Would president Obama's "universal" health care...?

by **shen86** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:25 am

...funding program have legislation that prevents the trial lawyers from representing clients that desire to press suit on the grounds of medical malpractice? If not, would the trial lawyers not just suit the American government(tax payers) in place of the insurance companies they formally placed suits against? Like would the taxes collected to fund universal insurance coverage have to be raised every time a lawyer won a medical malpractice suit against the U.S. government? I mean the U.S. government would then be the medical insurance agent for the public, right?
My second question... is a U.S. government sponsored universal medical coverage program even Constitutionally legal????

by **shen86** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:26 am

does everyone not get an education in this country?

why should the people who went to college spent that money be forced to pay obama's crazy taxes to get health care to the EVERYONE...everyone even the ones who can afford it if they tried like everyone else......the democratic party is way to communist...communism would be great...if it worked????

and sure people should want to help those who need it...but the government should it force them too...and obama never looks at this angel...NEVER

Change...giving it out of the pockets of those who earned it, to pay for those who didn't

Cheap
Hallucination
About
Nothing
Gets
Everybody

to VOTE OBAMA

by **shen86** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:32 am

yes of course, everything you suggest is ridiculous

by **reuben29** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:35 am

Obama isn't offering universal health care. He's offering a fee based health care plan people can opt into.

by **jaren12** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:43 am

*Yawn* wow you sure did your research. Guess you finally found section C paragraph 325 clause 113. Look how much you've accomplished.

by **max** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:48 am

Even if your assumptions were accurate - lawyers don't sue the insurance company for malpractice, they sue the health care providers. If the government becomes the insurer, that still wouldn't change.

by **jaren12** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:50 am

Who says that a universal health plan has to have government doctors and hospitals? That's silly--we can use the existing structure of Medicare, Medicaid and children's health programs. I think universal health care would force a revision of our tort laws--in many countries (England, Canada, NZ) you can't sue but rather go through an administrative process that is fairer for everyone. AND not misallocating health care dollars mean it would not cost as much as detractors say it would.

by **jaren12** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:02 am

First: No, it would not be necessary. Lawyers do not sue insurance companies for malpractice; they sue doctors and hospitals. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume the US government would be sued whenever a doctor or other medical professional is suspected of malpractice.

Second: Technically, I don't think it is Constitutional, but the federal government stopped paying attention to the Constitution about a century ago. Technically, the Constitution prevents the federal government from banning drugs, but we still have federal bans on most recreationally abused drugs.

by **shen86** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 am

Why don't you actually read his proposals rather than speculating? Then you will know.

by **max** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:11 am

I wonder why, in a time of personal responsibility, its felt that doctors shouldn't have to assume any. If they cut off the wrong leg, and then have to remove the bad one, is it truly your contention that no one should be sued? If a lawyer wins a suit, doesn't it make sense that a jury has agreed that there was fault and it resulted in ongoing problems. Problems that may leave a person in pain for the remainder of their lives, or may even take their lives.
A US universal medical coverage program is legal. Or at least there is nothing mentioned about it in the Constitution. Insurance companies do well and make a profit, even with those nasty malpractice claims. So I'm not too worried about that.
Of course you have to understand that at the time that worthy document was authored, there were no cures, or operations that even gave you a chance of survival by other than miracle. No antibiotics, not anesthesia. No idea that there were germs, let alone that they could kill.
The government has many ways to help with the cost of insurance.
As it happens I had to look for some this week, and for a family of two its $1,300 a month, which puts it beyond most peoples means. We went with a cheaper policy at $400 a month, still a hefty charge for most. No help at all now unless your income is, are you ready, $1200 a month, or less.
With the increase in unemployment we will be seeing and increase in need. It would be a good idea to get ahead of the problem, for once.

Advertisments:

Sponsor Links: