The real agenda behind the “Patient’s Bill of Rights”

[Eagler]

Socialized Medicine Inches Closer
Neal Boortz
Wednesday, June 27, 2001
The socialists have won one. The Democrats have defeated an amendment to the so-called "Patients' Bill of Rights" that would have protected employers from health care-related lawsuits. I can promise you that today many small- and medium-sized businessmen are making plans to eliminate health insurance coverage for their employees – and many more future employers will never even consider a health plan for their employees. The risk just won't be worth it.
An example? Here's part of an e-mail I received last night from a listener:

"I heard about the vote in the Senate today that allows employees to sue their employers. If President Bush signs this into law, I've decided to save possible problems by not offering my employees insurance. I will also very carefully explain why I am taking this action to my employees. Maybe the people who work for me might get it. If this goes into law the only entity that can offer insurance without the chance of getting sued under this law is the government. Sure looks like a good crop of votes coming up for the Democrats."

There were more e-mails like this one. More businessmen and women who said that they were either going to drop their health insurance coverage for their employees, or end any consideration of instituting such a plan.

Here's another angle for you. Many larger companies are self-insured. They have so many employees they find it easier to create and administer their own health-care "insurance" program for their workers. It's all economics. These companies have found that the amount of money they pay for employee health care would be less than the total premiums they would pay to cover their employees under a commercial insurance program.

The amendment the Democrats defeated yesterday would have specifically exempted these companies – but now they are going to face the possibilities of lawsuits. These companies now know that they will be in the crosshairs of predatory trial attorneys. They're large companies, with a lot of money. These companies don't want to become involved in hideously expensive medical malpractice lawsuits. They will have two viable options.

Option one. These companies can just drop the coverage altogether. They can increase the wages of their employees by an amount equal to the pro rata cost of the self-insurance program and send the employees out there to get their own insurance policies. The Democrats anticipated this possible move and defeated an amendment last week that would have made the premiums for those individual policies tax deductible. Under no circumstances can leftists ever take any action that would allow any citizen to become more self-sufficient. Self-sufficient people don't need Democrats.

Option two. These companies will find a health insurance provider for their employees. The health care costs to the companies will increase and the increase will be reflected in employee wages, or the reduction of other benefits.

Now – one more thing. We're going to see a new type of insurance policy out there. Employers who provide their employees with insurance coverage will be purchasing a separate insurance policy to protect them against lawsuits. The premium will be high – and it will be a cost that is passed on to employees.

How Much More Obvious Could This Be?

A question for you. How many of you have ever considered the idea of actually suing your employer for any damages resulting from your medical care? The answer – probably none. It probably never occurred to you.

So, just how did this bit about suing employers come about? Well, it's hard to pin down with certainty, but we can build a plausible scenario.

Plaintiffs' lawyers know that huge awards can be extorted or won from employers through discrimination and other lawsuits. Perhaps they have been a bit frustrated that they could not bring these employers into the courts when they were filing medical malpractice lawsuits. Clearly, something needed to be done to open the door to suing employers who provide health insurance. Just open the door a little … that's all the lawyers need. Just a crack. Give them that tiny little crack and they find an activist judge who will kick the door wide open for them – and the assault can begin.

So, how to open that little crack? Easy! Get their Democrat friends in Congress to do it for them! Get some legislation enacted that will allow employees to sue employers in medical matters. Just a tiny little crack! The lawyers and judges can take it from there!

Believe me, these trial lawyers make one big pile of money. North Carolina Democratic senator John Edwards is one of them. He made a fortune being a trial attorney … then spent $6 million of that money to buy his seat in the U.S. Senate in 1998. Then, what's the first thing he does? He tries to open the vault for his fellow trial attorneys!!!!! Edwards' net worth, by the way, is about $50 million.

Why are the Democrats so eager to see the employers exposed to the trial lawyers? Two reasons: First, trial lawyers donate big bucks – tens of millions – to political campaigns, and over 90 percent of those millions go to Democrats.

And the second reason? Power! Pure, simple, unadulterated power. For over 50 years Democrats have had a single-minded purpose of creating a national health care system in this country. Call it what it is – socialized medicine. Democrats know that a great deal of influence and power can be wielded over a person if you control that person's access to health care. Any proposal that has the possibility of upheaval and chaos in health care is a proposal that Democrats can learn to love. Chaos and upheaval lead to demands for control and solutions – and those demands are made on government. Just what the Democrats want to hear.

So, with yesterday's actions in the Senate, we're one step closer to socialized medicine. One step closer to your total dependence on government for your health care. One step closer to a Democratic nirvana!

