Ya ever think that the reason our healthcare is so expensive is because of lawsuits?

Not quite.

You may be correct that the actual lawsuits may add up to that.

But how about the potentially unnecessary tests that doctors order to make sure that they don't miss something.

For example, when someone comes in with a brand new complaint of a migraine...they never had one before...you are supposed to order an MRI to make sure that they don't have a tumor. In the absence of very severe neurological signs, the actual likelihood that they have a tumor is very very low. But if the MRI was not ordered and they ended up having a tumor, the doc would be sued to poverty.

Practices like above are not based on any specific medical evidence, but on "standard of care", which is "if all the other doctors are doing it, you should too." And in this case, all the other doctors are doing it to avoid getting sued.

Malpractice reform might change some of the "standard of care" of expensive medical conditions, thus decreasing the overall cost of healthcare.

Can't you just offer your patient a choice and if they decide to get the MRI then fine ;they pay for it; and if they don't,get them to sign a waiver that testifies that you offered and they refused and to hold you harmless?

That's all well and good. But there have been numerous cases where doctors have been sued because the patient was able to claim that (even after in depth explanation) they still didn't understand the risks.

And either way, even if the case has no merit or chance of winning, the suit can still be filed which causes aggravation, anxiety, and cost of defense and loss of wages.

When obstetricians pay over $100,000 yearly for malpractice, their fees will go up.

OBGYNs rarely are in the delivery room during the worst part anyway. It's the nurses and PAs who do all the hard work, and the doc comes in and does the last pull--yup, itsa boy/girl--then leaves. (And then of course the nurses aids and housekeepers get to clean up all the yucky stuff, at around a tenth of his fee in wages. Another whole subject.)
 
I just can't get behind tort control,it goes against my free market beliefs,it shifts the restriction from one sector to another and restricts my right as a consumer of redress of grievances. How about some type of negative outcomes type insurance I could get before surgery ,sort of like insurance I might get when flying to insure my outcome of the procedure? That would be free markets at work.

But then you would have yet another insurance company that you would have to pay for and that could deny you coverage.

After all, having surgery is far more risky than flying.

I'm sure it is but what is the percentage of your patients that you screw up on? I bet you are 99% or more accurate in your profession just like others in your profession,and my profession and I have to carry liability insurance.
 
You would have to listen to Ed Schultz and decide for yourself if he's honest or a bullshitter like Rush.

Anyways, the Dems are in charge. You guys should have dealt with tort reform when you were in charge. You didn't because this is just a distraction from the real problems. The right is throwing out bullshit and seeing what sticks. Meanwhile, we'll waste a week discussing tort reform, WHICH IS NOT THE PROBLEM WITH HEALTHCARE! Its the for profit insurance companies!!! We know exactly why the costs have skyrocketed and tort reform is not the main issue right now. Yes you want to discuss it because you are against healthcare reform.

Its like the drill baby drill argument. That would have lowered gas prices 2 cents a gallon. Hardly the main problem. But you guys changed the focus on that to whether or not we should be drilling offshore. What a joke. Yea, give the people gouging us even more of our natural resources. :cuckoo:

Tort reform doesn't solve pre existing conditions, denying people coverage and it isn't why healthcare costs went up 191% from 2001 to now.

Show us that lawsuits are why healthcare costs went up 191% since 2001. You can't, because it just isn't true.

You guys?

Sorry, but I am as much against the Republicans in office as I am against the Democrats. As far as I am concerned both sides are equally corrupt.

I am not opposed to healthcare reform. I am, however, opposed to Nationalized healthcare if it means the bureaucrats of Washington DC are going to control it. Maybe Canada did a better job at it than Washington can, but the last people in the world that I want deciding what procedures I can have are the people in Washington.

Tort reform would cut down on a hell of a lot of the problem when you figure that much of the costs of healthcare is to prevent potential suits.

Immie

WRONG! Much of the costs? You mean a small fraction of the costs.

If you think the Dems are just as corrupt, then you don't get it. If not for the Dems, we wouldn't even be discussing healthcare reform. Yes there are 52 blue dog democrats who are owned by the lobbyists, but we are also the party that wants to fix healthcare. Do you expect our party to be perfect? And if its not perfect, does that mean its just as bad as the GOP?

Right now Obama is meeting with Reed and Baucus to see what gives. Max Baucus may as well be a Republican. Yes, he's corrupt. A lot of them are. But Obama isn't. At least he's not as corrupt as Bush.

And it isn't necessarily "corrupt" as it is a difference of either being pro labor vs anti labor. The GOP think the rich should be taken care of and that will trickle down to us. Dems think corporations should be regulated. If they were just as bad as Republicans, they wouldn't mess with Corporations.

