Why Does Health Care in the U.S. Cost So Much?

[Gadawg73]

Must be nice to be able to practice your trade, fuck up and kill someone and be immune to your own liability. And have otherwise intelligent citizens favor it.
NO doctor pays over about 10%,if that, for med/mal in any practice UNLESS he has fucked up and had ANOTHER DOCTOR testify their standard of carewas negligent. That is the only way a doctorpays 125K a year in premiums.
Medical malpractice is the 8th leading cause of death in America. Guess why? And you folks want THE INSURANCE companies and politicians, instead of other doctors and citizen juries, to determine the liability and merits of bad doctor's negligence.
And you folks want them to have limits on what they are liable for.
Scary shit there.
Again for the uninformed: It is OTHER DOCTORS that make the case in med/mal cases. NO court in America will accept a med/mal case UNLESS there are other doctors as expert witnesses testifying that the standard of care was NEGLIGENT BY ANOTHER DOCTOR.
No doctor to testufy against the other docor= NO CASE in America. PERIOD. End of story.
THANK GOD there are lawyers out there with the balls to stand up for the injured due to the negligence of doctors and FRONT ALL OF THE EXPENSES before trial or settlement.
Why do you think doctors pay high premiums? Could it possibly be that medical negligence, BAD DOCTORS, is very high? Well DUH.
How about tort reform for auto accidents, home accidents, ALL accidents, bad and inferior construction in buildings.
Now what would happen to the safety on the highways if bridge manufacturers had tort reform? Could it be that doctors have immunity and ARE HARD TO SUE ANYWAY, that they are MORE negligent because of the lax standardsnow in place due to "tort reform"?
You betcha.
Let's just do away with it all and give everyone $1 every time a claim is filed for anything.
Most Americans have no knowledge whatsoever with medical negligence.

Idiotic post of the day.
No one is denying anyone the opportunity to recover legitimate damages. But the excess "pain and suffering" needs to go.
Malpractice insurance costs can run well over $100k a year. Who pays for that? It isn't the doctor. And today any doctor who spends time in a hospital and has his name on a chart will get sued, regardless of what he actually did.

You live in a Lah Lah land. You have not proved ONE of my facts wrong,as usual.
You actually believe insurance companies willingly pay claims to patients maimed by malpractice without the threat of a lawsuit?
You believe a maimed patient, one that can not work and has no $, can fund a $200K medical malpractice case?
You do know that is what it costs to fight the med/mal insurance companies, don't you?
How would you fight them without a lawyer. And how would you fund the legal fight unless the attorney FRONTED all of the costs themselves?
How? Tell us specifically how that works.
If your loved one went in for surgery and their bowelwas perforated by malpractice and they lay infected for weeks before they died you would deny pain and suffering?
Just because they are St. Doctors or to you, Gods.
Man, you need an education as to the law.
And you do know that less than 10% of physicians are found guilty of medical malpractice cases if it goes to trial.
All the while you are in Lah Lah land ignoring the facts believing all juries award excessive awards in malpractice cases.
I trust the jury system, the foundation of this country.
If you have a beef with the system then blame the doctors. They are the problem as they have a hard time policing themselves. Why else do they want immunity?
While you are there have a snow cone and a cotton candy on me. Have fun on the ferris wheel.

 

[Gadawg73]

They can't nail anything down because if you look at each aspect of the problem (high and rising health care costs) the solutions are invariably what conservatives have been pushing. Nothing else makes any sense. Third party payers? Oh, Obamacare is almost the ultimate 3rd party payer. It isn't a solution, it is a problem.
But the left can't admit that. So they scream BIG CORPORATE PROFITS. Never mind tehre are no big corporate profits or even that big corporate profits would indicate they are doing a good job (hint: good companies like Apple make money. Shitty companies like GM don't.).

OK, so what is the problem? What causes the high and rising health care costs?

Can you at least muster up the honesty to admit that TOO MANY UNINSURED are a predominant problem? Probably the single biggest problem?

And that was the aim of what you so affectionately call "Obamacare-" To get more people insured. You focus on the inconsequential quid-pro-quo nonsense, while ignoring the fact that it will insure an additional 30 million while REDUCING the deficit. I'm not thrilled with the bill either, but it's a lot better passed than un-passed.

So besides the strawman tort reform, what do you propose?

Too many uninsured are not the problem, certainly not the biggest problem. Most people who end up in the emergency room have health insurance. Heritage.org and the Wall St Journal debunked this particular myth. Yes, there are uninsured people. No it is not a crisis. No it did not require a $1T excruciating health care overhaul to deal with.
Part of the "problem" is simply that healthcare is much better than it was even 20 years ago. There is lots of innovation and progress in the field. Better quality costs more. Hindering those advances are a stultifying American bureaucracy, which adds to costs.
But the biggest problem is the third party payer system we have. People will good plans will use them all the time. This has been established as fact. There is no individual responsibility on spending so people tend to see healthcare as a free good and use it accordingly.. This drives up costs. Add in other factors like high malpractice premiums and poor lifestyle choices and it makes for a very expensive system.

My son broke his hand on a Friday night playing high school football. The team doctor was on the sidline and diagnosed it almost at the end of the game. We took him to the emergency room at 10:30 pm. The place was full of people with their kids with a cold, Hispanics out the ass and wall to wall folks. A few of them had emergencies. 3 hours later they saw my son.
Real world. Most people that have insurance the deductible is so damn high they never meet it. Cheaper to go the hospital late at night. Doctors, and I do not blame them at all for this, have "PAYMENT EXPECTED AT TIME OF TREATMENT signs. ER does not.

 

[Gadawg73]

They can't nail anything down because if you look at each aspect of the problem (high and rising health care costs) the solutions are invariably what conservatives have been pushing. Nothing else makes any sense. Third party payers? Oh, Obamacare is almost the ultimate 3rd party payer. It isn't a solution, it is a problem.
But the left can't admit that. So they scream BIG CORPORATE PROFITS. Never mind tehre are no big corporate profits or even that big corporate profits would indicate they are doing a good job (hint: good companies like Apple make money. Shitty companies like GM don't.).

OK, so what is the problem? What causes the high and rising health care costs?

Can you at least muster up the honesty to admit that TOO MANY UNINSURED are a predominant problem? Probably the single biggest problem?

And that was the aim of what you so affectionately call "Obamacare-" To get more people insured. You focus on the inconsequential quid-pro-quo nonsense, while ignoring the fact that it will insure an additional 30 million while REDUCING the deficit. I'm not thrilled with the bill either, but it's a lot better passed than un-passed.

So besides the strawman tort reform, what do you propose?

