St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer - U S Chamber

Health Care By The Numbers

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:58:00 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office released a report this past month that found: wait for it, that if we had tort reform money will be saved. Shocking, if you stop making the negligent and the grossly negligent pay for the damage they do, they get to keep their money. Those reports don't surprise me , nor do they scare me as a trial lawyer. Because, the question keeps going back to: saves money for whom?

The only way you get savings from the system is at best indirect. That the Medical Malpractice Insurance companies will do something that they have in the past been reluctant to do, which is lower premiums, and as a result, those savings will be passed on to the health Insurance companies, who will then pass those savings onto the consumers. The other potential savings will be that all of these doctors who are prescribing unnecessary and fraudulent tests will stop doing this and there will be savings there. This is a lot of very questionable gate keepers who we are expecting to do the right thing for others and not just for themselves.

But let's look at the CBO's numbers. Surprise, they are exactly what trial lawyers have been saying; one half of one percent of the whole system. Yes, this is the shocking number that some Republicans are claiming can be used to fix the whole medical reform mess. Now, I'll admit that 11 billion dollars is a lot of money, but what does it compare to?

There is the report from Washington University, which found that in 2007 there was $2.7 trillion (yes that's a trillion) spent on health care overall. So to start with, we are really talking about numbers that need to be compared, and not just blow horned by town meeting paid infiltrators.

The same report found that there is also $68 billion that is lost in fraud. That number works out to the fraud being 80% by the medical providers ( the ones that we want to give the savings back), 10% by consumers, and balance by others such as the insurance companies themselves.

Let's look at the Insurance numbers as the American Association for Justice did recently,they found:

Today, while premiums and health care costs skyrocket, malpractice insurers have average profits higher than 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

The key findings of the report, which analyzes the annual financial statements of the 10 largest U.S. medical malpractice insurers, include:

The average profit of these insurance companies is higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period.

Malpractice insurers have seen their profit margins range from 5.9 percent to 74.8 percent, with an average of 31.2 percent.

Medical malpractice insurers have underestimated profits and overestimated losses, creating overblown insurance “crises” to garner support for limiting patients’ legal rights. Then years later after the “crises” abated, revised filings show the companies were never in the financial peril they claimed.

After overestimating losses, insurers have since reported that losses over the last five years have been approximately 13.5 percent lower than initially reported.

By overestimating losses, companies have underestimated profits. Insurers averaged about 5.1 percent higher profits last year and 12.4 percent higher profits two years ago; these levels of profits will likely rise as upward revisions are made.

Medical negligence laws were passed under false pretenses. Overblown reported losses were used by the insurance industry to justify new measures restricting the rights of those injured by medical negligence.

Yep, there is gobs of money being made, and I would bet they are funneling right into those U S Chamber ads that are calling for tort reform and fighting against a system they just love to gouge.

There are far better ways to fix this system and to pay for it without changes that deny people their constitutional protections.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

The Attacks On The Health Care Plan: Looks Like They Were Planned Out

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:48:58 GMT

Are you torn with all of the health care debates? What is being talked about and what isn't? Who is behind what and what do the leaders of our country really want to do? Who has bought off who and why is anyone saying that they would rather keep things the way they are?

I've talked to enough people about this issue to know that many people are confused about why this is such a battle. Why the plan isn't just to sit down and to work something out and get a plan put together. It's been interesting to discuss with people the role that trial lawyers are playing in the issue and also the roles of the insurance companies. I, like many of the people here at the Injuryboard, have been out front talking about the issues every chance we get.

What was illuminating was to run across the game plan of the opposition to any change. Rolling Stone recently uncovered this interesting memo:

The 10 Rules For The Stopping Of The "WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” Of Health care

(1) Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “health care system.” From now on, health care is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.

(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences. If you say there is no health care crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say. It is a credibility killer for most Americans. A better approach is to define the crisis in your terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford health care, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.” And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a health care crisis.”

(3) “Time” is the government health care killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of health care than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the health care you need – could. Delayed care is denied care.”

(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ health care plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of health care. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government health care because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know about or care about current limits to competition). But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care – so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It’s not an economic issue. It’s a bureaucratic issue.

