irony with the trial lawyers and some trial lawyer partisan saying when it comes to medical devices there is a bill to overrule a case following fda standards that should not be a defense at all. . .

if they are staffed the right way and the results are told to a jury, but it is not a total solution. eliminating double payment for the same injury can work but usually in medical liability it doesn't because there is segregation and right to a sure to recover is a good. i will mention a simple reform we wrote about in the outline in this is what trial lawyers to all the time and, if you stop that it will sure reduce those crazy multimillion-dollar verdicts. pain and suffering has to do something that the patient has endured. has to do with personal suffering, but trial loris more and more are using have evidence of it wrong to wayne, punishment, eagle, they're very good at this. i did it for years, to live up that pain and suffering awards. what the defendant did it or doesn't do has nothing to do

with some of his pain and suffering. and if trial lawyers are limited to try pain and suffering based on what the patient suffers covered a slowdown and that is a reform and that is very simple, doesn't cost anything and it can work. in sum, a practitioner with his care for patients can reduce stress, can reduce healing, can go to a long way to reduce the likelihood of lawsuits, but a government takes over dr. weiss cannot do and cannot practice medicine the way he does today. his flexibility with patience is gone. meaningful reforms have been an active at the state level and they should not be interfered wet. the federal government can help in some ways, but we have to watch very carefully about myths like standard practices that will engulf us all of something totally illusory. thank you for your time.

[applause] >> thank you, victor. kathryn serkes, the association of american physicians and surgeons. in. >> thank you, grover. i'm going to talk about three things today. number one is doctors and the hassle factor that is going on. and number two is what is going on with organized medicine as response to health care reform proposals and number three most of primly, the impact this has on patients. the first thing is i want to ask -- i don't see a lot of medicare eligible faces. i may see a couple, but most of you, have any of you heard your parents or grandparents say i'm having trouble seeing a doctor? i'm having -- it takes me a long time to get an appointment? anybody listening to us at home, ask your parents or your grandparents if they've had trouble. they are not alone. we have heard today now about government madison and that we already have government madison so what i'm going to talk about

is what it is really like on the frontlines of government mike -- madison. what happens with doctors and patients not just a policy standpoint and from a political standpoint, what is really like out there. if you have heard there are problems, you're absolutely right in is not isolated. our survey of physicians shows that 33 percent of doctors refuse to accept new medicare patients. now, and on top of that 40 percent of the m refused to do some services to the medicare patients they are in have. and you have heard a lot about money and if you listen to the ama and organized medicine you have been told that the money is the only issue, but i'm here to tell you that money is not the only issue. the biggest reason -- let me tell you the biggest reason cited repeatedly by doctors is what we call the hassle factor.

that includes a fear of retaliation and threats from government carriers, and that includes regulatory hoots that they have to jump through him compliance and have to go through. that is by far interfering more so than even is a the money so if -- let's take this firmament, if we go to government medicine, you expect the house a level to go down? i don't think so. ask anyone who has increased their practice. doctors believe, they are telling a 65 percent of them tell us that if they had to do all over again, they would not participate in medicare. now that does not bode well for participation in a new government medicine program. no hassle factor, let's talk about what that is. that is practicing in an atmosphere of fear in retaliation. the hassle factor that organized medicine is willing to sell out

their position where a few percentage points increase in the physician reimbursement rates. that's not wish to make the hassle factor go away. the hassles of the doctors to play the danger is a regulatory relax. let me tell you what that means -- that means if you check the wrong box and a coating form you can be prosecuted for fraud and. now have a problem with fraud and abuse in the system, but criminals tend to get away with things and doctors make easy pickings when prosecutors want to come after them. so doctors are always told if you're not doing anything wrong have nothing to fear mr. scanlon has shown us it is impossible when you have more pages of regulations than the irs of acting the way you conduct business in your practice every day, it's almost impossible for you not to do something for which you could be prosecuted. you could lose your license, you could lose your practice, you could lose your home.

