What role does the judicial system currently play regarding healthcare delivery?
958323
Right now, none unless you run into a legal problem and have to sue.
742348
You are incorrect. The Cheif Justice presides over the Sumpreme Court.  The Court rules on the constitutinoality of laws passed by the legislature and signed by the president.  It's system of checks and balances and no branch of government "presides" of another.
481765
Medicaid beneficiaries must receive “due process” whenever benefits are denied, reduced, or terminated. The Supreme Court has defined essential components of due process for Medicaid to include: prior written notice of adverse action, a fair hearing before an impartial decision-maker, continued benefits pending a final decision, and a timely decision measured from the date the complaint is first made.\n\nMedicaid also gives applicants and beneficiaries additional rights:\n\nThe right to request a fair hearing by a state agency for any individual who has been found ineligible for benefits, has been denied benefits, or whose request for services has not been acted upon with reasonable promptness.\n\n\nThe right to file an internal grievance within an MCO.\n\n\nMedicaid beneficiaries may enforce their rights in federal court through a private right of action. This refers to an individual filing suit against a state Medicaid program in federal court claiming the state is denying him or her a right guaranteed by federal law.
230817
I can give you two reasons in particular: judicial resources are maxed out primarily because of 1) frivolous lawsuits being brought by dishonest people seeking to get rich based on loopholes in the system, and 2) the over-prosecution of minor drug offenses (most of which should be handled as mental health issues and not as crimes).  If we could solve those two major problems, justice would indeed be swift and society would be significantly better off.
96740
It's like crossing the street.  A pedestrian has the right of way, however, the law doesn't actually protect you in any way from potentially being hit.\n\nLikewise, when receiving health care you must take responsibility and be focused every step of the way.
81330
because without a standard of care, the treatment received by patients may be inappropriate to the point of dangerous.\nwithout a standard of care, and guidelines regarding protocal to follow concerning situations that may arrive in the health care environment, chaos and injury would surely ensue.\n\nFor instance, if there were no policy regarding using bed rails for patients who are prone to falls, then it wouldn't be established whether to put the rails up or down.  If the person were to come out of the bed and get hurt and questions regarding the bed rails were to arise, then the health care institution could be cited, fined and possibly closed down.  Not to mention the personal liability that the employee faces for being "negligent" in leaving the rails down resulting in the injury of the patient.  People have been sued for such issues.\n\nSo yes, it is important to have standards and guidelines in a health care facility, and the preceding answer justifies the why of the question.
152985
judicial system \nlegislative system \nand executive system
841380
Entirely on the Constitution, but with the following in mind:\n\n(1) Most judges today ignore the 9th and 10th amendment. The powers not EXPLICITLY granted the federal goernment are reserved for the states and the people respectively. So, for example, since abortion or what are oddly called "reproductive rights" are not mentioned in the US Constitution (and mentioning the 14th amendment when ruling on Roe v.Wade was a stretch), I would say that the state has the right to make laws forbidding or allowing abortion. The federal government simply has no role, just like they do not have a role in states passing laws about the death penalty.\n(2) I would reject the "living constitution" bs many judges talk about. The living constitution theory of jurisprudence says it makes the constitution "flexible", in reality, it makes it very rigid by allowing judges to nullify the other two branches of the government. The constitution was designed to make the legislative branch, the one "closest to the people" the one which makes the laws. Then comes the president who ENFORCES those laws, and then comes the judiciary whose job is to INTREPRET those laws and to intrepret whether they are being enforced correctly. The judiciary isn't there to make new laws by simply talking about "living constitution" thwarting the will of the people.
516800
I don't know specifically but associations can usually help people out with those types of questions. Check with the Healthcare Distribution Management Association: http://www.healthcaredistribution.org/\n\nHope that helps! I wish you much success & happiness in all your ventures!
