- Thread starter
- #241
So we need to **** things up for me so the people who are already getting health care but cant afford it can get the health care they still wont be able to afford?
That sounds great.
Obama get very warm welcome to the house
- Thread starter Mr.Fitnah
- Start date
That sounds great.
manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
why not just go get medicade then......that is what it is for.....
- Thread starter
- #243
Medicade cant afford 40 million new user with out tapping insurance and drug companies to foot the bill.
GWV5903
Gold Member
Texas didn't get screwed, and health insurance rates didn't skyrocket, thats pure bull shit, you need to do better research, Texans health insurance premiums are lower than New York, California, Illinois and especially Massachusetts.....do you get your talking points from Axelrod??
The Texas Medical Center is the largest and best in the world, it turns out more doctors than any other institution in the world......
On the other hand lets take for example Massachusetts, they have the highest per capita of physicians, yet they have the highest insurance premiums, and I quote:
"Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the states challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone."
"The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation, showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent."
Oh and their medical malpractice cost is the 2ND highest in the country.......
Or maybe this will sink in......
"The reason the president and congressional Democrats don't address malpractice is clear. In the 2008 election cycle, lawyers gave $233 million to political candidates: 76% went to Democrats and 23% to Republicans. Politicians know better than to bite the hand that feeds them."
"Rather than attempting to expand litigation opportunities, Congress could use health reform legislation to give incentives to states to reduce malpractice costs, while still protecting patients.
Some states, such as Texas, are showing how to get malpractice costs under control. Since the state legislature passed a series of malpractice reforms several years ago, medical malpractice costs have plummeted, and numbers of doctors moving into the state have soared.
"There is a cause and effect here," said Grace-Marie Turner, president of the non-partisan Galen Institute in Washington, D.C. "Premiums with one malpractice insurance company have fallen by more than a third, allowing doctors and hospitals to reduce costs. About 7,000 physicians have moved into Texas over the last four years, and the state has backlogs of applications from other physicians wanting to move."
Congress could give incentives to states to reduce the costs lawyers' fees place on the health system while still protecting patients. "
I will finish with this, the only person who does not acknowledge Tort Reform will have a major impact on cost is either a lawyer or liberal, which one are you???
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
I see you've joined the fool brigade.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
I see you've joined the fool brigade.
Can YOU be any more foolish than "remembering" something that never happened???
See the first quote in my sig.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
Repeating your lie does not make you any less a liar.
I see you've joined the fool brigade.
Can YOU be any more foolish than "remembering" something that never happened???
See the first quote in my sig.
It happened. or what do fools think she was saying about people carrying swastikas?
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
Can YOU be any more foolish than "remembering" something that never happened???
See the first quote in my sig.
It happened. or what do fools think she was saying about people carrying swastikas?
As was explained to you earlier in this very thread, she correctly reported that YOU fools were using Nazi symbols to call health care supporters Nazi Socialists.
In typical CON$ervative fashion consistent with the first quote in my sig, you CON$ smear Americans you hate and then you whine and cry like babies and pretend that you were the ones being VICTIMIZED by a smear.
Last edited:
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
Can YOU be any more foolish than "remembering" something that never happened???
See the first quote in my sig.
It happened. or what do fools think she was saying about people carrying swastikas?
As was explained to you earlier in this very thread, she correctly reported that YOU fools were using Nazi symbols to call health care supporters Nazi Socialists.
In typical CON$ervative fashion consistent with the first quote in my sig, you CON$ smear Americans you hate and then you whine and cry like babies and pretend that you were the ones being VICTIMIZED by a smear.
kinda sounds like pot and kettle to me. crybaby.
rayboyusmc
Senior Member
No you are a dumb ass blind follower. Disagree with his policy, but say he is a light weight is total blind partisan bullshit. He is an excellent speaker who uses the power of words to motivate people. Not you of course because your mind is closed. This ability to speak like this is one of the qualities of great leaders.
Sorry if right now you don't have anyone on the right like this in your little hate group.
He must have cheated in school to graduate as high as he did.
You are a bunch of sore little whiner losers.
He also writes some of the speech unlike your little hero who really couldn't even read that well.
I guess we are in for this empty shit from the right for the next 8 years.
rayboyusmc
Senior Member
You can get on the bus, but not the cats unless they are the hairless type.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
As was explained to you earlier in this very thread, she correctly reported that YOU fools were using Nazi symbols to call health care supporters Nazi Socialists.
In typical CON$ervative fashion consistent with the first quote in my sig, you CON$ smear Americans you hate and then you whine and cry like babies and pretend that you were the ones being VICTIMIZED by a smear.
kinda sounds like pot and kettle to me. crybaby.
Which is why you CON$ make perfect Contrarian Indicators.
