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

[thereisnospoon]

Because it's a litigious society and everybody wants to sue the hell out of everybody else for every freaking little scratch they get. Makes for bad premium increases and richer lawyers. End of story.

That is a very good point.

Mal Pracitce is a big cost to a doctor as it pertains to his/her overall practice proifit...usually about 20%.
My father in law was a pdiatrician and his profit was 500K and his mal pracitve insurance cost him 125K a year
But, when you pass that 125K over the amount of patients......he had hundreds....it is less than $750 per patient...
But there is no doubt that somethig is askew that Obama, Reiud and Pelosi did not include tort reform in the bill turned law...and it botherted me that my two senators refused to explain to me why...From Gillibrand I got a nice little...."we will look into it and get back to you"...and from Schumer I got a note saying "there were many intitiaves that we could not put in the bill. We were limited by the opposition"
Really chuck? You wanted tort repofrm and the GOP didnt?
Do they even fucking read our emails?

You're dealing with liberals. This is in the lib playbook. Nothing beats a good crisis.
If there is an issue which a lib can "say" he or she will try to solve it. Unless of course it is politically advantageous for the crisis to continue.
The excuse Schumer used is a fucking lie.
The Dems had full control of the House and Senate. The bully pulpit. In keeping with the lib playbook, they looked to the GOP for political cover. The dems said they could not get the GOP to go along with their agenda. The reason is they needed the GOP to sign on so if things went wrong, the dems could use the GOP as a scapegoat.

 

[shintao]

That is a very good point.

Mal Pracitce is a big cost to a doctor as it pertains to his/her overall practice proifit...usually about 20%.
My father in law was a pdiatrician and his profit was 500K and his mal pracitve insurance cost him 125K a year
But, when you pass that 125K over the amount of patients......he had hundreds....it is less than $750 per patient...
But there is no doubt that somethig is askew that Obama, Reiud and Pelosi did not include tort reform in the bill turned law...and it botherted me that my two senators refused to explain to me why...From Gillibrand I got a nice little...."we will look into it and get back to you"...and from Schumer I got a note saying "there were many intitiaves that we could not put in the bill. We were limited by the opposition"
Really chuck? You wanted tort repofrm and the GOP didnt?
Do they even fucking read our emails?

You're dealing with liberals. This is in the lib playbook. Nothing beats a good crisis.
If there is an issue which a lib can "say" he or she will try to solve it. Unless of course it is politically advantageous for the crisis to continue.
The excuse Schumer used is a fucking lie.
The Dems had full control of the House and Senate. The bully pulpit. In keeping with the lib playbook, they looked to the GOP for political cover. The dems said they could not get the GOP to go along with their agenda. The reason is they needed the GOP to sign on so if things went wrong, the dems could use the GOP as a scapegoat.

Yeah, that makes sense, because the GOP does that to the Dems all the time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The short short version? Lack of a free market.

that's because Republicans have long been staunch supporters of socialized medicine, aka Medicare

irony here is that it was Obama who proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage that McCain was incensed about and wanted reinstated

when the GOP stops hijacking limited government rhetoric and starts showing the balls to practice it, you can come back and tell me about the free market

Sen McCain has never been mistaken for a conservative. Nor is he blind to the political realities in his career as well as the state he represents which is FULL of senior citizens.
The only reason McCain does not caucus with the democrats is because he needs the backing of the RNC when he requires campaign funding.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think you wanna name airports after him, just so you can scream "I'M COMING INTO REAGAN!"

Reagan was an unmitigated disaster. I didn't watch your clip because I can't think of a person whose logic I could be less interested in.

Actually there's already an airport named after him. You didnt watch the clip because you're a partisan clown Demo-party boy hack.

I'm familiar with ol' Ronnie's "The government is the problem, not the solution" banter. I don't need to watch it.

It's easy to believe, isn't it? Doesn't it make you feel tough to follow that line of thinking, that you don't need no stinkin gubmint! No, not you, you're better off on your own!

That's why you and so many other mental midgets followed him off the cliff. Can't ignore that primitive reptilian reactionary part of your brain.

