Why was Tort Reform not on the table concerning our healthcare?

[Greenbeard]

Why was Tort Reform not on the table concerning our healthcare?

It was. The language for the ACA's final approach to tort reform--federal money for states that want to test alternatives to their current tort laws--was lifted from a Republican bill from the previous Congress, put forth by their ranking member of the Senate's health committee (language that made an appearance in a modified form in the 2009 Paul Ryan/Tom Coburn health reform bill).

That's a more federalist approach. If you're talking about outright nationalization of tort law, that was on the table, as well. It was one of the many casualties of the GOP decision to make the ACA Obama's Waterloo instead of negotiating to get more things they claim to want in return for offering some votes for the legislation.

When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by Republicans that is certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

 

[auditor0007]

It was and is the best way to drop the cost of healthcare, and has also been a major contributing factor into the rising cost of healthcare.

So, lets hear it?

Because you can't limit a doctor's liability until you can limit the amount of damage that doctor can cause by malpracting.

And the percentage of medical costs as a result of fraud are negligible

When a doctor cuts off the wrong leg, he/she should lose his/her license to practice for at least five years. A lot of the stupid shit would stop happening. There also needs to be some process in which we can limit the number of lawsuits that have no merit. Too many people bring lawsuits that they know they are unlikely to win, but that get settled out of court because it is cheaper than going to trial. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the solution would be for this. One suggestion is to have the person bringing the suit pay for all attorney fees if they lose. The problem with that is that most people would never be able to afford that and would be unable to bring forth a suit in the first place, even when it was legitimate.

 

[Mac1958]

And, tort reform is just another way of screwing over the little guy.

Health care costs are killing us, literally. Both "sides" -- and it's a shame that this has become so goddamn politicized -- are going to have to stop simplistically defending their pet ideologies if they're serious about bringing the costs of health care down and increasing access as a result.

Defensive medicine is a significant driver of health care costs. We either choose to accept that fact and do something about it, or we do not. And the same goes for every other health care issue.

If providers are costing the system $50 billion to $75 billion annually just to save their asses from lawyers, then we can choose to ignore it, but then let's not pretend we're serious about bringing down costs and increasing access. At that point, this is just political.

.

 

[rightwinger]

If Republicans had participated in developing a plan, I'm sure it would have been in there

It is the price they paid for being obstructive

 

[Mac1958]

If Republicans had participated in developing a plan, I'm sure it would have been in there

It is the price they paid for being obstructive

Yup.

When one political party writes a massive law, you're going to get a massive political document. And when the other party refuses to participate, you're going to get a massive, unbalanced political document. The Dems essentially had free reign, so they did what they did. I just still wonder why they didn't even bring up universal health care to any significant degree.

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It was and is the best way to drop the cost of healthcare, and has also been a major contributing factor into the rising cost of healthcare.

So, lets hear it?

It wasn't and isn't and has not.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It was and is the best way to drop the cost of healthcare, and has also been a major contributing factor into the rising cost of healthcare.

So, lets hear it?

First, you're gonna need to brush-off all o' those cobwebs (and, dust) from that "oldy, moldy".​

August 31, 2009

Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?

"Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the votes are not there for it.

It was and is the best way to drop the cost of healthcare, and has also been a major contributing factor into the rising cost of healthcare.

So, lets hear it?

 

[DiamondDave]

Because frivolous lawsuits are a way for 'the poor' to stick it to 'the evil rich'... hence why you don't see progressives supporting it

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It was and is the best way to drop the cost of healthcare, and has also been a major contributing factor into the rising cost of healthcare.

So, lets hear it?

Hasn't worked too well in Texas. Our healthcare costs have gone up right along with the rest of the nation, in spite of "tort reform," which is just another way to say "Get out of jail free."

September 22, 2009

Reality vs. "conservatives"​

"After reviewing thousands of patient records, medical researchers have estimated that only 2 to 3 percent of cases of medical negligence lead to a malpractice claim.

All told, jury awards, settlements and administrative costs — which, by definition, are similar to the combined cost of insurance — add up to less than $10 billion a year. This equals less than one-half of a percentage point of medical spending. There have been years when malpractice payouts rose sharply, but there have also been years when they did not. Over the last two decades, the amount has increased roughly in line with total medical spending, according to a study in the journal Health Affairs, based on a national database.

Similarly, you would want to see more serious efforts to reduce medical error and tougher discipline for doctors who made repeated errors — in exchange for a less confrontational, less costly process for those doctors who, like all of us, sometimes make mistakes."

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Because frivolous lawsuits are a way for 'the poor' to stick it to 'the evil rich'...

Yeah....it happens all-the-time.....

....you're just having a hard time proving it.​

 

[Desperado]

Why was Tort Reform not on the table concerning our healthcare?

Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.
Enough said. 37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers.

Anything else need be said?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Because frivolous lawsuits are a way for 'the poor' to stick it to 'the evil rich'... hence why you don't see progressives supporting it

Frivolous lawsuits are a way for lawyers to lose licenses and a way for their clients to make zero dollars.

