Another health care thread.

See below. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Charlie - I don't think docs are sitting around thinking to themselves, "this patient is a real bitch...why don't I cut on her left tit instead of the right one just to mess with her...after all my liability is capped at 50k"

Charlie - I don't think docs are sitting around thinking to themselves, "this patient is a real bitch...why don't I cut on her left tit instead of the right one just to mess with her...after all my liability is capped at 50k" Originally Posted by atlcomedy

That's an intentional act, and would be excluded from med mal coverage. I specifically talked about negligence.

What?!?

Where does that number come from? The AAJ?

Actually, it comes from the medical industry. Institute of Medicine. I wouldn't be surprised if the number was much higher.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520822,00.html



How can tens of thousands of "deserving" plaintiffs not find lawyers? If someone actually has a justifiable claim, aren't there plenty of attorneys eager to take the case on a contingency basis?

Easy. Caps of $250k on non-economic damages. Therefore senior citizens, children, the disabled, and stay at home mom death cases aren't worth taking. I had a family call my office where a disabled 45 year old went into a hospital for a breathing treatment. She was a hemophiliac. Hospital cut her arm to work on a hematoma without doing a test on her Cumadin level. She died form complications from blood loss. I tried to refer to several med mal specialists (because I don't do med mal). All said it was a lay down case of liability, but expense would be $150k. Recovery is capped at $250, so you can't help the surviving kids.

And what about the issue of defensive medicine? How can costs possibly be controlled when doctors feel compelled to paper the files with records of just about every test and procedure known to man in an effort to keep the jackpot-by-jury system from bankrupting them?

CBO says that there is very little defensive medicine and most excessive tests are motivated by profit motive, not avoiding malpractice. More imporantly, when malpractice caps are put in place, medical costs don't go down. If there was wide spread defensive medicine, they would fall substantially.

CBO . . . found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.”

Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice, Congressional Budget Office, January 8, 2004.

A publication of the Harvard School of Public Health doubted the existence of defensive medicine by noting:

Defensive medicine is a slippery concept. Its measurement is notoriously difficult. The science of quality measurement, still in its adolescence, is capable of delineating appropriate from inappropriate care for selected treatments but not across the board. Even more vexing is the task of disentangling liability concerns from other influences on clinical decision making. Providers’ treatment decisions are driven by a collage of factors, including training, habit, colleagues, eagerness to maintain good relations with patients (independent of the possibility that they will sue), and dedication to high quality care. Where do these influences end and defensiveness begin? The separation is further complicated by the fact that what are perceived as defensive practices today may morph into tomorrow’s standard of care.

Or as Tom Baker of the U. Pa. said,

“[R]esearch shows that while the fear of liability changes doctors’ behavior, that isn’t necessarily a burden. Some defensive medicine is, like defensive driving, good practice."


Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

x

I'm assuming he's young and healthy, but still I'm wondering what he's getting for $108/month?

I assume it is high deductible, which by the way I'm a fan of,


but that still seems low for a real plan that will pay out when you need it.

. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Yes it does seem low. Probably a young man with a very hight deduct. Just as you stated.

I'll go with what TTH posted. It is more in line with balanced articles that I have read on this subject. Some of our posters sound as if they are channeling Sara Palin's hyperbole like proclamations!

Yes it does seem low. Probably a young man with a very hight deduct. Just as you stated.

I'll go with what TTH posted. It is more in line with balanced articles that I have read on this subject. Some of our posters sound as if they are channeling Sara Palin's hyperbole like proclamations! Originally Posted by WTF

hey he is in his thirties and is healthy and he has a plan he needs.

whether he has a high deductible plan or not doesnt change the fact its cheaper and likewise any plan would be comparatively cheaper

CBO says that there is very little defensive medicine... Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't believe that for a minute.

The CBO also says the new health care bill will not be that much of a budget buster! No one familiar with the issue seriously believes that. The problem is that they apply parameters given them by people who seek a certain score. A recent CBO director, writing in the New York Times, described it as "fantasy in, fantasy out."