Without Democrats, liberals and unions, we wouldn't have such a stong middle class. And the middle class got weaker under the GOP. Unions understand it was because of their policies. You don't get it, but unions do.

And if the GOP were in charge, summer gas would no doubt be $4 a gallon like it was last year. We'd be at war with Iran. Clearly you see the difference in the Dems and GOP when it comes to foreign policy, don't you? And if the GOP were in charge, rich people and corporations would be getting all the tax breaks. And the government contracts would be sweetheart buddy deals that benefit the few, not the many.

And the TARP plan would have zero oversite.

And millions of former Chrysler & GM employees would be fucked!

The last people I want deciding are Corporations who's bonus' depend on them denying us coverage.
 
I just can't get behind tort control,it goes against my free market beliefs,it shifts the restriction from one sector to another and restricts my right as a consumer of redress of grievances. How about some type of negative outcomes type insurance I could get before surgery ,sort of like insurance I might get when flying to insure my outcome of the procedure? That would be free markets at work.

But then you would have yet another insurance company that you would have to pay for and that could deny you coverage.

After all, having surgery is far more risky than flying.

I'm sure it is but what is the percentage of your patients that you screw up on? I bet you are 99% or more accurate in your profession just like others in your profession,and my profession and I have to carry liability insurance.

Back to your point about the patient getting insurance to cover them against injury...what if they did not purchase the insurance? Who would cover them?

And what about insurance for personal protection for general medical care?
 
Lawsuits are low due to this, if you take all lawsuits filed;not even won; and put it against the money that healthcare costs,it is less than 3%, I did the figures just a month or so ago but Ed Schultz gets facts wrong too.

I heard 1/2 of 1%, he said 1% yesterday and you say 3%. I'm sure we can confirm what the number actually is.

I think it varies so much because it varies from state to state. This report might help, which indicates that malpractices cases are the lowest in years in any event. You can click on the link for the PDF report, dated just two days ago, at the bottom of this blurb.

Major Study of Malpractice Insurance Finds No Basis to Limit Liability of Unsafe Health Care Providers

So these cases have happened less and less frequently over the last few years and healthcare costs have gone up 191% since 2001 and this is what they want to talk about?

Distraction!
 
Probably not much at all but why should I as a consumer be restricted in my rights to file suit yet your not going to reduce rates? I can always go to Target if I'm dissatisfied with Wal Mart but tort restrictions would be restricting me regardless of which Doctor I went to.

So the answer is, it wouldn't effect my costs much,if any?

How much do you think you are entitled to if you end up with a brain tumor when you were treated for a migraine?

$1,000,000? $5,000,000? $10,000,000?

I tell you what, all you people who want restrictions placed on my rights as a consumer can sign this waiver(James Ostrowski thought of it) and then I'll consider tort reform...

"I, Joe T. Reformer, being of sound mind and incapable of suffering or feeling pain, do hereby waive and relinquish forever, any right, claim, or benefit, to monetary damages for pain and suffering of any kind, arising out of a personal injury done to me, and I hereby release any future tortfeasor from such liability, and I consent that this document may be introduced into evidence at any court proceeding brought by me against any tortfeasor. This release applies to personal injury actions of any kind, including but limited to negligence, intentional torts (e.g., rape, assault, battery, live burial), medical malpractice, civil rights, constitutional torts, and defamation."

I personally don't want a bureaucrat or some board deciding how much my eyesight is worth due to a neurologist fucking up when extracting a tumor anymore than I want a bureaucrat involved in my healthcare decisions.:eusa_angel:

Your sample release form ironically reads much like the one you would already be required to sign during admission to any hospital. But it's just a piece of paper, meaningless, if there is solid proof of negligence causing death. Do you think releases like that bother medical malpractice lawyers? Not in the least, so I think you're on safe ground no matter what.
 
But then you would have yet another insurance company that you would have to pay for and that could deny you coverage.

After all, having surgery is far more risky than flying.

I'm sure it is but what is the percentage of your patients that you screw up on? I bet you are 99% or more accurate in your profession just like others in your profession,and my profession and I have to carry liability insurance.

Back to your point about the patient getting insurance to cover them against injury...what if they did not purchase the insurance? Who would cover them?

And what about insurance for personal protection for general medical care?

That's what a trial by jury system is for as well as liability insurance, no plan is perfect "X". I don't trust government any farther than I can throw my pickup, they already directly control or deliver 60% of our healthcare when all governments from local clinics,State Hospitals and Federal is combined,in fact,only 8% of the population even has individual health insurance,the rest is group insurance. Health Savings accounts have been very stable,price wise,it's the HMO's and third party payor system that we need to concentrate on,imho.

