55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 10:55 am
@FreeDuck,
I would like to see exactly how they came to their estimate of 2.54 billion in savings to consumers, and the data which shows this to be true - or even a mildly realistic projection.

Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:00 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would like to see exactly how they came to their estimate of 2.54 billion in savings to consumers, and the data which shows this to be true - or even a mildly realistic projection.

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, we could go down that road but I thought it better not to digress. I suspect they are merely taking the economic growth of the late nineties and attributing it to the reforms, but what do i know.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:01 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:

http://www.tafp.org/news/TFP/07No2/1.asp
The 78th Texas Legislature presents: Texas Tort Reform
Relive the fight of the century
It’s been four years since Texas passed tort reform legislation. Did it work? And will there be a rematch?
Story and photos by Kate McCann
...


0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:29 am
@Foxfyre,
I think I'll add a No. 8 to my definition of numbnuts: "Numbnuts rarely make any kind of coherent argument themselves but take great delight in voting down posts with which they disagree."

Consevatives will sometimes vote down a post that is personally insulting directed at a specific person or unacceptably vile or vulgar. You never see a conservative voting down a post purely because they disagree with the content.

Childish Numbnuts often vote down any post with which they disagree. They even sign in their alts or call in the pack to attack a post with which they disagree and vote up the really simpid and hateful posts of their fellows.

It's okay though. I see such behavior as proof positive that serious nerves have been hit. And it beautifully illustrates in a most persuasive way that conservatives are far more mature and open minded than are liberal numbnuts. Smile
________________________________

Okay moving along. Ican, do you really expect the numbnuts to read that article re tort reform you just posted? It excellently defines many factors other than mere costs--the most liberal of the liberals agree that malpractice does affect about 2% of healthcare costs which we have demonstrated is not peanuts--but I wonder if any will be able to concede that those other factors should be part of the debate if we really want to reform our healthcare system?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:51 am
@ehBeth,
c'mon Ican, give it a try - this was for you to respond to

ehBeth wrote:

If you move to a retirement location where the cost of living is less than the cost of living where you worked, are you going to tell Social Security or your pension provider that you need less money now, thanks very much? Or perhaps tell the investment folks that the interest they're offering is simply too much?
Foxfyre
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 12:02 pm
@ehBeth,
This is comparing apples to oranges. People pay into social security and their retirement plans or such are an agreed portion of the compensation package. Because I move to a smaller house, buy a more fuel efficient vehcile, or start shopping at Wal-Mart instead of Dillards, and thus have more cash to choose to invest, spend, save, or give away will affect the market only to the extent of who is getting more or less of my money.

Healthcare premiums will logically be affected by the free market when the freee market is allowed to work. In states where healthcare insurers enjoy a restricted market, there is little or no incentive to reduce healthcare rates. If the costs of doing business for those insurers goes down, they are not likely to altruistically reduce their rates any more than most other businesses are likely to reduce costs if they can maximize profits by keeping their prices higher.

But start adding more competition, and all private businesses, including healthcare insurers, are likely to find ways to reduce prices to attract customers or hang on to their customer base.

I have seen a number of articles stating that healthcare costs have continued to rise in those states that have enacted tort reform and who have attracted more insurers to their states. I have not seen anybody comment on whether healthcare premiums have continued to rise for the same coverage, however, or where the increase in healthcare costs actually are.

I would like to see those numbers.
ehBeth
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 12:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
1. not addressed to you
2. you miss the point

thank you
Foxfyre
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 12:11 pm
@ehBeth,
Sorry, but it is a topic that interests me. My responding certainly does not preclude Ican from doing so.

And I don't miss the point that insurance companies will not reduce their rates nor will healthcare providers reduce their costs without an incentive to do so. Whether I would voluntarily reduce my social security benefits or pension payments simply because I need less to get by is irrelevent.