You Think I'm Overreacting?

I'm sure some of you think that I'm totally off base on this "right to sue your employer" issue. You think this Patients' Bill of Rights legislation could never lead to the type of abuses I'm proposing.

Remember the Americans With Disabilities Act? Many of us made the same warnings when this legislation was first proposed a decade or so ago. "Idiotic and absurd costly lawsuits!" we said. "No way," responded the proponents.

Well, try this one on. Cleveland Merritt worked for Palm Beach County in Florida. Merritt is colorblind. He can't tell the difference between red and green.

So, what was Merritt's job with Palm Beach County? He serviced traffic lights. Red and green traffic lights. When his employer discovered he couldn't tell the difference between the red and the green lights, he was let go.

Discrimination!

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found that the county violated the Americans With Disabilities Act when they fired Merritt. He is now suing. Trial is scheduled for October.

Now, when the ADA was being debated in Congress, if I had gone on the air and told you that an employee's job required him to discern the difference between a red light and a green light, and if that employee was fired because he couldn't tell the difference because of colorblindness and he would then be able to sue under the ADA – you would have told me that I was nuts.

Go ahead – just keep your heads in the sand. It's so safe there.
--------------------------------------------

I guess this is fine with those that think the gov should grow to cover all of our medical needs. I for one think this is a huge mistake. Smaller, not larger government and taxes please...

Eagler

[Eagler]

what, no takers here? too long a read?  

I for one would hate for my company backed medical bennies to evaporate in the name of "Patient's Rights" .

To sue the HMO's for their mistakes or penny pinching is one thing but to allow the sueing of your employer for providing you the option of choosing that HMO should be prevented less we see the companies pulling this perk to save their arse from legal action. The small businesses will be the 1st to remove this legal liabilities forcing many to spend huge $$$'s getting individual medical coverage. Then big brother will step in to provide the coverage most can't afford.
this is a big deal fella's...and would never have come to a vote in its present form except for the change in the Senate with ole jimmy jumpin ship. Our last hope is Bush's veto of the bill, which will be distorted into a huge nail in his political coffin..

Eagler

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Eagler:
too long a read?  

Exactly! I saw the first paragraph, thought to myself "Geez.. how long is this thing?"

Scolled down, and closed my browser!  
-SW

[mrfish]

funny thing is, if the courts were supported in throwing out fivilous lawsuits this thing wouldn't hit so hard.

employers wouldn't worry because as long as they were honest and dealt with an honest court their risk is minimal.

employees bringing ridiculous, greed-fueled lawsuits would maybe even be met with a contempt of court judgment against them just for wasting the court's time.

no one is in favor of giving the judges more discretion because they know some of them are crooked or at least ill-motivated, so maybe it is  good thing? but it creates the potential for things like this to happen.

a hint of integrity on the part of the average employee, the averagre employer and the average court would eliminate the need for laws like this in the first place. it is a stupid thing for our government to have to waste time on...we should be exploring or something and yet here we are nitpicking laws for loopholes.

[miko2d]

Read the whole thing.
 miko

[mrfish]

what am i supposed to see miko2d?

the ammendment would have prohibited lawsuits against employers. the ammendment was defeated. therefore suits are permitted - my post speaks to that so what am i missing?

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]

[mietla]

amen

[Sandman]

First... many employers do not offer options on health insurers. They offer just one and if that one is an HMO that acts as a choke point and makes life/death or even quality of life decisions based solely upon financial considerations, the employee is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm fortunate. I work for the goverment and we have many options. I choose the care that best suits me and my family. I used to work for a government contractor that offered a single coverage plan. My options were to take the insurance or go it alone and try to secure insurance as an individual. Not much of an option. The insurance companies stick it pretty hard to individuals. So, if an employee is trapped by an HMO and has no option otherwise, why not sue the employer?

I can tell you this... we employees today have to be far more ruthless and forceful than our fathers. At the risk of sounding nostalgic, companies 30-40 years ago used to take care of their employees. Today's companies are far more interested in the bottom line. I see no reason why an individual shouldn't fight for their benefits. If you don't, you'll lose them. Hell, even the military doesn't treat the veterans the way they used to. It was part of the reason I got out. They used to tell us, "Join the military, do your time and we will take care of you for the rest of your life." This is no longer the case. The military behaves much like the corporate sector.

In the long term, maybe putting employers at financial risk will give them the incentive to apply pressure to the health insurance companies to do what is best for the patient rather than simply increase their coffers.

Socialized medicine? In some respects, we are already there. We subsidize health care via taxes for those that cannot afford the health insurance premiums.

