In a news release, the governor said that conditions were too unstable to recommend creating the kind of exchange stipulated by President Obama’s health care overhaul. That law intended individual states to set up their own exchanges, meant to assist people who purchase personal insurance plans.

But Governor Daugaard feels that the U.S. Supreme Court might strike down the health care reform law, or that it might be repealed by Congress, though he’s hoping for the former outcome. Despite this, he said, his state will apply for a federal grant to help create such an exchange if South Dakota is eventually required to do so.

This video explains it all.

Enjoy.

For the second month in a row, the cost of hospital services rose by 0.5% last month, according to newly released data from the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, as compared with July 2010, which saw a 0.3% decline in the prices consumers paid for hospital care.

At the same time, over the twelve-month period that ended in July, the growth-rate for hospital consumer prices remained steady at 7%, which is the same as the 2010 rate.

Specifically, the cost for inpatient hospital care increased by 0.5% last month, while outpatient costs had a slightly smaller increase of only 0.4%. The trend of inpatient prices increasing more than outpatient costs has gone on for the last year, with the total increases equaling 7.5% and 5.9%, respectively.

The figures also show that the prices of physician serves also increased a bit last month – going up by 0.1%, as opposed to July, 2010 which saw an 0.4% increase in the same costs.

Supporters of the bill, SB105, say raising awareness and requiring helmets could prevent head and brain injuries which are potentially life-ending in children as well as being expensive to treat, in turn making health insurance rates soar ever higher. Those caught on the slopes without protective head gear could be fined $25.

The bill was approved by the California Senate in April, but will vote on any amendments made by the Assembly before it goes to the governor for signature or veto.

There are four other states which have such laws on their books, and two others are considering them.

The case concerned Dean Patrick Witt, a twenty-five-year-old staff sergeant from the Air Force who died after a nurse in a military hospital inserted a breathing tube down the wrong part of his throat during an appendectomy, an operation generally considered to be “routine.”

A decision made by the Supreme Court in 1950, the Feres Doctrine, blocked Witt’s family from suing the hospital for compensation.

The effort to invalidate the Feres Doctrine has received significant support from veterans groups and active-duty military officers, seven of whom filed briefs in Witts case, in order to demonstrate the public’s interest in this legislation.

After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D – New York) said that later this year he’ll reintroduce legislation to change the law, but he pointed out that it’s already survived more than a few legal challenges and congressional attempts to overturn it, so he’ll be fighting an uphill battle.

Two years ago, a similar bill that Hinchey co-sponsored, proposed in the name of a 29-year-old Iraq war veteran of the Marines who died of skin cancer that his family believes was misdiagnosed, saw some movement, but the Republicans on the Hill opposed the measure claiming it would open up the military to expensive lawsuits that would not service families, but would benefit trial attorneys.

If the law is changed, the federal government would be exposed to billions of dollars in liability claims, which makes it incredibly unlikely that this Congress, already facing sharp partisan divisions and hunting for ways to cut expenses, will pass any such legislation.

The official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office is that the government would have to pay out about $135 million a year in claims, more if the law was written to be retroactive. Hinchey maintains, however, that the cost would be less than that estimate, since his proposed law would mean a better level of care in military hospitals, resulting in fewer negligence claims. He pointed out that federal prisoners have more rights than members of the military and their families when it comes to seeking recompense for medical malpractice.

Speaking to the press about the case, Hinchey said, “It is disappointing that the Supreme Court has again failed to correct the mistake it made 61 years ago when it wrongly decided Feres.”

The Austin, TX-based attorney whose firm represented the Witt famly, Jamal Alsaffar, said that he and other activists had been hopeful that this case would lead to a change in the law. He believes that Hinchey’s proposal in Congress is the best hope now.

“We’re not going to give up the fight for these military families,” Alsaffar said to the press. “We’re going to do whatever we can do to right this wrong.”