Bill Bradley's "Grand Compromise"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:28:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

d-day is upset about Bill Bradley's Op-Ed on a Grand Compromise for health care reform. Always having found Bill Bradley to be the emptiest of empty suits, I am amused. Bradley wrote:

The bipartisan trade-off in a viable health care bill is obvious: Combine universal coverage with malpractice tort reform in health care.

In the words of Gail Collins (when she wrote for the NY Daily News) -- "hahahahahahahahahahahaha!" Of course there is no such Grand Compromise available. What liberal would not sign up for it right now? (Except of course any liberal medical malpractice lawyers. We all have our limits. Just ask the Selfish Socialist Seniors who scream about the government keeping its hands off their Medicare.) But what Republican WOULD sign up for it? Precisely none. But there is a lesson in this for the empty suit equivalents in the "liberal" punditocracy - from Jonathan Alter to Ezra Klein - there is no "compromise" (read capitulation) you can offer Republicans (and probably a lot of Democrats) that will get them to support health care reform. These pundits, led by Bradley's old aide Mark Schmitt, are the heirs to the political stupidity of Bill Bradley. They should be ignored.

Speaking for me only

< Cameron Todd Willingham and How To Prevent Another Wrongful Execution | American Feudalism >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bill Bradley's "Grand Compromise" | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Reform, by definition, means (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Exeter on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:49:44 AM EST

to change to an improved form or condition. Tort "reform" neither reforms medical malpractice suits or health care.

As the Harvard study found, only four percent of doctors that have genuinely performed gross medical malpractice and should be sued, are actually sued.

Further, when they did conquer this non-existant problem in Texas my passing draconian medical malpractice caps, the result to health care costs was zero-- Texas health care costs raised at the same rate as other parts of the country..

It's a myth that has been propelled by the AMA and now Bill Bradley.

California has already had "tort" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by MKS on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:04:48 PM EST

reform for 20 years. It does not appear to have had any effect on the cost of health care.

There are caps on damages for pain and suffering and other procedural hurdles on medical malpractice cases. A review of the verdicts coming out of downtown LA show most medical malpractice cases result in defense verdicts.

I have yet to see any statistics that show that tort reform actually lowers health costs....


Effects in Texas (none / 0) (#7)
by diogenes on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:03:35 AM EST

NY Times, 10/5/07 by Ralph Blumenthal, had an article entitled "More Doctors in Texas After Malpractice Caps".


: Yes, its good for doctors (none / 0) (#29)
by Exeter on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:11:08 PM EST

That's why they like it, but ANY profession would benefit from being protected from lawsuits. It reduced malpractice insurance by about 30% in Texas, but that money doesn't translate to lower costs, it goes toward the doctors.

Bradley (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:32:45 AM EST

exemplifies what is wrong with the latte progressive crowd in so many ways. He thinks you can reason with these people. In some ways people like Gore and Clinton have a distinct advantage because they come from the south which is overrun with these nuts and they knew that you couldnt work with them.

Again, where is the cry that conservative ideology should be dead and buried? Why are people like Bradly and Obama continually legitimizing these crazed fundamentalists?

Bradley isn't now and (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:51:25 AM EST

never has been anything remotely resembling a "progressive," nor has he pretended to be. He's a centrist, nothing more, and proud of it. Don't smear progressives by associating them with Bill Bradley.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:57:54 AM EST

"progressives" are the ones that have attached themselves to Bradley just like they attached themselves to Obama. Frankly, I think that "progressive" means nothing anyway so how can you smear them? Progressive imo means "what ever Obama wants" and isn't the least bit attached to issues that I've seen.


: In deed. Bradley's endorsement (none / 0) (#36)
by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 06:43:21 PM EST

list against Al Gore in the primary included Paul Wellstone and Jim McDermott...among others.

You don't need to reason with (none / 0) (#24)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:21:29 PM EST

people if you call them

crazed fundamentalists

Based on the way this so called (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by MO Blue on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:12:00 AM EST

health insurance reform is shaping up, I may well join the ranks of the "Selfish Socialist Seniors." See absolutely no benefit in cutting the Medicare/Medicaid budget to support a trillion dollar giveaway to the insurance industry. No cost controls and nothing to prevent them from rescinding policies at will is just granting them permission to continue their rape and pillage of our society . Providing them with more money and power to defeat any future attempt at real health care reform does not seem to be in anyone's best interest.

