For ObamaCare: The 2014 Elections Might Have Serious Consequences

I think a lot of Republicans (and Democrats, too) believe that it would be impossible to repeal and replace ObamaCare unless they controlled both houses of Congress and could retake the presidency in 2017.  However, I believe there is another scenario that could seal ObamaCare's fate in 2015.

If (and that is a big "if") the Democrats receive a similar shellacking in 2014 as was seen in 2010, and they lose control of the Senate and see even more losses of seats in the House, a number of Senate Democrats may possibly be willing to side with Republicans in repealing ObamaCare.  Enough, even,  to override an Obama veto.  I can say this with confidence because no Democrat is going to be willing to lose another sweeping election because of their continued support of ObamaCare.

The only way Republicans can pull this off is to offer a bill that, in the very first paragraph, repeals or supersedes ObamaCare and, then, goes on to outline a new reform of heath care. One that would have clear public acceptance over the current law and one that, at the very least, is somewhat acceptable to the Democrats.

The biggest hangup in doing this will be the Republican's insistence on tort reform.  Because trial lawyers are such big donors to the Democrats, it will be very difficult for any of them to vote for a bill that would harm that critical donor base.  In fact, right now, ObamaCare, with all of its legislative facets, is a potential gold mine for trial lawyers if health care providers and insurance companies fail to comply with any parts of the law; leading to both Federal and civil lawsuits being filed.  While tort reform would definitely benefit the country as a whole by lowering health care costs, the Republicans would be wise to hold off doing anything about it until they do have the presidency and both houses of congress.

When The Left Hand Doesn't Talk To The Other Left Hand

Who can forget what Obama said to a joint session of Congress with regard to medical malpractice tort reform:



Well, somebody should tell Nancy Pelosi that tort reform is a good thing and that it could reduce excess medical costs to within a range of $54 billion to $300 billion a year; depending on which study you're looking at. But, once again, what Obama giveth in a speech, Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats taketh away in action. And, don't expect Obama to complain one iota. This Obama-Pelosi-Reid two-step has been the modus operandi from the day Obama got into office.

According to section 2531 of Pelosi's near 2000 page tome on health care reform, states can receive incentive payments for implementing alternatives to medical malpractice suits. However, if those reforms include any reduction of attorney's fees or any caps on malpractice awards, the state will be barred from receiving incentive pay (Click to See Full Story: "Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers"). If that isn't deceitful double talk, I don't know what is!

Once again, Obama makes a pledge with his patented "I-don't-really-mean-it-wink" and, then, we get another broken promise when he has his "tools" of Congress (Pelosi and Reid) actually do the dirty work.

Another Study That Supports Tort Reform

Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that said the Federal government could save $54 billion per year in Medicare and Medicaid expenses if caps were placed on medical malpractice suits (Click to See Full Story: "Tort reform could save $54 billion, Congressional Budget Office says"). Keep in mind, this saving would only apply to that portion of the nation's health care bill that is being picked up by the Federal government.

Now comes another study that supports tort reform.

The Thomas Reuters company has just completed a study and their conclusion is that there is between $500 billion and $800 billion in wasted dollars in our health care system each year (Click to See Full Story: "Healthcare system wastes up to $800 billion a year").

22 percent of this waste is directly due to fraud. Medical mistakes can cost up to $100 billion a year. Other waste exists in the redundant flow of paperwork that could be eliminated if electronic record keeping was adopted and fully implemented.

But, by far, the greatest waste -- 37 percent of the total -- is due to the unnecessary use of procedures and drugs to avoid medical malpractice lawsuits. This number -- somewhere between $200 billion and $300 billion per year --- has a 10-year cost of between $2 trillion and $3 trillion dollars. That, unto itself, would easily pay the cost for any of the health care legislation that is floating around Congress these days. Yet, these Democrats would prefer to protect their personal special interest group, the American Trial Lawyers, and not implement any form of tort reform for medical malpractice suits. Instead, they would have you and I foot the bill for health care reform while those "greedy" trial lawyers keep all their luxury cars, homes, and boats. So much for the Democrats looking out for the "little guy"!

Harry Reid's Apples and Oranges Analysis

The above video is making the rounds on the Internet today.

The primary reason for this is that Harry Reid appears to have spilled a very big can of beans by saying that health care reform will "really" cost $2 trillion dollars and not the under $900 billion "lie" that he and the other Democrats have been throwing around as gospel.

But, more than that, Harry can't seem to do simple math.