(5) The health care denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled” It’s because too many politician say “we don’t want a government run health care system like Canada or Great Britain” without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. “In countries with government run health care, politicians make YOUR health care decisions.THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”

(6) Health care quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how Americans define quality, and so should you. Once again, focus on the importance of timeliness, but then add to it the specter of “denial.” Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the health care they need for whatever reason. This is also important because it is an attribute of a government health care system that the Democrats CANNOT offer. So say it. “The plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.”

(7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats” will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is anathema to Americans. Your approach? Call for the “protection of the personalized doctor-patient relationship.” It allows you to fight to protect and improve something good rather than only fighting to prevent something bad.

(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs. Make no mistake: the high cost of health care is still public enemy number one on this issue – and why so many Americans (including Republicans and conservatives) think the Democrats can handle health care better than the GOP. You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.

(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford health care. Here is the perfect sentence for addressing cost and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps health care patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”

(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your campaign to center around why this health care plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in health care that your “solution” will provide is, in a word, more: “more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading this list, it seems clear that there are a group of people who don't want to get anything done. The people who ran the country for eight years and put profits in front of people and drove many parts of the economy into the dirt. It is made up of people who scream capitalism all the way to the bailout window. People who need to either come to the table and talk sense or get out of the way and let those who care about the consumer put together something that will truly make a difference.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Guess What: The U S Chamber TV Ad Attack Really Did Need A Closer Look

Mike Bryant — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:27:00 GMT

Yesterday, I wrote about the U S Chamber's hypocritical attack on TV ads. What I didn't cover was a closer look at what was underlying the press release which went out to all of their conservative outlets. The numbers show that the US Chamber of Commerce study tracked spending on ads and actually shows that the spending has remained almost unchanged since 2006. There was a jump earlier in the decade. But get this, the number of spots have actually dropped since 2006.

So google these stories and you will find the implications that :

Oh my god lawyers are adding to the claims
Look lawyers know the gravy train is ending and are going all out
Look see this is the problem.

It's kind of funny how many of the "comments" actually say the exact same thing. But, the underlying support just isn't there. Yes, the study says the numbers are going down. So when do we hear that apology or maybe the turning of their growth theories on their head? Are the lower numbers actual proof that there is no problem?

The American Association for Justice, also pointed out that no matter the ad numbers the the National Center for State Courts shows an 8 percent decrease from 1997 to 2006 in states' civil caseload related to medical malpractice. "As usual, the Chamber is willing to bargain away injured patients' legal rights to protect the profits of their insurance and drug company financiers," Ray De Lorenzi, a spokesman for the association, said in a statement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Now The U S Chamber Is Attacking TV Ads

Mike Bryant — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:23:00 GMT

What do you think that members of the US Chamber spend each year on TV? I would guess it's billions and billions looking at the annual TV advertising numbers. Well apparently, like the courthouses , they want the airways to only be for them.

Proof is the recent study they are touting, which shows that ads are up for medical malpractice in the country. So what? The claim is that it's creating more claims? If you define "creating" by informing people of their rights , then maybe. But, their implication is that these claims are simply made up or sprung from the lawyer's mind.

With the number of deaths that have been reported in American hospitals and the amount of people who come out sicker than they went in, it seems that more people need to know they have a claim. This is just a ridiculous example of how they love to bash lawyers.

But, lets get serious about their claim for a moment. How about a ban on all advertising? Or maybe a limit on the number of ads that anyone can run about anything? I bet their members might get a little concerned about that. I bet they would even say something about the First Amendment.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Real Story Of Health Care Denial

Mike Bryant — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:42:52 GMT

I recently got a email from MoveOn.Org. It was interesting and alarming to say the least:

I'm at the end of my rope. What CIGNA is doing to me is—well, it's outrageous.

I have a brain tumor. Doctors are ready to help me. But CIGNA has been blocking me from getting testing and treatment for two years, while almost doubling my premiums.

Then, this week was the kicker. CIGNA's pharmacy called to say that the co-pay on the medicine that helps control my debilitating head pain is skyrocketing from $10 to $1,115. That's not a typo. They're making me pay one hundred times what I'm paying now, in addition to my $753/month premium.

I can't afford that. So when the pain comes, I won't have any defense. I'll spend hours in the fetal position, out of my mind with pain.