the hassle factor of doctors being told where best practices and that they will have to fulfill those, they will have to fall back. if we have comparative attractiveness research and a national health board that decides what is good for the average patient, are you an average patient? i don't think of myself as an average patient, but doctors will have to go through the hoops of treatment procedures and out comes measurements that have been outlined for those average patience. the hassles that doctors are now having loyalty split. they have to answer to a medicare carrier as opposed to the patients when they're making decisions about what to do. and how to treat the patient. let me tell you something -- this is telling. tells you it is not about the money. 65% of physicians that we service said they would rather treat patients for free. then to treat a medicare or

medicaid patients. because then they don't risk that hassle factor. we already have a this, we cannot expand it, let's talk about what this means for patients now. for patients of this is about freedom. if patients are limited in their achievements. for example, if you are the parents of a child with an autism syndrome of some sort, what is fine to happen when we have a national health board making decisions about which treatments are most appropriate? that are not going to be able to make good choices that they want. our doctors tell us they will quit, they will quit medicine, they will not practice. you think it is difficult to find a doctor to treat you now? just wait until we have fully implemented government medicine. i like to tell a story about i had -- i will admit that i had an appointment with with fema

for many years and when you're out of disasters you see very quickly that their groups that are getting it down on the ground are the volunteer groups and the private sector. they are the ones that make things happen because there is a reference to constrain our earlier and we already have doctors on the ground who are getting it done, we have doctors were actually taking no insurance or government programs now and they are offering $35 medical office visits. they're offering $10 lab tests. those doctors are really taking care of patients. if we have a government plan and mandatory insurance that these doctors are forced to participate in they will not be able to practice medicine that way and they will be gone. they will be out of the system. so i'm going to wrap up telling you that in our response is that tomorrow night doctors are holding their for our town meeting to hear about what they really think about government medicine and i hope you'll join us for that. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you, we are now joined by rick scott, the chairman for patients' rights to discuss rationing. >> base for the opportunity to be here. my background is in the health-care business for years, i started a hospital company across this country and in europe, and i saw absolute rationing of health care. we have four hospitals in london and if you visited others in hospitals it is a habit that if the facilities were and you could talk to patients and see how they didn't care so the first thing we did this year was put a documentary and rehired, you can get a copy outside in and if you don't get a copy just e-mail me. but what we did was we hired gene randall who is an anchor from see an end who had gone freelance and talk to patients and doctors and i'll give you a quick stories. a 19 year-old girl said she was

in college and said it's time to get a pap smear test, you get in the u.s. at the earlier two years after you were sexually active or 18, she is 19 investor a primary talked doctor and the government says you don't get it till you're 20. she goes back a 20 and two doctors said the government does change the law to 25 so you can get an out. she goes back a 23, she had cervical cancer and has a year to live. another example, a doctor sequoia who is an oncologist will tell you if you get a copy of this on the web site, faces of government health care and the two these interviews, he said if you were seven years old we don't even tell you your team and options, we know the government will pay for it. if you get breast cancer in this country you had cared you needed and over there they cost too much. debbie, 55 years old gets breast cancer and she can't get treatment so she starts doing big cells so she can pay for out of pockets. it was against government

regulation to do that. they have recently changed but the only reason she got it is because she got a story in the new york times and the next day the government gave her help. there is a story about an two have heart a rich man, he lived outside vancouver canada and it took 20 months to get a plan with a cardiologists and he is in the emergency room almost once a month almost dying so he had to come to the u.s. to a hospital and oklahoma to get care. it if you look any country that has government health care they rationed. the way they ration is a run of money because governments always overpromise everything, so everyone has talked about they underpay doctors. if you are a doctor who is underpaid, will you say this is the career i want into more of this? you will do less so we have a more limited access all the time so the best example is we talked about is medicaid. how many doctors want to take medicaid? one and three reimbursements, it is a hassle factor so we have

ration health care, we will continue to have rationing health care of the more government involved in the system. i would ask everybody to take the time, this is 28 and a half minutes, watch this, get on our website and look at the different interviews and talk to people in other countries, don't rely on us but talk to people and tell everybody the problem with government health care that your kids and daughters and son in paris will not get the same health care they get today. thank you very much. samantha website? >> you can get on the basis of government health care.com and what we have on their you have probably nine different interviews with doctors and patients and tells of the problems of getting health care in those countries. thanks a lot. [applause] >> is the faces of government health care.com is the website. somehow if the government is

running health care and they have to decide if they don't have enough for everybody one or certain cancer treatments are very expensive does anybody watching this believe that nancy pelosi is relatives will ever have a problem getting health care? does anybody here believe that the mayor of chicago or any of his relatives will ever have a problem getting health-care practice now, do you think that perhaps you or one of your relatives might upon being told that there isn't enough to go around might be one of the people who just isn't told about a new treatment? somehow in the politicians run health care you know in their friends and relatives will be taking care of. that is why the elected officials talking about this are scared of rationing.