The Democrats continue to compromise with themselves. If the Democrats wanted real reform, they have the power to pass legislation for real reform. Keeping the medical and insurance industry's money flowing into the Democratic coffers and out of the Republican's is IMO the reason that no real health care reform will be passed. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

: It seems to me that (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by KeysDan on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:02:55 AM EST

the ranks of "selfish socialist seniors" would be, essentially, one deep if some still long-missing policy information were made available about the Medicare cost-cutting and savings component of the health care/insurance reform. It is difficult to understand the what and how of Medicare changes so as to (a) cure the anticipated Medicare financial issues faced presently, (b) provide for new, and, inevitably costly medical, surgical and hospital procedures of the near future, and (c) to finance half ($500 billion/10 years) of the needed extension of health care and/or assurances for insurance for those under 65 years of age. President Obama has given, at best, superficial examples that will not come close to yielding "savings" of the magnitude needed (such as reducing duplication of lab tests, or penalties, using the inexact, inanimate analogy of a bad repair job on an auto) or platitudes, such as no need to pay more for less care. If we tease out Medicare part D, considerable savings can be recovered with glaringly apparent, low hanging fruit, such as importation of Canadian drugs, removal of prohibitions on governmental negotiations for drugs, and a new formulary system. However, most of these ideas are "off the table", in accord with the deal apparently struck with Billy Tauzin, save for the drug industry pocket changed proffered. As we have seen, the enemies of reform have been more than ready to fill the void with misinformation and flat- out lies to a vulnerable group of Americans. Of course, if Medicare considerations were taken out from the bill altogether, until those under 65 were appropriately covered, reform might be in better shape at this point.

: That's different to me (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:18:23 AM EST

Meaningless sacrifice, if there is sacrifice in Medicare, is pointless.
Your objection is not selfish. It is that the sacrifice potentially asked of you reaps rewards only for insurance companies.
That is different in my eyes.

: All it takes to pass this IMO is for (none / 0) (#31)
by hairspray on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:34:07 PM EST

Obama to take a page out of LBJ's book and even Clinton for that matter and go eye to eye and Make them vote his way. Can't be done? I don't believe that. In 1993 when Clinton asked a handful of new congresspeople to support his tax increase most of them went out on a limb and later lost their new jobs. But it passed with no Republicans and turned out to be a boom for the country. Some of these old guys in the Senate simply must make a sacrifice for their country.

Priceless..."the emptiest of (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:36:02 AM EST

empty suits!"

Absolutely right on the money.

so empty... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Dadler on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:40:52 AM EST

...he's just a rusty hanger where an empty suit used to be.


As the years went by (none / 0) (#18)
by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:14:17 AM EST

he became more and more desperate to be relevant, politically, while understanding the political landscape less and less.

It's sad, really. Everything has passed him by and he has to settle for giving speeches for big money, riding on his basketball fame...something for which he really did have a gift.


He was relevant. He got (none / 0) (#32)
by hairspray on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:35:27 PM EST

rid of Hillary.


Really? She's SOS. What is he? (none / 0) (#33)
by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:53:24 PM EST

I'll have to google to find out.


: It was widely reported that (none / 0) (#38)
by hairspray on Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 09:28:16 PM EST

Bradley hated the Clintons and was instrumental in advancing Obama's campaign. I am glad that Hillary is SOS but I think having HRC in the domestic arena was better for us. Maybe not. As BTD said, the media would have trashed her. So maybe it worked out in that respect.

There's no compromise possible (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:44:48 AM EST

Republican's are so entrenched in defeating any HCR that I seriously doubt that any compromise or provision would be acceptable at this point.

They see a chance at pealing off Democratic support among seniors and that's a powerful voting block.

I find that in itself to be the heigth of arrogance! Republican's have fought Medicare since day one. Now, when they see it as a wedge they're suddenly worried about the poor seniors. If they had had their way, there never would have been a Medicare program for them to defend today.

