posted on July 4, 2001 01:54:15 PM
Did a little further searching and came up with the same issue that was in another proposed health care bill.
And here is what Joe Lieberman had to say on the subject: bolding is mine.
"I think, with all respect, that the Democratic bill goes too far. It opens up the system to the unlimited right to sue and creates the same prospect for the lotteries that have been going on elsewhere in the tort system… And some small businesses and individual people will be priced out of health insurance by the costs that will be added as a result of run-away litigation," reads the advertisement, which quotes a statement made by Sen. Lieberman about the Dingell-Norwood-Kennedy bill during Senate consideration of the patients' bill of rights on July 15, 1999. A copy of the ad is attached.
By allowing new, unlimited lawsuits against employers, the Dingell-Norwood-Kennedy bill would force many employers to stop offering health care coverage to their employees rather than face the risk of a ruinous lawsuit. Even if they are not sued directly, employers and their employees will still face higher costs resulting from the flood of new lawsuits into the health care system. Either way, if Dingell-Norwood-Kennedy passes 1.3 million more Americans would lose their health insurance (Barents Group LLC, CBO). The newest Norwood-Ashcroft-McCain version of the patients' bill of rights would be just as harmful to employers as the original Dingell-Norwood-Kennedy bill and would result in the same consequences.
I've been searching (with no luck) to see what medical benefits these senators who are deciding and voting on what health care benefits we will have, have themselves.
posted on July 4, 2001 02:15:34 PM
snowyegret - I'm sorry. Which bill are you referring to that: this bill sticks it to the patient? The one that just (Friday) was passed by the Senate? There are four (I believe) patient bills of rights before the house and senate right now. So, I'm not clear on if you're referring to the Kennedy-McCain one or not.
And on the HMO issue (being both a provider and employer) I think all these bills address that issue.
I worked for Kaiser for a few years and I certainly am no supporter of their system. BUT....for those who can't afford private medical insurance, I do feel any HMO fills the gap between not being able to afford any insurance and the cost of private insurance.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 4, 2001 02:18 PM ]
posted on July 4, 2001 02:21:38 PM
snowy - I'm sure you're right. Everytime the discussion of Social Security comes up, I see red.
Here they have a totally different (and, of course, much better) system that we 'regular' taxpaying folks do, but they're making laws on how our retirement money will (or will not) be there. That's why I was wondering if this insurance issue was the same way. Just thinking out loud.
posted on July 4, 2001 02:48:47 PM
Linda, my reply just got erased , but it basically said I'm concerned about the language (in Kennedy-McCain) that says the patient must exhaust all internal and external appeals before going to court. Medically reviewable cases will be heard in the state court, while administrative cases will be heard in the federal court. Also, there is supposed to be a time limit, but there is no specific limit stated.
There are some fly by night insurance companies out there. There are some well known delaying tactics also.
We recently priced private insurance, and ended up going with my husband's work plan due to cost. The cheapest was through my state nurses Assn., but it was still considerably higher.
posted on July 4, 2001 05:10:27 PM
I look at it this way:
Say for instance that terrific medical coverage costs you $100 a month. Now, the market gets flooded with cheaper insurance companies and you can buy an insurance plan at, say, only $40 a month. Great deal, eh? But what if the catch is that these cheaper copanies are cheaper because they offer incompitant service? What if you go in for a sore throat and they give you a hysterectomy just before you planned to have kids, or they remove leg instead of treating your gall bladder? And then, a Parient's BOR becomes available and chases away all of the cheap, incompitant insurance SCAM companies, leaving you only with the BEST QUALITY CARE .. back at $100 a month. What is the result?
The result is that many peole will point out how many insurance companies ran away. They will point out how bad this is. But they fail to point out that those medical insurance comapnies that DO stay behind aren't afraid of lawsuits, because they do what's right!
So, with all due respect to the posts of some previous posters in here, I think that oyu are flat out wrong in pointing out how it chases away the majority of medical insurance companies when they can be sued. Instead, I think that it shows us all just how many WORTHLESS CHEATING SCAMMER insurance companies that there are! Goodby and Good Riddance to them, I say! Quality Costs!
posted on July 4, 2001 05:53:44 PM
The question: "I'm not trying to argue corporate americans cause, I'm trying (and asked above) to find out what the reason was that the people who wrote this bill would want to hold employers liable for malpractice"
is answered unwittingly with the following statement that:"For a long time people have applied for jobs where the benefits the company offers are better than the one's offered by their previous employer".