we may want to be some concern about rationing if we are not friends, major contributors to those politicians who make these decisions in the future if they get their way. it is now time and for amy of patients first to make an introduction. >> thank you, grover. i wanted to tell you quickly about to efforts that we are undertaking with americans for prosperity and the americans for prosperity foundation. first of all, we have a petition that is online now under patients first and the web site is join patients' first.com. and this petition is basically protesting against everything you have heard here today saying we do not want to have a ration care, we don't want to have delayed care, denied care or

really any more government control over health care than we are have now, in fact, would like to see less. would like to see real reform focused on patients so i encourage you to join a patient's first, patients first, and check that out. i also have the privilege of introducing today someone who has been very helpful to all of us americans in sharing her own experience and telling her story and i'd like to give her a couple minutes to introduce herself to you. hopefully she can do any interviews with anyone else who would like to speak with after words in just a share a little of what happened to her. i'd like to introduce scena, she is from canada and she is going to tell you a little bit about her firsthand experience here. >> hello, i am in the face of a government run health care. it is something that happened to me that i never ever thought

that would happen because i actually think i'm in a worse position than people in the united states that have no insurance. i do have insurance and i couldn't get any access to care. i started having a terrible on set of problems and vision loss and went to my family, doctor who sent me for a vision test and it was determined that i was going blind very quickly. at that point, we started to try and get some specialist to see me and i set up an appointment with an endocrinologist in a neurologist. one of those appointments was going to be a form of weight and a neurologist was going to be a six month wait and i'm almost a little embarrassed because those we times are really considered pretty good in canada because it definitely is a year to a. have sometimes two years and that is just to get in for an initial diagnosis. that is not the way -- wait times were mri, blood work or

anything else you might need so i came down to the united states. absolutely frantic, went to the mayo clinic in have all my testing done in a week and at the end of that week was given a full diagnosis. and was recommended at that time by the doctors at the mayo clinic to go home and be treated that, where it was covered under my government insurance health plan. i tried that, i. >> to canada and i could not see anyone. i frantically tried every avenue that i possibly could. three weeks later because i told i had four to six weeks before my vision would be gone totally. i came to the united states and my husband said at home and continue to try and get me help at home with no locks. within another wiki joined me and i was on the table and my eyesight was saved. i have gone through this every time that i have tried to get treatment. and i am sadly not just one

story and i can tell you hundreds of stories that are both minor two tragic, but it is done it is a very slippery slope when people get involved with government health care and there is nobody to advocate for you. i only avenue at that point was to leave the country because i wasn't allowed to do what i did in the country. i am not entitled to go to a doctor privately, i am not allowed to buy private health insurance. i can assure my dog to see a veterinarian, but i can assure my children so i am really here and i'm thankful that i was able to come to the united states and get treatment. i really just feel an obligation to share my story so that if anybody ever has any doubts on whether of not a government can get in between you and your doctor, let's talk. thank you. [applause] >> have you been invited by abc

to talk about how you were treated by canadian health care? >> [inaudible] [laughter] one of the sad thing is is that one gets into this debate to hear more stories somewhat sad endings and some with happy endings because people back to the united states and other treatment they couldn't get in canada or britain. one question we have to ask is if we move to a government control politicized medical system where will we go? when they tell us know. and again i don't think they're going to be telling any of the kennedy clan or the pelosi clan that they can't get any health care that they're a little heart's desire, but i do think that average americans will run into the same challenge that people in britain and canada have run into. we're now joined by steny beth

morton, the national coordinator for the key party patriots. tea party patriots. [applause] >> thank you. barbara of florida volunteered as a local coordinator for one of the 850 plus tea parties that were held on april 15th. like 1.2 million taxpayers on the streets on tax day commission is concerned about the atom control government spending and taxing. barbara is unique. she has been diagnosed with what can be a terminal illness. she knows intimately that her time on this earth is limited and she has made a commitment to herself, her family, her to grandson's, her community, and her country to use what every time she has left to serve her country. our country, america.

