Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - Health Care

Women are second class citizens in Bart Stupak's America

Devon Glass — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:24:45 GMT

History was made last night as the House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill, and now it's up to the Senate to pass one as well. The bill passed does have a public option and will help control health care expenses in the coming decades. This bill was not passed without significant compromise, but one of the compromises made me really angry.

Representative Bart Stupak, who is from Michigan, decided his vote was contingent on being able to offer an amendment to the health care reform bill to prevent any federal money used in the new health care exchange from paying for abortion services. Nevermind that abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. Nevermind that abortion is legal, and has been, for more than 30 years in the United States. Nevermind that access to abortion services is supported by the majority of Americans. To Bart Stupak, all of this is meaningless because he does not support abortion and since he gets to vote on this health care bill and you don't, his opinion matters more than yours. The price for Bart Stupak's support for health care reform is simple, sacrificing women's rights.

I find it interesting that, as a man, Bart Stupak gets to decide what medical services should be afforded to woman in this country. Rep. Stupak will never personally need to have an abortion, so I guess from his perspective it's okay to limit peoples access to abortion services. The effect of his amendment will not outlaw abortion, but it will make it tougher for people who need an abortion to pay for it. Since the new health care exchange won't be permitted to provide coverage for abortion services with federal money, anyone who gets insurance through the new health care exchange will need to pay out of pocket for an abortion or additional insurance to cover abortion services. I don't know about you, but my understanding is that most woman don't plan on having abortions so it's going to be difficult to convince them to pay extra for a service they don't believe they will need in the future.

To add insult to injury, the woman who are purchasing insurance on the new health care exchange are likely receiving assistance to pay for the insurance. This means it's unlikely they can afford to purchase additional insurance to cover abortion services. In effect, this will make abortion services something that only rich women can afford, creating a tiered health care system for women. Is that what we want when we are working to expand health care to cover most, if not all, of Americans?

I can only speculate what goes through Bart Stupak's mind when deciding to expand health care but limit health care options for women. This reminds me of the discussion between Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Jon Kyl about providing maternity care, which I've provided below. The thing is, there are lots of services that I don't use when I have health insurance, but we all pay because we don't know when we may need those services in the future. I may not need dialysis coverage now, but if I go into renal failure in the future I'm going to be glad I have it. The money I spend to pay for health insurance covers everyone who has health insurance and it should not be up to me or Bart Stupak or anyone else what services someone else gets to receive. It should be a decision made by the patient and their doctor. End of story.

Abortion may be something that people feel icky about, but it's a legal medical procedure that more than 1 million women utilize every year. It should not be a political bargaining chip to convince someone to support health care reform. I think we should look at passing an amendment that erectile dysfunction treatment should not be covered by any insurance offered on the new health care exchange. The reasoning is simple, if old men didn't get boners they would not impregnant the women they are having sex with, therefore no abortion needed. However, I don't think you would get much support for such an amendment because it discriminates against men, but I don't see the difference between not providing coverage for abortion and not providing coverage for erectile dysfunction. Maybe Bart Stupak can explain the difference if you call his office and ask him really nice, he can be reached at (202) 225 4735.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jj6pqajvB8

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Devon Glass

Insurance Companies Might Have to Play by the Same Rules As Other Industries After All

David Mittleman — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:15:00 GMT

I've been saying for months that we're not in a medical or health care crisis, we're in an INSURANCE CRISIS. It looks like the folks at Congress know what I'm talking about.

Congress seems poised to end a 50-plus year vacation insurance companies have enjoyed from federal anti-trust regulation. Bills are making their way through committees in both the House and Senate that would strip the insurance industry of its exemption from federal anti-trust laws.

This important move by Congress will increase competition and prevent price-fixing, all of which helps the American consumer times these tough financial times. The insurance companies, not surprisingly, are crying wolf over the prospect of no longer being able to gouge Americans with unfair policies and pricing structures.

Senator Harry Reid put it best when he said: "It's time to level the playing field for American healthcare consumers and make the insurance industry play by the same rules that other industries live by."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Why Do Doctors Always Think They Are Entitled To Special Treatment?

David Mittleman — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:59:00 GMT

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Lansing State Journal on just this topic. The truth is, it's not just my friend and anesthesiologist Dr. Kenneth Elmassian, who takes this viewpoint - the local Michigan State Medical Society (MSMS) and the national American Medical Association (AMA) group that want to place doctors above the law. They have a problem with defensive medicine because of their faulty assumption on its connection to health care costs. They also want to single out doctors and give them blanket immunity that doesn't exist with any other type of private individual.

Frankly, it is my choice and right as a patient to want defensive medicine for me and my family. I don't want doctors cutting corners if the technology is available. We are not in the midst of a medical or legal crisis. WE ARE IN AN INSURANCE CRISIS. WE NEED INSURANCE REFORM.