*sigh*
That sentence is disturbing on so many levels. First off, the assumption that someone gets "talking points" says far more about how you work than it says anything else. I don't do "talking points." I actually research information. Try it sometime. You may be surprised at what you find.
And yes Texas personal rates did skyrocket.
Second, the states you came up with higher premiums - guess what most have in common, genius. Wait for it...
They passed Tort Reform legislation!
New York, from your example:
Thanks for proving my point for me. That was kind of you. here's further reading for those who may be interested.
http://www.division42.org/MembersArea/IPfiles/Fall05/reprints/tort-reform.php
Health Insurance Premiums Skyrocket - washingtonpost.com
The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs
Malpractice damage caps not a cure for high health care costs | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Jim Landers | Business Columnist | Dallas Morning News
Further reading for you:
Tort `reform' fails to lower insurance rates, consumer group says. - Free Online Library
Chicago Injury Law Blog: Doctors' Malpractice Insurance Rates Rise Even After "Tort Reform"
To address some of your other points:
I have no idea whether that's accurate or not, and I don't really care as it has zero to do with this discussion.
And the insurance companies are padding the pockets of the Republican politicians. Welcome to the world. That's why you need to research these things yourself and not use "talking points." Malpractice accounts for a really small percentage of healthcare costs, and false malpractice suits are even less. It's a "look something shiny" distraction issue. And as noted in the articles above, it doesn't even lower rates when tort reforms are passed. You're being led around by the nose by special interest groups and their lackeys.
Did you not read my earlier? Of the initial states that passed tort reform/caps, none saw the promised malpractice insurance rate decrease except for Texas. However, in Texas, personal insurance rates skyrocketed. See articles posted earlier - or better yet, look it up yourself.
You are welcome to label me however you wish. I've been labeled all sorts of things depending on the issue being discussed. Don't really care about that silliness, personally.
I'm going to assume you're young and know nothing about the tort reform song-and-dance of the 80's. It's been long enough that they're pulling it out again. Research. Learn. Stop being led around by politicians and profitminded businesses. They aren't looking out for you, so learn to look out for yourself. You're getting screwed. We all are. And in this case, ignorance will only be bliss for so long. That bliss ends when you end up actually having to deal with the system.
GWV5903
Gold Member
76% of all states have performed some sort of Tort Reform since '86, your research is skewed at best.....hence health care cost in Texas is no more inflated because of Tort Reform than in any of the other 38 states who have done something similar......
Why did you skip Massachusetts in your rebuttal? Bad research? Or does the Number 1 state in Health Care cost and Number 2 in Malpractice cost blow a hole in your belief that Tort Reform is not needed? Oh, that's right, Massachusetts has mandatory health care, or is it something different than Obama-Care!?!?!
TMC is about growth, I do understand most liberals have an aversion to growth.....
Trial Lawyers contributed $233,912,817 vs $46,832,136 from the Insurance Industry, Trial Lawyers contributed 76% of this to Democrats and 23% to Republicans, Insurance contributed 45% to Democrats and 55% to Republicans in the 2008 campaign cycle, now tell me do you still think your research is good?
Last, but not least, I have been walking on Gods green earth for over five decades, before you assume anything about another person you have no real knowledge of I suggest you realize the first three letters spell ASS........
GWV5903
Gold Member
Oh, one more thing, I love it when someone is stupid enough to paint with the broad brush the evil "profit" word.......profit brings more good to this world than bad, get a different drum to beat......
Because the discussion was about tort reform failing to lower costs. Since Massachusetts doesn't have it, there's no before-and-after comparison. The fact that they have high healthcare costs isn't relevant, as other factors can cause high health care costs. The control group is states that had high costs and employed tort reform in an attempt to control those costs.
First off, my research is just fine, thanks. I gave a sampling; I have neither the time nor the desire to spoon feed people. Frankly, mainly the time. This is an issue I've spent many, many hours looking into, both in recent times and during the primaries.
Second - and more amusingly. If 76% of states (I think your figure is a little off, but whatever, we'll go with it) - if that's that's the case and tort reformed worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, because health care costs would have lowered acceptably in those states and it would be a nonissue.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were simply unaware rather than foolish. I apologize for my error.
To re-emphasize - if tort reform worked and over 2/3 of the states have done it, there would be no problem with health care costs. It doesn't work. It's a shiny distraction, nothing more. Pass all the tort reforms you want; I don't particularly care - but it doesn't solve the problem. As has been shown in just over 30 states - which was mentioned in one of the links I posted unless I missed one, btw.
ATRA Awards Medals for 'Best' and 'Worst' State Civil Justice Legislation
With most state legislatures now adjourned for 2009, ATRA has announced awards for what it deems both the best and worst pieces of civil justice legislation considered by state lawmakers across the country this year.