The system is broken. You get the health care that you can afford. The rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor. Is socialized medicine the answer? Ask the Canadians. I understand that even in their system, health care is better if you can pay for it yourself.

At the same time, I've seen what typical patients on medicare/medicaid go to the doctor or hospital for. There's an awful lot of waste of time and resources on people that aren't truly sick.

[LePaul]

I, for one, am tired of seeing a Medicaid Tax deduction on my weekly paycheck...I'm supporting a medical plan for others, while I can not even use this health service i'm supporting.  Social nothing, I'm tired of the Have's supporting the Have Nots.

My problem with the patient bill of rights is the unlimited amount people can sue the HMOs for.  People suing the HMOs, and this largely at the influx of frvilous lawsuits we have in this nation, drive up the price for all of us.  Yes, I dont want a bureaucrat choosing what I can and can't have done under my plan.  Sure, we need something.  But these HMOs and such are service companies for many people.  If people are allowed to sue these folks for zillions, the HMO's clientelle suffer (refer to the "shit rolls downhill theory).  

I'll give the bill this, is closer to what both parties wanted...maybe if they keep at it, yea, they can come up with something.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: LePaul ]

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: LePaul ]

[Eagler]

Originally posted by LePaul:
I, for one, am tired of seeing a Medicaid Tax deduction on my weekly paycheck...I'm supporting a medical plan for others, while I can not even use this health service i'm supporting.  Social nothing, I'm tired of the Have's supporting the Have Nots.

My problem with the patient bill of rights is the unlimited amount people can sue the HMOs for.  People suing the HMOs, and this largely at the influx of frvilous lawsuits we have in this nation, drive up the price for all of us.  Yes, I dont want a bureaucrat choosing what I can and can't have done under my plan.  Sure, we need something.  But these HMOs and such are service companies for many people.  If people are allowed to sue these folks for zillions, the HMO's clientelle suffer (refer to the "shit rolls downhill theory).  

I'll give the bill this, is closer to what both parties wanted...maybe if they keep at it, yea, they can come up with something.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: LePaul ]

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: LePaul ]

As long as the employer can be sued along with the HMO we are all in trouble. You will see many companies removing health care bennies to keep them out of POSSIBLE legal actions. As I stated above, this is exactly what the democrats & mrs clinton want as it plays into a government run health care system.
Looks like they are a step closer in getting it too  

Defying Bush, Senate Passes Sweeping HMO Bill

A major defeat for all but the trial lawyers and the other drains on our society..
The reason the dumacrats (not so dumb really) made this their first issue, they knew the Republicans would be against the bill and would/will be protrayed as "mean spirited" in the 2002 elections, possibly switching all of it into the hands of the Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton types..
God help us all if that happens..

Eagler

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]

[fd ski]

It's so amazing how most of you don't bother to form your own opinion, just post some "way over to the right" post you found in some 15-isses circulation whacko magazine...

Try thinking for yourselves sometimes, it's quite enlighting.

As for the "suing part" of the whole Petient Bill of Rights thing, here is the largest joke of it all:

- Judicial system is broken - cause  it allows for such huge fines against companies. ( so some say )
So, instead of FIXING the system, we're just gonna reguate it !!! Yes, let's make a law overridding the judicial system as a whole...

Let me give you something to compare it to:

- the safety on the streets isn't quite what it should be. People are being killed with guns for no reason, at school, work, on the sidewalks. Instead of the dealing with that - hey !!! Let's regulate the guns !!! Right ?


-------------------------------------------
Bill of Rights ? You have no rights. Large company can screw you every which way and unless you have bucks to shell out on the lawyer ( and a good one at that ) you might as well give up and take it like a man...

Here is a funny example for you..
I got a letter from a collection agency that i own some webhosting firm 200+$. I used to have account with them, but i closed it 2 years ago after it took 5 phone calls, 2 e-mails to CEO and me being overcharged for 6 months - having to fight for a refund.
I thought it was over, well, i was wrong.
I called them up, they said that they can't provide any informatioand that i should contact the collection agency. Agency on the other hand informed me that its MY DUTY to provide a proof that the service was indeed cancelled, and they do not have or will not provide a proof that the charges against me are even valid. Yup, it's up to me to beg and pleed with a messed up company to forgive me charges that they dreamt up.

No, BBB doesn't have an office in Toronto  

[Sandman]

Here's the problem... a patient trapped in an HMO has no way of having his voice heard without filing a lawsuit.

If it's any other business, you simply take your business elsewhere. In health care, you get limited (if any) choice of your health care company. Your employer chooses.