We progressives don't support frivolous lawsuits

Though compared to legitimate lawsuits, the frivolous lawsuits cost doctors very little considering they are thrown out of court almost as soon as they show up.


I don't think you actually know what a frivolous lawsuit is.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why was Tort Reform not on the table concerning our healthcare?

Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.
Enough said. 37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers.

Anything else need be said?

Has Congress passed any laws to fight terrorism that work by restricting lawyers? Nope. You know why? They're all lawyers.

Has Congress passed any laws to build roads that work by restricting lawyers? Nope. You know why? They're all lawyers.

Has Congress passed any laws to (insert problem here) that work by restricting lawyers? Nope. You know why? They're all lawyers.


Since most of Congress are lawyers, we can only conclude all of the nations ills are caused by lawyers not being restricted enough in their jobs.

 

[healthmyths]

It was and is the best way to drop the cost of healthcare, and has also been a major contributing factor into the rising cost of healthcare.

So, lets hear it?

In 2008 with 42% of Congress lawyers that also had their profession donate $243 million to Congress and $43 million to Obama a lawyer!

And many ignorant conservatives still use the "50 million uninsured" even with proof from Census that 10 million are not citizens, 14 million are already covered by Medicaid and 18 million that PAY their own health services, make of $50K and didn't want insurance!
For 8 million that want and needed insurance very simple solution that would REDUCE the $600 billion a year in "defensive medicine" and 6,000% markups that hospitals do on claims to Medicare!

Take 10% of the $100 billion lawyers fees.
Everytime uninsured goes to hospital they are registered with the Uninsured Health Ins. Co. UHIC and claims are sent to UHIC by the hospitals.
The $10 billion in tax revenue would provide the payments to the hospitals.
In addition the hospitals would be audited on Medicare claims to make sure no "padding and passing" of the unreimbursed costs result in the
some 6,000% markups!

Both WASTEFUL $600 billion "defensive medicine" costs would decline as physicians not as fearful of lawsuits that result in duplicate tests,etc.
Wasteful 6,000% markups would be reduced!

 

[sakinago]

Again very simple way of looking at the problem. The rising cost did not necessarily come from suits and torts, it comes from policies (as in running a gambit of expensive tests, expensive procedures, ordering very expensive treatments for when it is not necessary) and malpractice insurance that MD's, RN's, and hospitals all have to pay for.

If you are ever in the hospital, chances are you will be given Omeprazole, very expensive treatment, costs about $900 a month (taking it just once a day, at the hospital you will usually be taking it at least 2x daily). What for? For gastric reflux, possibly induced by the stress of being in the hospital, whether you have a history of gastric reflux or not, and whether or not gastric reflux can be considered a complication or minor inconvenience in your situation, whether or not you probably wont even suffer from gastric reflux while being in the hospital. So now you wipe out your stomach acid, your normal intestinal micro-biota has changed, also changing your bowel movements. Now the hospital is worried that there is a chance you might have contracted a noscomial infection like VRE. So the hospital puts you on very expensive anti-biotics to combat VRE, and very expensive broad spectrum anti-biotics, while they charge you (or your insurance) to run tests to rule out VRE. Now your normal flora all over your body is severely wiped out and you can only hope that this does not lead to an actual nasty, expensive and tough to treat noscomial infection.

This is just one example of the consequences of torts, and they chain reaction that they have caused in our healthcare system, and why the cost is rising so much. I can give you 20 different more examples like this off the top of my head alone, all of them consequences of our tort system.

Well done, you obviously have some background in this.

.

Nonsense.

Omeprazole is just Prilosec.

LOL

And, tort reform is just another way of screwing over the little guy.

It is, and please do the calculation on how much it costs to take be put on prilosec for a month, before calling it nonsense. It is a moderately expensive drug, there are many more expensive ones out there.

And yes, over-treating in a way is a big source of revenue for hospitals, but who is picking up that bill? For most it is peoples business, and insurance (which is why the cost of healthcare is rising so much...thats the point of this thread), or the patients themselves depending on what type of insurance they have, if they have it. Tort Reform is a general term for changing I guess you could say the culture of our healthcare system, which is cover your ass, do everything necessary, and use patient centered care (this is in order of importance). The culture that needs to be changed is the cover your ass, and do everything necessary.

For those who think that the cover your ass culture of hospital is not a main causative factor of rising healthcare costs are idiots, and have not taken a close look at our healthcare system. And tort reform not only applies to MD's, RN's, and hospitals, it also applies to all areas of the healthcare system, i.e. pharmaceutical companies. Lawyers are having a field decades when they go up to big pharma and say "hey remember that drug (anti-depress, benzo, ACE-inhib, etc.) that we made doctors want to prescribe even though it wasn't strongly indicated, and a much cheaper non-prescription treatment could have worked just as effectively...well it turned out to possibly cause or be linked to (birth defects, heart attacks, kidney failure, etc.) so were going to round up a 100 or so patients who actually deserve compensation, and another 100,000 with very vague minor symptoms that were going to link to this drug; and were going to throw a couple billion dollar suit at you, take 30% of that for us, and have the other 100,000 split the other 70% between them." Then big pharma says, "dang, we got to find a way to cover the costs of suits in the future, well make so-and-so drugs coming out more expensive."

