Obama get very warm welcome to the house

[Mr.Fitnah]

Where are the Dr's going to come from to give care to 40 million new insured people?

I don't think you realize that are a great deal of those people already get care from those doctors, they just end up not being able to afford it. There's a good reason why Health Care costs are in the top 5 reasons why people declare bankruptcy yearly. Stop trying to use scare tactics.

Also, this would definitely give an increase in jobs. You know, the thing Republicans are always bitching that it's all Obama fault that we're losing?

So we need to fuck things up for me so the people who are already getting health care but cant afford it can get the health care they still wont be able to afford?
That sounds great.

 

[manu1959]

Where are the Dr's going to come from to give care to 40 million new insured people?

I don't think you realize that are a great deal of those people already get care from those doctors, they just end up not being able to afford it. There's a good reason why Health Care costs are in the top 5 reasons why people declare bankruptcy yearly. Stop trying to use scare tactics.

Also, this would definitely give an increase in jobs. You know, the thing Republicans are always bitching that it's all Obama fault that we're losing?

why not just go get medicade then......that is what it is for.....

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Where are the Dr's going to come from to give care to 40 million new insured people?

I don't think you realize that are a great deal of those people already get care from those doctors, they just end up not being able to afford it. There's a good reason why Health Care costs are in the top 5 reasons why people declare bankruptcy yearly. Stop trying to use scare tactics.

Also, this would definitely give an increase in jobs. You know, the thing Republicans are always bitching that it's all Obama fault that we're losing?

why not just go get medicade then......that is what it is for.....

Medicade cant afford 40 million new user with out tapping insurance and drug companies to foot the bill.

 

[GWV5903]

The first step to Health Care Reform starts with Tort Reform, anything else is pure BS....

That's a state level issue, and the states that have done it have gotten screwed. Most of them saw malpractice rates skyrocket anyway, the exception being Texas. There, they lowered malpractice rates, but health insurance rates skyrocketed, completely outpacing the majority of the nation. Tort reform is a myth in terms of the big picture. Combine it with the fines for being uninsured, and all you've got is what we always seem to get - a nice fat package for the insurance companies.


On a side note, I think the concept of failing to provide a public option for millions of Americans who need it based on some fear that somewhere illegal aliens will sneak onto the plan is nonsensical. Should we fail to provide police protection and pubic schools, because somewhere an illegal immigrant may benefit?

Texas didn't get screwed, and health insurance rates didn't skyrocket, that’s pure bull shit, you need to do better research, Texans health insurance premiums are lower than New York, California, Illinois and especially Massachusetts.....do you get your talking points from Axelrod??

The Texas Medical Center is the largest and best in the world, it turns out more doctors than any other institution in the world......

On the other hand let’s take for example Massachusetts, they have the highest per capita of physicians, yet they have the highest insurance premiums, and I quote:

"Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone."

"The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation, showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent."

Oh and their medical malpractice cost is the 2ND highest in the country.......

Or maybe this will sink in......

"The reason the president and congressional Democrats don't address malpractice is clear. In the 2008 election cycle, lawyers gave $233 million to political candidates: 76% went to Democrats and 23% to Republicans. Politicians know better than to bite the hand that feeds them."

"Rather than attempting to expand litigation opportunities, Congress could use health reform legislation to give incentives to states to reduce malpractice costs, while still protecting patients.

Some states, such as Texas, are showing how to get malpractice costs under control. Since the state legislature passed a series of malpractice reforms several years ago, medical malpractice costs have plummeted, and numbers of doctors moving into the state have soared.

"There is a cause and effect here," said Grace-Marie Turner, president of the non-partisan Galen Institute in Washington, D.C. "Premiums with one malpractice insurance company have fallen by more than a third, allowing doctors and hospitals to reduce costs. About 7,000 physicians have moved into Texas over the last four years, and the state has backlogs of applications from other physicians wanting to move."

Congress could give incentives to states to reduce the costs lawyers' fees place on the health system while still protecting patients. "

I will finish with this, the only person who does not acknowledge Tort Reform will have a major impact on cost is either a lawyer or liberal, which one are you???