When my story went public a couple of weeks ago—with the help of over 100,000 MoveOn members—CIGNA said they would pay for a test I'd been asking for at Cleveland Clinic. It was a step in the right direction. But after two years of denials, and with a long course of treatment ahead of me, I knew better than to just take them at their word.

So I asked questions. But they wouldn't offer any explanation for why they denied my coverage for so long, or any assurance that they had changed their procedures so I wouldn't face the same unjust denials again. And I began to wonder if they were more interested in just sweeping my story under the rug than actually helping me.

When I got this latest news from CIGNA's pharmacy on Tuesday, I kept asking myself, is this a mistake? Or is this happening because I went public with my case? Are other CIGNA customers receiving the same phone calls?

I used to give CIGNA the benefit of the doubt, but after years of unexplained denials, I've had enough. So I'm asking for your help again. For myself, and for everyone else who is suffering, I am asking CIGNA for answers.

And I think it would help if thousands of people like you were to join me in demanding them. I'm writing them a short letter with a simple question: Why? Can you add your name to my letter?

http://pol.moveon.org/dawn/?id=17402-5489780-L4fXb0x&t=1

Here's what I've written to Dr. Jeffrey Kang, CIGNA's Chief Medical Officer:

As you probably know, your company has denied me needed care for two years while I suffer from a debilitating but treatable brain tumor. I pay my $753.47 premiums. I follow the proper procedures. But CIGNA refuses to give me the care I need.

Instead, you keep increasing my prices. First my premiums rose by hundreds of dollars, and now my prescription costs are going up by more than 10,000%.

What makes you think you can treat sick people this way? When will you stop doing this to me and the thousands of people like me who are suffering? And if you solve this latest problem, how do I know you won't do this to me again next week—that you're actually changing your ways and not just trying to make your PR problem disappear?

Please answer these questions. I need to know, for the sake of my health and my life. Many others have signed this letter too, to support me and make sure I get answers.

Respectfully,
Dawn Smith

Thanks for all you're doing. I don't know where I'd be without MoveOn members' help.

Most sincerely,
Dawn

It was from a woman who has been battling with Cigna for two years over coverage for her brain tumor. So I looked deeper into the story and saw that there has been some national press on the issue. That following her diagnosis four years ago, she has seen increases in her premiums , in her co pays and denial after denial after denial.

This is the story that needs to be talked about in the health care debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiIBs0mZb9o&feature=player_embedded

My guess is that Cigna and the health care opponents won't want to.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

U S Chamber Uses The Radio To Continue To Lie

Mike Bryant — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:56:56 GMT

Across the nation, the U S Chamber is running frivolous radio ads that call for people to contact their congressperson and ask for tort reform. They set the ad up as a boxing match. Aren't these the same people that attack lawyers for running ads like this? Aren't these the people that are funded by the Insurance companies?

Listen to the ad. They want to continue to set the argument up as between the Doctors and the Lawyers. It's from the Bush/Rove book of attack the lawyers. That strategy has worked well for them to hid their true intentions. The fight has always been a fight between the Insurance companies and those that are injured by negligent practices. A real healthcare bill cuts into the Heath Insurance comapanies profits.

The U S Chamber is lying about the cost savings. They are lying about the goal that they want to achieve. They are just plain lying about the made up support for tort reform. Why in the world shouldn't the call be for a fair health care system? One that covers people and still protects their constitutional rights? Because, that isn't what they want.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

U S Chamber Back With Another Abuse Of Kids

Mike Bryant — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:26:00 GMT

The U S Chamber has produced another attempt at their anti lawsuit ads. This time they go with a very nice lady who tells the story about a group of kids who apparently lost their place to play basketball at a place called Basketball Town. All because of a lawsuit that they claimed to have gone on forever, included hours of phone calls, and was successful despite their ADA compliance. There really isn't enough substance to the ad to really even guess what really happened, but as she says at the end; "This has got to stop"

Were they over charged by the defense attorneys? Did they really comply with the ADA or was it just the fire code? Why in the world did the judge have them on the phones for all that time? Why didn't they take the free elevator that they were offered? Why is the U S Chamber again really on these emotional abuse of children ads that really seem to have no substance? Other stories about this case add that maybe they really had an issue with their landlord, because basketball town actually sued the property management.