The Constitution of the United States makes the right to a jury trial in civil matters a protected right by virtue of the 7th Amendment. If a jury can decide the factual disputes in all other negligence cases, and if a jury can decide whether a person commited a crime that can be punishable by loss of libery (incarceration), then a jury can certainly decide fair and adequate damages when a doctor harms a patient, and they and their families are affect for the rest of their lives!

Doctors put their pants/skirts on just like WE do!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Michigan Residents Play Their Part in National Push For Fair Health Care Policies

David Mittleman — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:20:00 GMT

It may have looked like a small gathering, but it was simply part of a national effort to gain attention on health care reform as debate on Senator Baucus's bill started yesterday. Michigan residents gathered in Lansing in front of the Michigan Association of Health Plans on Seymour Avenue to draw attention to their requests for comprehensive health care reform that would change the fact that hundreds of thousands of Michigan residents live without health insurance.

This protest coincided with larger rallies in various other cities organized by civic groups such as MoveOn.org. From Los Angeles to Chicago, people were letting their politicians and public servants know they supported a public option and dramatic changes to health care as it functions today.

Moreover, the push has gone Hollywood, with Will Ferrell and other stars joining forces to produce this spoof in sarcastic support of insurance companies.

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will FerrellOriginally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Health Care Bills Must Maintain Focus on Reducing Injury, Not Reducing Patients' Rights

David Mittleman — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:25:30 GMT

In his speech to the joint session of Congress, President Obama hinted that he would consider approaching the issue of medical malpractice liability to show he is willing to compromise with conservatives. That this issue continues to dominate public opinion, even as experts such as physician and law professor William Sage from the University of Texas produce studies showing that only 1% of the nation's of the nation's $2.5 trillion health tab is directly attributable to the malpractice system, shows how distorted public opinion has become thanks to the conservative media machine.

President Obama's plan highlighted three major goals: (1) Put "patient safety first and work to reduce preventable injuries"; (2) promote better communication between doctors and patients and make sure patients are compensated "in a fair and timely manner for medical injuries"; and (3) reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits. The American Association for Justice was quick to point out that if the focus remains on "reducing the number of injuries, fostering better communication, compensating patients quicker, and reducing doctors’ premiums", we're all going to benefit in the end.

Even as President Obama offers his $25 Million dollar Demonstration Project, he continues to cite the fact that malpractice premiums do not account for a large percentage of total medical costs. Nevertheless, despite overwhelming evidence that what will truly reduce health care costs in America is reducing the number of preventable medical errors (which cause between 44,000 and 98,000 deaths per year) and enhancing preventive medicine, this gesture moves us closer towards undermining the Constitution's 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Getting down to the nuts and bolts of health care reform in Michigan

David Mittleman — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:34:14 GMT

As media coverage surrounding proposed Health Care legislation fluctuates back and forth from one highly charged emotional issue to another, many Michigan residents are left wondering, how would any of this stuff affect me and my life? How would health care reform shape the economy of my community? What would this do to improve the quality of health care where I live?

The Committe on Energy and Commence has developed district by district profiles to highlight for each and every citizen how this legislation would affect them in a real-life manner. Let's go through it, and you can decide for yourself whether or not you'd like your Congressional Representative to support the bill or not. Some things to consider... if businesses would get tax credits, would that be good for business and jobs? If doctors suddenly start getting paid for services that otherwise would have gone unpaid, will that improve the quality of health care in my community? If men, women, and children can finally get treated when they need it, how will that affect job productivity, community strength, and personal happiness?

Upper Peninsula. You folks in the UP are represented by Bart Stupak in the 1st District. In this beautiful part of Michigan 16,500 small businesses (PDF) could receive a tax credit for providing health care for their employees. 900 families might avoid crippling and demoralizing bankruptcies due to unaffordable health care costs. Health care providers, such as doctors and hospitals, would get $185 million dollars they would have never received for services rendered. Perhaps most importantly, 82,000 uninsured Michigan residents would have access to affordable and quality health care.

Muskegon. You folks along the shores of Lake Michigan are represented by in Pete Hoekstra the 2nd District. This breathtaking part of Michigan (PDF) 14,000 small businesses could receive a tax credit for providing health care for their employees. 12,400 seniors could avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D. 1,200 families might avoid crippling and demoralizing bankruptcies due to unaffordable health care costs. Health care providers, such as doctors and hospitals, would get $75 million dollars they would have never received for services rendered. Perhaps most importantly, 72,000 uninsured Michigan residents would have access to affordable and quality health care.

Grand Rapids. You folks in the western part of the state are represented by Vern Ehlers in the 3rd District. In this growing area of Michigan 14,300 small businesses could receive a tax credit (PDF) for providing health care for their employees. 9,900 seniors could avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D. 1,200 families might avoid crippling and demoralizing bankruptcies due to unaffordable health care costs. Health care providers, such as doctors and hospitals, would get $114 million dollars they would have never received for services rendered. Perhaps most importantly, 71,000 uninsured Michigan residents would have access to affordable and quality health care.