Are you beginning to see how the "cover your ass," mentality becomes very expensive quickly, and is not necessarily better for the patient...and especially not the economy.

 

[sakinago]

It was and is the best way to drop the cost of healthcare, and has also been a major contributing factor into the rising cost of healthcare.

So, lets hear it?

It wasn't and isn't and has not.

I keep hearing this, but I dont hear any of you making your case. Please do your research and tell me why the cost of healthcare has been rising over the past 30 years, and how its not very largely linked to the "cover your ass" mentality. Good Luck.

I can already tell you what I am going to hear "uh its the insurance companies, and people not getting insurance, and getting healthcare for free."

 

[Mac1958]

It was and is the best way to drop the cost of healthcare, and has also been a major contributing factor into the rising cost of healthcare.

So, lets hear it?

It wasn't and isn't and has not.

I keep hearing this, but I dont hear any of you making your case. Please do your research and tell me why the cost of healthcare has been rising over the past 30 years, and how its not very largely linked to the "cover your ass" mentality. Good Luck.

I can already tell you what I am going to hear "uh its the insurance companies, and people not getting insurance, and getting healthcare for free."

You won't hear the partisan talk show hosts discussing defensive medicine and its costs, so not many people know about this. Whenever I talk to people about this, they look at me as if it's the first time they're hearing about it. We absolutely have to lower costs, and this is definitely an important piece of the pie.

.

 

[Oldguy]

It wasn't and isn't and has not.

I keep hearing this, but I dont hear any of you making your case. Please do your research and tell me why the cost of healthcare has been rising over the past 30 years, and how its not very largely linked to the "cover your ass" mentality. Good Luck.

I can already tell you what I am going to hear "uh its the insurance companies, and people not getting insurance, and getting healthcare for free."

You won't hear the partisan talk show hosts discussing defensive medicine and its costs, so not many people know about this. Whenever I talk to people about this, they look at me as if it's the first time they're hearing about it. We absolutely have to lower costs, and this is definitely an important piece of the pie.

.

Defensive medicine, lawsuits and insurance premiums are not solely responsible for rising healthcare costs. Corporate profits is the biggest reason.

Here's a story about Boise, ID which perfectly illustrates exactly WHY we really do need healthcare reform:

www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/business....html?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=edit_au_20121130

 

[healthmyths]

It wasn't and isn't and has not.

I keep hearing this, but I dont hear any of you making your case. Please do your research and tell me why the cost of healthcare has been rising over the past 30 years, and how its not very largely linked to the "cover your ass" mentality. Good Luck.

I can already tell you what I am going to hear "uh its the insurance companies, and people not getting insurance, and getting healthcare for free."

You won't hear the partisan talk show hosts discussing defensive medicine and its costs, so not many people know about this. Whenever I talk to people about this, they look at me as if it's the first time they're hearing about it. We absolutely have to lower costs, and this is definitely an important piece of the pie.

.

I certainly understand your frustration regarding the $600 billion a YEAR that physicians attest is due to FEAR of LAWSUITS!
Obama was so fearful of tanning salons..So why was malpractice/$600 billion defensive medicine NOT addressed as fervently as "Tanning Salons"???

If 1,231 physicians...(90%) Ninety percent of physicians surveyed said
"doctors overtest and overtreat to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits.
"Defensive medicine is when doctors order multiple tests, MRIs and other procedures, not because the patient needs them, but to protect against litigation based on allegations that something should have been done but wasn’t. according to the survey published Monday in Archives of Internal Medicine.
Besides more time-consuming appointments, patients are left with fewer services and less access to quality care as doctors either narrow their practices or leave the profession entirely."
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/E...take-on-trial-lawyers-in-speech-57953202.html

In recent studies, more than 90 percent of physicians reported practicing positive defensive medicine in the past 12 months; unnecessary imaging tests accounted for 43 percent of these actions. More than 92 percent of surgeons reported ordering unnecessary tests to protect themselves.

Another study found a direct relationship between higher malpractice awards and malpractice premiums and Medicare spending, especially with imaging services. The increased spending, however, had no measurable effects on mortality.

In a recent Gallup survey, physicians attributed 34 percent of overall healthcare costs to defensive medicine and 21 percent of their practice to be defensive in nature. Specifically, they estimated that 35 percent of diagnostic tests, 29 percent of lab tests, 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits.

Liability reform has been estimated to result in anywhere from a 5 percent to a 34 percent reduction in medical expenditures by reducing defensive medicine practices, with estimates of savings from $54 billion to $650 billion.
The costs of defensive medicine


But do you think the Press will share these stories with same intensity they pounded the The phrase in a google search "" Romney 47 percent" " found About About 53,400,000 results since Sept 2012 YET Obama's "obama electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" google since January 17, 2008 About 11,900 results.

NO... WHAT we all have to do is keep pounding the public NOT to believe the pack of lies especially about 50 million uninsured, or "you can keep your plan"...!