In the video, he compares an estimated $54 billion in "annual" savings for tort reform with a 10-year spending total of $2 trillion. And, then, he he has the gall to say that $54 billion -- when compared to $2 trillion --- is just a drop in the bucket. Lastly, this dummy concludes this flawed analysis by saying: "You can do the math...we can all do the math..."

Oh, really? Do the math, Harry?

This is so typical of the B.S. that we continually get from so many politicians on the left when they're trying to make things add up for one of their extremely wasteful projects. In doing so, it appears that they either have left their knowledge of simple mathematics behind when they graduated from grade school or, more than likely, they are all habitual liars.

That $54 billion per "year" savings will have a 10-year total savings that is in excess of 1/2 trillion dollars and, to Harry, I would say: That ain't the chicken feed that you seem to think it is!

My math says that this number, alone, is one-fourth of the $2 trillion that Harry plans to spend and that's a big chunk of change to anyone; except, of course, for a typical tax-and-spend Democrat like Harry.

Maybe this is why the consummately-clueless Harry Reid is doing so poorly in the polls; especially in his own home state of Nevada! It just reminds me of another episode of stupidity by Harry when he and Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to George W. Bush -- in early 2007 and before any additional troops had even arrived in Iraq -- to tell him that the surge wasn't working and we should redeploy our troops out of that country (Click to Press Release and the Letter). If we had listened to Harry and Nancy, then, we wouldn't be leaving Iraq in the next year or so with our heads high and an apparent victory under our belts. Instead, Harry and Nancy would have had us leave in complete defeat. Now we're supposed to believe him on health care?

My Rx on Health Care Reform: Baby Steps

Obviously, the health care reform legislation by the Democrats is in serious trouble. Instead of us doing a "baby out with the bath water" type of destruction of America's health care system, I would suggest that legislation be done in baby steps.

Without even addressing tort reform -- an apparent special interest taboo for the Democrats -- I think Congress could go a long way by making a basic catastrophic insurance policy available to all Americans regardless of any pre-existing medical conditions.

To accomplish this, I would suggest that Congress allow all 1300 health insurance companies to compete nationally rather than be confined to selling insurance on a state-only basis. But, in order to complete nationally, the insurance companies must provide a basic national health insurance policy that is available to all; regardless of any age or health condition.

I think the basic policy could be a basic $5,000 annual deductible-per-person insurance policy ($10,000 max per family) that would cover 100% of expenses once the deductible is met. It would not cover elective or any experimental forms of medical treatment.

In order to share the risk equally, the insurance companies could be allowed to establish a collective "risk pool" for people with high risk or pre-existing conditions and such insurance pools would not be subject to anti-trust laws that would normally be used to bar such activity. To spur competition, no single risk pool could insure more than 10% of the nation's population.

The pricing for the basic insurance rate must be published quarterly so Americans can shop for the best deal. But, any insured person will be restricted from switching from a particular "risk pool" or insurance company until you have completed a minimum of 18 months of coverage with any particular insurer. This should avoid a massive dumping of insurance companies on a quarterly basis.

For low or no income Americans, the Federal Government could pick up the cost of this basic insurance. Above that, a progressive Earned Income Tax Cedit could be applied to income tax filers who file tax returns and who live above the poverty income level. The amount of the tax credit should be a progressive tax with it being completely unavailable to those making, say $100,000 or more. People at the lowest ends of the pay scale would receive a 100% reimbursement.

Beyond the basic national catastrophic insurance policy, the insurer could offer all forms of supplemental insurance that would dovetail with the catastrophic insurance policy; similar to AARP's supplemental insurance for Medicare recipients. Employers would also be able to pick up the cost of both catastrophic and supplemental insurance as a hiring incentive.

Like it or not, the above is really a form of public option "but" -- and a very important but -- without the government. That's important because it insures that there is still competition between the insurers. It provides the portability that is lacking in our current system. And, it should make insurance available to everyone. By allowing national competition for insurance, costs should come down with competition.

Beyond the above, I think that our lawmakers should work on tort reform. I would like to see lump-sum litigation awards be eliminated and some form of annuity-based system instituted. This could reduce the amount of burden on the malpractice insurers by at least 1/3. In general, that would lower the cost of providing health care to the tune of probably $100 billion. Also, the highly subjective "Pain and suffering" awards should be capped at some reasonable number. These awards have been spiraling as juries seem more and more inclined to punish doctors with massive judgments.

Certainly, this is just one idea of many that could stop our doctors from practicing "defensive" medicine to avoid being sued.

Apparently, the American Public Is Easier to Screw With Than The Trial Lawyers