Too many uninsured are not the problem, certainly not the biggest problem. Most people who end up in the emergency room have health insurance. Heritage.org and the Wall St Journal debunked this particular myth. Yes, there are uninsured people. No it is not a crisis. No it did not require a $1T excruciating health care overhaul to deal with.
Part of the "problem" is simply that healthcare is much better than it was even 20 years ago. There is lots of innovation and progress in the field. Better quality costs more. Hindering those advances are a stultifying American bureaucracy, which adds to costs.
But the biggest problem is the third party payer system we have. People will good plans will use them all the time. This has been established as fact. There is no individual responsibility on spending so people tend to see healthcare as a free good and use it accordingly.. This drives up costs. Add in other factors like high malpractice premiums and poor lifestyle choices and it makes for a very expensive system.

Average malpractice insurance costs per speciality in the US May 2010:

California, a liberal state:
Internal medicine: $6,000.00 a year
Surgeons : $28,000.00 a year
OB/GYN: $64,000.00 a year.

Some states like Nevada, where there are a hell of a lot of unnecessary surgeries like plastic surgery, store bought titties and such the rates are higher.

You do know those type surgeries drastically raise the national average average for malpractice premiums, don't you?

And some states the rates are lower like Montana and such.

Facts, man they sure as hell fuck up one's ideology.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so what is the problem? What causes the high and rising health care costs?

Can you at least muster up the honesty to admit that TOO MANY UNINSURED are a predominant problem? Probably the single biggest problem?

And that was the aim of what you so affectionately call "Obamacare-" To get more people insured. You focus on the inconsequential quid-pro-quo nonsense, while ignoring the fact that it will insure an additional 30 million while REDUCING the deficit. I'm not thrilled with the bill either, but it's a lot better passed than un-passed.

So besides the strawman tort reform, what do you propose?

Too many uninsured are not the problem, certainly not the biggest problem. Most people who end up in the emergency room have health insurance. Heritage.org and the Wall St Journal debunked this particular myth. Yes, there are uninsured people. No it is not a crisis. No it did not require a $1T excruciating health care overhaul to deal with.
Part of the "problem" is simply that healthcare is much better than it was even 20 years ago. There is lots of innovation and progress in the field. Better quality costs more. Hindering those advances are a stultifying American bureaucracy, which adds to costs.
But the biggest problem is the third party payer system we have. People will good plans will use them all the time. This has been established as fact. There is no individual responsibility on spending so people tend to see healthcare as a free good and use it accordingly.. This drives up costs. Add in other factors like high malpractice premiums and poor lifestyle choices and it makes for a very expensive system.

My son broke his hand on a Friday night playing high school football. The team doctor was on the sidline and diagnosed it almost at the end of the game. We took him to the emergency room at 10:30 pm. The place was full of people with their kids with a cold, Hispanics out the ass and wall to wall folks. A few of them had emergencies. 3 hours later they saw my son.
Real world. Most people that have insurance the deductible is so damn high they never meet it. Cheaper to go the hospital late at night. Doctors, and I do not blame them at all for this, have "PAYMENT EXPECTED AT TIME OF TREATMENT signs. ER does not.

That's your argument? One visit to one emergency room in one town? And you think it's valid to generalize from that to the rest of the U.S.? Seriously?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so what is the problem? What causes the high and rising health care costs?

Can you at least muster up the honesty to admit that TOO MANY UNINSURED are a predominant problem? Probably the single biggest problem?

And that was the aim of what you so affectionately call "Obamacare-" To get more people insured. You focus on the inconsequential quid-pro-quo nonsense, while ignoring the fact that it will insure an additional 30 million while REDUCING the deficit. I'm not thrilled with the bill either, but it's a lot better passed than un-passed.

So besides the strawman tort reform, what do you propose?

Too many uninsured are not the problem, certainly not the biggest problem. Most people who end up in the emergency room have health insurance. Heritage.org and the Wall St Journal debunked this particular myth. Yes, there are uninsured people. No it is not a crisis. No it did not require a $1T excruciating health care overhaul to deal with.
Part of the "problem" is simply that healthcare is much better than it was even 20 years ago. There is lots of innovation and progress in the field. Better quality costs more. Hindering those advances are a stultifying American bureaucracy, which adds to costs.
But the biggest problem is the third party payer system we have. People will good plans will use them all the time. This has been established as fact. There is no individual responsibility on spending so people tend to see healthcare as a free good and use it accordingly.. This drives up costs. Add in other factors like high malpractice premiums and poor lifestyle choices and it makes for a very expensive system.

Average malpractice insurance costs per speciality in the US May 2010:

California, a liberal state:
Internal medicine: $6,000.00 a year
Surgeons : $28,000.00 a year
OB/GYN: $64,000.00 a year.

Some states like Nevada, where there are a hell of a lot of unnecessary surgeries like plastic surgery, store bought titties and such the rates are higher.

You do know those type surgeries drastically raise the national average average for malpractice premiums, don't you?

And some states the rates are lower like Montana and such.

Facts, man they sure as hell fuck up one's ideology.

Your post is a confused mess of facts, half facts and rumors. Liberal has nothing to do with it. MS is a conservative state but the jackpot justice system made malpractice rates unaffordable.
How many titty surgeries are done in Nevada? What are the rates for plastic surgeons vs plastic surgeons in Georgia?
No answer. No information.
FAIL.

 

[Gadawg73]

Too many uninsured are not the problem, certainly not the biggest problem. Most people who end up in the emergency room have health insurance. Heritage.org and the Wall St Journal debunked this particular myth. Yes, there are uninsured people. No it is not a crisis. No it did not require a $1T excruciating health care overhaul to deal with.
Part of the "problem" is simply that healthcare is much better than it was even 20 years ago. There is lots of innovation and progress in the field. Better quality costs more. Hindering those advances are a stultifying American bureaucracy, which adds to costs.
But the biggest problem is the third party payer system we have. People will good plans will use them all the time. This has been established as fact. There is no individual responsibility on spending so people tend to see healthcare as a free good and use it accordingly.. This drives up costs. Add in other factors like high malpractice premiums and poor lifestyle choices and it makes for a very expensive system.

My son broke his hand on a Friday night playing high school football. The team doctor was on the sidline and diagnosed it almost at the end of the game. We took him to the emergency room at 10:30 pm. The place was full of people with their kids with a cold, Hispanics out the ass and wall to wall folks. A few of them had emergencies. 3 hours later they saw my son.
Real world. Most people that have insurance the deductible is so damn high they never meet it. Cheaper to go the hospital late at night. Doctors, and I do not blame them at all for this, have "PAYMENT EXPECTED AT TIME OF TREATMENT signs. ER does not.

That's your argument? One visit to one emergency room in one town? And you think it's valid to generalize from that to the rest of the U.S.? Seriously?

I coached 20 years rec football here, both sons played high school ball and saw many injuries in all sports. I also am a first responder for self insured trucking companies and insurance companies in major tractor trailer accidents. (They know me from my 30 years of wrongful death cases from the plaintiff's side). They want someone to document, take photos and interview whatever witnesses there are asap. I have seen hundreds of ER rooms over the years and they are mostly packed.
And it also depends on time of day. Nights and weekends are worse as these folks work.