Mount Pleasant and Big Rapids. If you live by Central Michigan University of Ferris State Univewrsity, you are represented by Dave Camp in the 4th District. In this expansive area of Michigan 14,800 small businesses could receive a tax credit for providing health care (PDF) for their employees. 10,300 seniors could avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D. 1,400 families might avoid crippling and demoralizing bankruptcies due to unaffordable health care costs. Health care providers, such as doctors and hospitals, would get $92 million dollars they would have never received for services rendered. Perhaps most importantly, 82,000 uninsured Michigan residents would have access to affordable and quality health care.

Flint. The great folks south of Saginaw Bay are represented by Dale Kilee in the 5th District. In this industrial area of Michigan 11,700 small businesses (PDF) could receive a tax credit for providing health care benefits for their employees. 7,100 seniors could avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D. 380 families might avoid crippling and demoralizing bankruptcies due to unaffordable health care costs. Health care providers, such as doctors and hospitals, would get $157 million dollars they would have never received for services rendered. Perhaps most importantly, 52,000 uninsured Michigan residents would have access to affordable and quality health care.

Lansing. If you're a Spartan faithful, you are represented by Mike Rogers in the 8th District. The home of the world famous Cadillac CTS is also home to 15,100 small businesses that could receive a tax credit for providing health care benefits for their employees. 7,600 seniors could avoid the donut hole in Medicare Part D. 1,700 families might avoid crippling and demoralizing bankruptcies due to unaffordable health care costs. Health care providers, such as doctors and hospitals, would get $53 million dollars they would have never received for services rendered. Perhaps most importantly, 49,000 uninsured Michigan residents would have access to affordable and quality health care - that's more than two fully packed Breslin Centers cheering on the Green and White.

If you didn't see your district listed, don't worry, you can find all the information on the Committee's website found here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Tort Reform Not a Panacea for Decreasing Health Care Costs

David Mittleman — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:37:01 GMT

So far critics have mostly focused on tearing apart health care reform by portraying it as “socialist” or as a “Nazi” agenda with a federal government “death panel” that will dictate how long senior citizens get to live. But now, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and ideological conservatives are adding a new complaint to the mix: that medical malpractice claims are out of control and are a major source of rising health care costs. However, health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue don’t agree. Instead, they say that malpractice liability costs are merely a small fraction of the escalating cost of the U.S. health care system. To the contrary, health economists and independent legal experts also state that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost—to injured patients and to the health care system.

Tort reformers like to argue that fear of lawsuits forces doctors to practice “defensive medicine”, which then adds billions of dollars to the cost of health care each year. In fact, a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said that medical malpractice claims constitute less than 2% of U.S. health spending. Furthermore, one could also argue that the current fee-for-service structure of the health care system adds incentive for doctors to order unnecessary tests and increase their profits.

Instead, tort reform is another scapegoat for health care reform critics. Not only does focusing on the legal system as the “cause” of increasing health care costs distract from the true problem, it also ignores the larger issue that as many as 98,000 people die every year because of medical errors. If instances of medical negligence decreased, so to would the number of injured patients seeking legal recourse.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Don't Be Fooled by Phoney Town Hall Unrest on Health Care Reform

David Mittleman — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:14:00 GMT

Yesterday I blogged about a new tactic that a plastic surgery firm was using to entice consumers to try their facelift procedure: by having their own employees post positive internet reviews of the plastic surgery procedure, Lifestyle Lift hoped to get more customers. That technique, aptly named “Astroturf marketing”, has now spread into the healthcare reform debate, too. “Grassroots” protestors, led by the conservative website FreedomWorks, have cropped up at town hall meetings on reforming the health care system. The only problem is, the “grassroots” protestors aren’t really homegrown at all—instead they are “Astroturf” protestors led by conservative lobbying groups.

The main orchestrator of these “grassroots” protests is FreedomWorks, which is run by former Republican Majority Leader, Dick Armey, who is known on The Hill as one of the top ranked ‘hired guns’. In other words, he is a corporate lobbyist with a history of directing FreedomWorks to support the goals of his lobbying clients. In fact, he has a long history of supporting the following industries (some of which have a vested interest in keeping health care reform off of the table):

Armey’s FreedomWork’s is actively organizing against health care reform because his lobbying firm represents pharmaceutical companies, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, that oppose the comparative effectiveness research of the health reform plan because it may cut into their revenue for name-brand drugs.
Armey’s lobbying firm also represents the trade group for the life insurance industry: FreedomWorks mobilizes its members for deregulated life insurance reform.
FreedomWorks is currently lobbying for maintaining the U.S. reliance on fossil fuels on behalf of the domestic oil companies and on behalf of the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

