IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

One would think even a casual perusal of Medical Malpractice Insurance rates would suffice. The most rudimentary understanding of risk/reward ratios should eliminate the need for more specific correlation.

To exasperate the problem even further; many jurisdictions have already went ahead and instituted Tort Reform (like your home state, for instance)(that coincidentally used to be a high premium state and is now on the low end of the spectrum). This means Doctors who get picked on the most, like OBGYN's, can avoid exorbitant Insurance premiums by relocating to a jurisdiction with more favorable laws. This results in a shortage of qualified health care providers and especially specialists in area's that have not yet instituted reform. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, as always, the poorer communities are the first to go without.

This is the peril of arguing from assertion: it is not compelling.

Quote:

This is the peril of arguing from assertion: it is not compelling.

That statement wipes out about 99% of the arguments I have seen on A2K.

At least.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

One would think even a casual perusal of Medical Malpractice Insurance rates would suffice. The most rudimentary understanding of risk/reward ratios should eliminate the need for more specific correlation.

That's almost sufficient, but we still need to make a correlation between high malpractice insurance rates and frivolous lawsuits and unreasonable awards.

Obviously it can't Bill but what you say does suggest that the money has a high priority.

It's only "dirty paper" if the ones who have it think it is. When they spend it it is a clean as any other paper.

FreeDuck wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

One would think even a casual perusal of Medical Malpractice Insurance rates would suffice. The most rudimentary understanding of risk/reward ratios should eliminate the need for more specific correlation.

That's almost sufficient, but we still need to make a correlation between high malpractice insurance rates and frivolous lawsuits and unreasonable awards.

No, we don't. It's enough to accept that higher expepenses equate to higher costs.

As for your straw creation that I ever claimed Malpractice suits "are driving health care costs", go ahead and torch that beast, because I made no such claim.

Are they a contributing factor? Of course... and only a fool would think he needs proof of such a thing.

Side note: If you believe the big cash cow insurance companies are basically parasites (and on that I would be inclined to agree with you where they aren’t really necessary… like in Health Care… where a single payer would be perfectly capable of self insuring, thereby eliminating the need for the parasitical middleman), how can you not consider the immense waste in litigation with the same level of disdain? Wiki indicates that 52% of all awards+ settlements go into the pockets of law firms. Now regardless of whether that percentage is accurate; it is a TREMENDOUS amount of money. Much of which, would be much better spent on providing health care. No?

Imagine yourself as a managing partner in a law firm (You’re a bright guy, and could get there if you wanted to.)

OCCOM BILL wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

One would think even a casual perusal of Medical Malpractice Insurance rates would suffice. The most rudimentary understanding of risk/reward ratios should eliminate the need for more specific correlation.

That's almost sufficient, but we still need to make a correlation between high malpractice insurance rates and frivolous lawsuits and unreasonable awards.

No, we don't. It's enough to accept that higher expenses equate to higher costs.

No, not really. It doesn't necessarily follow that higher prices are a result of higher costs. There is obviously more involved than that. Moreover, if the costs are high because of legitimate malpractice claims and awards, the solution is not to eliminate them. The solution is to reduce the malpractice. Otherwise you're just limiting patient rights so that insurance companies and doctors can continue to profit, which I don't think is the outcome we're aiming for.

And no one is suggesting we limit economic loss-based awards in any way, shape, or form. Tort reform is about limiting the non-economic awards. If $250,000 won't make you feel better about your loss, that's just tough luck. There should indeed be a limit on how much other people should have to pay to make you feel better. This is wholly independent from actual damages, which can still run well into the millions and are unaffected by Tort Reform. As I explained to Cyclo above, a non-economic award of $50,000,000 costs a hell of a lot more than $50,000,000. The prospect of such, opens the doors to 200 times more litigation, because the break-even point allows for 200 times more losses, while providing the same simple risk/reward margin.

But it is NOT that simple. The exposure to such incredible risk also provides that it is mathematically logical to settle cases at significantly higher settlement amounts (and/or significantly weaker, less merited cases) than they would otherwise merit. This leverage means the insurance company's break even point on a case that's has a 1 in a 1,000 chance of reaching such a plateau is worth $50,000 ($5,000 at 10,000 to 1 and so on). At $50,000 for a break-even over-under, I'd wager most lawyers are interested in taking this weak ass case, if only for a shot at a quick settlement. Now cap it at $250,000... A 1,000 to 1--> lousy case is worth $250... not enough to get a lawyer to show up for the initial appearance. Cases with higher degrees of merit remain compelling, because the relative odds against winning drop as the degree of merit increases.

The result? Many, if not most frivolous lawsuits aren't pursued because the formula no longer makes them profitable pursue. Settlement offers drop to levels mandated by actual, not feel-good damages. All of this happens not just because the GIANT award is no longer possible, but also because the possibility is no longer there to give attorney's massive leverage, with weaker cases. Really... this cannot be hard to understand to anyone who gives it a legitimate try.

You don't seem to care about real dollars and real values when we're talking about how to pay for healthcare. All I seem to get are vague responses, with ideas, but no $$ values.

. I consistently have maintained here that Tort reform would lead to no significant savings on health care costs, and no evidence has been introduced showing that it would.

The amount paid out is a minuscule fraction of our overall costs; even if it were cut to zero, health care costs would still be rising. It wouldn't even make a dent.

About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers’ group America’s Health Insurance Plans...The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation’s health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."

You don't seem to care about real dollars and real values when we're talking about how to pay for healthcare. All I seem to get are vague responses, with ideas, but no $$ values.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

. I consistently have maintained here that Tort reform would lead to no significant savings on health care costs, and no evidence has been introduced showing that it would.

Where is your evidence for your assertion?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The amount paid out is a minuscule fraction of our overall costs; even if it were cut to zero, health care costs would still be rising. It wouldn't even make a dent.

Again, where is your evidence?

Look up medical malpractice on Wiki and you'll find this;

Quote:

About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers’ group America’s Health Insurance Plans...The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation’s health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."

A 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office also pegged medical malpractice costs at 2 percent of U.S. health spending and “even significant reductions” would do little to reduce the growth of health-care expenses.

Medical malpractice is “not a major driver” of spending trends in recent years, Indianapolis-based WellPoint, the largest U.S. insurer by enrollment, said in May 27 report. The report cited advances in medical technology, increasing regulation and rising obesity as more significant reasons for rising costs.

Malpractice is “a big issue for doctors but whether it’s a big issue for the American health-care system is another question,” Laszewski, the consultant, said in a telephone interview. “There are studies that indicate that medical malpractice reform would not have a huge impact on costs, but that is not what doctors think.”

In fact, medical malpractice claims constitute one-fifth of one percent of annual health care costs in the country, according to the report.

Ignorance is not a sufficient excuse to demand that others do your basic research.

Look up medical malpractice on Wiki and you'll find this;

Quote:

About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers’ group America’s Health Insurance Plans...The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation’s health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."

Nobody is demanding that you do 'their' basic research, George. You need to do your own basic research. You haven't bothered, probably b/c you have been reflexively arguing from assertion for years, and nobody has given you a hard time about it. This has lead to a string of weak arguments from you on this thread.