The problem is the under insured which is everyone. How does a normal family afford an average of 12K a year in insurance premiums? High deductibles and ER visits.

Just a fact. Go to Grady Hospital in Atlanta or any major inner city hospital. ER rooms are packed.

Brother, I am a Republican well off and see the reality of the world. Facts are that the system is NOT WORKING.

 

[Common Sense]

My son broke his hand on a Friday night playing high school football. The team doctor was on the sidline and diagnosed it almost at the end of the game. We took him to the emergency room at 10:30 pm. The place was full of people with their kids with a cold, Hispanics out the ass and wall to wall folks. A few of them had emergencies. 3 hours later they saw my son.
Real world. Most people that have insurance the deductible is so damn high they never meet it. Cheaper to go the hospital late at night. Doctors, and I do not blame them at all for this, have "PAYMENT EXPECTED AT TIME OF TREATMENT signs. ER does not.

That's your argument? One visit to one emergency room in one town? And you think it's valid to generalize from that to the rest of the U.S.? Seriously?

uh oh the retarded rabbi at it again. Gadawg gives another real world example of how the system is broken and all the retard can do is criticize.

so cecile asked what costs i was talking about. here was the list that came from an earlier post:


1. Health care being a for profit enterprise (as opposed to a non profit enterprise)
2. The high costs of pharmaceutical drugs
3. patients receiving useless tests and treatments
4. malpractice lawsuits
5. lack of a digital record for all medical files
6. high administrative costs
7. cost of administering services to the uninsured.
8. high costs of medical equipment
9. Medicare & Medicaid Fraud.


now, how can we bring down all of these real costs? these are easily agreed upon (although im sure several people like the retard will just want bitch about the list itself) but here would be some good ideas:


1 - self explanatory

2 - allow drug companies to keep their patents on new drugs for a long amount of time. this will service 2 purposes. it will allow them more time to recover their research and development costs and keep generics out of the systems so that they can recover those costs and profits. in return for a long patent term, they would have to agree to cut the sell price by predetermined percentage. for this argument lets say 30%. the company can recoup this extra 30% (and probably more) over the longer life of the protected patent

3 - this one would have to be a combination of educating the general public and doctors taking more responsibility. im not sure i have a good answer for this one yet.

4 - tort reform is one was to help curb this costs. but what about also streamlining the process a bit more to allow these lawsuits to come to trail much faster as well as allow for a panel of judges and former doctors to determine the fault or no fault of the doctor. since most of these cases claim negligence, asking a general jury to evaluate medical procedure is a bit of a stretch. this panel of judges and doctors can be both appointed and elected. this way the people have a say in who sits on the panel as well as having people who understand the law as well.

5 - this one seems like a no brainer. with all the digital technology these days, it seems to be out of laziness that all health care providers can not simply band together to digitally store and share patient records.

6 - i think the new law actually handles this one really well in requiring all health care providers and insurers to document and prove that 80% of all premium dollars go towards patient care as opposed to administrative care.

7 - this will have to be controlled simply by finding a way to insure more of them.

8 - there would have to be some incentive given to medical device manufacturers to lower costs, because as it stands, there is no incentive

9 - this comes down to doctor accountability. if a doctor is claiming more services than he has given. he should have his medical license pulled and be required to pay back all the fees he claimed. this will serve two purposes. it will act a deterrent, and it will also help recover waste. this can be handled through audits and spot inspections.


anyone have any other suggestion. (suggestions, not criticisms?)

 

[The Rabbi]

My son broke his hand on a Friday night playing high school football. The team doctor was on the sidline and diagnosed it almost at the end of the game. We took him to the emergency room at 10:30 pm. The place was full of people with their kids with a cold, Hispanics out the ass and wall to wall folks. A few of them had emergencies. 3 hours later they saw my son.
Real world. Most people that have insurance the deductible is so damn high they never meet it. Cheaper to go the hospital late at night. Doctors, and I do not blame them at all for this, have "PAYMENT EXPECTED AT TIME OF TREATMENT signs. ER does not.

That's your argument? One visit to one emergency room in one town? And you think it's valid to generalize from that to the rest of the U.S.? Seriously?

I coached 20 years rec football here, both sons played high school ball and saw many injuries in all sports. I also am a first responder for self insured trucking companies and insurance companies in major tractor trailer accidents. (They know me from my 30 years of wrongful death cases from the plaintiff's side). They want someone to document, take photos and interview whatever witnesses there are asap. I have seen hundreds of ER rooms over the years and they are mostly packed.
And it also depends on time of day. Nights and weekends are worse as these folks work.

The problem is the under insured which is everyone. How does a normal family afford an average of 12K a year in insurance premiums? High deductibles and ER visits.

Just a fact. Go to Grady Hospital in Atlanta or any major inner city hospital. ER rooms are packed.

Brother, I am a Republican well off and see the reality of the world. Facts are that the system is NOT WORKING.

You've seen many injuries? Seriously?
I've been to court to do evictions. I guess that qualifies me to offer opinions on Supreme Court cases.
Sheesh.

 

[Gadawg73]

Too many uninsured are not the problem, certainly not the biggest problem. Most people who end up in the emergency room have health insurance. Heritage.org and the Wall St Journal debunked this particular myth. Yes, there are uninsured people. No it is not a crisis. No it did not require a $1T excruciating health care overhaul to deal with.
Part of the "problem" is simply that healthcare is much better than it was even 20 years ago. There is lots of innovation and progress in the field. Better quality costs more. Hindering those advances are a stultifying American bureaucracy, which adds to costs.
But the biggest problem is the third party payer system we have. People will good plans will use them all the time. This has been established as fact. There is no individual responsibility on spending so people tend to see healthcare as a free good and use it accordingly.. This drives up costs. Add in other factors like high malpractice premiums and poor lifestyle choices and it makes for a very expensive system.

Average malpractice insurance costs per speciality in the US May 2010:

California, a liberal state:
Internal medicine: $6,000.00 a year
Surgeons : $28,000.00 a year
OB/GYN: $64,000.00 a year.

Some states like Nevada, where there are a hell of a lot of unnecessary surgeries like plastic surgery, store bought titties and such the rates are higher.

You do know those type surgeries drastically raise the national average average for malpractice premiums, don't you?

And some states the rates are lower like Montana and such.

Facts, man they sure as hell fuck up one's ideology.

Your post is a confused mess of facts, half facts and rumors. Liberal has nothing to do with it. MS is a conservative state but the jackpot justice system made malpractice rates unaffordable.
How many titty surgeries are done in Nevada? What are the rates for plastic surgeons vs plastic surgeons in Georgia?
No answer. No information.
FAIL.