Selfish Socialist Seniors (none / 0) (#1)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:48:34 AM EST

Wow! "Selfish Socialist Seniors" may not be the best rhetoric to keep the 65+ and growing crowd on board. Keep it up.

: Will do (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:56:51 AM EST

: Ther is no evidence (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by SGITR on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:51:14 AM EST

that seniors are being selfish. Some are even fighting back, as is the AARP, against the scare tactics that have some seniors confused but not selfish.

August 30, 2009
At high noon on one of the hottest days of the summer, a small group of senior citizens sweated it out in front of state GOP headquarters in Raleigh, N.C., asking the Republican Party to stop using what they called "scare tactics" to turn senior citizens against overhauling the health care system. It could be the start of a silver backlash against what some say is a misinformation campaign about health care reform.
The members of the Alliance for Retired Americans were angry about a recent column by national GOP Chairman Michael Steele, who said health care reform would lead to rationing for the elderly and deep cuts to Medicare. Protester Michael Gravinese says that's not true -- and he thinks Steele is trying to frighten seniors like him
"It's pretty blatant and obvious what they're doing," Gravinese says. "And that's not for the good of the country. Let's have a reasoned, honest debate about health care."
Gravinese isn't the only one who thinks his gray hair makes him a target for misinformation. The AARP does, too. The group is spending millions on an information campaign to counter what spokesman Jordan McNerney also calls scare tactics. He says from a political point of view, targeting seniors makes sense.
"Older Americans vote more than any other voting group, especially in midterm elections, so they're an influential group," McNerney says. "Especially for folks in Medicare, when you tell them that things are changing, they get pretty concerned."
NPR

yeah, well... (none / 0) (#4)
by Turkana on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:05:33 AM EST

bradley led princeton to the final four! what more do you want?

I wonder what Bob Reich thinks about (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:41:38 AM EST

tort reform?

His opinion might be (none / 0) (#15)
by SGITR on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:01:26 AM EST

influenced by whether he thinks keeping costs down matters. The argument from some of the tort reformers is that doctors have to order what they deem to be unnecessary tests just to cover their backsides against being sued. If that is true, and it probably is in many cases, then those unnecessary tests would drive up the cost of heath care.

It's a complicated issue. I'm not arguing for tort reform but in the argument made by those who are there may be some important truths such as unnecessary testing.


: The Texas results (none / 0) (#21)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:54:00 AM EST

seem to dispel that idea.
I think doctors primarily order "unnecessary" tests because they really want to find out what's wrong with their patients and treat it properly. Malpractice suits have shown that it's not that hard for even conscientious docs to make mistakes or overlook something and ruin people's lives as a result. Docs actually would rather not do that, whether they anticipated being sued for it or not.

Bob Reich was a Bradley man (none / 0) (#37)
by oldpro on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 06:45:24 PM EST

in 2000 primary and Bradley was all about healthcare and progressive politics in those days...well to the left of Gore on many policy issues. Problem was, some of us didn't believe him. One of the problems, anyway...


call the bluff (none / 0) (#8)
by diogenes on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 10:05:45 AM EST

If you think that the Republicans won't go for this compromise, then go ahead and offer it. Link Medical Courts to public option. Make my day.

Dear Mr. Bradley (none / 0) (#17)
by eric on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:03:15 AM EST

We promise to quit suing doctors when doctors quit screwing up.

nonsequiter (none / 0) (#19)
by diogenes on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 11:39:13 AM EST

You can have your day in front of a medical court with a specialized judge adjudicating the case who knows junk science from real science instead of going for the multimillion dollar lottery from a jury. Sue all you want.


