With recent discussion on Canada vs US-style health care, commentary from the Washington Times takes a pro-Canada, pro-Kerry stance as a solution to our system.
Related posts:
- Doctors are now interviewing patients in Canada
- You know, maybe Canada needs to spend more on health care
- Canada deporting a cancer patient to save money?
- Health care and health insurance are not the same
- Health care: Americans in Canada
- Canada vs US healthcare
- If health reformers want to emulate Canada and Europe, can we copy their malpractice systems too?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
Sort of off topic, but I thought this interesting anyways…from the Cleveland Plain Dealer: Whom Do You Believe? Bush?“Claim: Kerry and running mate John Edwards are pro-trial lawyer and do not want to lower health care costs by reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits.”
“Facts: Bush loves to play up the fact that Edwards is a former trial lawyer, though that fact is not related to either campaigns’ medical liability reform plans. Unlike Bush, Kerry does not support capping damages in lawsuits against doctors, which Bush says would produce health care cost savings. But Factcheck.org reports both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as its main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small. Kerry supports requiring that all malpractice claims be examined for their merit by neutral parties before suits could be filed, and proposes mandatory sanctions against lawyers for filing claims found to be frivolous.”
Comments on this entry are closed.