You are right.
Facts that you refuse to acknowledge do confuse you.
However, that is your problem. Ideology clouds one's reason and common sense.
They still remain undisputed facts from the insurance industry.
The reason medical malpractice is SO HIGH is claims are high. Claims are high because doctors are negligent a lot. Fire insurance premiums are related to how many fires there are. Engineering malpractice liability insurance premiums are related to how well engineers design and build everything. Show me where they demand immunity from their negligence. Where?
You sit and tell us how well the current system of insurance works so well as it is without any government interferece and it gets fucked up when government DOES INTERFERE and your argument is a sound one and I agree.
And then you speak out of both sides of your mouth and demand that THE GOVERNMENT step in and interfere with the free market and pass laws limiting a doctor's negligence granting them immunity that differs from all other pofessions.

You would allow a doctor to operate on the wrong eye, blinding that person for the rest f their lives and not allow any pain and suffering.

You still HAVE NOT answered any of my questions. How would you fund YOUR malpractice case against a doctor that was negligent on you?
Or are you admitting that doctors NEVER are negligent and that insurance companies ALWAYS do what is right and settle the claims out of court.
The jury system: the bed rock foundation of this great nation. Liberals demand changes to it and favor legislating financial immunity to special groups such as doctors. Conservatives want no changes to the jury system.

 

[Cuyo]

They can't nail anything down because if you look at each aspect of the problem (high and rising health care costs) the solutions are invariably what conservatives have been pushing. Nothing else makes any sense. Third party payers? Oh, Obamacare is almost the ultimate 3rd party payer. It isn't a solution, it is a problem.
But the left can't admit that. So they scream BIG CORPORATE PROFITS. Never mind tehre are no big corporate profits or even that big corporate profits would indicate they are doing a good job (hint: good companies like Apple make money. Shitty companies like GM don't.).

OK, so what is the problem? What causes the high and rising health care costs?

Can you at least muster up the honesty to admit that TOO MANY UNINSURED are a predominant problem? Probably the single biggest problem?

And that was the aim of what you so affectionately call "Obamacare-" To get more people insured. You focus on the inconsequential quid-pro-quo nonsense, while ignoring the fact that it will insure an additional 30 million while REDUCING the deficit. I'm not thrilled with the bill either, but it's a lot better passed than un-passed.

So besides the strawman tort reform, what do you propose?

Too many uninsured are not the problem, certainly not the biggest problem. Most people who end up in the emergency room have health insurance. Heritage.org and the Wall St Journal debunked this particular myth. Yes, there are uninsured people. No it is not a crisis. No it did not require a $1T excruciating health care overhaul to deal with.
Part of the "problem" is simply that healthcare is much better than it was even 20 years ago. There is lots of innovation and progress in the field. Better quality costs more. Hindering those advances are a stultifying American bureaucracy, which adds to costs.
But the biggest problem is the third party payer system we have. People will good plans will use them all the time. This has been established as fact. There is no individual responsibility on spending so people tend to see healthcare as a free good and use it accordingly.. This drives up costs. Add in other factors like high malpractice premiums and poor lifestyle choices and it makes for a very expensive system.

All true, but you certainly underestimate the problem of uninsured individuals receiving care. Nothing's free. Their bills are assumed by either the taxpayer, or the insured via higher medical bills to cover the loss on uninsured, hence higher premiums.

And regarding what you're calling "Third party payer," I couldn't agree more, especially since that "Third party" is skimming such enormous amounts of money off the top for themselves.

Wouldn't you then agree that at least from a financial per capita viewpoint, single payer is far more efficient?

Of course you agree. But of course you won't admit it.

 

[Christopher]

My son broke his hand on a Friday night playing high school football. The team doctor was on the sidline and diagnosed it almost at the end of the game. We took him to the emergency room at 10:30 pm. The place was full of people with their kids with a cold, Hispanics out the ass and wall to wall folks. A few of them had emergencies. 3 hours later they saw my son.
Real world. Most people that have insurance the deductible is so damn high they never meet it. Cheaper to go the hospital late at night. Doctors, and I do not blame them at all for this, have "PAYMENT EXPECTED AT TIME OF TREATMENT signs. ER does not.

That's your argument? One visit to one emergency room in one town? And you think it's valid to generalize from that to the rest of the U.S.? Seriously?

uh oh the retarded rabbi at it again. Gadawg gives another real world example of how the system is broken and all the retard can do is criticize.

so cecile asked what costs i was talking about. here was the list that came from an earlier post:


1. Health care being a for profit enterprise (as opposed to a non profit enterprise)
2. The high costs of pharmaceutical drugs
3. patients receiving useless tests and treatments
4. malpractice lawsuits
5. lack of a digital record for all medical files
6. high administrative costs
7. cost of administering services to the uninsured.
8. high costs of medical equipment
9. Medicare & Medicaid Fraud.


now, how can we bring down all of these real costs? these are easily agreed upon (although im sure several people like the retard will just want bitch about the list itself) but here would be some good ideas:


1 - self explanatory

2 - allow drug companies to keep their patents on new drugs for a long amount of time. this will service 2 purposes. it will allow them more time to recover their research and development costs and keep generics out of the systems so that they can recover those costs and profits. in return for a long patent term, they would have to agree to cut the sell price by predetermined percentage. for this argument lets say 30%. the company can recoup this extra 30% (and probably more) over the longer life of the protected patent

3 - this one would have to be a combination of educating the general public and doctors taking more responsibility. im not sure i have a good answer for this one yet.

4 - tort reform is one was to help curb this costs. but what about also streamlining the process a bit more to allow these lawsuits to come to trail much faster as well as allow for a panel of judges and former doctors to determine the fault or no fault of the doctor. since most of these cases claim negligence, asking a general jury to evaluate medical procedure is a bit of a stretch. this panel of judges and doctors can be both appointed and elected. this way the people have a say in who sits on the panel as well as having people who understand the law as well.

5 - this one seems like a no brainer. with all the digital technology these days, it seems to be out of laziness that all health care providers can not simply band together to digitally store and share patient records.

6 - i think the new law actually handles this one really well in requiring all health care providers and insurers to document and prove that 80% of all premium dollars go towards patient care as opposed to administrative care.

7 - this will have to be controlled simply by finding a way to insure more of them.

8 - there would have to be some incentive given to medical device manufacturers to lower costs, because as it stands, there is no incentive

9 - this comes down to doctor accountability. if a doctor is claiming more services than he has given. he should have his medical license pulled and be required to pay back all the fees he claimed. this will serve two purposes. it will act a deterrent, and it will also help recover waste. this can be handled through audits and spot inspections.


anyone have any other suggestion. (suggestions, not criticisms?)