Yes. We are better off if the government would get out of the way.
Look, power divided is power controlled.
The federal government is rapidly becoming a shadow of a socialist autocracy.
President Obama with his heavy use of executive orders and deft bypasses of Congress is beginning to resemble and elected King.
Here is just one example of how Obama can use obscure procedures to bypass the Congress( the will of the people) to get what he thinks he should get.
Use Your Executive Authority, President Obama | The Nation
Weasel Zippers Blog Archive John Podesta Says Obama Can Use ?Armed Forces? To Circumvent Congress…

(The Blaze) – The liberal Center for American Progress doesn’t believe significant GOP gains in the House and Senate should stop the President from implementing more of his polices.

The group released a report Tuesday suggesting ways Obama can bypass Congress to accomplish a progressive agenda, and it cites the president’s power as commander-in-chief to make its point.

“I think most of the conversation since the election has been about how President Obama adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill,” Center for American Progress head and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta told the Daily Caller. “While that’s an important conversation, it simply ignores the president’s ability to use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward.”

How does one “move the country forward”?

In the center’s report, Podesta explains that Obama can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even the armed forces “to accomplish important change” and that such means “should not be underestimated.”

What exactly does Podesta think the president should use such powers to “accomplish”? Among others, the report suggests “job creation,“ ”quality affordable health care,“ ”sustainable security,“ and ”a clean energy future.”

This is not a presidency. It is a dictatorship.
It is commonly stated now that Obama realizes he is most likely a one term president. So his goal is to solidify his legacy. and if that means doing all sorts of damage to the country, so be it. Obama is a narcissistic self absorbed individual. He is elitist and arrogant.

 

[Chris]

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. We are being robbed by the corporate greedheads.

Other countries hold down healthcare costs and cover everyone by combining government and private insurance.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep lets do away with the right wing led provision in Medicare part D that prevents the govt from bargaining for lowest drug prices.

 

[shintao]

Yep lets do away with the right wing led provision in Medicare part D that prevents the govt from bargaining for lowest drug prices.

Ooops! I think I heard massive rightwing jaw dropping. End of another thread.............

 

[uscitizen]

Yep I guess the right wingers love no bid contracts and hate competition?

 

[Chris]

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

The French Lesson In Health Care

 

[The Rabbi]

"Defensive medicine" is the norm. Defense from what? From lawsuit, that's what. That itself probably accounts for 30% of medical costs.

Or 2.4% of national spending.

But perhaps we'd have a better idea of the effectiveness of different malpractice reform ideas if only states would experiment with them. If only more than half of all states had implemented some form of collateral source rule reform. If only the same was true of joint and several liability rule reform. If only states would cap damages which, aside from this map of state damage caps enacted since 1986, nobody seems to have done!



And yet here we find ourselves in this sad situation in which malpractice reform has never been attempted by anyone anywhere. Ever.

Actually states like TX and MS benefitted greatly when they instituted tort reform. Malpractice premiums plummetted and doctors came back. At one time there was one OB-GYN in Jackson still practicing. Now there is much more available care.
Thanks for pointing out these important steps we must take as a nation in order to make our system even better.

 

[Greenbeard]

Malpractice premiums plummetted and doctors came back.

That's the gauge you're using to measure unnecessary service volume (which, ostensibly, is the problem you identified as being caused by malpractice claims)--malpractice premiums? Did I miss the part where you showed a 30% reduction in service volume in Texas?

 

[The Rabbi]

Malpractice premiums plummetted and doctors came back.

That's the gauge you're using to measure unnecessary service volume (which, ostensibly, is the problem you identified as being caused by malpractice claims)--malpractice premiums? Did I miss the part where you showed a 30% reduction in service volume in Texas?

Your whole post is an error wrapped in a misapprehension clothed in a lie.

 

[Jarhead]

Malpractice premiums plummetted and doctors came back.

That's the gauge you're using to measure unnecessary service volume (which, ostensibly, is the problem you identified as being caused by malpractice claims)--malpractice premiums? Did I miss the part where you showed a 30% reduction in service volume in Texas?

Do you have any personal explanatioon as to why tort reform was not included in the law? It may not decrease costs dramatically, but it is naive to think it would not decrease costs.

I was in a jury pool for a case where a woman had elevtive surgery to have a large growth on her toe removed. Although during the selection process we were not afforded the rigtht to see any evidence, both attorneys agreed that a release was signed that said there may be permanent scarring as a result....and, again, the surgery was elective as the gorwth was benign....and she had the growth for her entire life. She was 66 years old at the time of surgery.

Apparently, whereas the surgery was a success, there was scarring and the claimant felt the scar was so ugly, she could never wear open toed shoes again; nor could she go to the beach.

