Reader Elmer sends today's Corning Leader story [pdf] (and jump [pdf]) detailing Tom Reed and Eric Massa's reaction to the defeat of the public option in the Senate Finance Committee.
Although I adamantly disagree with congressman Massa, he seems to stick by his guns. I'm not real fond about the quote where he puts so much stock in what Obama laid out in the joint-session. Nonetheless, Reed was spouting typical disheveled Republican talking points. Tort reform interferes with the People's right to use the court system. Any type of administrative panel would not limit the amount of malpractice claims and would become just as costly in its own right. Tort reform is a state issue; ask Texas. Capping damages under our current rate of inflation would require yearly adjustments; it's unnecessary. It also dehumanizes the damages one faces when truly injured. The problem is that judges are reluctant to impose sanctions against lawyers who bring frivolous suits. Furthermore, the cost of malpractice insurance only makes up a small portion of the total costs of health care. Insurance is heavily regulated by the individual states. Reed is proposing that congress circumvent the 10th amendment and require the states to open insurance to full interstate competition as if it were bubble gum or blue jeans. The proper way to accomplish insurance interstate competition is at a conference between the Governors who then take it back to their respective legislatures. Truthfully, states could individually put the smackdown on the insurance companies and make them cover "pre-existing" conditions as requirement to do business. We need less federal government, more state sovereignty and a re-birth of individual freedoms.
I suggest that congress table health care for a bit and incentivize the states to come up with better programs. If you want to move to a State that has universal health care, then you move your business there knowing taxes will be higher. If you choose to self-insure or buy private insurance, then go to a state that allows you the independence to do that. National health care will lead to good law abiding Americans going to jail because they do not want that kind of Federal interference in their lives. We have seen what happened to public education since Carter created the D.O.E. How has that worked out for us?
Mon, 10/05/2009 - 21:45 — Rottenchester
The interstate insurance competition point is an interesting one. In last week's press call, Reed used the analogy of car insurance, but, as far as I know, car insurance is also regulated by the individual states. For example, I buy my insurance from a Texas company that issues policies through a NY affiliate. I assume the big health insurers could issue policies in each state, but they choose not to for various reasons related to profitability (i.e.,"the market"). I don't see what the federal government can do to change that.
As for tort reform, I read something interesting the other day: a lot of "frivolous" lawsuits are filed simply for discovery purposes. Patients who have been injured in a hospital want to read and review their medical records, but hospitals treat them like confidential information. This pushes patients to file lawsuits simply to get their records as a product of discovery. Allowing more open access to medical records might be one small reform that would save a few bucks.
So, given your anti-federalist position, are you against Medicaid and Medicare?
I would not go as far to say that I am "anti-federalist". Perhaps the term needs defined. I do think that that the federal government should be scaled back in scope and size. With respect to Medicaid and Medicare, I would argue that the States have the right to set up these programs. It's when the Fed Government gets involved and makes decisions for the masses that raises concerns for me. It takes away the power from the people to truly exert control over their lives and drive their destinies.
These large federal programs have an implicit axiom that says "People are too stupid and inept to take care of themselves". Now we have almost an entire generation of people who think taking care of us is the proper role of the Federal Government and we are watching America dissipate right before our eyes. Perhaps the past fifty to sixty years have been too good to us, and we do not understand that individual responsibility, free enterprise and human ingenuity is what created our great country.
Tue, 10/06/2009 - 14:16 — Rottenchester
"People are too stupid and inept to take care of themselves"
I think it's a long stretch from Medicaid/Medicare (to take two examples of federal programs) to this statement. I think the forces involved are more subtle than that.
Over the last 100 years, population in the country has moved to urban centers. Most rural states now have 1 representative. But they still have two Senators. In order to get rural Senators' votes, the bargain that's been struck is that those rural states get more federal dollars that urban states. Of course, those federal dollars come through big federal programs. If you look at the numbers, those states get $2-3 back for every dollar they send to DC. NY gets something like $.89.
If you want more state control, you need to find a way to diminish the power of rural Senators.
Comments
Although I adamantly disagree with congressman Massa, he seems to stick by his guns. I'm not real fond about the quote where he puts so much stock in what Obama laid out in the joint-session. Nonetheless, Reed was spouting typical disheveled Republican talking points. Tort reform interferes with the People's right to use the court system. Any type of administrative panel would not limit the amount of malpractice claims and would become just as costly in its own right. Tort reform is a state issue; ask Texas. Capping damages under our current rate of inflation would require yearly adjustments; it's unnecessary. It also dehumanizes the damages one faces when truly injured. The problem is that judges are reluctant to impose sanctions against lawyers who bring frivolous suits. Furthermore, the cost of malpractice insurance only makes up a small portion of the total costs of health care. Insurance is heavily regulated by the individual states. Reed is proposing that congress circumvent the 10th amendment and require the states to open insurance to full interstate competition as if it were bubble gum or blue jeans. The proper way to accomplish insurance interstate competition is at a conference between the Governors who then take it back to their respective legislatures. Truthfully, states could individually put the smackdown on the insurance companies and make them cover "pre-existing" conditions as requirement to do business. We need less federal government, more state sovereignty and a re-birth of individual freedoms.
I suggest that congress table health care for a bit and incentivize the states to come up with better programs. If you want to move to a State that has universal health care, then you move your business there knowing taxes will be higher. If you choose to self-insure or buy private insurance, then go to a state that allows you the independence to do that. National health care will lead to good law abiding Americans going to jail because they do not want that kind of Federal interference in their lives. We have seen what happened to public education since Carter created the D.O.E. How has that worked out for us?
The interstate insurance competition point is an interesting one. In last week's press call, Reed used the analogy of car insurance, but, as far as I know, car insurance is also regulated by the individual states. For example, I buy my insurance from a Texas company that issues policies through a NY affiliate. I assume the big health insurers could issue policies in each state, but they choose not to for various reasons related to profitability (i.e.,"the market"). I don't see what the federal government can do to change that.
As for tort reform, I read something interesting the other day: a lot of "frivolous" lawsuits are filed simply for discovery purposes. Patients who have been injured in a hospital want to read and review their medical records, but hospitals treat them like confidential information. This pushes patients to file lawsuits simply to get their records as a product of discovery. Allowing more open access to medical records might be one small reform that would save a few bucks.
So, given your anti-federalist position, are you against Medicaid and Medicare?
I would not go as far to say that I am "anti-federalist". Perhaps the term needs defined. I do think that that the federal government should be scaled back in scope and size. With respect to Medicaid and Medicare, I would argue that the States have the right to set up these programs. It's when the Fed Government gets involved and makes decisions for the masses that raises concerns for me. It takes away the power from the people to truly exert control over their lives and drive their destinies.
These large federal programs have an implicit axiom that says "People are too stupid and inept to take care of themselves". Now we have almost an entire generation of people who think taking care of us is the proper role of the Federal Government and we are watching America dissipate right before our eyes. Perhaps the past fifty to sixty years have been too good to us, and we do not understand that individual responsibility, free enterprise and human ingenuity is what created our great country.
"People are too stupid and inept to take care of themselves"
I think it's a long stretch from Medicaid/Medicare (to take two examples of federal programs) to this statement. I think the forces involved are more subtle than that.
Over the last 100 years, population in the country has moved to urban centers. Most rural states now have 1 representative. But they still have two Senators. In order to get rural Senators' votes, the bargain that's been struck is that those rural states get more federal dollars that urban states. Of course, those federal dollars come through big federal programs. If you look at the numbers, those states get $2-3 back for every dollar they send to DC. NY gets something like $.89.
If you want more state control, you need to find a way to diminish the power of rural Senators.