I trust what the CBO says has increased health care spending (and in turn overall health care costs) over the last few decades. See this link Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

Here are some answers to your list above, based on the CBO’s analysis, with some based on just my own response:

1. How much has this increased our costs? Can you provide any quantifiable evidence? In my understanding from the CBO that the main cause of the rise in health care spending has been a result of the development of new technology, do we want to sacrifice not developing the new procedure or the new technology that can save lives?
2. What is the root cause of prescription drug costs? Is part of it that we pay for the development of new drugs more than other countries? Only by answering these questions can we come up with a solution that works.
3. The CBO addresses this I believe as one of the major root causes being the rise in Americans’ personal income and the access to third party payment systems (Medicare and Medicaid). When people have more money to spend on their health, they will do it. Let’s stop ignoring the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are part of the problem with rising health care spending (and associated costs).
4. There is not enough evidence on this to determine how much impact this has had on health care spending, as the CBO points out. Canada implemented a cap on “pain and suffering” damages which works to bring malpractice costs down; we should do the same to help at least decrease some cost for health care. I don’t know how substantial this is though when compared to the other larger factors.
5. I agree, this is a good thing to do and will happen eventually anyway. How much will this save us on overall health care spending, I’m not sure if it is that substantial.
6. No, this is not easily quantifiable as the CBO points out in the link provided. As the CBO stated: “Even if reliable comprehensive data were available, they would be difficult to interpret because certain types of administrative activity probably help reduce health care spending, making the net effect on total cost growth unclear.”
7. There is a definite cost to this, however, the CBO does not address it and I’m not sure the significance of cost savings. Although, I believe something should still be done.
8. The CBO stated that: “...the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system...” If you try to control costs on what companies can charge for their new product that saves lives, I think you will have less companies developing such products.
9. Yep, a no brainer on that one. Although, I’m not sure how much this will decrease costs, when compared to the other factors that are substantially increasing costs.

If we are to address health care costs, we must address what is increasing the health care spending (the main root causes). With that said, the main factors that have increased health care spending according to the CBO are:

• Technological advances (CBO: “half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.”)
• Having a third party payment system (Medicare and Medicaid)
• Increase in personal income

We don’t want to decrease personal income, although I like your idea of educating people to be better about what they spend their money on regarding their health. I think we should reform the FDA to be more effective at drug approvals. It is crazy that it takes so long for companies to have their drug approved, when in Europe they are approved so much more quickly. How can companies hold onto their R&D investment for so long without charging higher prices?

Our focus should be on the top two I listed. How can we reform how new technologies are implemented into the market? We have to be smart about it. The second one, we must reform Medicare and Medicaid abuses as you mentioned, but we must also recognize that such third party systems are a big part of the problem with increases in health care spending and develop some plans to deal with this. As a side note, the increased access to health care spending for many Americans has actually resulted in the spending on technological advances. In other words, the first bullet I listed above is very much related to last two items listed.

One of the biggest things we must do is stop vilifying insurance companies, drug companies, medical product companies, etc.

 

[Gadawg73]

That's your argument? One visit to one emergency room in one town? And you think it's valid to generalize from that to the rest of the U.S.? Seriously?

uh oh the retarded rabbi at it again. Gadawg gives another real world example of how the system is broken and all the retard can do is criticize.

so cecile asked what costs i was talking about. here was the list that came from an earlier post:


1. Health care being a for profit enterprise (as opposed to a non profit enterprise)
2. The high costs of pharmaceutical drugs
3. patients receiving useless tests and treatments
4. malpractice lawsuits
5. lack of a digital record for all medical files
6. high administrative costs
7. cost of administering services to the uninsured.
8. high costs of medical equipment
9. Medicare & Medicaid Fraud.


now, how can we bring down all of these real costs? these are easily agreed upon (although im sure several people like the retard will just want bitch about the list itself) but here would be some good ideas:


1 - self explanatory

2 - allow drug companies to keep their patents on new drugs for a long amount of time. this will service 2 purposes. it will allow them more time to recover their research and development costs and keep generics out of the systems so that they can recover those costs and profits. in return for a long patent term, they would have to agree to cut the sell price by predetermined percentage. for this argument lets say 30%. the company can recoup this extra 30% (and probably more) over the longer life of the protected patent

3 - this one would have to be a combination of educating the general public and doctors taking more responsibility. im not sure i have a good answer for this one yet.

4 - tort reform is one was to help curb this costs. but what about also streamlining the process a bit more to allow these lawsuits to come to trail much faster as well as allow for a panel of judges and former doctors to determine the fault or no fault of the doctor. since most of these cases claim negligence, asking a general jury to evaluate medical procedure is a bit of a stretch. this panel of judges and doctors can be both appointed and elected. this way the people have a say in who sits on the panel as well as having people who understand the law as well.

5 - this one seems like a no brainer. with all the digital technology these days, it seems to be out of laziness that all health care providers can not simply band together to digitally store and share patient records.

6 - i think the new law actually handles this one really well in requiring all health care providers and insurers to document and prove that 80% of all premium dollars go towards patient care as opposed to administrative care.

7 - this will have to be controlled simply by finding a way to insure more of them.

8 - there would have to be some incentive given to medical device manufacturers to lower costs, because as it stands, there is no incentive

9 - this comes down to doctor accountability. if a doctor is claiming more services than he has given. he should have his medical license pulled and be required to pay back all the fees he claimed. this will serve two purposes. it will act a deterrent, and it will also help recover waste. this can be handled through audits and spot inspections.


anyone have any other suggestion. (suggestions, not criticisms?)

I trust what the CBO says has increased health care spending (and in turn overall health care costs) over the last few decades. See this link Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

Here are some answers to your list above, based on the CBO’s analysis, with some based on just my own response:

1. How much has this increased our costs? Can you provide any quantifiable evidence? In my understanding from the CBO that the main cause of the rise in health care spending has been a result of the development of new technology, do we want to sacrifice not developing the new procedure or the new technology that can save lives?
2. What is the root cause of prescription drug costs? Is part of it that we pay for the development of new drugs more than other countries? Only by answering these questions can we come up with a solution that works.
3. The CBO addresses this I believe as one of the major root causes being the rise in Americans’ personal income and the access to third party payment systems (Medicare and Medicaid). When people have more money to spend on their health, they will do it. Let’s stop ignoring the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are part of the problem with rising health care spending (and associated costs).
4. There is not enough evidence on this to determine how much impact this has had on health care spending, as the CBO points out. Canada implemented a cap on “pain and suffering” damages which works to bring malpractice costs down; we should do the same to help at least decrease some cost for health care. I don’t know how substantial this is though when compared to the other larger factors.
5. I agree, this is a good thing to do and will happen eventually anyway. How much will this save us on overall health care spending, I’m not sure if it is that substantial.
6. No, this is not easily quantifiable as the CBO points out in the link provided. As the CBO stated: “Even if reliable comprehensive data were available, they would be difficult to interpret because certain types of administrative activity probably help reduce health care spending, making the net effect on total cost growth unclear.”
7. There is a definite cost to this, however, the CBO does not address it and I’m not sure the significance of cost savings. Although, I believe something should still be done.
8. The CBO stated that: “...the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system...” If you try to control costs on what companies can charge for their new product that saves lives, I think you will have less companies developing such products.
9. Yep, a no brainer on that one. Although, I’m not sure how much this will decrease costs, when compared to the other factors that are substantially increasing costs.