Wouldn't you as their Surgeon,be able to REQUIRE that they get this insurance before you operate?
 
Last edited:
I just can't get behind tort control,it goes against my free market beliefs,it shifts the restriction from one sector to another and restricts my right as a consumer of redress of grievances. How about some type of negative outcomes type insurance I could get before surgery ,sort of like insurance I might get when flying to insure my outcome of the procedure? That would be free markets at work.

There's an idiot at your keyboard.:tongue:
If you went into an insurance office telling them you were having...say....an abdominal aneurysm repaired, it'd cost you an absolute fortune for a policy for something like that.

Free market at work stealing from you as usual.
Like my 10 grand a year homeowners policy back when I was stupid enough to live in Floridastan.
Free market at work !:cuckoo:

More than the surgery itself? Perhaps not. Insurance companies actually do nothing but hedge a bet. They lose some, but win a helluva lot more.

In fact, reading all the postings here, there's one thing I think we ALL can agree on. And that is simply that the high cost of medical malpractice insurance is dictated by the INSURANCE COMPANIES, not by trends. Sound familiar?
 
Perfect time for Palin or whoever speaks for Republicans to introduce tort reform.

They can highlight Sen John Edwards (D) channeling the spirit of the young girl in his closing arguments as Exhibit A in how us MedMal has inflated the costs of Health Care in the USA

They can have my fathers Heart doctor testify as well: his specialty is geriatrics and his insurance premiums take 6 months of his work year to pay. I dont know why the guy still practices medicine at all

MediCal was Ronald Reagan's invention. Oops...
 
Perfect time for Palin or whoever speaks for Republicans to introduce tort reform.

They can highlight Sen John Edwards (D) channeling the spirit of the young girl in his closing arguments as Exhibit A in how us MedMal has inflated the costs of Health Care in the USA

They can have my fathers Heart doctor testify as well: his specialty is geriatrics and his insurance premiums take 6 months of his work year to pay. I dont know why the guy still practices medicine at all

MediCal was Ronald Reagan's invention. Oops...

Wow! Can you guys ever, I mean ever get over Reagan!? Thankfully you have Palin to obsess over now.
 
Looks like another Amendment to the Constitution is being targeted;just thought of this one.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
 
Perfect time for Palin or whoever speaks for Republicans to introduce tort reform.

They can highlight Sen John Edwards (D) channeling the spirit of the young girl in his closing arguments as Exhibit A in how us MedMal has inflated the costs of Health Care in the USA

They can have my fathers Heart doctor testify as well: his specialty is geriatrics and his insurance premiums take 6 months of his work year to pay. I dont know why the guy still practices medicine at all

Because he still makes a million dollars?

If Frank's father is paying that much, he either needs brain surgery or his patient accounts are dwindling.
 
Perfect time for Palin or whoever speaks for Republicans to introduce tort reform.

They can highlight Sen John Edwards (D) channeling the spirit of the young girl in his closing arguments as Exhibit A in how us MedMal has inflated the costs of Health Care in the USA

They can have my fathers Heart doctor testify as well: his specialty is geriatrics and his insurance premiums take 6 months of his work year to pay. I dont know why the guy still practices medicine at all

Because he still makes a million dollars?

If Frank's father is paying that much, he either needs brain surgery or his patient accounts are dwindling.

First of all the issue was my father's doctor, not my father. Don't mention him again

Six months for MedMal premiums, 3-4 months for taxes and 1.5 month to pay employees and rent. Yeah, the guy makes $1MM in 2 weeks.
 
No, I don't have anything to contradict your numbers. Nor am I saying you are wrong. Just wondering where you got your info. Nor am I positive I am correct. Just asking.

Why should I trust Ed Schultz?

You and I disagree on whether or not this should be dealt with now.

I am not so sure based on your statement about not having a link that you know for sure that it includes malpractice insurance. Also, basing something on the fact that it is .5% of total healthcare costs nationwide is a fallacious argument. You don't base the cost of something by comparing it to total industry costs. The cost of something is based upon its value. Simply because the healthcare industry may be overcharging their costs does not justify the cost of frivolous lawsuits.

And once again, give me a good reason to trust Ed Schultz?

Immie

You would have to listen to Ed Schultz and decide for yourself if he's honest or a bullshitter like Rush.