Some libertarian and conservative analysts have estimated that truly effective tort reform could save more than $100 billion per year. Of course, their analysis is attacked by the American Association for Justice and other apologists for the tort bar, but is it any less objective?

Who knows where the truth is? It's fair to say that it's somewhere in between the two extremes. But I don't think it's a trivial sum, even in today's world of wasteful trillion-dollar "stimulus" packages.

Whatever the case, meaningful tort reform isn't going to happen. Remember the words of the late Fred Baron? Pointing to a WSJ editorial saying the U.S. Senate was "all but run by" the trial lawyers lobby, he joked that he strenuously rejected the claim, especially the "all but" part!

Powerful senators like Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are largely bought and paid for by plaintiff's lawyers. And they are honest politicians. When they get bought, they stay bought!

The separation is further complicated by the fact that what are perceived as defensive practices today may morph into tomorrow’s standard of care. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Wow.

If that's the case, there will be even more upward pressure on health care costs.

TexTushHog, you mentioned that you strongly oppose the coupling of HSAs with catastrophic event policies. If we don't have reforms along the lines of such a model, how else are we going to have even a remote chance to control costs? As it now stands, the end consumer has no incentive at all to control costs. Money travels around through multiple parties, and someone else is paying close to 90% of the freight. It's just about the furthest thing possible from a market-based system.

If you don't want to be serious about eliminating perverse incentives, the only other effective way to slash costs is to shove everyone into a U.K. style single-payer system and place it on a tight budget. It would involve severe rationing of services, and I'm not sure that would go over very well.

Absent a serious solution, the already out-of-control deficit will simply mushroom. We're building a bridge to a fiscal train wreck and no one looks like they have any intention of doing anything whatsoever about it.

Here's an uncomfortable question for you progressives: Do you seriously think any prominent politician has the balls to tell the American middle class they're going to have to accept a huge tax increase?

Do you seriously think any prominent politician has the balls to tell the American middle class they're going to have to accept a huge tax increase? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Where the fuc is Ronnie Reagan when ya need him!

Come on now. Ronnie Reagan made a lot of people rich. A lot of the guys here I'd bet.

Come on now. Ronnie Reagan made a lot of people rich. A lot of the guys here I'd bet. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Sure he did but he enacted one of the largest tax increases on the middle class ever known to man!


Who do you think raised SS tax's? Gave this country a false sense of security. We have taken that SURPLUS and made it appear that everything was A-OK on the tax front.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html
The following year, Reagan made one of the greatest ideological about-faces in the history of the presidency, agreeing to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security

These guys are brutally honest about Ronnie. They are the hardcore Libertarians
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control =488
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years,

Whatever the case, meaningful tort reform isn't going to happen. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I would love for you to explain what you mean by "meaningful tort reform." I bet is somewhere near gutting the whole of tort law as if it never existed.

[Of course, I'd be willing to bet you've never experienced being on the wrong side of a malpractice scalpel. Oh, yeah, I forgot, docs only practice defensive medicine and never engage in negligence.]

Sure he did but he enacted one of the largest tax increases on the middle class ever known to man! Originally Posted by WTF

Wait till you see the VAT that is coming to pay for this turkey.

Wait till you see the VAT that is coming to pay for this turkey. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Its better than that cap and trade crap. MoFo was trying to kill the oil feller's!

Would one of you guys please tell me what VAT tax means. 25 words or less would be great.

Would one of you guys please tell me what VAT tax means. 25 words or less would be great. Originally Posted by Ansley

Shhh. It's a secret. Come over here and I'll whisper it to you.

Would one of you guys please tell me what VAT tax means. 25 words or less would be great. Originally Posted by Ansley

Value Added Tax. Its like a national sales tax, but applied at each level of production (raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, etc.). Very common tax in Europe, where government revenues are typically about 30+% of GDP.