Let's say the lawsuit was completely made up. Maybe they could have asked for a dismissal when they were on the phone with the judge. Let's say the suit had merit, maybe they should have taken responsibility instead of using it as an example of the victim mentality.

When it comes down to it, the U S Chamber continues to just distort whatever happened, to again broadly call for the shutting of courthouse doors on ordinary Americans. Frivolous arguments with at best anecdotal guessable facts to take away constitutional rights. Hopefully, more and more people are seeing this for what it is.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Shoutdowns Are Not Public Discourse

Mike Bryant — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:55:00 GMT

I respect the rights of all Americans to participate in the political process. I've spent much of my life asking people to vote, talk about the issues, and to get involved. There is no doubt that our soldiers are fighting for that right. But, I simply don't understand the shoutdowns that are taking place across the country.

Some examples:

In Tampa, Florida, a town hall meeting erupted into violence, with the police being called to break up fist fights and shoving matches.
A Texas Democrat was shouted down by individuals who didn't even live in his district.
One North Carolina representative announced he wouldn't be holding any town-hall meetings after his office began receiving death threats.
And in Maryland, protesters hung a Democratic congressman in effigy to oppose health-care reform.

This is crazy. There is no doubt that heath care needs to be looked at in this country. But, the debate needs to be honest. If you are lying about who you're, where your from, or who hired you to be there, it seems to me that there is something wrong with your argument.

This is an issue for every American. I respect disagreement that isn't just partisan bull. It isn't more American to be on one side. Medicare is a government system that works. Just because I can make sure my employees have good health insurance, doesn't mean that the system works.

Here at the Injuryboard, we have discussed many of the parts of the health system debate. Disagree with us, but lets do this is in a honest manner.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

The U S Chambers Doublespeak Is Always Frivolous

Mike Bryant — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:00:00 GMT

It's amazing what the U S Chamber will do or say. They are for free enterprise and against governmental interference while they beg for government hand outs. They claim to represent all businesses, while regularly being the voice of big business. They support business lawsuits as protected litigation, while attacking the rights of the consumers all out.

But we may have found the winner of doublespeak. When opposing a bill which would allow plaintiff attorneys to deduct costs when they are spent, they come out with the following statement:

Those who practice plaintiffs’ lawyer work learn quickly that it is a business similar to other capital businesses. Capital is placed at risk and a judgment is made whether or not it will bring a profit. Today the costs of litigation act as a curb against marginal and frivolous litigation.

Well isn't that interesting:

1) First it's not true that other businesses are forced to wait to deduct their costs. They get to deduct them at the time they are spent.

2) Nice to see that they are finally admitting that we are businesses.

3) The last two lines are exactly what we have been saying for years. You don't make money off of frivolous cases. It will be interesting how their next video of extreme claims against lawyers will forget that they ever said these words.

The tax change would be nice. Now we have to wait until the end of a case to deduct the costs no matter how many years before the costs were incurred. But, it's been like this for years and it's not going to really change what cases we take. I wonder if this is the first tax change the U S Chamber has ever opposed.

The thing is that the U S Chamber really isn't against frivolous suits. They just don't want their Big Business welfare recipients to be sued. They want to take away the rights of the consumer. They will say and do anything to achieve these plans. Hopefully, people will stop believing it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

The Reality In The Health Care Debate

Mike Bryant — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:27:00 GMT

There are so many stories out there. We have some making this a partisan political battle, while others have their own interests to protect the status quo. The reality is that when getting down to the real questions, very few people will say the present system makes sense. There is a need to get something done.

I found the speech last week to be helpful in again focusing us on some of the issues that need to be addressed. There is no doubt that the people debating the the issues and actually voting have a nice comfortable coverage for themselves. It costs them 500 dollars a year. While at the same time ten's of thousands are losing their own coverage daily.

Then there is the Lewin group, which is being relied upon by some for numbers support, and which is owned by United Heath Care, one of the nation's largest insurers. They are a part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary which was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Seems like another questionable source.

We also have the US Chamber of Commerce and their multi million dollar campaign that is simply a just say no plan. It's devoid of ideas or other options. Makes you wonder what consumers they have ever talked to.

It's too important of an issue to allow naysayers and political gamesmanship to rule the day. Hopefully, the ideas of change will continue to include the consumer and the rights of the people who right now need the hope more than ever.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant