Tort Reform Failure

[Samson]

Given the option between paying for insurance premiums to cover mistakes versus a system where licenses are suspended for mistakes, I'd doubt you find many Drs. that would favor your position.

Your system is completely draconian. If a physician makes a mistake he/she loses their livelihood for a certain period of time and maybe forever?

Who in the hell would want to go into a profession like that?

I suppose only people who are confident in their skills?

Who would wanna be a cop?
Who would wanna captain a supertanker?
Who would wanna design a bridge?
Who would wanna be a teacher?
Who wants to be an airline pilot?

AWWWWWWWwwwwwwww....POOOR FUCKING DOCTORS: any other licesed professional fucks up, and they get their liceses suspended or revolked; but phycisians are "special?"

You're saying that physicians are a little sloppy and that their work is inherently error prone, and the public had better just accept the premium on healthcare that allows this instead of holding Medical Doctors to the same standards every other professional must have.

Bullshit.

Okay fine. Just don't offer up your solution as a "fix". It would be a disaster. I'd leave medical school right now if I thought that the slightest error in judgment could cause me to lose my license.

But hey, we don't have enough Drs as it is, but I am sure your plan makes sense in some sort of alternate universe.

BTW, on average a Dr. get's sued 2-4 times in their career. Who is going to be left?

Well, in YOUR unviverse

A. you'd leave med school if you "thought that the slightest error in judgment could cause me to lose my license."

B. the fact that "the slightest error in judgment could cause" the death of another person, doesn't make you change your classes to pre-law.

OOOOps!!! Lawyers can be disbarred!!....








....perhaps getting an MBA is your best choice: Gurus in the Financial Sector seem to be immune from having to be accountable for their fuck-ups.

Just because a DR gets sued 2-4 times in their career, doesn't mean they've ever done anything wrong. It means that a Lawyer for the plaintiff thinks there's the possiblity of settling out of court with the insurance company.

Likewise, just because a DR is accused of malpractice, it doesn't mean their license will be suspended.

Frankly GTH, I think being an MD is a great profession that has been tortured by tort, and I wish you all the best in it. I'd rather be a simple ChemE, working in a low profile/secure/well-paying job in refineries where the worst that will happen is a quick Death from H2S poisoning.

 

[geauxtohell]

I suppose only people who are confident in their skills?

Who would wanna be a cop?
Who would wanna captain a supertanker?
Who would wanna design a bridge?
Who would wanna be a teacher?
Who wants to be an airline pilot?

AWWWWWWWwwwwwwww....POOOR FUCKING DOCTORS: any other licesed professional fucks up, and they get their liceses suspended or revolked; but phycisians are "special?"

You're saying that physicians are a little sloppy and that their work is inherently error prone, and the public had better just accept the premium on healthcare that allows this instead of holding Medical Doctors to the same standards every other professional must have.

Bullshit.

Okay fine. Just don't offer up your solution as a "fix". It would be a disaster. I'd leave medical school right now if I thought that the slightest error in judgment could cause me to lose my license.

But hey, we don't have enough Drs as it is, but I am sure your plan makes sense in some sort of alternate universe.

BTW, on average a Dr. get's sued 2-4 times in their career. Who is going to be left?

Well, in YOUR unviverse

A. you'd leave med school if you "thought that the slightest error in judgment could cause me to lose my license."

B. the fact that "the slightest error in judgment could cause" the death of another person, doesn't make you change your classes to pre-law.

OOOOps!!! Lawyers can be disbarred!!....








....perhaps getting an MBA is your best choice: Gurus in the Financial Sector seem to be immune from having to be accountable for their fuck-ups.

Just because a DR gets sued 2-4 times in their career, doesn't mean they've ever done anything wrong. It means that a Lawyer for the plaintiff thinks there's the possiblity of settling out of court with the insurance company.

Likewise, just because a DR is accused of malpractice, it doesn't mean their license will be suspended.

Frankly GTH, I think being an MD is a great profession that has been tortured by tort, and I wish you all the best in it. I'd rather be a simple ChemE, working in a low profile/secure/well-paying job in refineries where the worst that will happen is a quick Death from H2S poisoning.

Patients die. It's the nature of the business. If you are going to yank a license every time a Dr. makes a poor decision (without willful negligence or malice), there will be no one left.

I am not "pre-" anything. I am in Med School. My wife is a lawyer to be (in her last semester at law school), I am happy where I am. I am not going to spend a second worrying about the stakes or litigation. Before this, I was getting shot at for a living. SFW? Someone has to do it. I am all in with the expectation of two to three decades of practice. If my license can be yanked for a mistake, that changes the stakes significantly.

I have a lot of respect for ChemEs. When I went back to get my degree, I found I loved organic chemistry. In another life, I would have gotten my Ph.D. in that and taught (I hate research).

 

[Samson]

Okay fine. Just don't offer up your solution as a "fix". It would be a disaster. I'd leave medical school right now if I thought that the slightest error in judgment could cause me to lose my license.

But hey, we don't have enough Drs as it is, but I am sure your plan makes sense in some sort of alternate universe.

BTW, on average a Dr. get's sued 2-4 times in their career. Who is going to be left?

Well, in YOUR unviverse

A. you'd leave med school if you "thought that the slightest error in judgment could cause me to lose my license."

B. the fact that "the slightest error in judgment could cause" the death of another person, doesn't make you change your classes to pre-law.

OOOOps!!! Lawyers can be disbarred!!....








....perhaps getting an MBA is your best choice: Gurus in the Financial Sector seem to be immune from having to be accountable for their fuck-ups.

Just because a DR gets sued 2-4 times in their career, doesn't mean they've ever done anything wrong. It means that a Lawyer for the plaintiff thinks there's the possiblity of settling out of court with the insurance company.

Likewise, just because a DR is accused of malpractice, it doesn't mean their license will be suspended.

Frankly GTH, I think being an MD is a great profession that has been tortured by tort, and I wish you all the best in it. I'd rather be a simple ChemE, working in a low profile/secure/well-paying job in refineries where the worst that will happen is a quick Death from H2S poisoning.

Patients die. It's the nature of the business. If you are going to yank a license every time a Dr. makes a poor decision (without willful negligence or malice), there will be no one left.

I am not "pre-" anything. I am in Med School. My wife is a lawyer to be (in her last semester at law school), I am happy where I am. I am not going to spend a second worrying about the stakes or litigation. Before this, I was getting shot at for a living. SFW? Someone has to do it. I am all in with the expectation of two to three decades of practice. If my license can be yanked for a mistake, that changes the stakes significantly.

I have a lot of respect for ChemEs. When I went back to get my degree, I found I loved organic chemistry. In another life, I would have gotten my Ph.D. in that and taught (I hate research).

Why is it that almost any other professional's license (or certification) can be suspended because they made a mistake, yet this is so very different for DR's?

Cop shoots a guy, he's ALWAYS investigated. If Its proven he's negligent, he loses his job.

Teacher makes a mistake, loses her certification, if its proven she's broken district/state rules, her certification is null and void.

DR fucks up, he pays lawyers to negotiate a settlement out of court. This is bad for the profession and bad for the public.

 

[Bfgrn]

You asked for one Republican. I gave one, arguably two.
Now it is your turn to recant your entire political philosophy in light of the errors you have been shown.
To wit:
Obama is not a transformational figure. He is a Chicago machine politician doing business as usual.
Gov't intervention is the problem, not the solution.
Left to their own devices, most people do the right thing most of the time.
Democrats are interested in power for its own sake and will abuse it every chance they get. Most Republicans are like that too, but that they can be shamed.

Yes, government intervention is the problem...socialism, subsidies and welfare for corporations and free markets for the people...

NOT how our founders treated corporations...they knew what they were doing when they drew a line between legally created economic entities and living, breathing human beings.

---------------------------------------------------------

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

History of Corporations (United States)

-------------------------------------

The Theft of Human Rights

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act.

Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy.

There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter. "-

A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view.

William Jennings Bryan
address to the Ohio 1912 Constitutional Convention

 

[geauxtohell]

Why is it that almost any other professional's license (or certification) can be suspended because they made a mistake, yet this is so very different for DR's?

Cop shoots a guy, he's ALWAYS investigated. If Its proven he's negligent, he loses his job.

Teacher makes a mistake, loses her certification, if its proven she's broken district/state rules, her certification is null and void.

DR fucks up, he pays lawyers to negotiate a settlement out of court. This is bad for the profession and bad for the public.

Drs do lose their licenses. Generally it involves an ethical, criminal, or incompetence to the degree of shocking the conscious.

Drs. do not lose their licenses for making a simple mistake that the "average Dr." might have made as well. If you want to establish that precedent, be my guest. There will be no one left. That will be bad for the profession.

 

[geauxtohell]

So you have no evidence for your claim. Thanks for admitting it. Let's move on now.

In other words: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....."

I just showed you that MS has a Dr. shortage and has long before the tort issue. I suppose that's not convenient for your OPED, so you'd rather ignore it. Whatever.

You showed that MS has a shortage of doctors in some areas. That is comparing MS to the rest of the country. That isn't germane here. What is germane is the state of MS prior to tort reform and after tort reform. And teh results show tort reform works.
Sorry.

You are too dense to realize that it is germane and why it is germane. Getting Drs. to practice in underserved areas is a problem that far exceeds the tort issue in scope.

I showed you that every single county in MS is undeserved and has been for at least 30 years. You are trying to claim that Tort Reform has been some sort of magic bullet that has kept Drs. in MS. I claimed that rural states have a hard time getting Drs. to establish practice there for reasons other than torts.

Looks like the facts support me.

Show me how "tort reform" works. The claim made by your OPED was that torts were driving Drs. away. So show me that the number of Drs. in MS has increased as a result of Tort Reform.

 

[geauxtohell]

In Mississippi’s rural areas, access to health care is a growing concern. Access to primary care
physicians is of particular concern. A large percentage of Mississippi’s population is living in
poverty (20%), and 39% is comprised of minorities (36% African-American). Research shows
a close relationship between poverty, minority composition, and health care access. University
of North Carolina researchers have found that only 11% of U.S. physicians are located in rural
areas, whereas 20% of the U.S. population is rural. Nationally, the number of physicians increased
nearly 25% between 1990 and 1997. During that same period, the number of rural physicians grew
by only 11%. The shortage of rural physicians is not improving, and projections indicate there will
continue to be a problem in the future.1
Unequal access to health care is a critical concern in Mississippi, a state with a largely rural
population, a high minority composition, high poverty rates, and some of the unhealthiest residents
in the nation. Mississippi’s primary care physician population, often the first to treat patients, is a
key component of health care access. This Health Map examines the number and location of
primary care physicians in Mississippi using data from the Mississippi Physician Labor Force Study.
http://www.healthpolicy.msstate.edu/publications/healthmaps/primcarephys.pdf

Given these
factors, declining Medicaid reimbursement rates, and a
tenuous legal climate that has raised physician insurance
premiums, Mississippi faces a continuing challenge in
recruiting and retaining physicians.4

The article highlights why getting PCPs to rural areas is a problem all across the country for a variety of reasons. Torts are a small, and I would claim negligible, fraction of a larger problem. Nonetheless, this article is from 2005. As I understand it, prior to Tort reform.

It should be a relatively easy task to show that Tort reform has increased the number of physicians in MS by a significant percentage.

Otherwise, it's a red herring.

While excessive malpractice lititgation is a factor in the decline of Physicians as seen in the study from MSU and UofM it is one factor in many. To address the issue of malpractice with tort reform legislation alone will not solve this as will passing healthcare legislation that excludes it because if the number of Doctors continues to decline it has a direct effect on delivery and cost. In the end, it makes sense to craft some form of malpractice reform in healthcare legislation , at this point though especially when it applies to tort reform itself , I'm not so sure how you do that on a national level as it does appear to be a state issue.

