Hospitals in border cities, including Detroit, are forging lucrative arrangements with Canadian health agencies to provide care not widely available across the border.
Agreements between Detroit hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for heart, imaging tests, bariatric and other services provide access to some services not immediately available in the province, said ministry spokesman David Jensen.
The agreements show how a country with a national care system — a proposal not part of the health care changes under discussion in Congress — copes with demand for care with U.S. partnerships, rather than building new facilities.
I am not so sure that we should be adopting single-payer health care. Who can we cut a deal with to reduce our waiting list delays?
So what can we do? First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, “If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he’ll need to reform the economic structures in medicine—especially programs like Medicare.” [1] Two examples of these “economic structures” are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as “high health care costs”) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.
And look – she has experiences to appeal to:
Many states, including my own state of Alaska, have enacted caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers. Texas enacted caps and found that one county’s medical malpractice claims dropped 41 percent, and another study found a “55 percent decline” after reform measures were passed. [4] That’s one step in health care reform. Limiting lawyer contingency fees, as is done under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is another step. The State of Alaska pioneered the “loser pays” rule in the United States, which deters frivolous civil law suits by making the loser partially pay the winner’s legal bills. Preventing quack doctors from giving “expert” testimony in court against real doctors is another reform.
SHE WANTS TO REGULATE TRIAL LAWYERS. YAHOO!
This is the third editorial she has written that has gotten me excited. She is citing scholars! She has footnotes! What more could a conservative man want? And I like her tone a lot more than Ann Coulter. She is trying to persuade her opponents, not to back them into stubborn opposition regardless of the facts.
You know what? I think she is going in the right direction. Like a female Fred Thompson, she is getting used to vocalizing conservative policies and principles – which is exactly what we need to do to capitalize on Obama’s failures. I love it when women write passionately about what they think, especially when women take positions that support men, marriage and family by arguing for limited government and free market capitalism.
When you take away the motivation of making money, you remove the incentive for people to risk their own capital to try to develop new cures and treatments.
WINTERY KNIGHT 