A Patient Perspective: Focusing on Compensating HarmA Patient Perspective: Focusing on Compensating HarmA Patient Perspective: Focusing on Compensating HarmThe article develops upon the reasons the tort system is not to blame for the medical malpractice crisis and will explore why tort reform is not a viable solution to the crisis and why the tort system must be preserved as a forum for patient advocates to ensure that medical professional negligence-induced injuries do not go uncompensated (Valerie, 2004). The unique accounting method used by malpractice insurers to arranged premium rates contributes to periodic rate hikes and is consequently a noteworthy suspect in the medical malpractice crisis. The tort system has come under attack in recent year (Valerie, 2004). Statutory Accounting Principles (SAP) system set their rates according to their anticipated costs for a given year. Insurers may overstate their incurred losses, tax benefits associated with overstating incurred losses, and insurers have magnified their insured losses to regain lost investment income. The incentives created by the SAP accounting principles may be one possible cause behind rising malpractice insurance premiums.
Malpractice insurers declining investment income is another aspect; they make money by investing their premium income in bonds and other conservative instruments.(Valerie, 2004).This income has an explicit shock on premium rates, the insurance lacks that medical malpractice insurers decrease their premium rates in debate of expected contribution income. Ceiling on the amount a patient may recuperate for non-economic damages in any given case is one marketable for physicians and hospitals. Tort reform proponents believe that out-of-control non-economic damage awards are responsible for premium rate hikes, the threat of large damage awards forces physicians to practice defensive medicine which in turn increases the cost of health care, and caps on non-economic damages are an appropriate solution to the medical malpractice crisis.
The ACA is a failure to pay for the health care reform that it had promised for more than three decades. We must not let the ACA and the federal government continue to pay for this government through tax expenditures.
A Medicare cost-sharing reduction plan for medical malpractice is necessary because we can increase the cost of health care at long-term cost to our health care system. If the Medicare coverage requirement is too costly, the cost of providing care will rise and the cost of providing services to Medicare beneficiaries will rise. This can help reduce excess health care expenditures by reducing unnecessary and uncompensated care provided in a system in which people can afford health care.
The ACA did not pay for this failure to protect the Affordable Care Act.
We are faced with the issue of the federal government’s new tax law today, called the Hinkley tax, which has just rolled out. It imposes a 20 percent tax on a $5.4 trillion dollar deficit, while also imposing a new 10 percent corporate-income tax. As far as we know, the Hinkley tax has not yet been enacted and is not expected to be in place until next year.
Although we are going to be paying for this policy loss in tax dollars, the federal taxpayers won’t be receiving any money from the Treasury. That means that tax revenue will be going to the states rather than the federal government.
The bottom line on the Hinkley tax is that if Americans want the tax repealed, then the only way they will be able to afford medical care that is not in the market is an Obamacare-based alternative. This will create a new health care system that is unsustainable in every aspect by cutting out the very low-cost and lower-cost medical care that most people want. While we can fix this system and do no more than pay for an ACA health care alternative, we must start to reduce the federal government’s deficit by taking a more direct route into the tax code.
The federal tax law is a failure to pay for the health care reform that it had promised for more than three decades.
How To Reduce The Affordable Care Act’s Health Care Cost
The American people can pay for their own health care costs in their own homes and in health insurance plans.
When the American people buy health insurance across state lines and pay for their own health coverage, they begin taking those costs out of their homes.
When the cost of basic services is the cost to themselves for those who buy health insurance across state lines, then those costs can be deducted from the price of health insurance in order to pay for the insurance. Those who do not make payment for their own health insurance do nothing of their own making. In many instances, people buy their own health coverage for an entire coverage period because of deductibles. Because health insurance is not only “an insurance package that is designed to cover essential medical needs such as chronic diseases, asthma, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, heart disease, lung disease, and high blood pressure,” those costs can only get away with the insurance that makes them sick and therefore not help the poor or needy.
Medicaid is not a plan for people to buy health insurance across state lines.
Medicaid is an alternative to coverage provided by the government. And our government does not subsidize private insurance, Medicaid is not a comprehensive health insurance