My point is that private business will generally seek to maximize its profits, but the free market generally does have the effect of arriving at the most sustainable price for any product or service and, when there is healthy competition, that is generally going to be less than the maximum that the business could charge for that product or service.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 01:03 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
If you move to a retirement location where the cost of living is less than the cost of living where you worked, are you going to tell Social Security or your pension provider that you need less money now, thanks very much? Or perhaps tell the investment folks that the interest they're offering is simply too much?

No, because I do not have to compete with anyone to continue receiving my same Social Security pension or my same investment portfolio dividends, merely because I moved to location with a lower cost of living.

However, if more flight instructors moved into my area, the greater competition would require me to reduce my flight instruction hourly fee to a level that will enable me to attract enough additional flight students to maintain my previous net income. If my flight instructor liability insurance premiums were reduced at the same time, I would be able to maintain my previous net income with fewer additional students.

Who knows? Maybe for the same number of students, the total amount of my insurance premium reduction would match the amount of my total fee reduction.
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 01:21 pm
Have any of these jokers provided any evidence that health insurance premiums in Tejas have decreased? No? Somebody send me a PM if that happens . . .
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 01:28 pm
@Setanta,
Have any YOU jokers provided any evidence that health insurance premiums in Tejas have NOT decreased since the Tejas tort reforms of 2003 and 2005?

When the cost of medical insurance in Texas repeatedly increased with repeated increases in the cost of doctor's tort insurance in Texas prior to 2003, why do you anticipate that the cost of medical insurance in Texas will not decrease with a decrease in the cost of doctor's tort insurance in Texas AND A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DOCTORS IN TEXAS?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 01:43 pm
Is Glenn Beck really discussing important issues?

ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 01:58 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

http://www.atra.org/wrap/files.cgi/7964_howworks.html
The Perryman Group. The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas Overall Economic Impact on State's Economy. (August 2000)

Facts to Consider: Benefits to Consumers

It is estimated that reforms enacted in 1995 resulted in savings of $2.542 billion that directly benefits consumers.

$1.796 billion in annual cost savings from reduced inflation ($216 per household)

$7.056 billion in annual total personal growth income ($862 per household)

The net result was a savings of $1,078 per year to the typical Texas household.

Quote:

http://www.tortreform.com/
Working to restore balance to the Texas civil justice system
Texans for Lawsuit Reform is a volunteer-led organization working to restore fairness and balance to our civil justice system through political action; legal, academic, and market research; and grassroots initiatives.

TLR Advocate
81st Legislative Session Review
July 2009
The just-completed 81st Legislative Session is the eighth Session in which TLR has engaged. In some ways, it was our hardest because the trial lawyers, perceiving an opportunity due to changed circumstances in the Legislature, made a broad attack against lawsuit reforms and sound decisions by Texas’ conservative courts. Though we know the trial lawyer attack will continue, we are pleased they were completely unsuccessful in passing legislation this past Session.

Read the July 2009 TLR Advocate

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html
By JOSEPH NIXON
Houston

When Sam Houston was still hanging his hat in Tennessee in the 1830s, it wasn't uncommon for fellow Tennesseans who were packing up and moving south and west to hang a sign on their cabins that read "GTT" " Gone to Texas.

Today obstetricians, surgeons and other doctors might consider reviving the practice. Over the past three years, some 7,000 M.D.s have flooded into Texas, many from Tennessee.


Corbis
Sam Houston.
Why? Two words: Tort reform.

In 2003 and in 2005, Texas enacted a series of reforms to the state's civil justice system. They are stunning in their success. Texas Medical Liability Trust, one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state, has slashed its premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There is also a competitive malpractice insurance industry in Texas, with over 30 companies competing for business. This is driving rates down.

The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.

Now many of the newly arriving doctors are heading to rural or underserved parts of the state. Four new anesthesiologists have headed to Beaumont, for example. Meanwhile, San Antonio has experienced a 52% growth in the number of new doctors.