 

[edthecynic]

does anybody remember the day when pelosi call us nazis? I do


see any outrage from gudra? I didn't

Repeating your lie does not make you any less a liar.

 

[WillowTree]

does anybody remember the day when pelosi call us nazis? I do


see any outrage from gudra? I didn't

Repeating your lie does not make you any less a liar.

I see you've joined the fool brigade.

 

[edthecynic]

does anybody remember the day when pelosi call us nazis? I do


see any outrage from gudra? I didn't

Repeating your lie does not make you any less a liar.

I see you've joined the fool brigade.

Can YOU be any more foolish than "remembering" something that never happened???

See the first quote in my sig.

 

[WillowTree]

Repeating your lie does not make you any less a liar.

I see you've joined the fool brigade.

Can YOU be any more foolish than "remembering" something that never happened???

See the first quote in my sig.

It happened. or what do fools think she was saying about people carrying swastikas?

 

[edthecynic]

I see you've joined the fool brigade.

Can YOU be any more foolish than "remembering" something that never happened???

See the first quote in my sig.

It happened. or what do fools think she was saying about people carrying swastikas?

As was explained to you earlier in this very thread, she correctly reported that YOU fools were using Nazi symbols to call health care supporters Nazi Socialists.
In typical CON$ervative fashion consistent with the first quote in my sig, you CON$ smear Americans you hate and then you whine and cry like babies and pretend that you were the ones being VICTIMIZED by a smear.

 

[WillowTree]

Can YOU be any more foolish than "remembering" something that never happened???

See the first quote in my sig.

It happened. or what do fools think she was saying about people carrying swastikas?

As was explained to you earlier in this very thread, she correctly reported that YOU fools were using Nazi symbols to call health care supporters Nazi Socialists.
In typical CON$ervative fashion consistent with the first quote in my sig, you CON$ smear Americans you hate and then you whine and cry like babies and pretend that you were the ones being VICTIMIZED by a smear.

kinda sounds like pot and kettle to me. crybaby.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The blabber in chief is a light weight. An empty suit reading empty words written by lefty white guys. Are you impressed, if so, you are a dumb ass.

No you are a dumb ass blind follower. Disagree with his policy, but say he is a light weight is total blind partisan bullshit. He is an excellent speaker who uses the power of words to motivate people. Not you of course because your mind is closed. This ability to speak like this is one of the qualities of great leaders.

Sorry if right now you don't have anyone on the right like this in your little hate group.

He must have cheated in school to graduate as high as he did.

You are a bunch of sore little whiner losers.

He also writes some of the speech unlike your little hero who really couldn't even read that well.

I guess we are in for this empty shit from the right for the next 8 years.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You can get on the bus, but not the cats unless they are the hairless type.

 

[edthecynic]

It happened. or what do fools think she was saying about people carrying swastikas?

As was explained to you earlier in this very thread, she correctly reported that YOU fools were using Nazi symbols to call health care supporters Nazi Socialists.
In typical CON$ervative fashion consistent with the first quote in my sig, you CON$ smear Americans you hate and then you whine and cry like babies and pretend that you were the ones being VICTIMIZED by a smear.

kinda sounds like pot and kettle to me. crybaby.

Which is why you CON$ make perfect Contrarian Indicators.

 

[Gudrid]

Texas didn't get screwed, and health insurance rates didn't skyrocket, that’s pure bull shit, you need to do better research, Texans health insurance premiums are lower than New York, California, Illinois and especially Massachusetts.....do you get your talking points from Axelrod??

*sigh*

That sentence is disturbing on so many levels. First off, the assumption that someone gets "talking points" says far more about how you work than it says anything else. I don't do "talking points." I actually research information. Try it sometime. You may be surprised at what you find.

And yes Texas personal rates did skyrocket.

Second, the states you came up with higher premiums - guess what most have in common, genius. Wait for it...

They passed Tort Reform legislation!

New York, from your example:

The New York Public Interest Research Group reviewed 15 years of federal data on medical malpractice payments and concluded that the amount of money paid for malpractice claims in New York has actually fallen in recent years, and that the number of overall claims has remained “remarkably stable.”