Champions of a comprehensive tort reform law in Oklahoma get ATRA's first annual "Gold Medal for the Best State Civil Justice Legislation," while the chief sponsor of a trial lawyer-driven expansion of securities liability in New York receives the "'Sheldon Silver' Medal for the Worst State Civil Justice Legislation." The "Silver" medal is named for Manhattan personal injury law firm partner and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. For more details, read ATRA's news release, in which ATRA president Tiger Joyce suggests that "no single state lawmaker in the country has done more to increase the profits of personal injury lawyers at the expense of jobseekers, consumers, taxpayers and health care patients" than Sheldon Silver.
ATRA :: The American Tort Reform Association
Tort Reform is a single factor, like mandate is a single factor. They are in no way insignificant, and it is disingenuous to presume the effects are minute.
insurers with 50 percent or more of their business in malpractice insurance dropped 52.7 percent
from 2000 to 2002, from $4.5 million to $2.1 million, with investment yields dropping from 5.2 percent
to 4.3 percent (23). This drop looks large, and is often cited as a leading reason for increases
in insurance premiums. It is important, however, to remember that investment income is only a
small part of total insurer income (23).
How much do we spend on the malpractice system?
Much has been said in the policy debate about the toll that malpractice litigation
takes on the economy, but hard cost estimates are elusive. To calculate the total costs
of the malpractice system one would need reliable estimates of both the direct and the indirect
costs. The direct costs of malpractice litigation include payments made on claims (from which
plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs are taken), legal costs of defending claims and costs of underwriting
and administering liability insurance. A recent estimate suggests that claims costs amounted
to $4.4 billion in 2001, legal defense costs amounted to $1.4 billion and insurance administration
amounted to $700 million. Thus, total direct costs were probably about $6.5 billion in 2001, or 0.46
percent of total health care spending (2). These and all estimates of the costs of the malpractice
system, however, are back-of-the-envelope calculations; no hard cost figures are available.
Indirect costs arise when the liability system causes physicians to supply more health care
services than they would in the absence of a liability threat. Services that are provided primarily
or solely for the purposes of protecting physicians against malpractice liability, rather than the
medical benefit of the patient, are referred to as defensive medicine. True defensive-medicine
costs are properly counted as indirect costs of the malpractice system, but the costs of additional
appropriate (i.e., medically indicated) services should not be included in that estimate.
There are no reliable estimates of the national costs of defensive medicine. Many
analysts have attempted to estimate these costs; all have failed to do so reliably. All of the available
measurement methodologies have serious shortcomings (10, 18). For example, some national
estimates are based on the incremental cost increases associated with just two or three medical
procedures or diagnoses. It is simply not possible to extrapolate so widely to other procedures,
because some are more amenable to defensive medical practice than others. The Office of Technology
Assessment conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence about defensive medicine
costs in 1994 and concluded that none of available estimates were reliable (32). Much additional
research has been conducted since then, but the conclusion remains the same.
Malpractice litigation costs and total health care spending are related, but not
precisely. Because the cost of medical care for injured patients is a large component of malpractice
awards, we should expect awards to rise along with increases in health care spending.
Indeed, both average paid claims and per-capita health spending grew 52 percent in real terms
from 1991 and 2003 (14 and spending data from Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services).
Malpractice awards also include other components, however, such as non-economic damages,
so we should not expect them to precisely track health care spending.
What is a medical malpractice “crisis”?
Stakeholder groups disagree about whether the current environment should be
labeled a “crisis,” but there is general agreement that malpractice insurance has
become less affordable and available. A malpractice crisis is a period of volatility in the
medical professional liability insurance market in which deterioration in insurance carriers’ financial
| RESEARCH SYNTHESIS REPORT NO. 8 | THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION | Understanding medical malpractice insurance: A primer
How much do we spend on the malpractice system?
ratios is followed by higher-than-historical increases in insurance premiums and/or decreased
supply of insurance. The use of the word “crisis” is controversial because of the severity and
urgency it connotes, but the term is widely used in the academic scholarship as well as policy
debates. Further details about the current crisis period and previous crises are provided below.
When evaluating whether a state is experiencing a medical malpractice crisis, one should look at
both absolute levels of premiums (Figure 2) and the amount of change from year to year. It is also
important to juxtapose these costs with how generously providers are reimbursed in the state, as
reimbursement affects providers’ ability to meet rising insurance costs.
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/synthesis/reports_and_briefs/pdf/no10_primer.pdf
With most state legislatures now adjourned for 2009, ATRA has announced awards for what it deems both the best and worst pieces of civil justice legislation considered by state lawmakers across the country this year.
