Medical Malpractice Reform Savings would be Small, CBO Report says

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Modbert, Oct 12, 2009.

  1. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Medical malpractice reform savings would be small, report says -- latimes.com

    Alright Republicans, Plan A turned out to be total shit. Medical Malpractice is seemingly going to solve nothing. (Just like I said a couple weeks ago).

    So what's Plan B?
     
  2. PatekPhilippe
    Offline

    PatekPhilippe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    8,171
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sasebo Japan
    Ratings:
    +1,200
    So this is the excuse for not trying to save 11 billion dollars of tax payer money....because the CBO says it won't amount to a hill of fucking beans? Yet it's OK to run a 1.7 trillion dollar budget deficit.....and spend another trillion dollars on a government run healthcare system that will be abused just as much as Medicare.....which has over 500 billion dollars in fraudulent claims thus far....

    ya.....that makes sense...woooohoooo!
     
  3. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    This was suppose to be the cure-all according to some Republicans, it hasn't been. Considering the amount it's going to save, it's good to still do it but it's not going to solve much in the long run.

    Republicans throughout this board have been using the CBO to bash the Democratic plans. This is what happens when the Republicans actually offer up something in return. Turns out their ideas may not seem so good either.

    I also never said anything you just made assumptions about. So I'm not sure why you believe any of that is relevant to this thread. All you're doing there is dishonestly framing my argument to suit what you want to say.

    So I'm going to ask again. What's Plan B?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2009
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,509
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    That would be because it is a dishonest appraisal. The cost of malpractice is not just the money one pays in awards to claimants, it is in the higher prices one pays for insurance, for the increased risk that doctors will practice medicine designed to protect them from charges of mal practice ( ie, more costly and just more, tests).

    A few years ago there was a report out that in some States with no tort reform it was becoming increasingly difficult to find OB-GYN and maternity doctors outside of large Metropolitan areas because of the increased law suits ( that are crap) claiming all kind of normal conditions were caused by doctors. Think Edwards and his ignorant antics as a Lawyer. Edwards got a jury to declare that cerebral palsy was caused by doctors.
     
  5. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    And now, for the rest of the story...

    Sadly, but as usual with the press, I need to go to the actual horse's mouth for the full story. Here is the actual letter from the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf

    Note the table at the top of p.4.

    Here is an excerpt:
    ....

    In the case of the federal budget, enactment of such a package of proposals would reduce
    mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program,
    and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by roughly $41 billion over the next
    10 years (see Table 1).2 That figure includes a larger percentage decline in Medicare’s
    spending than in the other programs’ or in national health spending in general, a
    calculation based on empirical evidence showing that the impact of tort reform on the
    utilization of health care services is greater for Medicare than for the rest of the health
    care system. One possible explanation for that disparity is that the bulk of Medicare’s
    spending is on a fee-for-service basis, whereas most private health care spending occurs
    through plans that manage care to some degree. Such plans limit the use of services that
    have marginal or no benefit to patients (some of which might otherwise be provided as
    “defensive” medicine); in that way, plans control costs and keep premiums lower than
    they otherwise would be. In research reported in 2002, Kessler and McClellan found that
    when tort reform was introduced, health care spending in regions with relatively more
    enrollees in managed care plans did not fall as much as it did in regions with relatively
    fewer enrollees. Presumably, the managed care plans had already eliminated some of the
    defensive medicine that would otherwise have been diminished by tort reform.

    By reducing spending on health care in the private sector, the package of proposals
    discussed here would also affect federal revenues. Much private-sector health care is
    provided through employment-based insurance that represents nontaxable compensation.
    Lower costs for health care arising from those proposals would lead to higher taxable
    wages and thereby increase federal tax revenues by an estimated $13 billion over the next
    10 years, according to estimates by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
    Combining the effects on both mandatory spending and revenues, a tort reform package
    of the sort described earlier in this letter would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly
    $54 billion over the next 10 years. That estimate assumes that a change enacted in 2010
    would have an impact that increased over time, achieving its full effect after four years,
    as providers gradually changed their practice patterns. Of course, the estimated effect of
    any specific legislative proposal would depend on the details of that proposal.
    ....​

     
  6. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    The rest of the story? The numbers are right in my link.

    My link:

    Taking all those numbers in your link, divide them by the 10 years, and you got that number or roughly that number.
     
  7. PatekPhilippe
    Offline

    PatekPhilippe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    8,171
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sasebo Japan
    Ratings:
    +1,200
    I didn't frame anything...all I did was show you that the CBO saying 11 billion dollars in savings is not worth the effort. What kind of bullshit is that? 11 billion dollars would buy a lot of MRAP's for our troops in harms way right now.

    Gunny has a valid point as well...the figures you present are only one tiny segment of the entire tort reform/malpractice insurance cost issue. If you add in all of the other savings realized it would add up to what Kyl said.
    Now..add in the savings that would be created by lower insurance premiums paid by Americans, no unecessary testing, the lowering of prices paid in malpractice insurance premiums and the capping of awards...then come back to make your point.
     
  8. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Except I did say it should still done. I'm simply saying it's not going to do much in the long-term run.

    I'm not going to try and argue some issue that you're not backing up with any statistics whatsoever. I'm using statistics, I got a CBO report that Republicans have been harping on since this debate has sprung up. Now that it doesn't paint such a rosy picture for the GOP plan, it's suddenly missing parts and shit like that.
     
  9. PatekPhilippe
    Offline

    PatekPhilippe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    8,171
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Sasebo Japan
    Ratings:
    +1,200
    At this point...no one really knows what's going to happen. If the current version of healthcare reform passes the tax increases for all Americans will go into effect in the beginning of next year. The program doesn't go into effect until 2012. That's 2 years of collecting taxs and spending it on lowering the deficit we have right now so Obama can say he lowered the deficit in a bid to get re-elected....and then in 2012 when this plan goes into effect there will be a MASSIVE borrowing and spending plan to pay for it. All of this smoke and mirrors is fucking bullshit....if we can't pay for it then we shouldn't buy it. I'm sick and tired of the government telling me what I need....I have survived this far with my skills earning me $***k a year...I think I'll be alright.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2009
  10. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Look at the table, Dogbert.
     

Share This Page