Thanks for proving my point for me. That was kind of you. here's further reading for those who may be interested.

evada, which saw premiums increase by 30% in one year, passed an award cap. Within weeks of the law’s enactment, the two major carriers in the state announced that they would not reduce rates for at least another year or two, and doctors are still waiting. Mississippi doctors had similar experiences. When Ohio’s cap on compensation awards for patients injured by malpractice was passed in January of 2003, all five major medical insurance companies immediately announced that they would not reduce their rates and one company even predicted that it would seek a 20 percent rate increase!

Industry observers have consistently failed to find support for the assertion that malpractice drives up health care costs. Americans for Insurance Reform presents data showing that medical malpractice paid losses as a percentage of health care costs have remained constant at less than one half of one percent since 1985! Further, malpractice premiums have remained between a half of one percent and one percent of total health care costs during that same period. In 2002, payouts from malpractice comprised .38% of U.S. health care costs. HCFA data show that while health care costs have risen by 74.7% in constant dollars since 1988, malpractice costs have increased only 5.7% over the same period. The conclusion is straightforward and simple: Medical malpractice premiums are not the cause of skyrocketing medical costs, period.

http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Fall05/reprints/tort-reform.php

Residents of some states actually experienced higher than average premium increases, with the hardest hit states being Oklahoma, Idaho, Texas, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

Health Insurance Premiums Skyrocket - washingtonpost.com

The experience of Texas in capping damage awards is a good example. Contrary to Perry’s claims, a recent analysis by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker found that while Texas tort reforms led to a cap on pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which led to a dramatic decline in lawsuits, McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country.

The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs

Families USA, a consumer advocate group in Washington, found health care premiums in Texas increased 86.8 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Malpractice damage caps not a cure for high health care costs | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Jim Landers | Business Columnist | Dallas Morning News

Further reading for you:

Tort `reform' fails to lower insurance rates, consumer group says. - Free Online Library

Chicago Injury Law Blog: Doctors' Malpractice Insurance Rates Rise Even After "Tort Reform"

To address some of your other points:

The Texas Medical Center is the largest and best in the world, it turns out more doctors than any other institution in the world......

I have no idea whether that's accurate or not, and I don't really care as it has zero to do with this discussion.

Or maybe this will sink in......

"The reason the president and congressional Democrats don't address malpractice is clear. In the 2008 election cycle, lawyers gave $233 million to political candidates: 76% went to Democrats and 23% to Republicans. Politicians know better than to bite the hand that feeds them."

And the insurance companies are padding the pockets of the Republican politicians. Welcome to the world. That's why you need to research these things yourself and not use "talking points." Malpractice accounts for a really small percentage of healthcare costs, and false malpractice suits are even less. It's a "look something shiny" distraction issue. And as noted in the articles above, it doesn't even lower rates when tort reforms are passed. You're being led around by the nose by special interest groups and their lackeys.

Some states, such as Texas, are showing how to get malpractice costs under control. Since the state legislature passed a series of malpractice reforms several years ago, medical malpractice costs have plummeted, and numbers of doctors moving into the state have soared.

Did you not read my earlier? Of the initial states that passed tort reform/caps, none saw the promised malpractice insurance rate decrease except for Texas. However, in Texas, personal insurance rates skyrocketed. See articles posted earlier - or better yet, look it up yourself.

I will finish with this, the only person who does not acknowledge Tort Reform will have a major impact on cost is either a lawyer or liberal, which one are you???

You are welcome to label me however you wish. I've been labeled all sorts of things depending on the issue being discussed. Don't really care about that silliness, personally.

I'm going to assume you're young and know nothing about the tort reform song-and-dance of the 80's. It's been long enough that they're pulling it out again. Research. Learn. Stop being led around by politicians and profitminded businesses. They aren't looking out for you, so learn to look out for yourself. You're getting screwed. We all are. And in this case, ignorance will only be bliss for so long. That bliss ends when you end up actually having to deal with the system.

 

[GWV5903]

Texas didn't get screwed, and health insurance rates didn't skyrocket, that’s pure bull shit, you need to do better research, Texans health insurance premiums are lower than New York, California, Illinois and especially Massachusetts.....do you get your talking points from Axelrod??

