Exactly.

No, it’s NOT a silver bullet, but I look at it this way: My van is a POS. It nickel-and-dimes me to death. Malpractice and defensive medicine are some of those nickels and dimes in the costs of healthcare. They don’t seem like jack shit until they start adding up.

Best wishes,
-MFS

Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they might refuse to participate in President Obama’s proposed health care summit if the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over.

Preconditions. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

And thank you MFS.

They ask some great questions:

"Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? "
"Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills?"
"If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?"

Great stuff, actually.

Best wishes,
-MFS 

Are you holding up Iran’s totalitarian government as some kind of model?

This is shades of Tom Friedman on the Red Chinese and it’s morally reprehensible nonsense.

Best wishes,
-MFS

What kind of idiot are you?

And, now the name-calling comes out.

Another day, another pompous, pretentious leftist who can’t control themselves… reduced to foaming at the mouth.

Maybe I’m missing something, but why does President Obama require pre-conditions to meet with Republicans, but he didn’t require any to meet with Iran?

Maybe because the Iranians aren’t the ones attacking him right now. I can imagine Khamenei and Ahmadinejad having a good laugh at how viciously the duly-elected President of the United States gets attacked while Iran’s phony president and the unelected Supreme Leader faces no serious threats to their plans.

If he’s allowed to set pre-conditions, so are the Republicans.

Again, you see the complete lack of intelligence and curiosity on the part of talking-points repeaters like Serenity. If they actually were looking at the numbers, they would realize that total health care costs are so large in the aggregate that ANY percentage reduction is going to save billions of dollars.

NDT, another true point… but I was actually thinking of broader effects. Doctors are crushed, spiritually as well as financially, by the costs of malpractice lawsuits and malpractice insurance. And insurance companies are crushed by the cost of “defensive medicine”, a state of over-expenditure that is one factor in driving up all medical costs. If we had meaningful tort reform, the eventual benefits would be far larger than the immediate cost benefits.

Disclaimer: I have not just said that tort reform is a silver bullet. People of common sense and goodwill understand that of course, but I had better spell it out just for Serenity’s benefit.

But health-care costs in Texas are still among the highest in the nation and are growing at a faster rate than in most other states.

This isn’t the mystery the authors make it out to be and nationalizing health services will make it even worse.

Best wishes,
-MFS

Again, you see the complete lack of intelligence and curiosity on the part of talking-points repeaters like Serenity. If they actually were looking at the numbers, they would realize that total health care costs are so large in the aggregate that ANY percentage reduction is going to save billions of dollars.

Any percent reduction would be good, and I would endorse tort reform to that end. But figures I saw back in 2009 suggested that a public healthcare insurer negotiating drug costs down could result in a 40% saving. That’s what I’d call substantial, and would go a long way towards bringing costs in line with other developed nations.

But again, this is not Serenity’s money that is being spent.

Actually, you’re right. I live in Britain, I already have what I want from healthcare. If you feel like spending more to get less, you’re free to do do. I just don’t like falsehoods being spread.

So what is it? 1%? or 30%? Or 50% (half)? Or potentially still more?

What kind of idiot are you? You’re trying to quote mine me with the original on the same fucking page?

50% reduction on lawsuits, 30% reduction on malpractice insurance, 1-5% (depending on who you ask) on the final healthcare insurance that you would be buying. In fact, I immediately followed the “half” and “30%” figures with “health insurance costs there are still among the highest in the country, and are growing at an above average rate”, which you know because it’s in the message you just quoted!

Let me bottom-line it for you Serenity: You tried to “spin” that tort reform wouldn’t accomplish much of note. Now that I’ve pressed you, you’re backtracking big-time. But still trying to spin it as if your point was somehow right. Great pretense.

The original figure stands, in large bolded text in the original article.

2.3%

Estimated reduction in overall health-care costs if significant medical malpractice reform is enacted. There’s your bottom line.

Our President has a simple way to lower costs and it’s not in the legislation. Think about it: pushing spending to 2014, the Cornhusker Kickback, dropping the Mandate, the Louisiana Purchase – all these tortured maneuvers to make the bill seem palatable and cost effective and tort reform doesn’t get a mention!

No, it’s back to first principals if they want the situation to improve: do we want healthcare to be cheaper? To be universal? To be more efficient? These are goals can be mutually exclusive, so we need to decide what our goals even are.

Especially since this bloated, proto-NHS monstrosity does none of those things and costs a trillion dollars to do it.

Best wishes,
-MFS

If the bill’s already been passed and no changes can be made to it, then this whole thing is a farce… Make the Obama Party own up to what it has created.

NDT, exactly.

The price of Republican support should be: Start over. No public option. No mandates. No net tax increases, spending increases, or regulation increases. Free-market reforms only. If the Democrats can’t handle that, then let the Democrats finish passage of ObamaCare – if the Democrats can keep their party together, which is doubtful – and, let the Democrats pay the full price for their wicked deeds in November.

tort reform reduced lawsuits by half and malpractice insurance rates by 30% in Texas

So what is it? 1%? or 30%? Or 50% (half)? Or potentially still more?

Let me bottom-line it for you Serenity: You tried to “spin” that tort reform wouldn’t accomplish much of note. Now that I’ve pressed you, you’re backtracking big-time. But still trying to spin it as if your point was somehow right. Great pretense.

the evidence is pretty strong that [tort reform is] not a silver bullet.

And now, the straw man tactics come out. Good job Serenity, straw man tactics are sure to make me stop and think.

If the bill’s already been passed and no changes can be made to it, then this whole thing is a farce.

That is really what the Republicans need to point out — that they can’t make any changes to the bill and that the Obama Party has already rammed it through with a host of giveaways and backroom deals. Make the Obama Party own up to what it has created.

If one estimates that the total cost of health care in this country is 3 trillion dollars annually, 5% of that is 150 billion dollars annually.

Or, put differently, by putting these changes in place, health care costs could be reduced by 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years.

To put that in perspective, leftists like Serenity were shrieking that the cost of the Iraq war, approximately $4.4 billion per month or roughly $53 billion per year, was “bankrupting the country” and something we “couldn’t afford”.

But when it comes to cutting three times that amount in annual health care costs for Americans? “Small potatoes”.

Again, you see the complete lack of intelligence and curiosity on the part of talking-points repeaters like Serenity. If they actually were looking at the numbers, they would realize that total health care costs are so large in the aggregate that ANY percentage reduction is going to save billions of dollars.

But again, this is not Serenity’s money that is being spent. Serenity and others like them are merely moochers and welfare cases who are trying to vote themselves higher benefits without ever having to pay for them. Therefore, Serenity can afford to throw away $150 billion a year for ideological purposes and to protect the profits of trial lawyers because it does not and will not ever have to pay for it.