: You are in essence talking about arbitration (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by MKS on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:25:49 PM EST

Most if not all doctors' routine paperwork contain arbitration clauses here in California--setting aside whether such clauses are enforceable.
The irony of arbitration is that big companies often do not want to arbitrate. If they are wrong, they can usually outlast an individual by drowning them in paper--discovery and motions.
I have actually put a number of the big boys to the test, offering to arbitrate disputes. That would mean little to no discovery and a hearing that would result in a binding result in as little as 3 months. Cheap, quick and definitive. If you looking down the barrel of a multi-million dollar judgment in three months, waiting a couple of years hoping an aggrieved plaintiff goes away, after being unable to keep up with litigation costs, is the way to go. I usually get turned down by defendants when I offer to arbitrate....
What armchair tort reform advocates forget is that a jury does not have the last say in civil cases. A trial judge can cut the damages through a couple of mechanisms--ordering a new trial, which is rarely overturned on appeal, is the most deadly, as few plaintiffs can effectively gear up a second time. I have more experience than I would like to have had with trial judges messing up my cases. And, courts of appeal here in California reduce damages all the time--but all the public hears is the jury verdict. If you litigate plaintiffs' cases you have to win over the judge, not just the jury, or the judge will find a way to hurt you. Talking from more than 20 years of experience.
Also, from experience, people who talk of tort reform usually have no idea what they are talking about....
Junk science doesn't usually get very far in court....Of course, one's view of what constitutes junk science tends to vary.... Kelly and Frey live on here in California--at least in civil cases. There is more junk science offered by prosecutors in criminal cases than anywhere else.

: Attorneys fees to the victor (none / 0) (#27)
by MKS on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:51:10 PM EST

Along the same lines, I have heard any number of tort reform advocates state that there should, by statute, be a rule that the prevailing party is automatically entitled to attorneys fees. That would eliminate or at least deter frivolous lawsuits, they say.
That is a very simplistic and naive position. It basically assumes that most lawsuits are frivolous. But, what happens in the real world, when attorneys fees are made available? The answer might suprise you.
By way of background, the general rule is that attorneys fees are not awarded to the prevailing party unless the parties have a contract agreeing to such relief--or in some cases, such as civil rights cases, attorneys fees are available by statute.
More than 20 years ago, I started out in a firm that represented large shopping centers. As a junior level attorney, I would get the duty of dealing with tenants who had breached their leases. So, when putting together the complaint, I witnessed an evolution. The leases stopped providing for attorneys fees in the event of a dispute. The reasoning was that if the tenant won, the shopping center would have to pay the tenant's fees. But, if the tenant lost, it would just file bankruptcy, particularly if it were small business, and so the shopping center would generally have no real ability to collect any fees awarded. The shopping center concluded that an attorneys fees provision was a one way street against it.
As someone who now represents a fair number of plaintiffs, one of the key items to evaluate in whether the case is worthwhile is whether attorneys fees are available to the prevailing party. If they are, it makes filing a plaintiff's lawsuit more appealing, not less. The big boys want to deprive a victimized plaintiff that chance because they want to use their wealth to maximum advantage.
Many people completely ignore or understimate how very, very difficult it is for average people to successfully sue people with money.

i think a quick reminder is in order (none / 0) (#30)
by The Last Whimzy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:17:42 PM EST

large settlements make sense because it's the only way to get negligent people to change and not do it again.
you need to provide for a patient who is now might be disabled and will need care for the rest of their lives.

Both ot those things exist in a way in conflict with another thing that is merely an opinion i have.

The amount allocated to a lawyer appears to me to be out of proportion with my own internal sense of morality.

in any case, i read your comment and my first most immediate response was "I guess lawyers never screw up."

so maybe i should just stick with that.


Obama Already Offered this Trade (none / 0) (#26)
by kaleidescope on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:43:09 PM EST

No Republicans accepted and none would say what they would want in exchange for real health care reform.

: Tort reform is a slogan (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by MKS on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 12:55:09 PM EST

not a real policy....Where it has been tried, it has not lowered costs.

Medical tort reform is a joke (none / 0) (#34)
by Makarov on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 01:58:11 PM EST

The total cost of malpractice insurance premiums + settlements + jury awards each year is less than 1% of all medical spending.

Whether or not it will lower costs (it didn't on insurance in Illinois), is immaterial, because those costs represent such a small fraction of health care spending.

: actually it's about 1.5 percent... (none / 0) (#35)
by jeffinalabama on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 03:54:31 PM EST

but the point is still made. It's a straw man.