Rangel on the debate

Indeed an excellent commentary on what Senator Edwards said about tort reform last nignt.

While it’s true malpractice premiums cost 1% of the anuual health care costs, he failed to translate that into the exorbitant amount of dollars it costs physicians to buy that coverage, never mind that he did not mention anything about defensive medicine which adds to the high cost of health care that Edwards was talking about. The CBO estimated that we could save as much as $110 billion yearly without that defensive medicine.

Neither did Edwards address the issue of obscene contingency fees that VP Cheney mentioned. That, in fact, is what is driving trial lawyers to keep the status quo. Dr. Rangel offerred a devastating rebuttal to Edwards’ suggestion of three strikes you are out with the Texas eperience.

In terms of the rhetoric Edwards mentioned in regard to extending coverage to most Americans, he did not explain where he would get the money (higher taxes?, or whether he is going to copy the system in Canada. It reminds me of the platitudes Hillary Clinton used in 1992 in offering “health care that will always be there.”

Lastly, in regard to Medicare, that 17& increase in preimiums starting next year for Medicine recipients would be there, regardless of who the president is. That increase was from a law framed in the mid-’90s that automatically calls for that increase, which was favorably voted by John Kerry.

And in ranting against the Medicare drug bill, Edwards simply was venting his frustration because the Democratic version of the bill was much more expensive and therefore voted down.

In short, with Kerry and Edwards, things will remain the same, but most likely worse — for patients and physicians alike. Edward’s proposals fall far short of what we need urgently.