To keep things seperate, here is another from Mac.
"BTW, another bill scheduled to be voted on is H.R. 475, do you support or oppose
it ?
H.R. 475, which would add a new excise tax on flu vaccines … a meager
75 cents a shot but with the potential of 135 million doses of flu shots
distributed in a year, the revenue generated would be $100 million. The monies
go into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund … which was created
by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The law was passed at the
specific request of pharmaceutical companies who threatened to stop making
vaccines without product liability protection, as well as organizations
representing pediatricians who were reluctant to give childhood vaccines without
liability protection.
It is a matter of public record that the Departments of
Health and Human Services and Justice were strongly opposed to the legislation.
Currently, a $.75 excise tax is imposed on each dose of specific vaccines based
on the number of diseases that is prevented by the vaccine. Trivalent influenza
vaccine for example, is taxed $0.75 because it prevents one disease;
measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, which prevents three diseases, is taxed $2.25.
Now, Representative Jim Gerlach wants a Flu Tax to go to the VITF. While it may
be well-intended, the fund currently is over-funded … as its current balance is
higher than what it has paid out in over 25 years. Congress has known about this
situation for years but has ignored it … Because the trust fund has spent less
than what it has collected, the remaining $1 billion was loaned to the Treasury
and used for other federal programs and activities. In exchange, the trust fund
received Treasury securities to be redeemed if needed to pay future claims.
Why
the claims are so low is the nature of the system … To file a claim, the vaccine
must have caused an injury that lasted for more than six months after
vaccination, OR resulted in a hospital stay and surgery (both), OR resulted in
death. Not all vaccines are covered, although most vaccines recommended for
children are covered, including MMR, polio, tetanus, pertussis and others. It
may take two to three years to work through the claim process. And the success
rate is low … the most recent report (April 1, 2013) indicates that 3,217 claims
were compensated while 9,454 were dismissed.
Now, Congressman Gerlach wants to
add the flu vaccine to the vaccines that an excise tax is collected … no outrage
about the cost to consumers nor the concern to make health care more affordable." Mac Hall (aka Minnesota Central)
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I guess my question is can the "Government" trust fund be sued by a class action lawsuit like a normal drug company can?
If not, that likely explains the low pay out rate. There may not be enough low hanging fruit to make the lawyers start salivating... Maybe it is a tax well spent?
Imagine if the Autism / Innoculations crowd attained a class action settlement. I am assuming the billion dollars would be used up pretty quick.
How about we drop the tax and limit the tort liability significantly??? G2A Healthcare Cost Control 5
Wiki Drug Settlements
So do you really expect companies to make low margin generics with this kind of potential liability staring them in the face... Would you volunteer to produce them?
Another zinger... PRWEB Yaz Case
And we wonder why drugs are so expensive here...
Don't miss the point how high the hurdles are to file a claim ... and the current funding levels.
The question that must be answered is :
Why 75 cents ?
Why not a dollar ?
Why not a penny ?
Why not nothing ?
It is obvious to me that Congress is creating a funding program ... by charging a small amount that will produce big revenues for the Treasury that then provide an offset for other spending/tax cuts.
Sounds like a good fund raiser then, just like taxes on tobacco, alcohol, medical devices, etc. What's your point?
I always wondered why these things aren't covered by insurance. Causation, I would think, must be terribly difficult to prove, and whatever the cause, we still have a child in need of care that must be paid for.
--Hiram
Which insurance?
Typically even if insurance pays out, they will seek to recover whatever they can from who ever they can. Usually from those with the deepest pockets...
And Lord knows the class action lawyers are often advertising to attract suit participants. Imagine the temptation of a billion dollar settlement where they get to keep half... They are highly motivated to get the case in front of a sympathetic journey.
Mac,
Are the hurdles higher than normal tort law? If so, why in your opinion?
I think this belongs here... G2A
Just because someone has a bad outcome from a vaccination, that doesn't mean that any negligence has occurred. Sometimes, most of the time even, stuff just happens. Risk is part of any medical treatment, and I don't think negligence is a routine part of any drug company's model. I suspect people sue drug companies when they have damages they can't pay for, and need to find someone with deep pockets. The theories of negligence come later. If people have adequate insurance, there just isn't a reason to go through the very difficult process of suing drug companies who probably haven't done anything wrong. If they have, in fact, done something wrong, a whole different set of contingencies and consequences comes into play.
--Hiram
Actually, they don't necessarily have to do anything wrong. A lawyer just needs to convince jurors that people were harmed and it was unfair. And that this wealthy company can afford to help compensate them for their misfortune...
That is the problem with using lay people as jurors instead of technical experts...
A lawyer just needs to convince jurors that people were harmed and it was unfair.
But why would a lawyer want to do it if his client has been compensated for his damages? The problem a typical malpractice lawyer has isn't pursuing bad cases, it's identifying which good cases can be profitably pursued.
--Hiram
Because often people feel they deserve more than what insurance pays out or covers. They want really low premiums and really high payouts... Kind of like SS and Medicare...
Because often people feel they deserve more than what insurance pays out or covers.
Tort law isn't there to give people what they deserve, it's there to compensate people for damages they suffer from a wrong. But the problem comes when there is no insurance or insurance is inadequate. Then, it's very definitely in the interest of the victims and their attorneys to bring malpractice cases. This is why most of the famous malpractice cases you hear about come in jurisdictions where large portions of the population are either inadequately insured, or not insured at all.
--Hiram
Do you a source for your theory regarding where cases occur?
Post a Comment