IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I didn't go over Map's grammar with a fine tooth comb, but I haven't noticed anything wrong with it, POM. Besides, what would his grammar have to do with his arguments on health care/tort reform?

LOL.. I would hazard more tests are run to line the pockets of the people running those tests than are run for "defensive" purposes.

Very possible. I would think that a family doctor who just has his own office (doesn't own the MRI machine for example) wouldn't have this 'motivation'.

I can only go by what doctors say though; there aren't a whole lot of statistics out there. Other countries seem to run far fewer tests than we do though. I wonder what their equivalent tort laws look like. Maybe Walter or someone with some first hand anecdotal knowledge can report on their views (I won't base all my opinions on anecdotal information, so don't worry).

Isn't there some language in the HC bill that says that a general practitioner cannot own a radiology lab (or at least can't refer his patients to that particular lab). If not, I wish there were.

maP, I'm not opposed to tort reform, it's just that Republicans are focussed on that as the be-all and end-all to contain costs, and many seem to say that's the only thing we need to change about the system. It won't contain costs, and it's probably the least important change needed. Go to it, if you want to, but put the major efforts on the important stuff.

It would have been a helpful tool to get some Republicans to vote for this bill, and maybe this could have been over with a year ago. Or at least have given them a chance to vote for it.

I do think it will help contain costs; not cause them to decrease, just not to increase as quickly.

parados is right that tests are a major scam to line the pockets of the people involved in them. The actual risk of a malpractice suit has been estimated as less than 1 in 1000, and that very small risk is what the insurance is for anyway, so we have doctors' skewed impression of risk involved here--further, when you probe why doctors actually do those tests, rather than just looking at the answer checked on some multiple choice questionnaire, you find that medical peer culture, where other doctors ridicule them as doing inadequate medicine if they don't order every conceivable test is a significant factor, as well as patient pressure--people come in essentially demanding particular tests for their problem, and as one doctor said, it's easier to spend five minutes and order the test rather than spending a half hour trying to convince them that they don't really need the test when they don't. "Defensive medicine" just isn't the simple thing superficialists think it is.

A personal note on tests, health care costs, and the uninsured. About ten years ago, I had no health insurance (I'd checked at one point, and single person non-group insurance was MUCH more expensive than group--like employer-provided--insurance, and there was no way I could pay for it at that time. I hoped nothing major would go wrong.

I slipped on some black ice, and landed flat on my back in a parking lot, and was in a fair amount of pain, so I went to a well-regarded local hospital's emergency room. They x-rayed me and discovered I had fractured a thoracic vertebra. But there was no treatment needed for it, other than some pain pills. They wanted me to have an MRI done. The doctor thought it would cost "a couple hundred dollars". I called the hospital's MRI unit. They said fifteen hundred dollars. The kicker was, even if I got the MRI there would still be no treatment indicated other than pain pills. I didn't have an MRI done.The Boston Globe a couple years later ran an investigative series about hospitals shifting costs to the uninsured because of of the lower payments negotiated by insurance companies. They said that at the time, if I remember correctly, MRIs ran around 500-700 dollars. And that uninsured people got billed more than the insured for the same procedures. (I paid for the treatment out of my own pocket).

Was that fair medicine, or "defensive medicine", or just plain idiotic? Damned straight the system needs reform.

So your claim is that defensive medicine does not exist?

Nope, that's not my claim., but it's way overstated, there are other significant factors too that cause a large portion of it, and to a large extent it's not based on a rational assessment of risk

The Massachusetts Medical Society( not likely to be a right-wing group did not agree that medical "defensive" medicine was not a large factor in medical costs.

See http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?

That the same Mass Medical Society that, on the page you cite, applauds the passage of the health care bill, and notes that the AMA supports it? That Mass Medical Society?

Your cite doesn't seem to have the study on it (good work, Massagat), however I googled it a few days ago, and if I remember correctly, the figure of around $220 billion was cited, which seems like a lot (and is) until you realize that the total healthcare bill was $2.3 trillion in 2008 (and continues to grow far faster than inflation). So "defensive medicine is less than 10%.However, the risk of actually getting sued for malpractice is generally agreed to be less than 1 in 1000, and that's what malpractice insurance is for anyway (and malpractice insurance and malpractice awards are less than 1% of healthcare costs). To the extent that "defensive medicine" is a response to torts (and there are other causes for it often mentioned by doctors, like peer pressure from other doctors and patient pressure) then, it's not a fully rational assessment of the actual risk, and would seem to require some headwork on doctors, more than tort reform.

Yes, that Society--Read the article. You will find the quote I listed in it!

Which article? There are a couple dozen titles on the page, none of which seemed at first glance relevant.

Try this one:

The High Cost of Medical Malpractice
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

The next time you visit your doctor, scrutinize the bill carefully. What it won't tell you is that about ten cents of every dollar paid for health care goes to the malpractice insurance doctors must have to protect themselves in case patients sue them.

Malpractice premiums cost doctors tens of thousands of dollars a year, not because an individual doctor has a history of making mistakes, but because in some states juries make excessively generous awards, knowing that insurance companies will pay.

Medical specialties with the highest premiums include obstetrics and anesthesiology. Insurance premiums for some doctors in high-cost states can reach $200,000 per year, whereas premiums in low-cost states are closer to $20,000 annually. Resolving a suit takes at least three years, distracting physicians' efforts from the practice of medicine.

______________________________________________________
But as usual, there are other factors to be considered. We can't let people suffer without recompense can't we, especially since the trial lawyers take one third of the take in a suit and since the trail lawyers were among the biggest contributors to Barack Hussein Obama's campaign.

The practice you describe of charging the uninsured double or more for procedures came out of loss accounting. The hospital's assumption from the git-go was that the uninsured would not pay, so charge double to have yourself a nice business write-off and, if by some miracle the uninsured does pay, a nice profit.

Joe(everybody, except the patient, wins.)Nation

Diana Furchtgott-Roth needs to get her facts straight before she starts writing, Massagott. She's off by over a thousand percent. The combined cost of malpractice suits and malpractice insurance is LESS THAN ONE PERCENT (actually a good deal under one percent)of health care costs, not ten percent. Doesn't look like she's gonna get any journalism awards this year. Maybe whoever it was she wrote that for should hire some new fact-checkers.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/07/23/102434.htm

There are two errors . . . the more serious being the use of "was" when s/he meant "were."

Hey, maporsche dished it out but pouts when someone corrects her/him. That's a person who liberally exercises the double standard.

Read the entire article but reread the second paragraph which contains the most important information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html?th&emc=th

So, you are trying to simply pick a fight? What childish behavior; and a complete waste of my time.

I'll add again, that I did NOT insult anyone.