"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc
wrote:

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes. Open the system similar to the auto insurance industry (and
other insurance industries) nationwide and let the market settle it.
Establish a minimum requirement, like catastrophic care (similar to
collision and liability) and go from there - you want more coverage,
add it on.

Second, reform tort laws sufficiently that outrageous settlements for
hangnails aren't available to ambulance chasing lawyers.

It's funny you should bring this up. I had my regular three month
specialists appointments today - the bone doc and the rheumatologist
and when asked what they thought of this recently passed system, they
went ballistic.

At best, it will cost them money per patient if the proposed measures
go through. And their insurances will go up. And thats assuming they
stay in the system at all because it is going to be difficult to
maintain acceptable standards and practices in a constantly evolving
regulatory environment where anything and everything can change at the
whim of a beaurucrat.

One made the case that Obamacare is going to create more legal issues
which will increase third party insurance costs both for the patients
and for the doctors.


Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem. Same
goes with the "maintain acceptable standards" bs. Nothing evolves that
quickly. It's all about legislation and underlying statuary laws. Those take
time. Your docs should stick to doctoring or get a law degree.

--
Nom=de=Plume