We were told that the amount she was suing for exceeded 7 figures.

I asked to not be considered for the case as I thought the amount was ludicrous...and I was dimissed.

Frivelous mal pracitce law suits are no doubt one of the many reasons we have skyrocketing health care costs.

Why was it ignored in the bill....but "student loans" was IN the bill?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"That’s because 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of spending, and that 20 percent is made up mostly of the chronically ill."

“Indeed, perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion (30%) was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health. Even worse, new evidence suggests that too much health care may actually be killing us.”
Even as millions aren’t getting treatments they vitally need, a leading medical journalist argues that the main culprit in the soaring cost of American health care is actually overtreatment… and all that extra care is making us very sick.

$500 BILLION: The amount that Americans spend annually on unnecessary care.

30,000: The number of Medicare recipients who die each year as a result of unneeded care.

50%: The portion of surgeries, tests, and procedures that are not backed by scientific evidence.

Consumers aren’t shopping wisely. The moral-hazard argument says that because people don’t pay out of pocket, they use more-expensive health care than necessary. Moral hazard says we go to the doctor when we don’t really need to; we insist on getting a CT scan for a twisted ankle when ice and an Ace bandage will do. Experts will tell you that as many as one in four doctor’s-office visits are “social calls,” and nearly half of emergency room visits are for care that could have been handled in a nonemergency setting. But even this argument doesn’t explain why health care costs so much. That’s because 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of spending, and that 20 percent is made up mostly of the chronically ill. These patients are often sick with multiple conditions—such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure—and more than half of the money we devote to caring for them is spent when they are in the hospital. People who are sick enough to be hospitalized are generally too ill to be insisting on certain tests or procedures.

Indeed, perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health. Even worse, new evidence suggests that too much health care may actually be killing us.
According to estimates by Elliott Fisher, M.D., a noted Dartmouth researcher, unnecessary care leads to the deaths of as many as 30,000 Medicare recipients annually.

Source: AARP Magazine

Okay, well, there are a couple of questions that need to be answered here. First of all, when you say, "Health care cost", exactly what are you referring to? Are you referring to how much money is spent on healthcare every year, or are you talking about how high the price of individual procedures is?

Second of all, how are we defining "unnecessary care"?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I thought Happy Meals and soda were causing all the problems?

 

[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.

 

[Nighthawk62]

Check this out. This is excellent reading and will open your mind -- provided it is not presently closed and locked shut!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574447114058870676.html

"That’s because 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of spending, and that 20 percent is made up mostly of the chronically ill."

“Indeed, perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion (30%) was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health. Even worse, new evidence suggests that too much health care may actually be killing us.”
Even as millions aren’t getting treatments they vitally need, a leading medical journalist argues that the main culprit in the soaring cost of American health care is actually overtreatment… and all that extra care is making us very sick.

$500 BILLION: The amount that Americans spend annually on unnecessary care.

30,000: The number of Medicare recipients who die each year as a result of unneeded care.

50%: The portion of surgeries, tests, and procedures that are not backed by scientific evidence.

Consumers aren’t shopping wisely. The moral-hazard argument says that because people don’t pay out of pocket, they use more-expensive health care than necessary. Moral hazard says we go to the doctor when we don’t really need to; we insist on getting a CT scan for a twisted ankle when ice and an Ace bandage will do. Experts will tell you that as many as one in four doctor’s-office visits are “social calls,” and nearly half of emergency room visits are for care that could have been handled in a nonemergency setting. But even this argument doesn’t explain why health care costs so much. That’s because 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of spending, and that 20 percent is made up mostly of the chronically ill. These patients are often sick with multiple conditions—such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure—and more than half of the money we devote to caring for them is spent when they are in the hospital. People who are sick enough to be hospitalized are generally too ill to be insisting on certain tests or procedures.

Indeed, perhaps the most significant reason Americans are drowning in health care debt may shock you: Americans are getting far too much unnecessary care. Of our total $2.3 trillion health care bill last year, a whopping $500 billion to $700 billion was spent on treatments, tests, and hospitalizations that did nothing to improve our health. Even worse, new evidence suggests that too much health care may actually be killing us.
According to estimates by Elliott Fisher, M.D., a noted Dartmouth researcher, unnecessary care leads to the deaths of as many as 30,000 Medicare recipients annually.

