- Joined
- May 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,250
- Reaction score
- 763
- Location
- Los Angels, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I can’t see anything in the Health Care bill that is going to bring the cost down. Hospitals cost control lack in efficiency because the services rendered to the sick are pay by others. There is a great probability that if reduce rate on malpractice insurance and additional tort reform were carried out in exchange for doctors and hospitals implementing cost effective measures, the cost of Health Care could be brought down.Medical Care Facts and Fables
RealClearPolitics - Medical Care Facts and Fables
By Thomas Sowell
There is so much political spin, and so many numbers games being played, when it comes to medical care, that we have to go back to square one and the simplest common sense, in order to get some rational idea of what government-run medical care means. In particular, we need to examine the claim that the government can "bring down the cost of medical care."
The most basic fact is that it is cheaper to remain sick than to get medical treatment. What is cheapest of all is to die instead of getting life-saving medications and treatment, which can be very expensive.
Despite these facts, most of us tend to take a somewhat more parochial view of the situation when it is we ourselves who are sick or who face a potentially fatal illness. But what if that decision is taken out of your hands under ObamaCare and is being made for you by a bureaucrat in Washington?
We won't know what that leads to until the time comes. As Nancy Pelosi said, we will find out what is in the bill after it has passed. But even now, after ObamaCare has been passed, not many people want to read its 2,400 pages. Even if you did, you would still not know what it would be like in practice, after more than 150 boards and commissions issue their specific regulations.
Those who believe that insurance companies are bad, wait until the Government, as a huge HMO, take over the Health care, and “bring down the cost of medical care,” at the expense of letting people die since it is cheaper. Just wait until that time comes, and as Nancy Pelosi said, we will find out.People may not like it because they're only hearing the negative aspects of reform measures (taxes and the so-called "insurance mandate"), but if the Dems did a better job of explaining to the public "what's in it for them" and how this legislation can help (at least in the long-term) reduce the overall cost of health care, I think people would be able to embrace it more.
First off, I would like to bring reader's attention to this article from the NY Book Review entitled, "Health Care: The Disquieting Truth" by Arnold Relmanthat dated September 30, 2010. The article discusses the inefficiency and cost effectiveness of our nation's health care system as it stands today.
I can’t see anything in the Health Care bill that is going to bring the cost down. Hospitals cost control lack in efficiency because the services rendered to the sick are pay by others. There is a great probability that if reduce rate on malpractice insurance and additional tort reform were carried out in exchange for doctors and hospitals implementing cost effective measures, the cost of Health Care could be brought down.
Malpractice certainly is an important issue. A malpractice tort system is necessary, not only to compensate victims, but to maintain some sort of financial deterrent to the incidence of malpractice. Regardless of who wins, the average time between injury and resolution of the claim is five years. During this waiting period, the victim is without economic support.The part I bolded in your post, although repeated ad nauseum, is misleading. Malpractice premiums and lawsuits are a tiny percentage of the costs of doing medical business:
Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.(3)
Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice
High medical costs are because of medicare, the Flexner Report, governments legislating in favor of non-profits over profitable hospitals, etc. In the end it can all be blamed on government. People were fine with the system we had before the dawn of the 20th century.
A big portion of the argument for UHC comes from the uninsured number, but the number throw out there is a lie, a greatly, greatly exaggerated lie. See here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/health-care/82160-lets-talk-uninsured-number.html
People were considered “insured” if they were covered by any type of health insurance for part or all of the previous calendar year. They were considered “uninsured” if they were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
Saying that people were fine with the system we had before the dawn of the 20th century is like saying that people were fine with the system of tribalism before we developed cities and networks of roads to build up civilization and the knowledge and learning that developed from city-states.
We do need health care reform. How it comes about, I could care less as long as it is effective. Some of things I'd want are the following:
1) No denial of coverage despite pre-existing conditions
2) Breaking health insurance away from employer coverage
3) Universal health care for children, the elderly, and the mentally ill
4) Penalties for health insurance companies to drop long-term customers, or to raise premiums foor long-term customers
There's way too much likelihood for health insurance companies to be run as a scam. That's why customers don't trust private health insurance companies. If they don't want there to be a public option, then they need to start running their business to better suit consumers.
The problem with using yourself as a reference is that when you are wrong it is compounded when repeated.
The count normally quoted of uninsured is from the census, but has nothing to do with the under count of Medicaid enrollments as you state.
From the pdf linked, the section on uninsured begins on page 20.
Malpractice certainly is an important issue. A malpractice tort system is necessary, not only to compensate victims, but to maintain some sort of financial deterrent to the incidence of malpractice. Regardless of who wins, the average time between injury and resolution of the claim is five years. During this waiting period, the victim is without economic support.
