Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Mitt Romney's claim that repealing "Obamacare would save 95 billion in 2016, debunked
Defensive medicine is defined as providing medical services that are not expected to benefit the patient but that are undertaken to minimize the risk of a subsequent lawsuit. Diagnostic defensive medicine practices have a much greater impact on costs than do therapeutic defensive practices.
The study quoted most often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.
If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.
The cost of defensive medicine
NOTE the above was based on 2005 health care expenditures of $1.987 trillion.
Using 2010 expenditures of $2.555 trillion that would be over $230 billion in "defensive medicine"!
Physicians estimate $1 of every $4 spent on health care is defensive medicine or 25% or over $600 billion...
Either way a large chunk of health care costs is simply out of FEAR of being sued!
There are so many problems here it's boggling. First of all, the "information" you're posting is based on THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY's claims. I don't know, but it seems to me that they have a vested interest in trying to sway public opinion to pass extremely favorable tort reform and things like that.
Now, let's talk a little about "defensive" medicine. Here's the real truth behind it: Doctor's aren't practicing "defensive" medicine, they're practicing inflated medicine. Patient's are the ones who are in the drivers' seats always. A doctor can't force a patient to take a test. All he can do is advise a patient. And by advising the patient and letting the patient decide which avenues to pursue, the doctor is instantly covering his ass from getting sued, so long as the advice is reasonable.
The real reason doctors push (and that's what they're doing, they are pushing) as many tests and procedures as they possibly can, is because IT MAKES MORE MONEY. Every procedure is something more the doctor of facility can charge. Of course they want you to use as many procedures as they possibly can convince you to use.
Much easier way to tell when Obama's lying.
His lips are moving.
Anyway, a couple thoughts.
First, Romney isn't going to repeal Obominationcare. He invented it. He'll tweak it so big insurance will make more money on the deal, but that's about it.
Second, the real problem hasn't been addressed by anyone's plan.
Mitt Romney's claim that repealing "Obamacare would save 95 billion in 2016, debunked
That was a stupid thing to say given the CBO report, establishing the fact that repeal of the ACA would add to the deficit.
Perhaps Romney was counting on republicans forgetting about or not being aware of the CBO report; or simply counting on conservatives not accepting facts, as usual.
And if this careless stupidity is common of Romney when he goes up against Obama, Romney will certainly lose.
Much easier way to tell when Obama's lying.
His lips are moving.
Anyway, a couple thoughts.
First, Romney isn't going to repeal Obominationcare. He invented it. He'll tweak it so big insurance will make more money on the deal, but that's about it.
Second, the real problem hasn't been addressed by anyone's plan.
With the exception of the lying part..I think you are correct.
Single payer is the way to go.
Much easier way to tell when Obama's lying.
His lips are moving.
Anyway, a couple thoughts.
First, Romney isn't going to repeal Obominationcare. He invented it. He'll tweak it so big insurance will make more money on the deal, but that's about it.
Second, the real problem hasn't been addressed by anyone's plan.
With the exception of the lying part..I think you are correct.
Single payer is the way to go.
So you are calling 90% of doctors LIARS?
They are the ONES that say they do $600 billion a year in tests,specialist referrals out of FEAR of lawsuits!
Why are you attacking them when THEY are saying the problem is people like you just waiting to win a lawsuit lottery!
And yet YOU seemingly FORGET ONE major aspect!!
YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT NOT the physicians, not the insurance company YOU!
Insurance companies charge higher premiums because more defensive medicine claims are filed.
You won't agree with the following statement because you don't know anything about health insurance much less the financial aspects.
Don't take my word .. TAKE THE SEC/Accountants...etc.
The average insurance company pays OUT IN claims 80% of the premiums they take in! Let me make it simple!
So you are calling 90% of doctors LIARS?
They are the ONES that say they do $600 billion a year in tests,specialist referrals out of FEAR of lawsuits!
I know what they are saying. I'm telling you that the "fear" of lawsuits is, well, extremely exaggerated. It's an excuse.
Why are you attacking them when THEY are saying the problem is people like you just waiting to win a lawsuit lottery!
People like me? Why are you trying to make this personal? I can already see that you're not approaching any of this rationally. And I'm not attacking them. I'm simply explaining how the medical BUSINESS operates.