*sigh*

That sentence is disturbing on so many levels. First off, the assumption that someone gets "talking points" says far more about how you work than it says anything else. I don't do "talking points." I actually research information. Try it sometime. You may be surprised at what you find.

And yes Texas personal rates did skyrocket.

Second, the states you came up with higher premiums - guess what most have in common, genius. Wait for it...

They passed Tort Reform legislation!

New York, from your example:

The New York Public Interest Research Group reviewed 15 years of federal data on medical malpractice payments and concluded that the amount of money paid for malpractice claims in New York has actually fallen in recent years, and that the number of overall claims has remained “remarkably stable.”

Thanks for proving my point for me. That was kind of you. here's further reading for those who may be interested.
Tort Reform Does Not Equal Malpractice Insurance Reform


Health Insurance Premiums Skyrocket - washingtonpost.com

The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs



Malpractice damage caps not a cure for high health care costs | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Jim Landers | Business Columnist | Dallas Morning News

Further reading for you:

Tort `reform' fails to lower insurance rates, consumer group says. - Free Online Library

Chicago Injury Law Blog: Doctors' Malpractice Insurance Rates Rise Even After "Tort Reform"

To address some of your other points:


I have no idea whether that's accurate or not, and I don't really care as it has zero to do with this discussion.



And the insurance companies are padding the pockets of the Republican politicians. Welcome to the world. That's why you need to research these things yourself and not use "talking points." Malpractice accounts for a really small percentage of healthcare costs, and false malpractice suits are even less. It's a "look something shiny" distraction issue. And as noted in the articles above, it doesn't even lower rates when tort reforms are passed. You're being led around by the nose by special interest groups and their lackeys.

Some states, such as Texas, are showing how to get malpractice costs under control. Since the state legislature passed a series of malpractice reforms several years ago, medical malpractice costs have plummeted, and numbers of doctors moving into the state have soared.

Did you not read my earlier? Of the initial states that passed tort reform/caps, none saw the promised malpractice insurance rate decrease except for Texas. However, in Texas, personal insurance rates skyrocketed. See articles posted earlier - or better yet, look it up yourself.

I will finish with this, the only person who does not acknowledge Tort Reform will have a major impact on cost is either a lawyer or liberal, which one are you???

You are welcome to label me however you wish. I've been labeled all sorts of things depending on the issue being discussed. Don't really care about that silliness, personally.

I'm going to assume you're young and know nothing about the tort reform song-and-dance of the 80's. It's been long enough that they're pulling it out again. Research. Learn. Stop being led around by politicians and profitminded businesses. They aren't looking out for you, so learn to look out for yourself. You're getting screwed. We all are. And in this case, ignorance will only be bliss for so long. That bliss ends when you end up actually having to deal with the system.

76% of all states have performed some sort of Tort Reform since '86, your research is skewed at best.....hence health care cost in Texas is no more inflated because of Tort Reform than in any of the other 38 states who have done something similar......

Why did you skip Massachusetts in your rebuttal? Bad research? Or does the Number 1 state in Health Care cost and Number 2 in Malpractice cost blow a hole in your belief that Tort Reform is not needed? Oh, that's right, Massachusetts has mandatory health care, or is it something different than Obama-Care!?!?!

TMC is about growth, I do understand most liberals have an aversion to growth.....

Trial Lawyers contributed $233,912,817 vs $46,832,136 from the Insurance Industry, Trial Lawyers contributed 76% of this to Democrats and 23% to Republicans, Insurance contributed 45% to Democrats and 55% to Republicans in the 2008 campaign cycle, now tell me do you still think your research is good?

Last, but not least, I have been walking on Gods green earth for over five decades, before you assume anything about another person you have no real knowledge of I suggest you realize the first three letters spell ASS........

 

[GWV5903]

Texas didn't get screwed, and health insurance rates didn't skyrocket, that’s pure bull shit, you need to do better research, Texans health insurance premiums are lower than New York, California, Illinois and especially Massachusetts.....do you get your talking points from Axelrod??