tea party pages with the help of people like barbara around the country are mobilizing grassroots activists who are the heart and soul of the tea party movement. we are going to be doing several things to defeat nationalized health care and to promote irresponsible government spending. what we are doing is taking the expertise from panelists like you guys and putting it on the ground with our troops putting their feet on the ground to inform and educate our neighbors, our family and our friends about the fbi to a government run health care meaning to us. for instance, on july 4th there are going to be several independence day of men's all-around the country that t party patrons is sponsoring. two of the largest are in sioux falls, south dakota which is focused solely on a educating americans about the ethics of nationalized health care and in

the other one is going to be very large is in dallas, texas. tea party patriots is hosting opposition to government run health care town hall meetings between now and the end of july. each week one of these will be fully interactive like this event today. today we are on patriots are network on blog talk radio, youtube live and video streaming, and chat rooms and a tweed stream going on all the way. on july 2nd of florida and the nationwide on a this 17th, we are hosting another major round of the party protests around the country. of this time we are going to be in front, the local congressional and senatorial district offices all around this country. if you have heard about the ethics of government run health care today and it concerns you, and you are like barbara and are

willing to serve your country to ensure that your children and grandchildren are not left to enhance these deficits in this kind of health care, joe tutti party patrons.org to get plugged in here, [applause] >> that is tea party patriots did or did. we are now joined by tony perkins, president of the family research council. >> thank you, grover. we have heard about health care in other countries, but as a former member of the louisiana legislature that served on the health and welfare committee there we are one of the few states that has a state run public health care system so if we want to look and how public health care is conducted we can see that even in on country where you often get pterosaurs before you even get a bed down in louisiana. so i encourage you to take a closer look at how we are

providing health care in these public systems and on country. but what has been pointed out here that is of grave concern to many americans is rationing of health care and that concern is magnified when you face the very real possibility that taxpayers will be denied certain treatments and procedures what the same time they aren't taxed dollars going to find a mother who will terminate the life of her unborn child. now at present the bills do not specifically state that abortion will be covered either in the house with the senate versions, but we're certain that abortion will be covered under the guise of funding health care services which are stated more broadly. the only way that we can assure that tax dollars will not go to fund abortion is to make sure that it is explicitly stated

that it will not be funded through a public system or through the health care reform initiative. as we know, nancy pelosi said that as a way save money through family planning which includes abortion counseling and abortion services. 71 percent of americans in a poll just last month expressed opposition to the idea that their tax dollars would go to fund abortion. so when you combine in the concept of rationing that we would deny people health care coverage all at the same time taking their money to end a life of an unborn child, that is something that is intolerable for many americans. in addition to not funding abortion, health care providers rights must be protected. for writers should not have to participate in abortion or other practices such as euthanasia or the prescribing of drugs that would end a life as well. conscious protections must be included in the health-care bills and be explicitly stated.

now some have argued on the other side of the these issues are covered by the hyde amendment and other writers, but we have to realize those are annual writers and which can easily be knocked off by congress. with any provisions pertaining to life and the conscience rights of medical professionals must be included in these bills. we would encourage americans to express their concern about these issues to their congressman. we have a petition on our website frc debt weren't or members of congress can be alerted to the fact that it unless it is specifically stated that abortion coverage, life ending practices are excluded then we are under the assumption they are in there, so we're concerned about the overall emphasis of health care. but again it is something that americans when they realize that may not be able to get treatment

by get their money is going to end a life of an unborn child or in the life of some on the other end of the light spectrum, that that is more than a thing most americans are willing to tolerate. [applause] >> if we have some questions, icy hands up and i want to wrap up in a few minutes here. a question here. >> has anyone compare today's media coverage and infirm and with that of the 1990's battle over health-care practice. >> there were rooting for a government takeover then and now. i would say i was talking about

this and i think in 2000 the media wanted, they wanted to. in ensuring what obama wanted. so as a result of that they don't stop in this administration so i think in that instance as far as how they are covering the debate now thus far there are so over the top in a way that they weren't in 1994. they were four in '94 and in there's almost an ownership role in ensuring that obama succeeds as many ways as possible and that, of course, includes health-care. >> i have just association american physicians and surgeons sued hillary clinton back in 1993 and was supposed to at that time, i must say we have a much easier time getting word out and holding events in doing