I actually agree with that. If Tort Reform is going to be an issue, it should be handled at the state level.

 

[Navy1960]

We present four findings. First, physicians from states enacting liability reforms that directly reduce malpractice pressure experience lower growth over time in malpractice claims rates and in real malpractice insurance premiums. Second, physicians from reforming states report significant relative declines in the perceived impact of malpractice pressure on practice patterns. Third, individual physicians' personal experiences with the malpractice system are a key determinant of the perceived importance of defensive medicine: Physicians who have had a malpractice claim filed against them, particularly a recent claim, are more likely to report changes in practices as a result of malpractice pressure than physicians who have not. Fourth, the impact of individual physicians' claims experience on perceptions is smaller in reforming than in nonreforming states. Taken together, these results suggest that reforms in law affect physicians' attitudes, both by reducing the probability of an encounter with the liability system, and by changing the nature of the experience of being sued for those physicians who defend against malpractice claims.

Effects of Malpractice Pressure and Liability Reforms on Physicians' Perceptions of Medical Care, The - FSI Stanford

As stated in the few posts on here, it's clear that reform in this area does have an effect in the overall cost, delivery, and quality of healthcare in this nation. It is but one factor in that, and not the whole cause. Yes, just passing so called tort reform legislation in every state will not have that big of an impact on the overall healthcare costs in this nation but when used in conjunction with a carefully crafted state by state solution then perhaps it can lead to lower costs, higher quailty, and more avialability.

 

[geauxtohell]

We present four findings. First, physicians from states enacting liability reforms that directly reduce malpractice pressure experience lower growth over time in malpractice claims rates and in real malpractice insurance premiums. Second, physicians from reforming states report significant relative declines in the perceived impact of malpractice pressure on practice patterns. Third, individual physicians' personal experiences with the malpractice system are a key determinant of the perceived importance of defensive medicine: Physicians who have had a malpractice claim filed against them, particularly a recent claim, are more likely to report changes in practices as a result of malpractice pressure than physicians who have not. Fourth, the impact of individual physicians' claims experience on perceptions is smaller in reforming than in nonreforming states. Taken together, these results suggest that reforms in law affect physicians' attitudes, both by reducing the probability of an encounter with the liability system, and by changing the nature of the experience of being sued for those physicians who defend against malpractice claims.

Effects of Malpractice Pressure and Liability Reforms on Physicians' Perceptions of Medical Care, The - FSI Stanford

As stated in the few posts on here, it's clear that reform in this area does have an effect in the overall cost, delivery, and quality of healthcare in this nation. It is but one factor in that, and not the whole cause. Yes, just passing so called tort reform legislation in every state will not have that big of an impact on the overall healthcare costs in this nation but when used in conjunction with a carefully crafted state by state solution then perhaps it can lead to lower costs, higher quailty, and more avialability.

A good read, but not entirely timely (1997). As posted in my article:

USATODAY.com - Hype outraces facts in malpractice debate

(from '03).

Other studies have not found that tort reform has lowered premiums. It appears to be a state-by-state phenomenum.

I also have a problem with the "defensive medicine" arguement. It's too abstract. I have a hard time buying that anyone can put a real dollar amount on it.

That being said, a majority of states have enacted Tort Reform:

Tort Reform Since 1986 - By State

And it's still be touted as the cure for all that ails us. Does anyone else see the disconnect?

On a side note, just from a students perspective who has been following the "access to care" issue in light of considering future practice since 2005, I strongly believe that torts and access in rural/underserved areas are vaguely (if at all) related.

A larger problem (as you pointed out) is the lack of reimbursement for medicaid (which is the majority payment system for the underserved) stacked against the crushing debt of medical school.

Most young Drs. can't afford to be idealistic.

