AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

McGentrix wrote:

As part of the health care reform agenda, tort reform would seem to be a logical inclusion. By itself, it is certainly no magic bullet, but as a part of the whole, it would seem to make sense that it would lower costs.

So, in other words, tort "reform" isn't worth doing except for its possible effects on health care costs.

McGentrix wrote:

So, if we had national tort reform, Dr's would pay less for liability/malpractice insurance. As a part of the whole, that will bring down the cost of health care. By itself, it will do so very little, but combine that with lower drug costs, less expensive medical equipment, government provide training, etc, health care costs will drop more dramatically.

Well, that's rather like saying: "by itself, my lucky rabbit's foot won't get me to the top of Mt. Everest. But if I train extensively, buy the right equipment, and hire the right guides, and I bring along my lucky rabbit's foot, I can get to the top. So it's a good idea to bring along my lucky rabbit's foot." I suppose one could make that argument, but then I doubt a rabbit would.

Start by having trial lawyers receive no more then 5% of the reward given to the patient...

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/09/analysis-of-president-obamas-speech-to-congress-on-healthcare.html
September 10, 2009
Analysis of President Obama’s Speech to Congress on Healthcare
From Tennessee Center for Policy Research

Based on a compilation of independent sources, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has analyzed President Obama’s September 9th speech to a joint session of Congress outlining his new healthcare plan. That analysis is below:

(1) The President Said: “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower"about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.”

(2) The President Said: “There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get health insurance] coverage.”

The Reality Is: As many as 75% of the uninsured could afford coverage, meaning that less than 10 million uninsured Americans may be unable to afford coverage.

(3) The President Said: “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it.”

The Reality Is: While Americans do in fact spend more on healthcare than any other nation, “When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries.”

(4) The President Said: If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

The Reality Is: Many employers will be forced to modify their plans to meet the new government standards and still others will simply drop coverage for their employees, forcing employees to obtain their own coverage or join the government-run plan. The Urban Institute estimates that up to 47 million Americans will lose their current coverage, while the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 114 million Americans’ coverage will be dropped.

(5) The President Said: “[Insurance companies] will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies…”

The Reality Is: Forcing insurance companies to eliminate caps and cover routine treatments will drastically increase health insurance costs and compel insurance companies to skimp on important and necessary treatments. Individuals can purchase coverage for the treatments mentioned, but it should be optional, not compulsory.

(2) The President Said: “There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get health insurance] coverage.”

The Reality Is: As many as 75% of the uninsured could afford coverage, meaning that less than 10 million uninsured Americans may be unable to afford coverage.

(3) The President Said: “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it.”

The Reality Is: While Americans do in fact spend more on healthcare than any other nation, “When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries.”

Sarah Palin's book: Going Rogue: The endearing story of a half-witted American woman, the female counterpart of the dumbest man on the planet (Glenn Beck), aspiring to write an autobiography

(1) The President Said: “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

The Reality Is: “Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower"about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.”

Premiums for employment-based plans are expected to
average about $5,000 per year for single coverage and
about $13,000 per year for family coverage in 2009. Premiums
for policies purchased in the individual insurance
market are, on average, much lower"about one-third
lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family
policies. Those differences largely reflect the fact that policies
purchased in the individual market generally cover a
smaller share of enrollees’ health care costs, which also
encourages enrollees to use fewer services.

McGentrix wrote:

As part of the health care reform agenda, tort reform would seem to be a logical inclusion. By itself, it is certainly no magic bullet, but as a part of the whole, it would seem to make sense that it would lower costs.

So, in other words, tort "reform" isn't worth doing except for its possible effects on health care costs.

Nope. In other words, as part of addressing health care cost reform, tort reform should be addressed as well. As an aside, it will contribute to lower costs.

Start by having trial lawyers receive no more then 5% of the reward given to the patient...

Actually, it would be more like saying: "by itself, a caribiner won't get me to the top of Mt. Everest, but I would sure like having them and it will probably help my ascent and descent." Your rabbits foot is more like Setanta's elephant repellent. A useless metaphor used when actual discussion bores you.

joefromchicago wrote:

So, in other words, tort "reform" isn't worth doing except for its possible effects on health care costs.

I personally think that's a good enough reason.

But if pressed, no I don't think multi-million dollar "I'm sorry for your loss" payouts for doctor mistakes do anything to reduce doctor mistakes, or improve healthcare.

Everytime you libel Sarah Palin here, you portray yourself to be the stupidous contributor to this thread.

I did point out that rates in Texas didn't increase AS MUCH in Texas as they did nationwide. That should be an important part of this discussion. If rates went up 100% nationwide over 10 years and only up 90% in Texas over the same timeline, well we should see if TORT reform had anything to do with it. Shouldn't we?

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

maporsche wrote:

But if pressed, no I don't think multi-million dollar "I'm sorry for your loss" payouts for doctor mistakes do anything to reduce doctor mistakes, or improve healthcare.

Odd that you're so insistent on finding evidence for the effects of tort "reform" on health care costs but so incurious about any evidence regarding the effects of the current tort system on reducing doctor mistakes. Remember, even tort "reform" advocates argue that doctors are performing "defensive medicine" in order to avoid possible malpractice claims. That, in itself, suggests that the tort system is having a direct effect on reducing doctor mistakes -- indeed, a far more direct effect than the hoped-for effect of tort "reform" on health care costs.

Texas continues to have the dubious distinction of leading the nation in the percentage of medically uninsured people, according to census data released Thursday.

About 25.1 percent of Texans lack insurance, up from 24.1 percent, based on two-year averages comparing 2007-08 with 2005-06 census data.

Remember, even tort "reform" advocates argue that doctors are performing "defensive medicine" in order to avoid possible malpractice claims. That, in itself, suggests that the tort system is having a direct effect on reducing doctor mistakes -- indeed, a far more direct effect than the hoped-for effect of tort "reform" on health care costs