A recent survey of doctors published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 93 percent of physicians admit to practicing defensive medicine. Beside the waist in cost, defensive medicine wastes patients' and doctors' time.
The 800,000 physicians in active practice in the U.S. pay, on average, premiums of $27,500 per year for malpractice coverage [1]. This amounts to $19.25 billion per year.
The cost of medically unnecessary, but legally warranted, defensive medicine takes up to 20% to 25% [2]. of the total national health care spending. Based on the 25% figure $550 billion is squandered annually in defensive medicine decisions. Because of defensive medicine, doctor’s productivity is negatively impacted. Much of the physician’s and nurse’s time is spent entering voluminous notes into the chart, which have zero or little practical relevance to the patient’s care. Administrative costs for U.S. physicians are nearly 27% of gross income. Unless trial lawyers are removed from the equation, there will never be any significant reduction in health-care costs.
[1] “Accounting for the Cost of Health Care in the United States.” McKinsey Global Institute. January 2007. Link: McKinsey & Company - Synthesis - Accounting for the cost of health care in the United States - January 2007
[2] “The Elusive Prescription for Health Care We Can Afford.” Wall Street Journal. Feb 4, 2008. Link: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120209669119840029.html
Trial lawyers are very important if you have been wronged. They can't be removed from the system. It's myopic to think so. If I or someone in my family is wronged by an incompetent doctor I am going to sue him. So would you, and anybody else who is normal. There is no way we shouldn't have that right, and no arbitrary limit should be placed on damages.
Malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone's insurance premiums. A third of the proceeds go to the pockets of trial lawyers. Cap on damages will help the Medical profession to manger the risk.Trial lawyers are very important if you have been wronged. They can't be removed from the system. It's myopic to think so. If I or someone in my family is wronged by an incompetent doctor I am going to sue him. So would you, and anybody else who is normal. There is no way we shouldn't have that right, and no arbitrary limit should be placed on damages.
You haven't provided proof that the census overcounts the number of people uninsured.phattonez said:Exactly, the census overcounts the number of people uninsured, and of course UHC propoents use that number.
Just wondering if you ever made a mistake at work. My sense is that like just about everyone you did. Should people who used the incorrect information be able to sue you. In the world you mention above all non-perfect people should be sued without limit.
You haven't provided proof that the census overcounts the number of people uninsured.
The Heritage Foundation - and you by extension - claim that the census count of uninsured is unreliable because of the undercount of Medicaid enrollees (comparing actual Medicaid enrollees to census report of enrollees). They have nothing to do with one another as far as a census count goes.
This is nothing but an assumption, without proof, by the HF.
In fact the HF says:
"The inaccuracy of the census count of the uninsured may be due, in part, to its undercount of Medicaid enrollments.'
There is nothing to connect the two.
There could quite possibly be MORE uninsured than reported. If the census undercounted Medicaid enrollees, why would it not be plausable for the census to undercount the uninsured?
You make big assumptions. What I'm saying is I should be able to sue a doctor for malpractice if he harms me. Also, I should not be limited by an amount that some disinterested party favors.
Let's say your wife or mother is undergoing an appendectomy. The surgeon, who is late for his son's graduation, is in a big hurry and nicks an artery, causing hemmorhage and profound brain damage. How much money should you be able to recover by suing this doctor?
I've made plenty of mistakes. None of them threatened any other person's life or health. If one of them did, sure I would be open to lawsuit. That's as it should be.
You make big assumptions. What I'm saying is I should be able to sue a doctor for malpractice if he harms me. Also, I should not be limited by an amount that some disinterested party favors.
Let's say your wife or mother is undergoing an appendectomy. The surgeon, who is late for his son's graduation, is in a big hurry and nicks an artery, causing hemmorhage and profound brain damage. How much money should you be able to recover by suing this doctor?
Now you are making the assumption that most lawsuits are based on gross negligence by a doctor. Actually many lawsuits are simply that there was an undersired outcome.
If the only cases allowed to go to trial are such as the one you outline then there should be damages. What about if the doctor did not committ malpractice but the patient dies or has a bad result. Do you really think 12 people off the street can tell the difference.
You should be, but punitive damages gives you more than justice. It also punishes the other party. I have nothing but disdain for the rewarding of punitive damages. You can sue all you want, but I want punitive damages to be done away with.
Not an assumption, just a scenario.
As far as just an undesired outcome, or whether or not there was malpractice, that's what the courts are for. There has to be evidence presented and a decision made. I'll trust a jury for that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?