If we are to address health care costs, we must address what is increasing the health care spending (the main root causes). With that said, the main factors that have increased health care spending according to the CBO are:

• Technological advances (CBO: “half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.”)
• Having a third party payment system (Medicare and Medicaid)
• Increase in personal income

We don’t want to decrease personal income, although I like your idea of educating people to be better about what they spend their money on regarding their health. I think we should reform the FDA to be more effective at drug approvals. It is crazy that it takes so long for companies to have their drug approved, when in Europe they are approved so much more quickly. How can companies hold onto their R&D investment for so long without charging higher prices?

Our focus should be on the top two I listed. How can we reform how new technologies are implemented into the market? We have to be smart about it. The second one, we must reform Medicare and Medicaid abuses as you mentioned, but we must also recognize that such third party systems are a big part of the problem with increases in health care spending and develop some plans to deal with this. As a side note, the increased access to health care spending for many Americans has actually resulted in the spending on technological advances. In other words, the first bullet I listed above is very much related to last two items listed.

One of the biggest things we must do is stop vilifying insurance companies, drug companies, medical product companies, etc.

I agree with that. However, the pain and suffering element of any tort is the only incentive for the legal system to fund their fights. The insurance companies have teams of lawyers. How can a layman hire an attorney to fight a large medical malpractice insurer with a billion dollars in the bank? How do you pay your attorney after you win your case if the ONLY damages you receive are to pay all of the medical bills asociated with the malpractice? 1/3 of 250K caps do not cover 50% of the costs to fund a fight against a doctor.

 

[Christopher]

uh oh the retarded rabbi at it again. Gadawg gives another real world example of how the system is broken and all the retard can do is criticize.

so cecile asked what costs i was talking about. here was the list that came from an earlier post:


1. Health care being a for profit enterprise (as opposed to a non profit enterprise)
2. The high costs of pharmaceutical drugs
3. patients receiving useless tests and treatments
4. malpractice lawsuits
5. lack of a digital record for all medical files
6. high administrative costs
7. cost of administering services to the uninsured.
8. high costs of medical equipment
9. Medicare & Medicaid Fraud.


now, how can we bring down all of these real costs? these are easily agreed upon (although im sure several people like the retard will just want bitch about the list itself) but here would be some good ideas:


1 - self explanatory

2 - allow drug companies to keep their patents on new drugs for a long amount of time. this will service 2 purposes. it will allow them more time to recover their research and development costs and keep generics out of the systems so that they can recover those costs and profits. in return for a long patent term, they would have to agree to cut the sell price by predetermined percentage. for this argument lets say 30%. the company can recoup this extra 30% (and probably more) over the longer life of the protected patent

3 - this one would have to be a combination of educating the general public and doctors taking more responsibility. im not sure i have a good answer for this one yet.

4 - tort reform is one was to help curb this costs. but what about also streamlining the process a bit more to allow these lawsuits to come to trail much faster as well as allow for a panel of judges and former doctors to determine the fault or no fault of the doctor. since most of these cases claim negligence, asking a general jury to evaluate medical procedure is a bit of a stretch. this panel of judges and doctors can be both appointed and elected. this way the people have a say in who sits on the panel as well as having people who understand the law as well.

5 - this one seems like a no brainer. with all the digital technology these days, it seems to be out of laziness that all health care providers can not simply band together to digitally store and share patient records.

6 - i think the new law actually handles this one really well in requiring all health care providers and insurers to document and prove that 80% of all premium dollars go towards patient care as opposed to administrative care.

7 - this will have to be controlled simply by finding a way to insure more of them.

8 - there would have to be some incentive given to medical device manufacturers to lower costs, because as it stands, there is no incentive

9 - this comes down to doctor accountability. if a doctor is claiming more services than he has given. he should have his medical license pulled and be required to pay back all the fees he claimed. this will serve two purposes. it will act a deterrent, and it will also help recover waste. this can be handled through audits and spot inspections.


anyone have any other suggestion. (suggestions, not criticisms?)

I trust what the CBO says has increased health care spending (and in turn overall health care costs) over the last few decades. See this link Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

Here are some answers to your list above, based on the CBO’s analysis, with some based on just my own response:

1. How much has this increased our costs? Can you provide any quantifiable evidence? In my understanding from the CBO that the main cause of the rise in health care spending has been a result of the development of new technology, do we want to sacrifice not developing the new procedure or the new technology that can save lives?
2. What is the root cause of prescription drug costs? Is part of it that we pay for the development of new drugs more than other countries? Only by answering these questions can we come up with a solution that works.
3. The CBO addresses this I believe as one of the major root causes being the rise in Americans’ personal income and the access to third party payment systems (Medicare and Medicaid). When people have more money to spend on their health, they will do it. Let’s stop ignoring the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are part of the problem with rising health care spending (and associated costs).
4. There is not enough evidence on this to determine how much impact this has had on health care spending, as the CBO points out. Canada implemented a cap on “pain and suffering” damages which works to bring malpractice costs down; we should do the same to help at least decrease some cost for health care. I don’t know how substantial this is though when compared to the other larger factors.
5. I agree, this is a good thing to do and will happen eventually anyway. How much will this save us on overall health care spending, I’m not sure if it is that substantial.
6. No, this is not easily quantifiable as the CBO points out in the link provided. As the CBO stated: “Even if reliable comprehensive data were available, they would be difficult to interpret because certain types of administrative activity probably help reduce health care spending, making the net effect on total cost growth unclear.”
7. There is a definite cost to this, however, the CBO does not address it and I’m not sure the significance of cost savings. Although, I believe something should still be done.
8. The CBO stated that: “...the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system...” If you try to control costs on what companies can charge for their new product that saves lives, I think you will have less companies developing such products.
9. Yep, a no brainer on that one. Although, I’m not sure how much this will decrease costs, when compared to the other factors that are substantially increasing costs.

If we are to address health care costs, we must address what is increasing the health care spending (the main root causes). With that said, the main factors that have increased health care spending according to the CBO are:

• Technological advances (CBO: “half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.&#8221
• Having a third party payment system (Medicare and Medicaid)
• Increase in personal income

We don’t want to decrease personal income, although I like your idea of educating people to be better about what they spend their money on regarding their health. I think we should reform the FDA to be more effective at drug approvals. It is crazy that it takes so long for companies to have their drug approved, when in Europe they are approved so much more quickly. How can companies hold onto their R&D investment for so long without charging higher prices?