Every business competes for employees as well as for business. When they can appear to offer any benefit which exceeds that of a hiring competitor they gain. But healthcare is also a very competitive business fraught with borderline unscrupulous players who claim to offer more for less when in fact they offer less for less even so far as offering nothing for something. An employer free of concern about a possibility of liability for failing to screen the benefits they offer would be at risk each time they present an attractive but unproven benefit package to any potential employee. It's no less than fraud. An employee accepting an offer of employment based in part on his or her comparison of benefits to be provided might well suffer grievously if those benefits proved to be worthless if needed. Employers do have a responsibility to assess the programs of health benefit that they enter into and thereby enter their employees into and should be held liable for failure to meet those responsibilities.
"Even if they are not sued directly, employers and their employees will still face higher costs resulting from the flood of new lawsuits into the health care system"
These statements are assumptions, predictors of doom without the weight of proof. Chicken Little did that and was thought to be a fool. Are you to continue in his footsteps? (what's a chicken's foot called?)
posted on July 4, 2001 06:42:10 PM
Hi, Linda_k...In your comment: I worked for Kaiser for a few years and I certainly am no supporter of their system. BUT....for those who can't afford private medical insurance, I do feel any HMO fills the gap between not being able to afford any insurance and the cost of private insurance....
I am not sure what you mean...I thought my Kaiser payment always WAS for a private Medical Insurance plan....I pay $229.00 per month, since I work for myself...and I am not understanding about "filling the gap...". To me, it seems a TOTAL Insurance...
Perhaps I am missing something?
Of course, I cannot afford 1,000 per month coverage with ANYONE! But I don't believe my 229.00 puts me in the "poor" category of those who cannot afford Insurance....
posted on July 4, 2001 06:45:35 PM
There are several reasons why employers were included in the bill as subject to being sued:
1. Most large corporations are "self-insured" and only use insurance companies and HMOs to administer the corporate funded plan.
2. Even when the business is not self-insured, it negotiates with its insurance carrier on all sorts of issues. It is therefore frequently a party to guidelines which might prevent the best treatment or bar experimental therapies that could save lives.
Although I am not completely familiar with the actual language of the bill, I would hope it would allow employers to be held liable only if they had some level of responsibility , as opposed to just offering insurance to employees with the insurance company's or HMO's standard plans.
I hope this helps clarify this piece of the issue.
posted on July 4, 2001 06:57:35 PM
I have a real issue with the idea of a review board and here is why. In the (normally) great state of OR, laws currently protect hospitals and doctors more than patients by a one year statute of limitations. What does this mean? Let me digress and personalize it for you.
Almost three years ago after a normal pregnancy and no sign that such a thing could ever possibly happen, my son died at birth. I will leave out the personal/gory details, but want to add that when his heart rate began to drop it took the hospital/doctor about 45 minutes to get me into surgery for an emergency c-section. They were short staffed and not prepared to handle an emergency that night even though we had called ahead and told them we were on our way in. I went into the hospital pregnant and came out of the hospital carrying a box of cards, in an emotional fog that lasted for a long time. The whole experience defied logic. Something like this does not happen to women who have great prenatal care, etc. I spent the next year trying to shake off that "fog" for lack of a better way to describe it.
That first year following his death I blamed myself. This was easy to do as I was not alone-- family members and even my husband added to this blame. It wasn't until we sent for a copy of the hospital records 14 months after his death that we saw how much time it took them to do the surgery. We began to question what had happened and contacted an attorney who informed us that we were 2 months too late to bring a lawsuit against the hospital or doctor for medical malpractice.
Interestingly enough the DR has since retired (she quickly retired-- even though she is quite young). She can not practice unless it is volunteer.
The really mean side of me wants to send cards to her (and the hospital for that matter) a few times a year. Just to say "Remember us?, Remember Dylan?", but I don't send them. I just think about doing it and it appeases that angry side.