*sigh*

That sentence is disturbing on so many levels. First off, the assumption that someone gets "talking points" says far more about how you work than it says anything else. I don't do "talking points." I actually research information. Try it sometime. You may be surprised at what you find.

And yes Texas personal rates did skyrocket.

Second, the states you came up with higher premiums - guess what most have in common, genius. Wait for it...

They passed Tort Reform legislation!

New York, from your example:

The New York Public Interest Research Group reviewed 15 years of federal data on medical malpractice payments and concluded that the amount of money paid for malpractice claims in New York has actually fallen in recent years, and that the number of overall claims has remained “remarkably stable.”

Thanks for proving my point for me. That was kind of you. here's further reading for those who may be interested.
Tort Reform Does Not Equal Malpractice Insurance Reform


Health Insurance Premiums Skyrocket - washingtonpost.com

The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs



Malpractice damage caps not a cure for high health care costs | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Jim Landers | Business Columnist | Dallas Morning News

Further reading for you:

Tort `reform' fails to lower insurance rates, consumer group says. - Free Online Library

Chicago Injury Law Blog: Doctors' Malpractice Insurance Rates Rise Even After "Tort Reform"

To address some of your other points:


I have no idea whether that's accurate or not, and I don't really care as it has zero to do with this discussion.



And the insurance companies are padding the pockets of the Republican politicians. Welcome to the world. That's why you need to research these things yourself and not use "talking points." Malpractice accounts for a really small percentage of healthcare costs, and false malpractice suits are even less. It's a "look something shiny" distraction issue. And as noted in the articles above, it doesn't even lower rates when tort reforms are passed. You're being led around by the nose by special interest groups and their lackeys.

Some states, such as Texas, are showing how to get malpractice costs under control. Since the state legislature passed a series of malpractice reforms several years ago, medical malpractice costs have plummeted, and numbers of doctors moving into the state have soared.

Did you not read my earlier? Of the initial states that passed tort reform/caps, none saw the promised malpractice insurance rate decrease except for Texas. However, in Texas, personal insurance rates skyrocketed. See articles posted earlier - or better yet, look it up yourself.

I will finish with this, the only person who does not acknowledge Tort Reform will have a major impact on cost is either a lawyer or liberal, which one are you???

You are welcome to label me however you wish. I've been labeled all sorts of things depending on the issue being discussed. Don't really care about that silliness, personally.

I'm going to assume you're young and know nothing about the tort reform song-and-dance of the 80's. It's been long enough that they're pulling it out again. Research. Learn. Stop being led around by politicians and profitminded businesses. They aren't looking out for you, so learn to look out for yourself. You're getting screwed. We all are. And in this case, ignorance will only be bliss for so long. That bliss ends when you end up actually having to deal with the system.

Oh, one more thing, I love it when someone is stupid enough to paint with the broad brush the evil "profit" word.......profit brings more good to this world than bad, get a different drum to beat......

 

[Gudrid]

[
Why did you skip Massachusetts in your rebuttal?

Because the discussion was about tort reform failing to lower costs. Since Massachusetts doesn't have it, there's no before-and-after comparison. The fact that they have high healthcare costs isn't relevant, as other factors can cause high health care costs. The control group is states that had high costs and employed tort reform in an attempt to control those costs.

76% of all states have performed some sort of Tort Reform since '86, your research is skewed at best...

First off, my research is just fine, thanks. I gave a sampling; I have neither the time nor the desire to spoon feed people. Frankly, mainly the time. This is an issue I've spent many, many hours looking into, both in recent times and during the primaries.

Second - and more amusingly. If 76% of states (I think your figure is a little off, but whatever, we'll go with it) - if that's that's the case and tort reformed worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, because health care costs would have lowered acceptably in those states and it would be a nonissue.

Last, but not least, I have been walking on Gods green earth for over five decades, before you assume anything about another person you have no real knowledge of I suggest you realize the first three letters spell ASS........

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were simply unaware rather than foolish. I apologize for my error.

To re-emphasize - if tort reform worked and over 2/3 of the states have done it, there would be no problem with health care costs. It doesn't work. It's a shiny distraction, nothing more. Pass all the tort reforms you want; I don't particularly care - but it doesn't solve the problem. As has been shown in just over 30 states - which was mentioned in one of the links I posted unless I missed one, btw.

