AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

And if it did have an effect, it would be accurate to say that TORT reform helped to drive down premiums.

There is no evidence that health insurance premiums went down in Texas, and that directly from the source which Ican cited and linked.

Apparently, after asking me why it would not reduce health insurance premiums, and my having responded in detail, one of several things happened. Most likely, you simply didn't bother to read that.

I say that out of a charitable impulse....

In simplistic terms, health insurance premiums are governed by the negotiated fee schedules between the insurer and the service provider, and have absolutely nothing to do with the costs the service provider incurs. The insurers set their highest acceptable negotiated fee (which they hope to dramatically undercut) based on their actuarial tables (which tell them who is most likely to get sick, how sick they are likely to get, and what things cost in the region for which they are negotiating) and their own company's payment histories.

But more important than any of this, there is a little lesson in basic capitalism which i am surprised and dismayed to learn must be given you, just as it was given to Ican. However, i have more confidence that you will understand, that it will sink in with you. When a supplier's costs rise, he or she is very likely to pass on the cost to the customer, so long as competition isn't too cut-throat. When costs drop, the supplier is likely just to pocket the difference. This is capitalist bottom line 101 stuff here. If you really expect people to pass on their savings to you when there is no market pressure to do so, i suggest a little concrete experiment for you, and i'll clean up the language. Why don't you spit in one hand, and wish in the other, and see which one fills up first.

And anyway, that wasn't the claim made. The claim was that tort reform would decrease health insurance premiums.

I am not agreeing with you because I believe the writer was comparing tactics or strategies to capture the minds and allegiance of children and not the proponents of such strategies.

FreeDuck wrote:

And anyway, that wasn't the claim made. The claim was that tort reform would decrease health insurance premiums.

And if I were as interested as arguing and proving a point to ican as all of you seem to be then I might care about that; as it stands, I'm interested in learning more about TORT reform and IF there is a benefit to considering it, and how much that benefit might be.

I don't give a flying **** what ican says; and I wish you wouldn't interpret my posts as somehow defending his or supporting his often insane positions.

Here is a good discussion I think--I don't know anything about the source or the author, and I didn't read all of it, but what I read does seem to parallel what I have been formally taught re 20th Century World History. Perhaps it is available in German also?
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/tnmfobe1196.html

For the intellectually honest, the best way to dispute a comparison between Hitler and Obama while comparing strategies used in Nazi Germany and modern America is to explain that you are comparing strategies and not national leaders.

FreeDuck wrote:

And anyway, that wasn't the claim made. The claim was that tort reform would decrease health insurance premiums.

And if I were as interested as arguing and proving a point to ican as all of you seem to be then I might care about that; as it stands, I'm interested in learning more about TORT reform and IF there is a benefit to considering it, and how much that benefit might be.

I don't give a flying **** what ican says; and I wish you wouldn't interpret my posts as somehow defending his or supporting his often insane positions.

Of course the fact that Ican restated his position and effectively backed off that doesn't matter one whit to people who are determined to beat any point into the ground that they think 'gets' somebody.

The simple facts are that the insurance premiums in Texas did not benefit from tort reform.

Annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, Amitabh Chandra, another Harvard University economist, recently told Bloomberg News. Chandra estimated the cost of jury awards at about $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion. Insurer WellPoint Inc. has also said that liability awards are not what’s driving premiums.

Health insurance premiums rose 91.6 percent in Texas

By Mary Ann Roser | Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 12:48 PM

A national report that was released today says family health insurance premiums in Texas increased 91.6 percent since 2000 " 4.6 times faster than earnings.

The report by the nonprofit consumer organization Families USA says the rise in health care premiums for workers went from $6,638 for the average Texas family to $12,721 a year, but folks often got less for their money rather than more, according to the report. At the same time, median earnings of Texas workers rose from $23,032 to $27,573, a 19.7 percent increase.

“Our conclusion is that rising health care costs threaten the financial well-being of families across the country,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

The report argues throughout for health care reform, and as Pollack said, if it doesn’t happen soon, more families will be priced out of the market.

In a report last year, Families USA said health insurance premiums grew 5.8 times faster than earnings in Texas. This year, however, the growth rate in Texas is below the national rate in which premiums grew 4.9 times faster than income between 2000 and 2009.

Even so, Pollack said he doubted “anyone in the state will be delighted” by the results this year.

The report cited four key reasons why premiums have risen so quickly:

* Increased spending on health care. The report says that nearly half of Americans have chronic conditions, with diabetes alone costing more than $174 billion annually.
* Lack of regulation of the insurance industry. Insurance companies can charge more, plus refuse coverage to people based on a variety of factors, including dropping or denying people because of illness, the report says.
* A lack of competition in the insurance market. The report says in some areas, too many companies have merged, leaving consumers with too little choice. The report claims health care reform will provide more options.
* The “hidden health tax,” in which people with insurance help cover the uninsured. Last year, the portion that insurance companies charged families in insurance premiums to cover people who did not have insurance was $1,017.

Pollack said he believes insured people would pay less to cover uninsured people under health care reform.

According to your link, individual's share of insurance went up over 100%. Where's the savings for the consumer from tort reform?