Anyway a review board is a joke. Sorry for going off topic a bit.
posted on July 4, 2001 09:14:55 PM
The debate in the PBOR about including employers with respect to lawsuits has to do with ERISA, which is the Employment Retirement Income Security Act enacted in 1974, which encouraged employers to provide and underwrite health care benefits in exchange for business tax reductions and other incentives favorable to business, while at the same time ensuring that employees had access to ample health coverage. It was a good idea for the times, except that key to this act was the prevention of employee suits against their employer-insurers for damages relating to health care (or lack thereof)in amounts greater than the actual cost of care. This was in the days before Manage Healthcare and HMO's were even a "gleam" in Wall Street's eye. ERISA is still in effect, and while there have been a couple of cases in Federal Court that have managed to skirt the "damages" limited by the ERISA provision, for the most part it limits lawsuits over denial of care to Federal Courts, and the damages to what it would have cost to treat the patient properly to begin with. In other words, extremely limited "damages" with no punitive or general damages allowed. There's a trend for individual states to enact legislation allowing such lawsuits with in the State's Courts with no such limits of damages, but of course it is to the Managed Healthcare's financial advantage to keep such lawsuits in Federal Court where possible monetary damages are extremely limited. The ERISA loophole makes the argument over the proposed legislation complex and extremely complicated. Here is a link that briefly explains it.
http://www.igc.org/cna/news/la2999.html
Oh and LindaK, re your statement I've been searching (with no luck) to see what medical benefits these senators who are deciding and voting on what health care benefits we will have, have themselves.
Those senators are government employees and therefore exempt from ERISA restrictions of suing their employer for large damages resulting from malpractice, and guess who their employer is? And isn't THAT special?
posted on July 4, 2001 10:20:52 PM
Except that they couldn't sue the federal government, only individuals wiyhin the frederal government.
I don't know why this bill needs much research into it's reasons. It's clearly an end-around the law designed to protect various interests against rightful claims. All you need to know about this administration can be found by following the money.
posted on July 4, 2001 10:55:14 PM
Well, it was suggested here that passing this bill was going to result in a flurry of willy nilly lawsuits against employers for medical decisions made (or not made) by HMO's. Of course propagating mental images of tort minded lawyers running amuck and unchecked in our legal system is a favorite and well-used Republican propaganda tool. Nevertheless, Krs, ERISA pre-empts the patient's right to sue in state courts, where potential financial liability to HMO's found guilty of denial of benefits or substandard medical care is much higher than the Federal Courts which currently take jurisdiction in such suits and are also limited in monetary damage awards. This is a KEY element in the proposed bill, and one of the major sticking points for the Republican led opposition to it.
posted on July 4, 2001 11:28:09 PM
I wanted to clarify that in my post above I was not trying to suggest that the Federal Government could be sued, but rather that a government EMPLOYEE has the right to sue their HMO or insurer because he/she is exempt from ERISA prohibitions. In other words here's a hypothetical... Dick Cheney could sue the heck out of his HMO for only allowing a certain brand of pacemaker be used, even though it was recalled as being defective, but the HMO decided it was "cheaper". So he has problems, and is eligible for monetary awards beyond what the cost would have been to install the proper pacemaker AND he can get punitive damages to teach the HMO a lesson that they better not pull that crap on anyone else, AND he can get damages for lost wages, time off work due to the complications caused, AND he can get damages to pay for the cost of his legal fees he spent to wage the court battle against the HMO. He can sue for these damages because he is a government employee and therefore exempt from ERISA restrictions against recovering damages. Poor LindaK on the other hand,(who also got the same defective pacemaker) CAN'T sue in Missouri(?) State Court because not being a government employee, but rather an employee of a private corporation, she is prohibited by ERISA from seeking relief from the state courts and must instead wage her legal battle in Federal Court where the most she will get is a measly $100,000 total that it cost for the defective pacemaker and the surgery it cost for implantation, and not a penny toward the cost of her legal fees.
posted on July 5, 2001 12:27:58 AM
Katy, the comment I made wasn't directed to your post, which is correct in all it's content, but only to the to me unnecessary and continual question of why lawsuits by employees in this case would be limited.
Before this thread began, I understood the Patients Bill of Rights.
In my opinion, sulyn1950 offered very good advice! It's my opinion that everyone can generally do more for themselves with diet, exercise and
lifestyle than any doctor can. I avoid them like the plague.