But if tort reform has been a boon " and it is likely one of the reasons the state's economy has thrived in recent years " it was not easy to enact.

In one particularly grueling fight in the legislature in 2003, an important piece of a reform bill went down to a narrow defeat in the state Senate after a single Republican switched his support to vote against it. Republican Gov. Rick Perry was so incensed that he bolted out of his office in the Capitol, sprinted into the Senate chamber, and vaulted a railing to come face to face with the defecting senator.

That confrontation fizzled, however, and before long Texas succeeded at enacting two simple but effective reforms. One capped medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages at $250,000, changed the burden of proof for claiming injury for emergency room care from simple negligence to "willful and wanton neglect," and required that an independent medical expert file a report in support of the claimant.

This has allowed doctors and hospitals to cut costs and even increase the resources devoted to charity care. Take Christus Health, a nonprofit Catholic health system across the state. Thanks to tort reform, over the past four years Christus saved $100 million that it otherwise would have spent fending off bogus lawsuits or paying higher insurance premiums. Every dollar saved was reinvested in helping poor patients.

The second 2003 reform cleaned up much of the mess surrounding asbestos litigation by creating something called multidistrict litigation (MDL). This took every case in the state involving a common injury or complaint, like silicosis or asbestosis, and consolidated it for pretrial discovery in one court.

One judge now makes all pretrial discovery and evidence rulings, including the validity of expert doctor reports, for all cases. This creates legal consistency and virtually eliminates "venue shopping" " a process by which trial lawyers file briefs in districts that they know will be friendly to frivolous suits. Trials still occur in plaintiffs' home counties.

More change sailed through the legislature in 2005; tort reform had become popular with voters and lobbying against it was ineffectual. The 2005 reform created minimum medical standards to prove an injury in asbestos and silica cases. Now plaintiffs must show diminished lung capacity in addition to an X-ray indicating disease.

In sum, these reforms have worked wonders. There are about 85,000 asbestos plaintiffs in Texas. Under the old system, each would be advancing in the courts. But in the four years since the creation of MDLs, only 300 plaintiffs' cases have been certified ready for trial. And in each case the plaintiff is almost certainly sick with mesothelioma or cancer.

No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness.

In the silica MDL, there are somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 plaintiff cases. In the four years since the cases were consolidated under the MDL, 47 plaintiffs have filed a motion to proceed to trial based on a medical report indicating diminished pulmonary capacity. Of those 47, the court has certified 29 people as having diminished lung capacity. This, too, is less than 1% of all the "silicosis" claims made in Texas. No one has proven the real cause of his illness to be silica, as no case yet has been certified for trial.

Before the asbestos and silica MDLs were created, nonmalignancy plaintiffs settled with defendants for anywhere between $30,000 to $150,000 per case. No one knows how many bogus cases were settled in the state with large cash payments. Lawyers who specialized in defending those cases say there were tens of thousands.

The full costs of large settlements and runaway malpractice suits may never be known. But it is clear that the costs were paid for by consumers through the increased price of goods, by pensioners through diminished stock prices, and by workers through lost jobs. Another group often overlooked is those who are priced out of health care, or who didn't receive charity care because doctors were squeezed by tort lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits hit the uninsured the hardest.

Texas recently became home to more Fortune 500 companies than New York and California. Things are trending well for the Lone Star State. Anecdotally, we can see that while doctors are moving in, trial lawyers are packing up and heading west. They're GTC -- Gone to California.

Mr. Nixon, a former member of the Texas House of Representatives, is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 02:05 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Have any YOU jokers provided any evidence that health insurance premiums in Tejas have NOT decreased since the Tejas tort reforms of 2003 and 2005?

Someone posted an article a while back about Texas health insurance rising by 91% since 2000. And the Texas Comptroller says premiums rose 6.1% in 2007.
Quote:
Cost is the most common reason why people do not purchase health insurance. According to one annual survey of health premiums costs for family coverage rose by an average of 6.1 percent from 2006 to 2007. The average family premium, across all types of health plans, cost $12,106 in 2007. Workers were expected to contribute $3,281 toward that coverage.