 

[Intense]

ATRA Awards Medals for 'Best' and 'Worst' State Civil Justice Legislation

With most state legislatures now adjourned for 2009, ATRA has announced awards for what it deems both the best and worst pieces of civil justice legislation considered by state lawmakers across the country this year.

Champions of a comprehensive tort reform law in Oklahoma get ATRA's first annual "Gold Medal for the Best State Civil Justice Legislation," while the chief sponsor of a trial lawyer-driven expansion of securities liability in New York receives the "'Sheldon Silver' Medal for the Worst State Civil Justice Legislation." The "Silver" medal is named for Manhattan personal injury law firm partner and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. For more details, read ATRA's news release, in which ATRA president Tiger Joyce suggests that "no single state lawmaker in the country has done more to increase the profits of personal injury lawyers at the expense of jobseekers, consumers, taxpayers and health care patients" than Sheldon Silver.


ATRA :: The American Tort Reform Association




Tort Reform is a single factor, like mandate is a single factor. They are in no way insignificant, and it is disingenuous to presume the effects are minute.


insurers with 50 percent or more of their business in malpractice insurance dropped 52.7 percent
from 2000 to 2002, from $4.5 million to $2.1 million, with investment yields dropping from 5.2 percent
to 4.3 percent (23). This drop looks large, and is often cited as a leading reason for increases
in insurance premiums. It is important, however, to remember that investment income is only a
small part of total insurer income (23).
How much do we spend on the malpractice system?
Much has been said in the policy debate about the toll that malpractice litigation
takes on the economy, but hard cost estimates are elusive. To calculate the total costs
of the malpractice system one would need reliable estimates of both the direct and the indirect
costs. The direct costs of malpractice litigation include payments made on claims (from which
plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs are taken), legal costs of defending claims and costs of underwriting
and administering liability insurance. A recent estimate suggests that claims costs amounted
to $4.4 billion in 2001, legal defense costs amounted to $1.4 billion and insurance administration
amounted to $700 million. Thus, total direct costs were probably about $6.5 billion in 2001, or 0.46
percent of total health care spending (2). These and all estimates of the costs of the malpractice
system, however, are back-of-the-envelope calculations; no hard cost figures are available.
Indirect costs arise when the liability system causes physicians to supply more health care
services than they would in the absence of a liability threat. Services that are provided primarily
or solely for the purposes of protecting physicians against malpractice liability, rather than the
medical benefit of the patient, are referred to as defensive medicine. True defensive-medicine
costs are properly counted as indirect costs of the malpractice system, but the costs of additional
appropriate (i.e., medically indicated) services should not be included in that estimate.
There are no reliable estimates of the national costs of defensive medicine. Many
analysts have attempted to estimate these costs; all have failed to do so reliably. All of the available
measurement methodologies have serious shortcomings (10, 18). For example, some national
estimates are based on the incremental cost increases associated with just two or three medical
procedures or diagnoses. It is simply not possible to extrapolate so widely to other procedures,
because some are more amenable to defensive medical practice than others. The Office of Technology
Assessment conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence about defensive medicine
costs in 1994 and concluded that none of available estimates were reliable (32). Much additional
research has been conducted since then, but the conclusion remains the same.
Malpractice litigation costs and total health care spending are related, but not
precisely. Because the cost of medical care for injured patients is a large component of malpractice
awards, we should expect awards to rise along with increases in health care spending.
Indeed, both average paid claims and per-capita health spending grew 52 percent in real terms
from 1991 and 2003 (14 and spending data from Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services).
Malpractice awards also include other components, however, such as non-economic damages,
so we should not expect them to precisely track health care spending.
What is a medical malpractice “crisis”?
Stakeholder groups disagree about whether the current environment should be
labeled a “crisis,” but there is general agreement that malpractice insurance has
become less affordable and available. A malpractice crisis is a period of volatility in the
medical professional liability insurance market in which deterioration in insurance carriers’ financial
| RESEARCH SYNTHESIS REPORT NO. 8 | THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION | Understanding medical malpractice insurance: A primer
How much do we spend on the malpractice system?
ratios is followed by higher-than-historical increases in insurance premiums and/or decreased
supply of insurance. The use of the word “crisis” is controversial because of the severity and
urgency it connotes, but the term is widely used in the academic scholarship as well as policy
debates. Further details about the current crisis period and previous crises are provided below.
When evaluating whether a state is experiencing a medical malpractice crisis, one should look at
both absolute levels of premiums (Figure 2) and the amount of change from year to year. It is also
important to juxtapose these costs with how generously providers are reimbursed in the state, as
reimbursement affects providers’ ability to meet rising insurance costs.