Just stop eating food that is laced with salt, sugar and fat...Do aerobic exercise every day and schedule something every day that you enjoy.
posted on July 5, 2001 08:11:02 AM
The rules you are talking about here that would allow a patient to sue the employer for malpractice are only in cases where the employer puts themselves in the decision making loop for the employees health care.
Since they want to put themselves in a decision making role they SHOULD be liable for those decisions if they do not want them made entirely by medical professionals.
Do you really want your boss or your company bean counters involved in what health care you can get?
posted on July 5, 2001 09:06:01 AMHjw-I know this is a very complex subject with far reaching implications/consequences that will affect millions of people, but I also have a very strong "dislike" for civil suits. I personally feel a person is entitled to compensation if the act against them is "criminal" in nature. An attorney would starve to death waiting on me to walk in his office to sue my employer, healthcare provider, hospital, drug company or medical professional!
Seeking medical advice/treatment is a choice thing any way you look at it. Yes, by choosing not to seek medical attention you may end up dead, but then again you may anyway! In my opinion all medical proceedures/surgeries/treatments are "elective". I know most people feel that isn't true. Why do you think that is so??? Who has conditioned us to think there is a procedure or a pill to "fix" everything???? I think there are even times when an insurance company will brand a proceedure "elective" or "medically necessary". Choosing to have a bone set is a no brainer (even if it heals a bit crooked)...choosing to have them cut out my heart (while there is still a single beat left in it) and throwing it away and replacing it with another one is not!
Medical practioners are not demi-gods, nor are they perfect. Even the best surgeon in the world can have a bad day! That's the chance I take when I walk through through the door. Walking through that door is ultimatelymy choice!!! That's the bottom line.
I also know from my 50+ years "life experience" and personal observation, that the government can't "fix" everything and wish "we" and "they" would stop thinking they could!!!!
posted on July 5, 2001 10:04:11 AM
What a crock. I suppose that by the same reasoning, the plane that crashes killing you and/or your loved ones and that was piloted by two hung-over and sleep deprived pilots who were unable to properly react to an inflight mechanical failure have no responsibility in the deaths of a plane load of passengers. After all, they were just having a bad day. And the airline that routinely defers routine mechanical maintenance to save a little money, make the shareholders happy, shouldn't be held responsible for knowing allowing a mechanically unfit and unsafe plane continuously haul unsuspecting passengers until a screw falls off and it crashes into the middle of an ocean killing everybody aboard. By your reasoning, those passengers had a choice. After all they could have WALKED to wherever they had to go.
posted on July 5, 2001 10:50:06 AM
krs - First off, (as I know you are aware) employers are not required to offer health benefits. They do so as a benefit to their employees. So for many companies who do not wish to be held liable (especially small business) under this new bill, they may very well drop their ins. plans. For those who will continue to provide insurance for their employees, it will cost them more.
As far as your post saying these statements are assumptions, there are many who disagree with you.
The groups listed below seem pretty much in agreement that employers should not be involved in lawsuits just because they [i]offer[/] insurance coverage to their employees.
The CBO (Congressional Budget Office
4-24-01 http://www.hbcweb.com/hbc042401.htm They confirm that this patients bill of rights "will increase premiums by 4.2%." "A study done by Hewitt Assoc. found that 46% of employers would drop coverage if exposed to this liability."
The US Chamber Of Commerce http://www.uschamber.com/Press+Room/2001+Releases/June+2001/01-1.. They "urged lawmakers to reject the Ken. McCain bill because of it's unlimited liability & the fact that it threatens to under mind health coverage for millions of workers."
The American Benefit Council http://www.appwp.org/ Are against it too. They are against it for the same reasons the others are.
posted on July 5, 2001 10:51:20 AMKatyD-If a pilot was drunk and flying a plane and it crashed (I feel the same about driver's of cars and operators of machinery) that is criminal.
If a doctor was drunk or hyped up on pills and cut my wrong leg off, that is criminal.
There is a difference. Myperceived definition of criminal negligence is "to knowingly/willing engage in an act or action, that results in injury to an innocent party". Whether the current legal system would agree is a different story, but I would have no qualms about persuing possible legal actions if someone crosses the line of my perceived definition of criminal negligence. You have your own I am sure. If you want to persue legal action for a reason you feel you deserve, that is your right. I stand by my belief we have a responsibility in watching out after ourselves and not just blindly agreeing to anything recommeneded to us by a person who makes their living OFF selling medical proceedures and or medications and then sueing when things don't turn out as expected. I also understand things happen that no one expects or anticipates and that tradgedy can result.