Source: AARP Magazine

Wonderful. AARP went in the bag for Obamacare and is now ready to throw it's members under the bus. This is typical of the supporters of Obama. They cannot admit they are wrong so they've gone off the deep end for this guy.
Now, as far as the article is concerned...why are none of the statistics sourced? Where did these numbers come from? Who did the research?

The article suggests 100 people per day are dropping dead from "overtesting". HUH?
Look, there are cases where very sick people with multiple afflictions are getting massive amounts of medical care that probably will not extend the lifeof the patient but will make them a little more comfortable and allow them to die with dignity.
The expense of taking care of these patients is infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things.
The real problem is abuse of the system by folks who have minor ailments that will call 9-1-1 for a ride to the hospital for a cough.
Then there are the people who are self destructive. These are the drug abusers, those who will not use proper safety equipment on their jobs. The gang bangers who get stabbed and shot. Most children born out of wedlock are to uninsured patients.
That birth in the hospital is written off and then added to the cost of premiums for insured patients.
Now, the insurance carriers are responsible as well. These companies pay for treatments at not what are market rates but at rates set in negotiations with hospitals.
Medicare for example has dropped the rate of reimbursement. SO the cost to the patient does not change( which is counted in the statistics) the write off by the medical professional just gets larger.
Nobody really can produce accurate statistics as to the actual cost of health care in the US. One thing is clear, the system is not perfect. IMO we should have a pay as you go system which would increase competition between medical providers which would in turn lower prices. Eliminating insurance "networks" would also lower costs to consumers because the patient could shop around for the best deal for care.
Now, the most frigtening aspect of the health care debate is the spectre of a government take over of the system. With the government setting prices , more or less fixing the marketplace, the costs stay the same or continue to rise. What occurs is the marketplace shrinks as health providers leave the industry. Fewer doctors and fewer facilities means care MUST become rationed. In other words largely unavailable.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

You are by far not 100% correct.

It is not other doctors that are EYE witnesses that are crucial to the case.
It is other doctors that are specialists in the practice in question.

They are paid to testify on behalf of the patient or the doctor in the case and their testimony is based on THEIR experiences.

Secondly....no one is saying that those that suffer true malpractice should not be allowed to sue. ANd no one is saying that the insurace companies make the decision.

Tort reform...in a nutshell.....you have the right to sue for anything. However, if the suit fails, the judge uses his/her professionally judgement to determine if it were frivelous...if it is found to be frivelous, the claimant is responsible for the costs incurred by the mal practice insurance company.

You will not see people simply suing for a scar from an incission that was expected to begin with.

 

[Jarhead]

The probelm with frivelous mal practice cases is the doillar factor....most insurance companiues opt to settle as the cost to settle is less than the cost to fight the suit and win.

In essence, with ambulance chaser attorneys that are willing to sue at no cost, just a percentage...people will sue for the sake of suing....it is a no lose proposition for them. If the insurance company doesnt settle, they drop the case...or give it a shot.....if it does settle, they make money and so does the attorney.

There MUST be something in place to eliminate this

 

[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.

You are by far not 100% correct.

It is not other doctors that are EYE witnesses that are crucial to the case.
It is other doctors that are specialists in the practice in question.

They are paid to testify on behalf of the patient or the doctor in the case and their testimony is based on THEIR experiences.

Secondly....no one is saying that those that suffer true malpractice should not be allowed to sue. ANd no one is saying that the insurace companies make the decision.

Tort reform...in a nutshell.....you have the right to sue for anything. However, if the suit fails, the judge uses his/her professionally judgement to determine if it were frivelous...if it is found to be frivelous, the claimant is responsible for the costs incurred by the mal practice insurance company.

You will not see people simply suing for a scar from an incission that was expected to begin with.

Then how come EVERY STATE that has "tort reform" has limits on damages?
Sir, a JURY, not a judge determines the merits of all civil cases.
Your theory is one of appointing a dictator to determine medical liability.
Would YOU award damages for "a scar from an incission that was expected to begin with"?
Or are YOU just like all other Americans and can be a good citizen and sit on a jury and make rational decisions based ON THE EVIDENCE?
Your example does not make court anyway as those cases are NOT worth an attorney's time. Cost too much to hire the expert doctor for that small claim.
And you know that was already next to impossible to sue doctors as it was?
We do not do things that way in America. We arefounded on the JURY system.