Champions of a comprehensive tort reform law in Oklahoma get ATRA's first annual "Gold Medal for the Best State Civil Justice Legislation," while the chief sponsor of a trial lawyer-driven expansion of securities liability in New York receives the "'Sheldon Silver' Medal for the Worst State Civil Justice Legislation." The "Silver" medal is named for Manhattan personal injury law firm partner and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. For more details, read ATRA's news release, in which ATRA president Tiger Joyce suggests that "no single state lawmaker in the country has done more to increase the profits of personal injury lawyers at the expense of jobseekers, consumers, taxpayers and health care patients" than Sheldon Silver.
ATRA :: The American Tort Reform Association
Tort Reform is a single factor, like mandate is a single factor. They are in no way insignificant, and it is disingenuous to presume the effects are minute.
insurers with 50 percent or more of their business in malpractice insurance dropped 52.7 percent
from 2000 to 2002, from $4.5 million to $2.1 million, with investment yields dropping from 5.2 percent
to 4.3 percent (23). This drop looks large, and is often cited as a leading reason for increases
in insurance premiums. It is important, however, to remember that investment income is only a
small part of total insurer income (23).
How much do we spend on the malpractice system?
Much has been said in the policy debate about the toll that malpractice litigation
takes on the economy, but hard cost estimates are elusive. To calculate the total costs
of the malpractice system one would need reliable estimates of both the direct and the indirect
costs. The direct costs of malpractice litigation include payments made on claims (from which
plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs are taken), legal costs of defending claims and costs of underwriting
and administering liability insurance. A recent estimate suggests that claims costs amounted
to $4.4 billion in 2001, legal defense costs amounted to $1.4 billion and insurance administration
amounted to $700 million. Thus, total direct costs were probably about $6.5 billion in 2001, or 0.46
percent of total health care spending (2). These and all estimates of the costs of the malpractice
system, however, are back-of-the-envelope calculations; no hard cost figures are available.
Indirect costs arise when the liability system causes physicians to supply more health care
services than they would in the absence of a liability threat. Services that are provided primarily
or solely for the purposes of protecting physicians against malpractice liability, rather than the
medical benefit of the patient, are referred to as defensive medicine. True defensive-medicine
costs are properly counted as indirect costs of the malpractice system, but the costs of additional
appropriate (i.e., medically indicated) services should not be included in that estimate.
There are no reliable estimates of the national costs of defensive medicine. Many
analysts have attempted to estimate these costs; all have failed to do so reliably. All of the available
measurement methodologies have serious shortcomings (10, 18). For example, some national
estimates are based on the incremental cost increases associated with just two or three medical
procedures or diagnoses. It is simply not possible to extrapolate so widely to other procedures,
because some are more amenable to defensive medical practice than others. The Office of Technology
Assessment conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence about defensive medicine
costs in 1994 and concluded that none of available estimates were reliable (32). Much additional
research has been conducted since then, but the conclusion remains the same.
Malpractice litigation costs and total health care spending are related, but not
precisely. Because the cost of medical care for injured patients is a large component of malpractice
awards, we should expect awards to rise along with increases in health care spending.
Indeed, both average paid claims and per-capita health spending grew 52 percent in real terms
from 1991 and 2003 (14 and spending data from Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services).
Malpractice awards also include other components, however, such as non-economic damages,
so we should not expect them to precisely track health care spending.
What is a medical malpractice “crisis”?
Stakeholder groups disagree about whether the current environment should be
labeled a “crisis,” but there is general agreement that malpractice insurance has
become less affordable and available. A malpractice crisis is a period of volatility in the
medical professional liability insurance market in which deterioration in insurance carriers’ financial
| RESEARCH SYNTHESIS REPORT NO. 8 | THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION | Understanding medical malpractice insurance: A primer
How much do we spend on the malpractice system?
ratios is followed by higher-than-historical increases in insurance premiums and/or decreased
supply of insurance. The use of the word “crisis” is controversial because of the severity and
urgency it connotes, but the term is widely used in the academic scholarship as well as policy
debates. Further details about the current crisis period and previous crises are provided below.
When evaluating whether a state is experiencing a medical malpractice crisis, one should look at
both absolute levels of premiums (Figure 2) and the amount of change from year to year. It is also
important to juxtapose these costs with how generously providers are reimbursed in the state, as
reimbursement affects providers’ ability to meet rising insurance costs.
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/synthesis/reports_and_briefs/pdf/no10_primer.pdf
Last edited:
GWV5903
Gold Member
GWV5903
Gold Member
You conveniently skipped how the Trial Lawyers out spent the Insurance Industry buy 80% and they put 76% of that money into your beloved Democrats......
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
Woman in U.K. sentenced to 17 years because she killed man raping her. The 2nd Amendment.- Started by 2aguy
- Replies: 17
