Hawaii Personal Injury Blog - President Obama

Jim Dean and Democracy For America Identify Democrats in Congress Who are Cutting Deals With The Insurance Industry

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:28:17 GMT

Meaningful Health Care Reform is being sabotaged by democrats who have close ties to the insurance industry. I have written about this before as have others and I encourage all Americans to look closely at what is happening in Congress and to speak up. Here is what the public wants:

72% support a government-administered public plan, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. The Employee Benefits Research Institute – a group funded by the likes of JPMorganChase, Wal-Mart, General Dynamics, Morgan Stanley, Blue Cross Blue Shield, CIGNA, and United Health – found 83% in support of the public plan option.

I am a fan of Jim Dean at Democracy for America and his recent email to those of us who support the Public Plan as opposed to the Insurance Plan really focused me on who is doing what in Congress. I am copying his message here so my readers can get the message. Today he focuses on Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Please get behind those who want President Obama and Congress to deliver a true Public Plan for health care reform, not a plan that leaves the insurance industry and its bonus happy CEO's at AIG and other huge corporations in charge of your health and with a stranglehold on doctors. Here is the message from Jim Dean at Democracy For America:

Yesterday, we asked you to help us escalate our campaign against roadblock Democrats like Senator Mary Landrieu in Louisiana and DFA members nationwide delivered.

We heard your message loud and clear: You want to turn up the heat on Insurance Industry Democrats who are trying to kill real reform.

WATCH THE AD AND FUND OUR CAMPAIGN AGAINST ROADBLOCK DEMOCRATS

From the Washington Post to the White House press pool, everyone is talking about this campaign and our hard hitting new ad. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Landrieu spokesman Aaron Saunders refused to respond to the ads then reiterated whose side Sen. Landrieu is really on:

"She is currently reviewing all of the reform proposals, but does not believe that health care reform starts with a public option. Senator Landrieu supports a predominantly private system..."

In the New Orleans' leading paper, The Times-Picayune, President Obama had this to say in response to a question about our joint campaign with MoveOn-org and ChangeCongress-org:

"I can't answer for all the ads that are being run on both sides of the debate... some of the resistance here is the result of many years of panic-peddling when it comes to health care and gets caught up in old ideological debate..." But, Obama said, "If we know that the status quo is not working for the people of Louisiana, then the way to persuade the Louisiana delegation to support it is coming up with a plan that is going to be good for the people of Louisiana, and then my hope is that (the Louisiana delegation) is responsive to the needs of the people."

The President went on to make a strong case for a public healthcare option that is supported by 76% of America. It's up to us to make sure Insurance Industry Democrats feel the heat if they stand against the President and work to kill real reform.

CONTRIBUTE $50 RIGHT NOW TO TURN UP THE HEAT

Working together, we will guarantee healthcare for all. Thank you for everything you do.

-Jim

Jim Dean, Chair
Democracy for America

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama makes case for healthcare reform in speech to doctors.

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:59:15 GMT

President Obama yesterday outlined his healthcare reform plans in a speech to the AMA in Chicago. The story was covered by all three network newscasts, though it took second billing to reports on unrest in Iran. While giving the President credit for opening a dialogue, stories last night and this morning tended to cast a skeptical eye on the President's plans for funding his reforms. Moreover, some media accounts – particularly on network television – described the AMA crowd's reaction to the President's speech as negative, and concluded that doctors' opposition to the so-called "public option" underscores the potential difficulties ahead for Obama's reform efforts. USA Today (6/16, Wolf), for example, reports, "The mood was upbeat in early March when scores of powerful lawmakers and lobbyists joined...Obama in the East Room of the White House to talk about fixing the nation's health care system. ... Three months later, disagreement has turned to discord over a key element of Obama's health care prescription: his insistence on a 'public plan' to compete with private insurers." USA Today adds, "America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, is joined by the American Medical Association, US Chamber of Commerce and others that have expressed misgivings about greater government involvement."" Many other sources covered this topic including: NBC Nightly News (6/15, story 3, 3:15, Williams), the AP (6/16, Alonso-Zaldivar), The CBS Evening News (6/15, story 4, 2:20, Glor), among others.

Two great resources on this subject can be found at:

Debunking the Myth on Defensive Medicine By Cecelia Prewett

Please Mr. President, Don't Sacrifice the 7th Amendment To Get Health Care Reform - That Is The Old Way Of Washington Politics That You Told Us You Were Going To Change - By Wayne Parsons

Malpractice award caps seen as issue of contention. FOX News (6/15) reported, "Obama has never endorsed capping malpractice awards, but has sought to shield doctors who follow standard and established procedures from lawsuits." If protections were created "for doctors who follow procedures from lawsuits" it "would move the debate" about "creating ways for doctors and hospitals to share such information as a means of improving care and reducing unnecessary costs" forward. Many other sources covered this story including: Dow Jones (6/16, Brin), the Chicago Tribune (6/16, Mccormick, Japsen), the Wall Street Journal (6/16, Adamy, Meckler), the AP (6/16, Alonso-Zaldivar), NBC Nightly News (6/15, story 3, 3:15, Williams), The CBS Evening News (6/15, story 4, 2:20, Glor), ABC World News (6/15, story 2, 2:55, Stephanopoulos) and in the Health Blog at the Wall Street Journal (6/15) Shirley Wang also covered the story.