760554
The purpose of the Judicial System is to interpret the laws and decide how they should be applied.  They also refine the laws with the use of legal precedent.  The Legislature passes those laws and the Executive branch is responsible for enforcing those laws.\n\nLaws set something down in the legal record, but how it is interpreted by the courts determines how useful the law is and what power and jurisdiction it has.\n\nThe states set up their own courts for civil and criminal cases.  Federal courts only deal with federal crimes.  Murder isn't enough to get a case into federal court, even mass murder.  But, when a murder travels across state lines, becoming a threat to more than one state then federal jurisdiction applies.\n\nLaws are made in 3 ways; the first is with the Federal Constitution and any amendments made to it; the second is with the laws passed by Congress and the State Legislatures; the third way is with judicial precedent.  When a judge makes a ruling on a case then that ruling (if held up on appeal) becomes the way that similar cases are to be handled.\n\nWhen a state court makes a ruling then that ruling sets a precedent; all other similar cases will be judged based on that precedent.  This is the longest lasting influence of a court and it can affect courts in other states and even other nations.  Precedents lead the way.  A most of American law is based on English Common Law; and legal precedents set most of that law.\n\nIn Texas the state constitution says that it is illegal to carry wire cutters in your back pocket.  This law was written in the age of the Wild West as a response to the Range Wars (when Billy the Kid became famous).  The use of wire cutters to cut wire that held cattle, controlled water routes, or controlled the cattle drive routes north to market was a very volatile issue.  Back then almost every adult male carried a firearm; the wire cutters were the dangerous weapons, and they had little other use.  Now days wire cutters can be useful in the electrical trades, and firearms are the dangerous weapons so the Texas courts interpreted the law to say that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon.  Attempts to modify the Texas State Constitution met in failure, it was just too important of a document to revise with all the political arguments, deals and special interests involved.  So the constitution had to be liberally interpreted for it to work.  Since then laws have been passed to cover specific Constitutional issues, but they only travel the ground that the courts first laid down.\n\nThe Supreme Court has two primary jobs.  To be the court for impeachment hearings and to interpret the laws of the land as they have to do with the Constitution.  They only deal with Constitutional law, but laws of such importance that they can revolutionize our society.\n\nAbortion is not mentioned in the Federal or any State Constitution, but with the ruling made in the landmark case of Roe vs. Wade abortion was made legal in the US.  With the use of precedent the Supreme Court in effect enacted a law.\n\nThe Miranda Rights are a protection of our freedoms that the Supreme Court has enacted to insure the freedoms on the Bill of Rights are indeed granted to the people.  Our laws make a lawyer available, in a criminal case, for free to anyone who asked, but quite a few people did not know they had that right, nor that they had the right to not answer any questions until they obtained the advice of a lawyer.  It took a Supreme Court case to make those legal rights something that the police had to inform people they arrested had.  What good was the legal right if no one knew they even had that right?  The Supreme Court remedied that problem.\n\nDuring the Civil Rights Era many state courts dismissed cases against those who persecuted blacks.  By the law of double jeopardy the federal courts could not change those verdicts.  However, they were allowed to file a case based on the violation of a person's c
90046
You must be in the UK, as you mention NHS. A colleague of mine who is an SHO (senior house officer=resident) there, tells me there's lot's of waste in that system. If women with HER-2/NEU positive breast cancer (which as you mention are a small percentage) were to receive the drug free of charge, I don't think it would break your system. From what I hear the NHS (British National Health Service) has more problems than giving away expensive drugs. The system probably wastes more money with unnecessary ambulance rides per year than herceptin. But of course this is just heresay on my part. Universal health care is great, however, like everything there need to be checks and balances. The bottom line is poor patients should receive the same standard of care as the wealthy patient. People who cry about paying higher taxes probably wouldn't even notice the difference. Our military (in which I was a former member USMC) wastes more money per hour than this drug would cost us in a year.
61807
In the US you can get superior medical treatment by paying more, and you don't have to wait for it.\n\nCanada's healthcare system is overall better because it covers everyone at acceptable levels.
1091419
The whole idea is to make sure that due process is served.  The laws and appeals processe are set so that people (for the most part) are not wrongly imprisoned.
180788
Absolutely. We already have two of the three branches elected (more or less) by the public, they provide an adequate check against the judiciary.\n\nThe problem with making the courts public is that the public is slow to change. Many important decisions would have been delayed by years, if not decades, if the courts had been elected.\n\nExamples : Roe v Wade (allowing abortion), Brown v. Board of education (end of segregation in schools), Lawrence v. Texas (decriminalizing sodomy).\n\nThe legislative and executive branches are elected by the public, and tend to represent the majority. Since the judiciary is often not, they tend to be more receptive to the needs of the minorities (non-Christians, women, children, African-Americans, gays, etc).\n\nRegarding Kelo : The SCOTUS merely ruled that local government can take private property for public use (with compensation, as mentioned in the Fifth Amendment). But the people still have the decision to vote for public officials who would choose not to do this.
363120
yes i think it would be a great idea for the goverment to provide us all with health coverage, it would set in place a standard rate of cost for proceedures of all kinds and employ more doctors and more staff at offices and hospitals, medical standards would be set and therefore medical mal-practice would be more governed by the actual courts and dis-allow for frivolous lawsuits. it would also thereby de-organize the pharmacuetical compnanies and how they practice. medicines would be more available at cheaper rates due to more people using the drugs provided by pharmacies.so "yes"
102697
It depends upon which Health Court proposal you look to. The Progressive Policy Institutes Health Court proposal (now going through congress) would be very expensive. As far as my knowledge goes there is not a specific number (because the proposal is only on a pilot project basis) but there would be costs to introduce an entirly new beaurocrcay. A majority of the costs would go to additional state and federal courts to hear cases, as well as thousands of additional employees that would need to be paid to sort through Medical Malpractice cases.
1053897
It was instituted by the United States Department of Health & Human Services and they continue to be responsible for same.  The law affects the release of protected medical information.  Violations of HIPAA are very steep and strictly enforced.