Anyways, the Dems are in charge. You guys should have dealt with tort reform when you were in charge. You didn't because this is just a distraction from the real problems. The right is throwing out bullshit and seeing what sticks. Meanwhile, we'll waste a week discussing tort reform, WHICH IS NOT THE PROBLEM WITH HEALTHCARE! Its the for profit insurance companies!!! We know exactly why the costs have skyrocketed and tort reform is not the main issue right now. Yes you want to discuss it because you are against healthcare reform.

Its like the drill baby drill argument. That would have lowered gas prices 2 cents a gallon. Hardly the main problem. But you guys changed the focus on that to whether or not we should be drilling offshore. What a joke. Yea, give the people gouging us even more of our natural resources. :cuckoo:

Tort reform doesn't solve pre existing conditions, denying people coverage and it isn't why healthcare costs went up 191% from 2001 to now.

Show us that lawsuits are why healthcare costs went up 191% since 2001. You can't, because it just isn't true.

Are there any Dems who work in the private sector? I mean is there even one?

Capitalism COMPETES AWAY EXTRAORDINARY RETURNS!

If some insurance company is making 25% on their insurance premiums (DO YOU FUCKING MORONS EVEN KNOW THE MOST BASIC CONCEPTS OF HOW INSURANCE WORKS????) then their competitor will come in and write the policy and a 20% profit, then 15% etc.

Most insurance is underwritten to break even on the premium and the companies make their money on the float.

Do you know what float is?

How the fuck can anyone have a serious discussion with Libruls?

We were doing just find until you jumped into the pool.
 
A 2006 GAO report found that most medical malpractice lawsuits are withdrawn before they get to court, and 80% of the cses with a jury verdict result in no payment for those injured or their families. That would indicate that the majority are indeed frivolous.

The report also indicated that the real reason for health care inflation is costly new technology. Even though doctors claim that lawsuits cause them to do extra tests and practice defensive medicine, tort reform by forcing lower premiums on malpractice insurance wouldn't result in fewer bad doctors or good ones using better medical discipline. Doctors are paid to do more.

Do you by any chance have a link to that?

Question: withdrawn or settled? A settled suit is still paid by the insurance company which simply pass those costs on to the consumer.

I realize that many of the cases that go to jury end up in no payment. One reason so many cases settle out of court is that "victims" know this and plan on settling early.

Unnecessary procedures are a result of frivolous lawsuits and should be factored into the reason for the increase in costs.

I do not believe that the right to sue should be interfered with. However, I think the idea that loser pays is something that should be looked at as that might help to cut down on the snowballing costs of healthcare.

Immie

It could probably be googled. All I was working from was an AARP report that cited the GAO report.
 
Perfect time for Palin or whoever speaks for Republicans to introduce tort reform.

They can highlight Sen John Edwards (D) channeling the spirit of the young girl in his closing arguments as Exhibit A in how us MedMal has inflated the costs of Health Care in the USA

They can have my fathers Heart doctor testify as well: his specialty is geriatrics and his insurance premiums take 6 months of his work year to pay. I dont know why the guy still practices medicine at all

Because he still makes a million dollars?

If Frank's father is paying that much, he either needs brain surgery or his patient accounts are dwindling.

Sorry to change the subject but do you know what kills a lot of small business owners? Rent. If you rent in a strip mall and its a good location, you pay a lot of money.

My buddy owns a UPS Store and he said he spends 3 weeks of money paying bills and the last week of every month is his.

Notice landlords haven't lowered rent during the recession to help out small business owners who are struggling.
 
WRONG! Much of the costs? You mean a small fraction of the costs.

If you think the Dems are just as corrupt, then you don't get it.

ROFLMAO!

Nothing was even worth reading beyond that really.

Come on Sealy, I know you are highly partisan, but that whole post was ridiculous.

So what we are discussing healthcare reform. And quite possibly those corrupt assholes might pass a bill that will DESTROY this country. That doesn't mean they aren't doing it for political reasons. They sure as hell are not doing it for Americans.

Immie
 
Perfect time for Palin or whoever speaks for Republicans to introduce tort reform.

They can highlight Sen John Edwards (D) channeling the spirit of the young girl in his closing arguments as Exhibit A in how us MedMal has inflated the costs of Health Care in the USA

They can have my fathers Heart doctor testify as well: his specialty is geriatrics and his insurance premiums take 6 months of his work year to pay. I dont know why the guy still practices medicine at all

MediCal was Ronald Reagan's invention. Oops...

Wow! Can you guys ever, I mean ever get over Reagan!? Thankfully you have Palin to obsess over now.

I misread MediMAL as MediCAL--so sorry. My bad. I liked Reagan. Voted for him twice for Gov and once for Prez. So there.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top