Daschle says Obama is open to malpractice reform. Following up on a story in Monday's New York Times, CBS News (6/16) reports, "As if taking his case to the most powerful physicians group in the United States to push his controversial health care proposals wasn't a big enough headline, a New York Times report says President Obama has been working behind the scenes to protect doctors from malpractice lawsuits." Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle told the Early Show on Monday that "Tort reform is going to be on the table," adding that there is "a clear understanding" that health costs are out of control.

Wall Street Journal criticizes Obama's views on medical malpractice liability. The Wall Street Journal (6/16) editorialized, "President Obama mentioned the medical liability problem yesterday, and it says something about health-care orthodoxies that even this political gesture sent his usual allies into a fluster." The Journal says, "The trial bar and its Democratic allies say that the threat of lawsuits promotes better care and assures accountability" however, "they've fought even modest changes that would offer liability protection if doctors adhere to evidence-based guidelines." Concluding, the paper says that while the Obama administration has billed his "views on medical liability as a 'credibility builder,'" the "only 'bargain' that seems likely to emerge is another major step toward total government control of the health markets."

Washington Times says Obama's health policies will hurt physicians, patients and hospitals. The Washington Times (6/16) editorializes, "Boos and awkward silences marked President Obama's speech at Monday's American Medical Association meeting in Chicago, and for good reason. Not only did he refuse to support caps for malpractice suits, but he said his administration would undercut how much doctors make." The Times notes, "The government is good at 'saving' money by simply reimbursing Medicare and Medicaid providers for less than their cost. It is essentially a tax that the government imposes -- a tax that doctors and hospitals pay for staying in business." Yet, "this tax raises doctors' and hospitals' costs, forcing them to charge private patients more to compensate for the lost Medicare and Medicaid revenue." Therefore, "in the short run, these higher costs will force more people out of private insurance and into Mr. Obama's proposed government-provided insurance," and eventually, "that means less health care to go around."

Columnist lauds Obama proposal. In his column in the Chicago Tribune (6/16) David Greising writes, "The question President Barack Obama placed before a skeptical American Medical Association conference in Chicago on Monday was whether American doctors wish to be part of the ongoing health-care crisis or help find a cure." He said in reference to the contested issue of medical malpractice caps that "instead of a cap, Obama is looking at evidence-based guidelines for treatment. This approach would protect doctors who follow agreed guidelines from costly malpractice lawsuits, yet leave open the courthouse door for people who have legitimate medical claims." Concluding, Greising writes that Obama's proposal "is a flexible, comprehensive start to a debate that, at long last, might finally yield meaningful results."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Federal Departments and Agencies Announcing Regulations that Pre-empt State Laws Won't Do So Without a Sufficient Legal Basis

Wayne Parsons — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:39:46 GMT

All Americans can celebrate the breaking news regarding a landmark achievement that was announced today in Washington D.C. From now on, the regulatory preemption of state common law will be strictly limited. Even regulations issued within the past 10 years will have to be reviewed and in some cases amended.

This is a major victory for the rights of all Americans under state law.

President Obama issued a Directive to the Heads of all Executive Branch Departments and Agencies stating it is the policy of his Administration that “preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.” Preemption of state common law will no longer be presumed or asserted by regulatory agencies absent “explicit preemption by Congress or an otherwise sufficient basis under applicable legal principles.”

In order to ensure that executive departments and agencies include statements of preemption in regulations only when such statements have a sufficient legal basis, the President’s directive provides that:

"1. Heads of departments and agencies should not include in regulatory preambles statements that the department or agency intends to preempt State law through the regulation except where preemption provisions are also included in the codified regulation.

2. Heads of departments and agencies should not include preemption provisions in codified regulations except where such provisions would be justified under legal principles governing preemption…

3. Heads of departments and agencies should review regulations issued within the past 10 years that contain statements in regulatory preambles or codified provisions intended by the department or agency to preempt State law, in order to decide whether such statements or provisions are justified under applicable legal principles governing preemption. Where the head of a department or agency determines that a regulatory statement of preemption or codified regulatory provision cannot be so justified, the head of that department or agency should initiate appropriate action, which may include amendment of the relevant regulation.”

This is an enormous victory. It reflects what we believe the law in reality has always been and how it should always have been applied. President Obama is correcting a decade of abuse of the regulatory process and this step signifies a triumph both for states’ rights and for the legal rights of all Americans and their families. Please join me in congratulating the President of the United States. I would also note the tireless work by Gerie Voss and the American Association of Justice (AAJ) in helping to make this possible.

I have written on the subject of preemption before:

House lawmakers hear debate over medical device preemption. Tort Reform For Victims of Unsafe Medical Devices: Pass The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 Federal Preemption Puts Consumers At Risk According To Observers Bush Administration Midnight Regulations On Preemption Take Away Right To Sue

The efforts to use federal regulations to over-rule state law is the ultimate sneak attack on the American citizenry. Hoping that the public is too busy to know what goes on is this obtuse world of complex regulations, the safety and health of the country has been put at risk. why? You guessed it: corporate profits! Companies make more money when they don't have to pay a person who they injure. Preemption does just that. A Get-Out-Of-Jail Free card for the folks in Big Pharma and the world of dangerous products. President Obama has sent out the battle cry. He will need the publics support to make this work. Only with all of you can his efforts succeed. Together we are strong!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons