AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
None of your links include the data you claim they do. None of them show that the rates doctors charge for treatment has dropped. Not even a little bit. This is very, very harmful to your case, Ican, that Malpractice reform leads to lower health care prices for consumers; indeed, it only at this time seems to lead to higher profits for doctors and hospitals.

My claim has been and continues to be that tort reform will contribute to lower cost medical health insurance. I am now claiming--based on a very limited informal survey of me and my acquaintances--that it already has in Texas contributed to lower cost medical health insurance.

You haven't presented data to back that claim up. You've presented data showing that malpractice insurance costs have dropped. However, your own links specifically stated that none of the hospitals or doctors interviewed had passed any of those savings along. None of them.

Evidence has been presented in the last two pages showing that health insurance costs in Texas have continued to rise despite the lowering of Tort awards there. I will find that evidence and re-post it for you.

Quote:

I would be very interested in seeing your data that supports your claim that tort reform leads "to higher profits for doctors and hospitals."

Well, ****, Ican. If doctors and hospitals are paying less in medical malpractice insurance, and they are charging the same rates as before, they are making higher profits. Is this really something you have to have explained to you?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
I am now claiming--based on a very limited informal survey of me and my acquaintances--that it already has in Texas contributed to lower cost medical health insurance.

Anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, the actual data from the articles you have linked to from before and after the caps went into effect show the opposite to be true.

We ought to take turns showing how wrong ICan is, or it's just going to lead to more 'dual account' idiocy from our favorite poster Laughing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Let's look at some facts about what the U.S. health care system costs us, and what results we get from it, As we have been telling the conservatives, we pay more, we get less, we live shorter lives, and interestingly enough , mdespite the conservative claims we'd have fewer doctors under single-payer,we already have FEWER doctors per capita than developed nations with single-payer systems (that's the last column in the table--the formatting didn't carry over to a2k, but the captions for each colum are given at the top, just after "A look at how America rates on key health indicators"). Call it socialized medicine if you will, but the experiences of a dozen countries and sixty years show it works better and costs less than the US system. The table, from msnbc today, follows:

from msnbc:

Compare PricesHow the U.S. compares in health care
A look at how America rates on key health indicators
Country Total expenditure on health, % of GDP Total expenditure on health per capita, adjusted (in U.S. dollars) Life expectancy at birth, in years Infant mortality, deaths per 1,000 live births Practicing physicians, density per 1,000 population (head counts)
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health Data, June 2009

United States 16.0 $7,290 78.1 6.7 2.4
France 11.0 $3,601 81.0 3.8 3.4
Switzerland 10.8 $4,417 81.7 4.4 3.9
Germany 10.4 $3,588 79.8 3.8 3.5
Canada 10.1 $3,895 80.7 5.0 2.2
Australia 8.7 $3,137 81.4 4.2 2.8
Italy 8.7 $2,686 81.2 3.7 3.7
United Kingdom 8.4 $2,992 79.1 5.0 2.5
Japan 8.1 $2,581 82.6 2.6 2.1
Mexico 5.9 $823 75.0 15.7 2.0

Congress currently is working on legislation to overhaul health insurance in America. Here's a look at health systems in the U.S. and other countries:

Australia
Universal coverage under a mainly tax-funded health care system

Canada
Universal coverage under a mainly tax-funded health care system, with private supplemental insurance

France
Universal coverage under an employment-based system, with supplemental private insurance, and taxes providing for the unemployed and retirees

Germany
Universal coverage under a mostly employer-employee based payment system, with nonprofit "sickness funds"

Italy
Universal coverage under a mainly tax-funded health care system

Japan
Universal coverage under a mandatory employer-employee based national health insurance system

Mexico
Mixture of private and public systems, with public care subsidized by the government

Switzerland
Universal coverage; consumers must buy coverage from private insurers, with government subsidies

United Kingdom
Universal coverage by tax-funded, government-run health program

United States
Mixture of employer-employee based insurance and government funding (federal government pays for older adults, poor, disabled and veterans

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32897230/ns/health-health_care/?ns=health-health_care

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

0 Replies

@old europe,

Old Europe, you are right that my references did not show that the cost of medical health insurance decreased in Texas since 2004. But my reference did show that the number and costs of tort claims in Texas dropped substantially since 2004.

I think these decreases in the number and costs of tort claims in Texas has led to reductions in the 2005 to 2009 costs of medical health insurance in Texas.

But you want my evidence to show that last statement of mine is true. I claim that is implied by what my references have shown to have happened in Texas since 2004. However, I'm busy collecting specific evidence to further support my claim.

In the meantime, please provide your evidence that my claim is false.

Please do not make the false claim that one cannot prove a negative. For example, it has been proven that the earth IS NOT the center of the universe.

1 Reply

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

... the actual data from the articles you have linked to from before and after the caps went into effect show the opposite to be true.

Please post that "actual data from the articles" I posted that shows "the opposite to be true."

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I have already said that I think the Human Events piece is right on. . . .

Can you be more specific? Why do you think the piece is right on? Can you support or defend any of the statements in the piece?

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't evaluate that closely when I posted the piece.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

old europe wrote:
... the actual data from the articles you have linked to from before and after the caps went into effect show the opposite to be true.

Please post that "actual data from the articles" I posted that shows "the opposite to be true."

OE posted the data from the Dallas newspaper link you put on the last page, ostensibly to show me that medical health insurance costs in Texas have dropped. It specifically stated the opposite of what you claimed.

Here's another article for you, though -

Quote:

Texas health care premium rise outpaces earnings
© 2009 The Associated Press
Sept. 15, 2009, 3:06PM

DALLAS " Family health care premiums rose about 4 1/2 times faster than earnings for Texas workers from 2000 through 2009, according to a report released Tuesday by a consumer advocacy group.

Families USA, a Washington-based liberal nonprofit group, said in its report that family health insurance premiums rose by about 92 percent while median earnings rose by about 20 percent during the 10-year period.

"Rising health care costs threaten the financial well-being of families across the country," Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said in a conference call.

Nationally, family health insurance premiums rose almost five times faster than earnings, said Kim Bailey, a senior health policy analyst for Families USA.

The nonpartisan group says the average annual health insurance premium in the 2000-2009 period for family health coverage provided in the workplace rose from $6,638 to $12,721. At the same time, Texas workers' median earnings rose from about $23,032 to about $27,573.

"If health care reform does not happen soon, more and more families will be priced out of the health coverage they used to take for granted," Pollack said in a news release.

The news release added that between 2000 and 2008, the percentage of companies across the nation offering health coverage declined by 6 percentage points. It also noted that the increases in premiums have continued despite "thinner coverage" " including coverage offering fewer benefits or having higher deductibles.

Other findings from the report on family health coverage include:

_ The employer's portion of annual premiums from 2000 to 2009 rose from $4,879 to $8,599, an increase of about 76 percent.

_ The worker's portion of annual premiums rose from $1,759 to $4,122, or about 134 percent.

The report's findings on individual health coverage include:

_ The employer's portion of annual premiums rose from $2,220 to $3,571, an increase of about 61 percent.

_ The worker's portion of annual premiums rose from $407 to $898, or about 121 percent.

The report is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6620157.html

Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that the price of Health insurance has dropped in Texas due to Tort reforms. Not even a little. In fact, the opposite is true - it has continued to rise at roughly the same pace as the rest of the nation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MJ, There's no doubt our health care system is broken, and it must be reformed.

All the evidence that's "out there" tells us that universal health care works; not only is it cheaper, but they live healtheir and longer lives.

I guess conservatives don't like better health and longer life. They'd rather let the insurance companies make more money, and let the American people suffer.

It's funny how conservatives continue to advocate for smaller taxes for the richest amongst us while more Americans go hungry, lose their jobs and homes, and the federal deficit goes through the roof!