 

[uscitizen]

We present four findings. First, physicians from states enacting liability reforms that directly reduce malpractice pressure experience lower growth over time in malpractice claims rates and in real malpractice insurance premiums. Second, physicians from reforming states report significant relative declines in the perceived impact of malpractice pressure on practice patterns. Third, individual physicians' personal experiences with the malpractice system are a key determinant of the perceived importance of defensive medicine: Physicians who have had a malpractice claim filed against them, particularly a recent claim, are more likely to report changes in practices as a result of malpractice pressure than physicians who have not. Fourth, the impact of individual physicians' claims experience on perceptions is smaller in reforming than in nonreforming states. Taken together, these results suggest that reforms in law affect physicians' attitudes, both by reducing the probability of an encounter with the liability system, and by changing the nature of the experience of being sued for those physicians who defend against malpractice claims.

Effects of Malpractice Pressure and Liability Reforms on Physicians' Perceptions of Medical Care, The - FSI Stanford

As stated in the few posts on here, it's clear that reform in this area does have an effect in the overall cost, delivery, and quality of healthcare in this nation. It is but one factor in that, and not the whole cause. Yes, just passing so called tort reform legislation in every state will not have that big of an impact on the overall healthcare costs in this nation but when used in conjunction with a carefully crafted state by state solution then perhaps it can lead to lower costs, higher quailty, and more avialability.

Yes perhaps it could lead to lower costs. Perhaps not and if not then more profit for insurance, etc and loss of redress methods for mistakes by the medical business for citizens.

Make the tort reform contingent on reduced costs or it reverts to the way it was.

 

[Navy1960]

We present four findings. First, physicians from states enacting liability reforms that directly reduce malpractice pressure experience lower growth over time in malpractice claims rates and in real malpractice insurance premiums. Second, physicians from reforming states report significant relative declines in the perceived impact of malpractice pressure on practice patterns. Third, individual physicians' personal experiences with the malpractice system are a key determinant of the perceived importance of defensive medicine: Physicians who have had a malpractice claim filed against them, particularly a recent claim, are more likely to report changes in practices as a result of malpractice pressure than physicians who have not. Fourth, the impact of individual physicians' claims experience on perceptions is smaller in reforming than in nonreforming states. Taken together, these results suggest that reforms in law affect physicians' attitudes, both by reducing the probability of an encounter with the liability system, and by changing the nature of the experience of being sued for those physicians who defend against malpractice claims.

Effects of Malpractice Pressure and Liability Reforms on Physicians' Perceptions of Medical Care, The - FSI Stanford

As stated in the few posts on here, it's clear that reform in this area does have an effect in the overall cost, delivery, and quality of healthcare in this nation. It is but one factor in that, and not the whole cause. Yes, just passing so called tort reform legislation in every state will not have that big of an impact on the overall healthcare costs in this nation but when used in conjunction with a carefully crafted state by state solution then perhaps it can lead to lower costs, higher quailty, and more avialability.

A good read, but not entirely timely (1997). As posted in my article:

USATODAY.com - Hype outraces facts in malpractice debate

(from '03).

Other studies have not found that tort reform has lowered premiums. It appears to be a state-by-state phenomenum.

I also have a problem with the "defensive medicine" arguement. It's too abstract. I have a hard time buying that anyone can put a real dollar amount on it.

That being said, a majority of states have enacted Tort Reform:

Tort Reform Since 1986 - By State

And it's still be touted as the cure for all that ails us. Does anyone else see the disconnect?

On a side note, just from a students perspective who has been following the "access to care" issue in light of considering future practice since 2005, I strongly believe that torts and access in rural/underserved areas are vaguely (if at all) related.

A larger problem (as you pointed out) is the lack of reimbursement for medicaid (which is the majority payment system for the underserved) stacked against the crushing debt of medical school.

Most young Drs. can't afford to be idealistic.

