Unbelievably (or not), considering Richard Land's history, this position on health reform:
In his August 18, 209 press release, Dr. Land states that he opposes the current House bill, H.R. 3200, but does believe that health care reform is needed.It is amazing that Mr. Land's SBC seems to have more in common philisophically with Ayn Rand than Jesus Christ. Or the Pope. Sphere: Related Content
According to Land, he "recognize[s] the need to rework certain elements of the health care equation in America. While the health care industry in the U.S. is relatively robust, it is not without flaws. And there is a segment of the American population, either because of their income level or their medical condition, that needs responsible and well-regulated government assistance."
Dr. Land doesn't believe that greater government involvement is the answer. Dr. Land believes that tort reform is one of the biggest avenues of savings in the health care industry. He states, "If we had tort reform, just tort reform, getting the stinking, rotten lawyers out of the business of ambulance chasing, we would eliminate about $50 billion of medical costs every year that doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance which is then passed on to you in the form of bills."
Dr. Land does believe that in a country as prosperous as the United States, every one should have guaranteed access to some level of health care, though he rejects government involvement. According to Land, the "answer is to provide alternatives and incentives for most people to be in health care that they provide for themselves, and then the government can focus like a laser on those who aren't able to provide it for themselves and you give them a basic level of health care. If I could use the car analogy, everybody should have a Chevrolet. Those who can afford it can get Cadillacs or even Mercedes."
4 comments:
Chris, Who doesn't support tort reform? Primarily those who are enriched by it. I will assume that you are among those who feel that some 'adjustment' in the medical malpractice is overdue. Imagine what could be done if the billions of dollars that the tort system sucks up could be liberated?
www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
I am just dumbfounded that a theoretically religious person would go to tort reform as his argument against HC reform.
How about, perhaps, we must make access to health care for all Americans (Judeo-Christian tradition would include aliens as well, but never mind that) a top moral priority?
The moral or religious argument for tort reform escapes me.
And, for the record, too many of my colleagues equate tort reform with caps. I am for alternative dispute resolution, mediation, etc. See this prior post:
http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2009/09/tort-reform-does-not-necessarily-equal.html
I support caps, although reluctantly. I do so because I believe that they serve the greater good, even though they deny relief to some deserving individuals. I agree that I would rather have a system that serves a filter against filing the frivolous suits from the outset. www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
No one seems to understand that the insurance industry created this mess just as methodically as a drug dealer hooks a sucker on heroin. A little bit at a time.
Think back to the time, if you can, before health insurance when hospitals cost $10.00 per day, and were operated by charitable and/or religious organizations. Doctors made house calls, and medicine wasn't thousands of dollars a bottle. What changed? Health insurance helped raise the prices bit-by-bit until we could no longer live without it. Remember the heroin example?
This may sound like rantings, but check out my blog for more information. http://www.billprintbroker.com
Post a Comment