http://www.rwjf.org/pr/synthesis/reports_and_briefs/pdf/no10_primer.pdf

 

[GWV5903]

[
Why did you skip Massachusetts in your rebuttal?

Because the discussion was about tort reform failing to lower costs. Since Massachusetts doesn't have it, there's no before-and-after comparison. The fact that they have high healthcare costs isn't relevant, as other factors can cause high health care costs. The control group is states that had high costs and employed tort reform in an attempt to control those costs.

Are you deaf, dumb and blind?? Mandatory Health Care is FAILING in Massachusetts because of cost, that's what the whole debate is about, duhhhhhhh......

76% of all states have performed some sort of Tort Reform since '86, your research is skewed at best...

First off, my research is just fine, thanks. I gave a sampling; I have neither the time nor the desire to spoon feed people. Frankly, mainly the time. This is an issue I've spent many, many hours looking into, both in recent times and during the primaries.

Second - and more amusingly. If 76% of states (I think your figure is a little off, but whatever, we'll go with it) - if that's that's the case and tort reformed worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, because health care costs would have lowered acceptably in those states and it would be a nonissue.

Again, "some form" Bozo, if you had really done any research on this you would know there is more needed, your not going to fix the courts in thirty + years, it's over 200 years old, LOLOLOL........

Last, but not least, I have been walking on Gods green earth for over five decades, before you assume anything about another person you have no real knowledge of I suggest you realize the first three letters spell ASS........

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were simply unaware rather than foolish. I apologize for my error.

No apology needed, your an ASS, plain and simple.....don't stop now!!

To re-emphasize - if tort reform worked and over 2/3 of the states have done it, there would be no problem with health care costs. It doesn't work. It's a shiny distraction, nothing more. Pass all the tort reforms you want; I don't particularly care - but it doesn't solve the problem. As has been shown in just over 30 states - which was mentioned in one of the links I posted unless I missed one, btw.

Tort Reform is the first step, no one is saying it is the only step.....

 

[GWV5903]

[
Why did you skip Massachusetts in your rebuttal?

Because the discussion was about tort reform failing to lower costs. Since Massachusetts doesn't have it, there's no before-and-after comparison. The fact that they have high healthcare costs isn't relevant, as other factors can cause high health care costs. The control group is states that had high costs and employed tort reform in an attempt to control those costs.

76% of all states have performed some sort of Tort Reform since '86, your research is skewed at best...

First off, my research is just fine, thanks. I gave a sampling; I have neither the time nor the desire to spoon feed people. Frankly, mainly the time. This is an issue I've spent many, many hours looking into, both in recent times and during the primaries.

Second - and more amusingly. If 76% of states (I think your figure is a little off, but whatever, we'll go with it) - if that's that's the case and tort reformed worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, because health care costs would have lowered acceptably in those states and it would be a nonissue.

Last, but not least, I have been walking on Gods green earth for over five decades, before you assume anything about another person you have no real knowledge of I suggest you realize the first three letters spell ASS........

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were simply unaware rather than foolish. I apologize for my error.

To re-emphasize - if tort reform worked and over 2/3 of the states have done it, there would be no problem with health care costs. It doesn't work. It's a shiny distraction, nothing more. Pass all the tort reforms you want; I don't particularly care - but it doesn't solve the problem. As has been shown in just over 30 states - which was mentioned in one of the links I posted unless I missed one, btw.

You conveniently skipped how the Trial Lawyers out spent the Insurance Industry buy 80% and they put 76% of that money into your beloved Democrats......