Last year, the Wall Street Journal exposed FreedomWorks for building ‘amateur-looking’ websites to promote the lobbying interests of Armey. It appears as if Armey doesn’t really care, though. Indeed, other lobbyist-run groups such as Americans for Prosperity, run by a former associate of Jack Abramoff, are joining forces with Armey to orchestrate the tea party protests. In fact, these lobbying websites are instructing members to infiltrate town halls and harass Democratic members of Congress. Although some news coverage has depicted these “grassroots” movements as real, it is yet again, another familiar Republican attempt to look like a party who actually cares about the average American family. Don’t be fooled.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Republican's Use Private Insurance Front Group To Argue Against Health Care Reform

Devon Glass — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:05:41 GMT

Republican lawmakers are doing everything they can to stop health care reform, and one of their tactics is to site the “non-partisan” Lewin Group as a source of support against reforming the current health care system. A recent Washington Post article calls into question the supposedly unbiased opinion of The Lewin Group.

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

According to the article, The Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest private health insurance companies in the country, as part of a subsidiary company called Ingenix. This past January, UnitedHealth Group settled a lawsuit with the New York Attorney General and the American Medical Association (AMA) for $400 million after they allegedly shifted costs to individual health insurance policy holders for out-of-network treatment based upon information provided by Ingenix. Basically, Ingenix low balled the price for what doctors would charge and then charged the patient the difference.

The most cited statistic from The Lewin Group is that nearly 100 million people will lose their insurance from their employer if a government run public option is available. This argument address the fear, recognized in study after study, that people who currently have insurance are happy with their coverage. If you make it sound like you will lose your coverage, then it will cause fear and then support will drop for a strong public insurance option. The only problem is that this argument is more harmful to private insurance companies than it is for any government run health insurance plan.

The thing is, these people are not losing their insurance if there is a government health insurance option, they are looking at all the options available and choosing the government run plan because it's either better or less expensive. The real concern insurance companies like UnitedHealth Group have is losing profits. Having a strong government run public health insurance option available will cause private health insurance companies to lose profits. That's what the debate about health insurance is currently about.

There can be little doubt The Lewin Group is acting at the behest of the company that owns it by scaring everyone into delaying or killing health care reform. They have a huge financial incentive to keep the health care system the way it is; dysfunctional, deadly, and extremely expensive. When you hear a your elected representative talk about The Lewin Group and how scary health care reform is, think about whose interests they are protecting. It's not you or me, it's UnitedHealth Group, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the rest of the private insurance industry. It's not surprising they would try to game the debate about health care reform, it's just surprising that so many elected officials are buying into it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Devon Glass

Rick Scott: Health Care Reform Opponent

Devon Glass — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:32:33 GMT

Rick Scott, a name you might not have heard too commonly, if at all, is a name that everyone should be watchful of during this era of health care reform. He is much more conservative on the issue of health care reform than the Republican Party. He is the master mind behind a 20 million dollar deal trying to squash President Obama’s health care reform. Scott, the would be spokesperson of his own version of health care reform, is arguable the antithesis of positive reform.

Defraud and Rick Scott should never be more than four words apart in any sentence. Scott, while bolstering himself as an advocate of patient’s rights, helped found a for-profit hospital chain that had a habit of defrauding the government for hundreds of millions of dollars. Scott argued that health care reform was happening in the market place, not in the government. Scott was on a mission to put nonprofit hospitals out of business, stating that no health care reform was taking place in these “nontax paying’ hospitals”

The only thing that Scott’s hospitals reformed was their book keeping practices. This chain of for profit hospitals would keep two sets of financial records. An internal copy, which actually documented the hospitals expenses, and an external (government) copy, which inflated the hospital’s costs and expenses. Scott’s hospitals also over exaggerated patient’s illness and gave doctors kickbacks if they worked with this system.

Scott’s plans of future health care reform seem just as misguided as his past. Scott was recently quoted as saying “Congress wants to spend all that cash on a plan nobody wants”. The truth of the matter is that approximately 69% of Americans are actually in favor of a Government Health Care Option, more commonly known as the public option. It appears Scott thinks most Americans are nobodies.

The public option, or as Scott states “a nice way of saying ‘government run’ health care,” would actually be an improvement on premiums to the public, estimated at 23 percent lower price than similar private premiums. Scott’s for profit hospitals have made their money from the private health care field, so the opposition to the public option seem to be purely self involved.

Rick Scott has been very careful to hide his past while voicing opposition to this idea of health care reform. When making an informed decision about your opinion as to the issue health care reform, be sure to research not only the facts, but those who are giving you the facts. Do not be swayed by Scott’s ad campaigns or inflated statistics. Because as we have seen, Rick Scott seems to do a great job of inflating statistics.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Devon Glass