Is there a cure for this in our future?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

My references for the effects of tort reform on the price of medical health insurance are:

(1)
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/

(2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html

(3)

Quote:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-medmal_17bus.ART0.State.Edition2.43983f4.html

...

However, a 2003 study of malpractice premiums in five states by the U.S. General Accounting Office " now the Government Accountability Office " concluded that lawsuit damages were the primary reason for rising premiums.

And Mr. Opelt of Texas Alliance for Patient Access said the academics' research doesn't take into account insurers' legal costs to defend frivolous cases that result in no payouts.

...

Today, 33 companies write malpractice insurance policies in Texas, he said, reflecting healthy competition in a healthy market.

...

Untangling tort reform's winners and losers isn't as simple as it seems.

Before 2003, the state's shortage of specialists meant those here could demand top dollar for their skills. Now, those doctors face added competition for salaries.

"It's great for consumers but may not be so great for doctors," said Dr. Chris Conover, a Duke University health policy professor who has studied the effects of Texas' law.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Christ, this is like having a discussion with a brick wall. You cut-and-paste so selectively from your own links, you don't even realize that they contain evidence perilous to your case.

From YOUR LINK, Ican-

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-medmal_17bus.ART0.State.Edition2.43983f4.html

Quote:

Baylor Health Care System, the area's second-largest system, has seen its malpractice insurance premiums fall an average of 25 percent, said Paul Convery, Baylor's chief medical officer.

But not one of the hospitals or doctors interviewed for this article said they are cutting the prices they charge to patients or health insurers. Instead, they're reinvesting the savings in more and better health care.

For example, Denison-based Texoma Healthcare System, a 263-bed, five-facility system near the Oklahoma border, gave nurses a 17 percent raise, to $21 an hour from $18, chief executive Mackey Watkins said. This was to attract nurses during an ongoing national shortage.

For Texas patients, the cost of personal health care " from hospital stays to prescription drugs " continues to increase, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. From 2003 to 2004, the most recent data available, personal health care costs increased 7 percent, from $98.7 billion to $105.5 billion, the third-largest year-over-year increase since tracking began in 1980. The largest growth in spending occurred between 2000 and 2002.

Personal health care spending jumped from 10.6 percent of the state's gross domestic product in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2004, according to the bureau.

The point is that there is no evidence that lowering Tort awards has lead to a lowering of Healthcare costs for consumers, period. It lowers costs for insurers and hospitals and some doctors, who apparently are happy to suck that right up into profits, instead of lowering costs.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I'm studying the two linked documents. Sunday, I'll cut and paste excerpts from them that I think support either of two points:

First, it's still an open question whether tort limits will or will not lead to lower, or slower increases in, health care insurance premiums.

Second, there is evidence that tort limits do lead to slower increases in healthcare insurance.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1257588/GAO-FINDS-MIXED-IMPACT-OF.html
GAO Finds Mixed Impact on Malpractice Premiums on Health Care

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf
GAO Medical Mal Practice
Implications of Rising Premiums on Access to Health Care

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

All the evidence that's "out there" tells us that universal health care works; not only is it cheaper, but they live healtheir and longer lives.

Then we might all have to learn to be comfortable with foreign accents, since many American doctors plan to retire if National Health comes to fruition. Would you like a little curry with your tea?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

How stupid!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

How stupid!

Perhaps, you do not agree with me?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Have I ever agreed with you on anything?

1 Reply

This is interesting.
The dems are the majority in congress...on the most corrupt members list.

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/

8 of the top 15 are dems.
I thought the dems were all pure as the driven snow, incapable of being corrupt, and had only the best interests of the people in mind.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Have I ever agreed with you on anything?

When I have complimented Asians on their intelligence, I thought you were being modest by not overtly agreeing?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

I don't rate "intelligence" that high on the scale of human endeavors. Many have ended up creating more inhumanity and anguish than people with less "intelligence."

For one, I do not believe that the building of nuclear weapons have done humans any favors.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

how about nuclear power plants?

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know