First, one of the reasons I pointed out that "tort reform" or whatever anyone chooses to call it is not a singular solution to healthcare reform. However, as I have not done much research on the subject of how much malpractice has risen, I would suspect like most insurance it would be a good bet that it's not gone down and the conditions cited in the Stanford study are compounded more so.. One other issues I have cited as well is the reimbursement rate for Physicians that accept Medicare/Medicaid and without a so-called Doc-Fix bill that is non-existant in the Senate healthcare bill , in fact they are cutting rates in the Senate version, the issue is compounded in terms of the physicians willing to accept it as a means of insurance and that has a direct effect on delivery as seen in states like MS. especially. or rural areas that are rely on the Govt. insurance as the primary means of reimbursement. That is why, these " one size fits all" solutions for healthcare insurance do not work and require people to actually sit down and craft legislation that does work and take into consideration all these factors.

 

[geauxtohell]

First, one of the reasons I pointed out that "tort reform" or whatever anyone chooses to call it is not a singular solution to healthcare reform. However, as I have not done much research on the subject of how much malpractice has risen, I would suspect like most insurance it would be a good bet that it's not gone down and the conditions cited in the Stanford study are compounded more so.. One other issues I have cited as well is the reimbursement rate for Physicians that accept Medicare/Medicaid and without a so-called Doc-Fix bill that is non-existant in the Senate healthcare bill , in fact they are cutting rates in the Senate version, the issue is compounded in terms of the physicians willing to accept it as a means of insurance and that has a direct effect on delivery as seen in states like MS. especially. or rural areas that are rely on the Govt. insurance as the primary means of reimbursement. That is why, these " one size fits all" solutions for healthcare insurance do not work and require people to actually sit down and craft legislation that does work and take into consideration all these factors.

A large problem is that healthcare premiums are tied to the market more than payouts. "Tort Reform" really benefits the insurance companies and not necessarily Drs.

Other than that, we appear to agree. If there is to be tort reform, it should be at the state level and the problem of access is much larger and more complex than any single entity.

The average debt for medical school in 2005 was $120,280 and it hasn't gotten any better in the last four years. As you noted, slashing Medicaid reimbursements is a disaster that doesn't fix the problem.

I think the DEMs were too audacious in the health care bill. They could have crafted a system that didn't disenfranchise doctors.

 

[Navy1960]

First, one of the reasons I pointed out that "tort reform" or whatever anyone chooses to call it is not a singular solution to healthcare reform. However, as I have not done much research on the subject of how much malpractice has risen, I would suspect like most insurance it would be a good bet that it's not gone down and the conditions cited in the Stanford study are compounded more so.. One other issues I have cited as well is the reimbursement rate for Physicians that accept Medicare/Medicaid and without a so-called Doc-Fix bill that is non-existant in the Senate healthcare bill , in fact they are cutting rates in the Senate version, the issue is compounded in terms of the physicians willing to accept it as a means of insurance and that has a direct effect on delivery as seen in states like MS. especially. or rural areas that are rely on the Govt. insurance as the primary means of reimbursement. That is why, these " one size fits all" solutions for healthcare insurance do not work and require people to actually sit down and craft legislation that does work and take into consideration all these factors.

A large problem is that healthcare premiums are tied to the market more than payouts. "Tort Reform" really benefits the insurance companies and not necessarily Drs.

Other than that, we appear to agree. If there is to be tort reform, it should be at the state level and the problem of access is much larger and more complex than any single entity.

The average debt for medical school in 2005 was $120,280 and it hasn't gotten any better in the last four years. As you noted, slashing Medicaid reimbursements is a disaster that doesn't fix the problem.

I think the DEMs were too audacious in the health care bill. They could have crafted a system that didn't disenfranchise doctors.

Thus the reason that real healthcare reform is not a one size fits all solution. I have long believed that healthcare reform to a degree would have a very different meaning to someone that lives in N.Y. than it does to someone that lives in AZ. That is why on a national level I am supportive of minimal approach that such as actually fixing Medicare for example rather than cutting it, perhaps adding a catastrophic option that people can purchase at low cost, and then opening up the nation to private competetion so that a person in Az. can buy insurance in N.Y. if its cheaper and likewise. Other things the Fed can do is to incent states in the form of tax breaks whatever that institute malpractice reform laws , much the same way they did with the 55mph limit. There is a lot of things the Fed. can do in this matter, but in the end the solution is not one that is solved by spending Trillions on expanding Medicaid through state mandates. I find the argument against insurance somewhat amusing sometimes when the same people in congress that do that sort of thing are at the same time proposing to mandate Americans purchase insurance from those companies and at the same time limit the number of conpanies by which they can purchase from. I honestly thing most Americans have a good idea how to reform healthcare , give or take a few examples here and there, it's just those that represent us are much too interested in what K Street is telling them what that idea should be.

