"Obama suggests Republicans could have a role in health-care bill"

[Are_grits_groceries]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020301409.html?hpid=topnews

This is a headline in the WaPo. I want to beat my head against a wall. When will he understand that they will NEVER vote with the Dems on anything????????????????????

Also,IMHO he better not let Max Baucus and the Finance Committee anywhere near the jobs bill or it's gone too. Baucus wants it to go through his committee for markup.

[Sherman A1]

1. My vision of the GOP role is

"sit in your corner and behave yourself".

[annabanana]

2. Crash test dummies?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. Another photo op for Democratic senators, I see.

Except these folks seem to have a spine.

[KharmaTrain]

3. They Already Have A Role...

It's to support the status quo and their large corporate donors. It's to slow walk and obstruct any real reform as this is what they're being paid to do.

I see President Obama turning the tables on them...putting them into "put up or shut up" mode for the upcoming election. Dare I say there are some valid points, such as tort reform (malpractice insurance costs have long driven the rises on medical costs) that should be put on the table and the President called the GOOP on their bullshit since it just demonstrated they were all hat and no cattle.

The sad problem is this President tried to restore the "balance of power"...thought that coming from the Senate he could work with them, including Democrats, to operate as the founders had designed. We're finding out how dysfunctional and corrupt the Senate has become and how few, if any, want things to change.

[WCGreen]

6. The only reason they want so-called Tort Reform is to take money

away from Trail Attorney's so they don't contribute so much money to the Democratic Party...

[KharmaTrain]

8. Another Talking Point...

Of course laywers don't want their money messed with...who does? But then neither do the banks or the corporates. Yep, lawyers do spend more on Democrats but that doesn't address a matter that is at the root of why health care costs have soared over the past 30 years.

I saw this firsthand when I worked with my late father's medical practice. He was involved in several lawsuits which were best described as cattle calls...a procedure goes bad and everyone who ever saw the patient are hauled in. In our case my father was dropped from every suit but it still cost us in laywers fees and even though no negligence was found on his part, his malpractice rates rose.

There are bona fide needs to hold doctors and hospitals account for cutting corners or sloppy procedures and I am firmly against caps on a pay out if a doctor is found guilty, but the current system is in big need of reform. Be it setting up a panel to screen the legitmacy of each suit before it moves forward or a way a doctor who is wrongly filed against can recover his legal expenses. It's easy to sue everyone in sight and see who will pay off...and there are lawyers who make a nice living pressing these kinds of suits. It diminishes the validity of legimiate suits when frivolous ones are let to go on and on (many will take years to settle) and the end game is never to go to trial but to see how much a doctor will pay to avoid having to face a trial that could mean not only losing their license (again if true malpractice is proven, then it's very warranted), but there have been too many suits that are nothing more than shakedowns of one profession over another.

I find it ironic that some are ready to condemn all the money thrown into the political system to buy influence, but look the other way when its someone who throws money at their party or candidates.

[WCGreen]

13. Anecdotal evidence is always based on emotional response....

Yesterday on the Daily Show, the doctor who wrote Checklist, Atul Gawande, told about his discovery that thousands of lives could be saved if doctors and hospitals implemented checklist to go over before every procedure. Each and everyone of those deaths is a legitimate example of malpractice.

Now that is throughout the system. If there were no pressure from the Trial Attorneys, the legit one's, then there would be no need for the good doctor to write this book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/books/review/Jauhar-t.html

Believe me, I have been in politics for a very long time and I met my share of sleazy attorney's.

I have also been through the sophisticated world of high end medicine as I am a candidate for a double lung transplant and have been hospitalized many times over the years. I have met my share of arrogant to a fault doctors who would never second guess anything they do or suffer any subordinate to question their proficiency.

Malpractice is a check on Doctors and large corporations to fix legitimate situations where actions or procedure produces unintended injury.

As to your board, who would serve?

There is definitely something wrong with the medical system if after Dr. Gawande publicized that the amount of lives that could be saved by implementing simple checklists was into the thousands that only 20% of the doctors and hospitals have adopted these simple checklists.

Do you really think if there was no malpractice possibility hanging over the heads of the 20% that did adopt the checklist method that they would have even considered this easy way to save lives and protect reputations?

BTW, I do feel sorry for your father. Does he question the practices of the inept doctors? I too find it curious that people can derive so much intent from a simple statement. This is a political site and so I went for the political angle.

[KharmaTrain]

15. The Answer Lies WIthin...

I am sorry to hear of your condition and the experiences you have encountered. You post a valid viewpoint but also misses what I'm pointing at. I am not advocating eliminating malpractice...far from it. I also have seen my share of arrogant and sloppy doctors and there is a need to hold them accountable. My point is about the manner that many of these suits evolve into. There was a lot of money and time squandered, not only for my father but for the aggrieved patient as well and delayed and prolonged the process...with the meter running all the way. This no longer is about saving lives, it's billable hours and damaging careers and reputations. If anything, the high malpractice rates have forced many fine doctors from active practice and meant more inferior doctors fill take their places. Or no doctor is available at all.

The checklist is all well and good, and one would think these logical suggestions would be standard practice, but this is not about prevention, it's about the costs of litigation and a sword that hangs over every doctor's head when they attempt to treat a patient. If you run into doctors...and I've known my share...who play holier than thou and you can't communicate with them, then I'd go for a second opinion or speak with your insurance company about the problem...but that's not germaine to the issue of high medical costs that are at the center of the political debate over any healthcare reform.

As far as a board...I would have an AMA or state board sanctioned and approved physician with a law background as well as a lawyer with a similar background and mediated by an ALJ...a law judge...determining the case on merit and who should be held liable if a case is to move forward. Shorten the time a suit is brought and a trial and/or settlement. This is just one source of waste...there are many more than need to be put on the table as the current debate has avoided looking at the sources of high costs that make universal care so ellusive and gives its opponents a reason to obstruct any change.

Cheers...

[WCGreen]

18. The problem with any political board is that it is political...

Who would appoint? If it is a legal situation that must go through the courts it will have to be governmental or at least quasi governmental and that means politics.

There is so many state limits now put on litigation that the number of malpractice suits have declined.

[Xipe Totec]

4. They Certainly Do!

[mmonk]

7. They already have a center stage role.

That is what the DLC and Blue Dogs are for.

[FSogol]

9. Beyond on the role of speed bump?

:shrug:

[Naturyl]

10. Yeah, the pieces of crap do have a role

Which is to fail and curse their fates.

[DailyGrind51]

11. My fear is that he doesn't understand and never will, he would rather achieve compromise than

what "we" voted him into office for.

[DCBob]

12. "Team of rivals"

Obama still wants to be the transformational President this country needs.

[WCGreen]

14. Nothing like a civill civil war to get things done..

People forget that Lincoln had a hell of a bad time getting up to speed in his administration as well.


Great book...

[nightrain]

16. Obama is a "New Democrat"--we can expect this crap.

[niceypoo]

17. Is he really that naive?

Until he lets goes of this ignorant, 'bipartisanship,' fantasy there will be no progress.

[ibegurpard]

19. why?

what's not for Republicans to like about the current Senate bill?