Gross negligences like you described are really rare don't you think??? Not to say they haven't, can't happen. Not very likely though.
If someone on a plane (who chose to be on that plane for whatever reason) dies in a crash and it is determined that the pilots were not drunk and hungover I do not feel the survivors automatically have the right to sue. Lawyers feel differently and often look survivors up before the tally is even complete.
Last time I looked "the right to sue for any and all reasons" was not a constitutionally guaranteed right. I could be wrong.
posted on July 5, 2001 11:11:29 AM
Shosh - While typing my post you are questioning, I was in the mind set of private vs. employer provided. Also the different levels of insurance and their costs.
Private to me is when one has purchased coverage on their own, insurance (like you say you have) vs. paying an employer for the same Kaiser coverage. Obviously someone who has Kaiser (or any HMO) would most likely being paying less through an employer than on their own (private).
As far as the 'gap' goes. My point was that most HMOs cost much less (through an employer) than does private insurance. Say someone who has an insurance program where they can go see any doctor they want, have any test done their doctor recommends, etc. Not one where the administrators make the decision about what the doctors can or cannot do. Or have other restrictions.
There are many options for insurance options that can be available to employees. There are PPOs, POSs, EPOs, HMOs, managed care programs, comprehensive, etc. Each with a cost factor that an employee takes into consideraton before choosing a plan. Usually a Indemnity Options gives the most patient choice (less restrictions) and usually costs a lot more. Thus my reference to the 'gap'. A price range for all pocket-books.
posted on July 5, 2001 11:16:30 AM
ashlandtrader - I am so very sorry to hear of your loss. I cannot even imagine what that would be like. I hope your heart heals soon.
As I stated earlier in this thread, I believe that patients should be able to sue H.M.O's and other plans in state court or federal court with no limit on liability. All doors should be open to law suits and eligible awards should not be limited. This is the only way to maintain any degree of quality control and integrity in the medical system whatsoever.
I personally prefer to be in as much control of my body as possible and I will not deliver myself to a Health Maintenance Organization on a platter to do with me what they will. I don't trust anyone that much.
Because I personally choose to accept more responsibility for my own welfare is
not a crock! (as you called it)
posted on July 5, 2001 11:25:01 AM
My, my. All that bolding. A little hot under the collar?
My perceived definition of criminal negligence is "to knowingly/willing engage in an act or action, that results in injury to an innocent party" I think that a course in tort law may help you understand the various definitions of "negligence". I have no idea where you come up with the term "criminal". Perhaps you are confusing penal law with tort law.
If you want to persue legal action for a reason you feel you deserve, that is your right.Oh, but that is not necessarily so. It just so happens, that I personally am exempt from ERISA prohibitions against suing my Managed Care. But one of the main points of this thread is that the vast majority of Americans ARE NOT, as the law stands today. Which is what I thought we were talking about in this thread.
I also understand things happen that no one expects or anticipates and that tradgedy can result. This is a provably naive statement when there is abundant evidence that Managed Care has historically treated and investigated ERISA medical claims differentlythan non-ERISA claims. Why is that? To think that the "bottom line" and share holder returns are not the major motivations for these health care corporations is the epitomy of naivete. Kind of like Ford Motor Company weighing whether paying off a few lawsuits for Pinto gas tank design flaws was cheaper than redesigning the car. Sure, a few lives could have been saved, but it would have cost more money, so in their eyes, it wasn't worth it. Of course NOBODY forced those people to buy Pintos, hmmm? It was their choice.
Gross negligences like you described are really rare don't you think???
Nope, but if it gives you comfort to think so, I'm happy for you. As for me, I worry more about the Boogeyman who lurks under my bed at night than all those shyster lawyers running amuck that Republicans are constantly warning us about.
, but it basically said I'm concerned about the language (in Kennedy-McCain) that says the patient must exhaust all internal and external appeals before going to court. Medically reviewable cases will be heard in the state court, while administrative cases will be heard in the federal court. Also, there is supposed to be a time limit, but there is no specific limit stated.
-I know I have come "full circle" with most of my beliefs! Sulyn