Our focus should be on the top two I listed. How can we reform how new technologies are implemented into the market? We have to be smart about it. The second one, we must reform Medicare and Medicaid abuses as you mentioned, but we must also recognize that such third party systems are a big part of the problem with increases in health care spending and develop some plans to deal with this. As a side note, the increased access to health care spending for many Americans has actually resulted in the spending on technological advances. In other words, the first bullet I listed above is very much related to last two items listed.

One of the biggest things we must do is stop vilifying insurance companies, drug companies, medical product companies, etc.

I agree with that. However, the pain and suffering element of any tort is the only incentive for the legal system to fund their fights. The insurance companies have teams of lawyers. How can a layman hire an attorney to fight a large medical malpractice insurer with a billion dollars in the bank? How do you pay your attorney after you win your case if the ONLY damages you receive are to pay all of the medical bills asociated with the malpractice? 1/3 of 250K caps do not cover 50% of the costs to fund a fight against a doctor.

Canada has been able to do this well. Maybe we could look into how they control malpractice cost while still protecting the individual. See this article: Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Christopher: USMB Thread Killer

 

[Gadawg73]

I trust what the CBO says has increased health care spending (and in turn overall health care costs) over the last few decades. See this link Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

Here are some answers to your list above, based on the CBO’s analysis, with some based on just my own response:

1. How much has this increased our costs? Can you provide any quantifiable evidence? In my understanding from the CBO that the main cause of the rise in health care spending has been a result of the development of new technology, do we want to sacrifice not developing the new procedure or the new technology that can save lives?
2. What is the root cause of prescription drug costs? Is part of it that we pay for the development of new drugs more than other countries? Only by answering these questions can we come up with a solution that works.
3. The CBO addresses this I believe as one of the major root causes being the rise in Americans’ personal income and the access to third party payment systems (Medicare and Medicaid). When people have more money to spend on their health, they will do it. Let’s stop ignoring the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are part of the problem with rising health care spending (and associated costs).
4. There is not enough evidence on this to determine how much impact this has had on health care spending, as the CBO points out. Canada implemented a cap on “pain and suffering” damages which works to bring malpractice costs down; we should do the same to help at least decrease some cost for health care. I don’t know how substantial this is though when compared to the other larger factors.
5. I agree, this is a good thing to do and will happen eventually anyway. How much will this save us on overall health care spending, I’m not sure if it is that substantial.
6. No, this is not easily quantifiable as the CBO points out in the link provided. As the CBO stated: “Even if reliable comprehensive data were available, they would be difficult to interpret because certain types of administrative activity probably help reduce health care spending, making the net effect on total cost growth unclear.”
7. There is a definite cost to this, however, the CBO does not address it and I’m not sure the significance of cost savings. Although, I believe something should still be done.
8. The CBO stated that: “...the general consensus among health economists is that growth in real health care spending was principally the result of the emergence of new medical technologies and services and their adoption and widespread diffusion by the U.S. health care system...” If you try to control costs on what companies can charge for their new product that saves lives, I think you will have less companies developing such products.
9. Yep, a no brainer on that one. Although, I’m not sure how much this will decrease costs, when compared to the other factors that are substantially increasing costs.

If we are to address health care costs, we must address what is increasing the health care spending (the main root causes). With that said, the main factors that have increased health care spending according to the CBO are:

• Technological advances (CBO: “half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology.”)
• Having a third party payment system (Medicare and Medicaid)
• Increase in personal income

We don’t want to decrease personal income, although I like your idea of educating people to be better about what they spend their money on regarding their health. I think we should reform the FDA to be more effective at drug approvals. It is crazy that it takes so long for companies to have their drug approved, when in Europe they are approved so much more quickly. How can companies hold onto their R&D investment for so long without charging higher prices?

Our focus should be on the top two I listed. How can we reform how new technologies are implemented into the market? We have to be smart about it. The second one, we must reform Medicare and Medicaid abuses as you mentioned, but we must also recognize that such third party systems are a big part of the problem with increases in health care spending and develop some plans to deal with this. As a side note, the increased access to health care spending for many Americans has actually resulted in the spending on technological advances. In other words, the first bullet I listed above is very much related to last two items listed.

One of the biggest things we must do is stop vilifying insurance companies, drug companies, medical product companies, etc.

I agree with that. However, the pain and suffering element of any tort is the only incentive for the legal system to fund their fights. The insurance companies have teams of lawyers. How can a layman hire an attorney to fight a large medical malpractice insurer with a billion dollars in the bank? How do you pay your attorney after you win your case if the ONLY damages you receive are to pay all of the medical bills asociated with the malpractice? 1/3 of 250K caps do not cover 50% of the costs to fund a fight against a doctor.

Canada has been able to do this well. Maybe we could look into how they control malpractice cost while still protecting the individual. See this article: Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Canadian health care is not free market.

 

[Christopher]

I agree with that. However, the pain and suffering element of any tort is the only incentive for the legal system to fund their fights. The insurance companies have teams of lawyers. How can a layman hire an attorney to fight a large medical malpractice insurer with a billion dollars in the bank? How do you pay your attorney after you win your case if the ONLY damages you receive are to pay all of the medical bills asociated with the malpractice? 1/3 of 250K caps do not cover 50% of the costs to fund a fight against a doctor.

Canada has been able to do this well. Maybe we could look into how they control malpractice cost while still protecting the individual. See this article: Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Canadian health care is not free market.

I still think there are ways to control malpractice costs and still protect patients. Whether we can use what Canada does or come up with our own solutions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Canada has been able to do this well. Maybe we could look into how they control malpractice cost while still protecting the individual. See this article: Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Canadian health care is not free market.

I still think there are ways to control malpractice costs and still protect patients. Whether we can use what Canada does or come up with our own solutions.

One way this could be handled is to eliminate juries from all civil trials. A judge or administrator makes the final decision.
This takes the emotional aspect out of the equation.
Too often, tons of money and time are wasted on convincing civil trial juries that someone needs to be punished.
On many occasions, juries award plaintiffs monetary damages based on emotion rather than the required "preponderance of evidence".
Billions of dollars are lost by companies and that cost is passed along to consumers.
Should people who are harmed through the negligence of others be compensated for their losses? Absolutely. But should plaintiffs be placed in a "better" position before their loss? NO!.
Should there be punitive damages? Yes, on a case by case basis.
Currently there is a perception that EVERY award should contain punitive damages. That of course is incorrect.
Deepest pockets. This is perhaps the most damaging part of the civil system of all.
In most suits, attorneys are permitted to file against virtually any part within shouting distance of the actual bad actor.
For example. A person goes to several bars and consumes one drink at each place. The drunk crashes his car and injures an innocent person.
The victim hires an attorney. Instead of suing the first place that served the drunk all others afterward( many state stautes make it illegal to serve alcoholic bevs to any person who appears intoxicated or by a person who reasonably believes the patron to be intoxicated) the attorney files suits vs ALL of the places this person visited that day. Now the chances of winning vs all defendants is slim, however each establishment must pay their respective attorneys for their time to defend them. That is not right. The attorney representing the plaintiff should instead of going on fishing expedition and casting a large net over all with the hopes of dragging in the one with the deepest pockets, should be required to do his homework and produce evidence of the responsible parties and file vs them ONLY.