 

[geauxtohell]

Thus the reason that real healthcare reform is not a one size fits all solution. I have long believed that healthcare reform to a degree would have a very different meaning to someone that lives in N.Y. than it does to someone that lives in AZ. That is why on a national level I am supportive of minimal approach that such as actually fixing Medicare for example rather than cutting it, perhaps adding a catastrophic option that people can purchase at low cost, and then opening up the nation to private competetion so that a person in Az. can buy insurance in N.Y. if its cheaper and likewise. Other things the Fed can do is to incent states in the form of tax breaks whatever that institute malpractice reform laws , much the same way they did with the 55mph limit. There is a lot of things the Fed. can do in this matter, but in the end the solution is not one that is solved by spending Trillions on expanding Medicaid through state mandates. I find the argument against insurance somewhat amusing sometimes when the same people in congress that do that sort of thing are at the same time proposing to mandate Americans purchase insurance from those companies and at the same time limit the number of conpanies by which they can purchase from. I honestly thing most Americans have a good idea how to reform healthcare , give or take a few examples here and there, it's just those that represent us are much too interested in what K Street is telling them what that idea should be.

No doubt K Street is the force behind the issue.

I would like to see the federal government involved in some issues. I'd like to see the federal government subsidize primary care doctors to stay in Family Practice, Internal Medicine, OB, etc. The problem isn't necessarily that we don't have enough Drs., it's that Drs. tend to specialize out of primary care.

Other than that, I agree that a one-size-fits-all solution is overly audacious. I wish the Dems would have started small.

I'll bet they wish that now too.

 

[theHawk]

A dearly cherished myth of the anti-health care cult is tort reform. They steadfastly believe it to be the solution to the health care problem.

It isn't.

Tort reform doesn't work.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Medical malpractice liability caps instituted in Texas in 2003 have failed to improve the state’s health care system, a Public Citizen report released today reveals.

These findings are crucial because the Texas experiment has been held up as a model by proponents of proposals now pending in Congress to limit patients’ rights. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the data show that the health care system in Texas has grown worse since 2003 by nearly every measure. For example:

• The percentage of uninsured people in Texas has increased, remaining the highest in the country with a quarter of Texans now uninsured;

• The cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;

• The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average; and

• Spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average.

Texas Experiment With Medical Liability Caps Has Failed

Gee, all those problems with health care costs here in Texas wouldn't have anything to do with the massive amount of illegal immigrants here now would it? Oh no, its all because TORT doesn't work.

 

[geauxtohell]

A dearly cherished myth of the anti-health care cult is tort reform. They steadfastly believe it to be the solution to the health care problem.

It isn't.

Tort reform doesn't work.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Medical malpractice liability caps instituted in Texas in 2003 have failed to improve the state’s health care system, a Public Citizen report released today reveals.

These findings are crucial because the Texas experiment has been held up as a model by proponents of proposals now pending in Congress to limit patients’ rights. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the data show that the health care system in Texas has grown worse since 2003 by nearly every measure. For example:

• The percentage of uninsured people in Texas has increased, remaining the highest in the country with a quarter of Texans now uninsured;

• The cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;

• The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average; and

• Spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average.

Texas Experiment With Medical Liability Caps Has Failed

Gee, all those problems with health care costs here in Texas wouldn't have anything to do with the massive amount of illegal immigrants here now would it? Oh no, its all because TORT doesn't work.

Why don't you provide some data to support your point. Until then, your speculations are as good as the next mans.