But you are the one who claimed it was inevitable that premiums would go down as a result of tort reform, so the burden of proof is on you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 02:08 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Have any YOU jokers provided any evidence that health insurance premiums in Tejas have NOT decreased since the Tejas tort reforms of 2003 and 2005?


You yourself posted an article a little way back, showing that the rates have increased since then. It was the article which claimed that the 2009 increase was going to be a modest 7%, instead of 12-15% in the previous year of 2008. Don't you remember that?

Quote:
When the cost of medical insurance in Texas repeatedly increased with repeated increases in the cost of doctor's tort insurance in Texas prior to 2003, why do you anticipate that the cost of medical insurance in Texas will not decrease with a decrease in the cost of doctor's tort insurance in Texas AND A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DOCTORS IN TEXAS?


Because there is no downward price pressure, Ican. The Health insurance market is neither free nor open, it is not transparent nor accessible to consumers. People cannot effectively make health care decisions based on costs under our current scheme, so the market does not adjust to these factors in the consumer's favor very easily.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 02:09 pm
@ican711nm,
In other words: you still have found no evidence to back up the claims about how tort reform in Texas would bring down health insurance premiums.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 02:22 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Is Glenn Beck really discussing important issues?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdK8OFHT6Jw[/youtube]


You bet he is. As Beck suggested, exchange George Walker Bush's name for Barack Hussein Obama's name in that chant and see what the emotional impact is from your side. In a world in which school children are not allowed to sing simple Christmas carols or keep a Bible in sight on their desk or discuss the pros and cons of Intelligent Design as one theory of how the world has evolved. . . . in a world in which school children are not required to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance if they choose not to, in a world in which children are not taught about what the Founders believed or what the Pilgrims came to the New World to obtain and who cannot pray out loud in public. . . . all this so that the poor children will not be indoctrinated with controversial ideas. . . .

Then in what world should it be acceptable to indoctrinate and train school children to chant adoration to a highly controversial elected public figure?

It is this kind of intolerable double standard that is in the agenda of those tea partiers and the taxpayer protest demonstrators and helps fuel the anger that is steadily building in this country.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 02:29 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
If you move to a retirement location where the cost of living is less than the cost of living where you worked, are you going to tell Social Security or your pension provider that you need less money now, thanks very much? Or perhaps tell the investment folks that the interest they're offering is simply too much?

No, because I do not have to compete with anyone to continue receiving my same Social Security pension or my same investment portfolio dividends, merely because I moved to location with a lower cost of living.


I'm not talking to you about competition.

I am asking you if you would request a decrease in your income because you didn't need as much money any more.



(and actually you are in competition with people who likely need the SS funds more than you do, but that's an ethical point I don't expect you to pick up on)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 02:29 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Have any YOU jokers provided any evidence that health insurance premiums in Tejas have NOT decreased since the Tejas tort reforms of 2003 and 2005?


several posters have.

Perhaps you have them on ignore. If so, you're missing a learning moment.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2009 02:41 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

In other words: you still have found no evidence to back up the claims about how tort reform in Texas would bring down health insurance premiums.


Tort reform by itself probably does not bring down health insurance premiums for the patient. But there has been plenty of evidence posted by Ican and others that tort reform HAS brought down malpractice insurance premiums and the doctors are passing along the savings by upgrading equipment, taking high risk patients they once could not afford to take, and providing better medical care. Many have testified that they are not ordering as many redundant tests as they once did. In other words, tort reform has produced positive benefits in better healthcare for the patients.

Now, couple that with other reforms suggested as necessary to enact real healthcare reform, and it is logical to assume that in addition to making the system itself better, we will also begin to substantially reduce the costs.

Costs are only part of the debate and tort reform must be part of the debate.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 05:05:33