First of all, when did I ever say otherwise? Second of all, if this has any relevance to this at all, it's to support what I've said. The doctor's are in it to make money. They make money by having products and services to sell. This is no different than a retailer who wants you to buy as much clothes as they can convince you to buy. Doctor's want you to buy as many procedures as they can convince you to buy.
Insurance companies charge higher premiums because more defensive medicine claims are filed.
Listen, you don't know anything about this stuff, so don't try to babble on about it. Health insurance doesn't charge anything because of "defensive medicine." Your policies merely reflect prices based on overall usage of medical services and how much they cost. I.E. because THE PATIENT agreed to such and such procedures. The only way "insurance" comes into play is through malpractice insurance. And the truth is that the effect of malpractice insurance and lawsuits on the overall cost of health care is negligible. All the talk about tort reform is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It's an ideologically convenient scape goat and nothing more.
You won't agree with the following statement because you don't know anything about health insurance much less the financial aspects.
Don't take my word .. TAKE THE SEC/Accountants...etc.
The average insurance company pays OUT IN claims 80% of the premiums they take in! Let me make it simple!
I don't understand insurance or financial aspects? But you make an idiotic claim like that? If that were true, they'd all be out of business!!! Go away.
PolitiFact | Mitt Romney said repealing 'Obamacare' would save $95 billion in 2016
The lie:
Repealing the health care law "would save $95 billion in 2016."
Mitt Romney on Friday, November 4th, 2011 in an op-ed in USA Today
The truth:
In February 2011, the CBO published an analysis of a Republican measure to fully repeal the health care law. The analysis was for H.R. 2, "the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," a simple repeal bill that House Republicans approved on Jan. 19, 2011.
Keep in mind, though, that repealing the health care law doesnt only cut spending. The law had many moving parts, some of which were revenue sources to offset the spending and reduce the overall federal deficit.
The law spent money on providing tax subsidies to help people buy insurance and by expanding the Medicaid health insurance for the very poor.
But it offset those additional costs by slowing the growth of future spending on Medicare, the health insurance program for Americans over age 65.
And, it generated revenues for the government by creating new excise taxes on high-cost health insurance plans (the "Cadillac" plans); adding new Medicare taxes on people with high incomes; and charging new fees to health insurance companies and health care manufacturers.
In other words, if you fully repeal the law, you would also be repealing things that reduce the deficit, such as cost reductions and higher taxes.
Romney cited a reduction of $95 billion in 2016, but that number only counts what the law spends that year. Most of the spending is for subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.
That same year, the law also is projected to raise revenues of $78 billion, largely through new taxes on the wealthy and new fees on the health care industry.
So according to the CBO analysis, a full repeal of the bill would reduce the deficit by $16 billion in 2016, much less than the number Romney cited.
And then theres the broader picture: When the CBO looked at the first 10 years of repeal, from 2012 to 2021, it found that repeal added $210 billion to the deficit. So the deficit would actually be lower if the law is not repealed.
Finally, we should note that a repeal of the law would not necessarily be "easy. "Romney would need to have solid Republican majorities in Congress, including 60 members in the Senate to block filibusters.
If Romney had only criticized the law as an expansion of government spending, he would have been on firmer ground. Instead, he asserted that a repeal of the law would save significant money -- $95 billion. In fact, the law included new taxes and cost reductions so that the actual savings for the year he cited would be much smaller -- $16 billion. And, over the long haul, repealing the law actually adds significantly to the deficit. So we rate his statement False.
Repeal would actually do the opposite, it seems that Republitards are not very fiscally responsible at all. They need to go back to math class and or stop believing all those lies that their staff keeps telling them
A single payer health care system is NOT going to put private insurers out of business. They could still sell "Cadillac plans" for people that want more than the basic single payer system provides.
Did we worry about Buggy salesmen going out of business when we started building automobiles?
But isn't that the problem? What you are admitting is that single payer won't actually be effective.
You know, because you'll have people waiting in queau for services they've paid good money for like the United Kingdom.
Or guys like the Canadian Provincial minister who flew down here because he couldn't get the operation he wanted in his own country in anything like a timely manner.
