oops. But then a number of local election commissions were already refusing to purge their voter rolls using the Scott lists anyway – they smelled a rat. So the Department of Justice was a bit late on this, but at least members of those local election commissions won’t have to worry about being taken out back and shot or anything. And Rick Scott was unhappy times two, all in one day.

And yes, all this happened in one day – the surreal Edwards acquittal on one count and the mistrial on all the others, the Defense of Marriage Act declared unconstitutional by a panel of Republican-appointed judges, the injunction against Rick’s Scott’s move to end voter registration and then the Department of Justice telling him he simply could not purge potentially pesky voters from the rolls. Except for the Edwards thing, maybe the law and the courts aren’t useless after all.

But you still can’t sue your health plan. You did sign that waiver.