 

[Christopher]

Canadian health care is not free market.

I still think there are ways to control malpractice costs and still protect patients. Whether we can use what Canada does or come up with our own solutions.

One way this could be handled is to eliminate juries from all civil trials. A judge or administrator makes the final decision.
This takes the emotional aspect out of the equation.
Too often, tons of money and time are wasted on convincing civil trial juries that someone needs to be punished.
On many occasions, juries award plaintiffs monetary damages based on emotion rather than the required "preponderance of evidence".
Billions of dollars are lost by companies and that cost is passed along to consumers.
Should people who are harmed through the negligence of others be compensated for their losses? Absolutely. But should plaintiffs be placed in a "better" position before their loss? NO!.
Should there be punitive damages? Yes, on a case by case basis.
Currently there is a perception that EVERY award should contain punitive damages. That of course is incorrect.
Deepest pockets. This is perhaps the most damaging part of the civil system of all.
In most suits, attorneys are permitted to file against virtually any part within shouting distance of the actual bad actor.
For example. A person goes to several bars and consumes one drink at each place. The drunk crashes his car and injures an innocent person.
The victim hires an attorney. Instead of suing the first place that served the drunk all others afterward( many state stautes make it illegal to serve alcoholic bevs to any person who appears intoxicated or by a person who reasonably believes the patron to be intoxicated) the attorney files suits vs ALL of the places this person visited that day. Now the chances of winning vs all defendants is slim, however each establishment must pay their respective attorneys for their time to defend them. That is not right. The attorney representing the plaintiff should instead of going on fishing expedition and casting a large net over all with the hopes of dragging in the one with the deepest pockets, should be required to do his homework and produce evidence of the responsible parties and file vs them ONLY.

Yes, we have to fix the "sue the ones with the most money" attitude. There should be more punishments set up for those who create frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Gadawg73]

I still think there are ways to control malpractice costs and still protect patients. Whether we can use what Canada does or come up with our own solutions.

One way this could be handled is to eliminate juries from all civil trials. A judge or administrator makes the final decision.
This takes the emotional aspect out of the equation.
Too often, tons of money and time are wasted on convincing civil trial juries that someone needs to be punished.
On many occasions, juries award plaintiffs monetary damages based on emotion rather than the required "preponderance of evidence".
Billions of dollars are lost by companies and that cost is passed along to consumers.
Should people who are harmed through the negligence of others be compensated for their losses? Absolutely. But should plaintiffs be placed in a "better" position before their loss? NO!.
Should there be punitive damages? Yes, on a case by case basis.
Currently there is a perception that EVERY award should contain punitive damages. That of course is incorrect.
Deepest pockets. This is perhaps the most damaging part of the civil system of all.
In most suits, attorneys are permitted to file against virtually any part within shouting distance of the actual bad actor.
For example. A person goes to several bars and consumes one drink at each place. The drunk crashes his car and injures an innocent person.
The victim hires an attorney. Instead of suing the first place that served the drunk all others afterward( many state stautes make it illegal to serve alcoholic bevs to any person who appears intoxicated or by a person who reasonably believes the patron to be intoxicated) the attorney files suits vs ALL of the places this person visited that day. Now the chances of winning vs all defendants is slim, however each establishment must pay their respective attorneys for their time to defend them. That is not right. The attorney representing the plaintiff should instead of going on fishing expedition and casting a large net over all with the hopes of dragging in the one with the deepest pockets, should be required to do his homework and produce evidence of the responsible parties and file vs them ONLY.

Yes, we have to fix the "sue the ones with the most money" attitude. There should be more punishments set up for those who create frivolous lawsuits.

Every law suit filed in a malpractice case HAS TO be accompanied by a report from another doctor(s) outlining in detail their professional medical opinion of what the malpractice is, what standard of care was not done and what medical care should have been done.

Without another doctor doing that there can never be a case filed anywhere in the United States.
Without the sworn testimony of a doctor that another doctor was negligent of malpractice there is NO malpractice case. Period.
There is no such thing as a creation of a frivolous lawsuit in medical malpractice cases. That is an insurance and doctor myth. Argue all you want, and I agree in a very few cases, that the damages sought are far too high but the fact remains is that it is DOCTORS that "create" all of the cases. All the lawyers do is file the case and argue the facts.
The doctors run the entire case as their professional opionion IS the evidence.
The problem is and always has been a lack of doctors to police their own.

 

[Gadawg73]

Canadian health care is not free market.

I still think there are ways to control malpractice costs and still protect patients. Whether we can use what Canada does or come up with our own solutions.

One way this could be handled is to eliminate juries from all civil trials. A judge or administrator makes the final decision.
This takes the emotional aspect out of the equation.
Too often, tons of money and time are wasted on convincing civil trial juries that someone needs to be punished.
On many occasions, juries award plaintiffs monetary damages based on emotion rather than the required "preponderance of evidence".
Billions of dollars are lost by companies and that cost is passed along to consumers.
Should people who are harmed through the negligence of others be compensated for their losses? Absolutely. But should plaintiffs be placed in a "better" position before their loss? NO!.
Should there be punitive damages? Yes, on a case by case basis.
Currently there is a perception that EVERY award should contain punitive damages. That of course is incorrect.
Deepest pockets. This is perhaps the most damaging part of the civil system of all.
In most suits, attorneys are permitted to file against virtually any part within shouting distance of the actual bad actor.
For example. A person goes to several bars and consumes one drink at each place. The drunk crashes his car and injures an innocent person.
The victim hires an attorney. Instead of suing the first place that served the drunk all others afterward( many state stautes make it illegal to serve alcoholic bevs to any person who appears intoxicated or by a person who reasonably believes the patron to be intoxicated) the attorney files suits vs ALL of the places this person visited that day. Now the chances of winning vs all defendants is slim, however each establishment must pay their respective attorneys for their time to defend them. That is not right. The attorney representing the plaintiff should instead of going on fishing expedition and casting a large net over all with the hopes of dragging in the one with the deepest pockets, should be required to do his homework and produce evidence of the responsible parties and file vs them ONLY.

You would want an judge or an administrator to settle your claims? You believe they will never have any emotion and are smarter to determine what the preponderance of the evidence is in every case?
Not in America. The jury system is the foundation of our civil courts.
Some folks do not trust themselves as capable of sitting on a jury and making a ruling based on the facts.
I do.