• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Medical Care Facts and Fables

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Done away with, for a doctor who does deliberate harm? Why?

In medical malpractice cases, punitive damages are unusual, are only permitted by some states, and are generally awarded only when there has been proof that the harm was the result of an act that was reprehensible, which usually means that there was actual intent to cause harm or that there was reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Those states that permit punitive damages in medical malpractice cases often limit the amount of damages that can be awarded, and many states set standards of proof that are higher than are needed for ordinary damages.


Medical Malpractice Insurance and Punitive Damages - Physician Entrepreneur

Just because they are relatively rare and capped does not mean that they are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Perhaps you know the facts. Most cases do not go to trial. largely because the cost of lawyers fees etc. are so high it is easier for companies to settle.

Also to think that most juries can figure out the science involved in a medical malpractice case is almost laughable.

We have a system, Judge, Jury, that's the way it is. I guess nobody can be trusted to be as smart as you, but there is a system in place and its the one we use, whether we are elitist or not.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Just because they are relatively rare and capped does not mean that they are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

The thread is Medical Care Facts and Fables, and judging by the costs of malpractice cases its truly a fable that they are a significant part of rising medical costs.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The thread is Medical Care Facts and Fables, and judging by the costs of malpractice cases its truly a fable that they are a significant part of rising medical costs.

You haven't shown their cost. You've just said that they're relatively rare and capped. You haven't stated that they are a negligible part of the total malpractice cost.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Medical malpractice cost $6.3 billion in 2002. Furthermore, you have the cost of defensive medicine (unnecessary tests because of the threat of medical malpractice). The cost of defensive measurement can't be measured, as far as I can tell. How do you separate that which was necessary and that which was only because of a threat of malpractice?
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
482
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The American system provide healthcare to those citizens unable to pay for it. Hospitals are "required by federal law" to treat patients regardless of whether they pay or not, passing those costs on to those who do pay. Its needs to be done fairly and in a efficient way. The goal should be to scale down the number of people who need a handout from the Government. This can be done by implementing a healthcare plan of action based on an economic policy creating new opportunities for advancement as well as principles of individual freedom in lieu of “redistributing the wealth” from the rich to the poor through tax laws and monetary policies, like the actual Government is intended in doing.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
phattonez said:
How is it not proof? If the census reports less than the number of actual medicaid enrollees, then how is it not undercounting the number of enrollees? Just tell me any other explanation.
Because we're not talking about Medicaid enrollees.

Remember your statement?

phattonez said:
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:
As your proof of that statement you linked to Heritage, that stated the Medicaid undercount.


We're talking about you saying the census count of the uninsured is a "lie" based on the undercount of Medicaid enrollees. You haven't shown any relevance of one to the other.

I have no idea why the census Medicaid count is under, nor do I care. It could be the way the question was worded, Who knows? Either way, it's not relevant to the census count of the number of uninsured, as you claim.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Medical malpractice cost $6.3 billion in 2002. Furthermore, you have the cost of defensive medicine (unnecessary tests because of the threat of medical malpractice). The cost of defensive measurement can't be measured, as far as I can tell. How do you separate that which was necessary and that which was only because of a threat of malpractice?

I'll put it this way. Anybody honestly arguing which programs to cut in this country to reduce the debt must talk about entitlements and military spending. Talking about detail like earmarks is a waste of time.

With medical care costs, malpractice is a tiny percentage. Its dishonest to imply otherwise.

Defensive medicine appears to be a larger cost, but like you say, which tests are cya and which would be ordered anyway? I've seen estimates on some of the sites linked to on this thread, but don't know how accurate they are. That's an area to pursue, but the last thing to do in any case is to limit the rights of Americans to sue.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Because we're not talking about Medicaid enrollees.

Remember your statement?

As your proof of that statement you linked to Heritage, that stated the Medicaid undercount.


We're talking about you saying the census count of the uninsured is a "lie" based on the undercount of Medicaid enrollees. You haven't shown any relevance of one to the other.

I have no idea why the census Medicaid count is under, nor do I care. It could be the way the question was worded, Who knows? Either way, it's not relevant to the census count of the number of uninsured, as you claim.

Wow. What is the number of uninsured? You take those the population and subtract those who say they have insurance. If about 20 million people are saying that they don't have insurance when Medicaid says that they are insured, it's a big difference.

In case you're interested, that's a difference of 6.7% of the total population. When people are saying that about 16.6% of the population has no insurance, then you can bet that it is a large difference. In fact, the number is being exaggerated by about 67% when you correct the discrepancy.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'll put it this way. Anybody honestly arguing which programs to cut in this country to reduce the debt must talk about entitlements and military spending. Talking about detail like earmarks is a waste of time.

I wasn't talking about it in reference to the national debt. I was talking about it in reference to cost of healthcare. I realize that entitlements are a large part of the debt, but we're not talking about the debt in this thread.

With medical care costs, malpractice is a tiny percentage. Its dishonest to imply otherwise.

You've offered a site that implies it, but not one that proves it.

Defensive medicine appears to be a larger cost, but like you say, which tests are cya and which would be ordered anyway? I've seen estimates on some of the sites linked to on this thread, but don't know how accurate they are. That's an area to pursue, but the last thing to do in any case is to limit the rights of Americans to sue.

It doesn't seem to me like you should sue if you didn't get a CAT scan when you went to the hospital because of a headache (unless it was abnormally painful).
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I wasn't talking about it in reference to the national debt. I was talking about it in reference to cost of healthcare. I realize that entitlements are a large part of the debt, but we're not talking about the debt in this thread.



You've offered a site that implies it, but not one that proves it.



It doesn't seem to me like you should sue if you didn't get a CAT scan when you went to the hospital because of a headache (unless it was abnormally painful).

The national debt point was only an analogy. I was saying we should worry about the significant costs, not the minor ones.

One thing about the headache scenario you give, if a headache is bad enough that you go to a hospital, you better get a CT.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The national debt point was only an analogy. I was saying we should worry about the significant costs, not the minor ones.

And you haven't proven that it's not significant.

One thing about the headache scenario you give, if a headache is bad enough that you go to a hospital, you better get a CT.

Even if the guy has a history of hypochondriasis?
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And you haven't proven that it's not significant.



Even if the guy has a history of hypochondriasis?

I can't give you a better source than the CBO. Did you read the source material? You should read it. The numbers are there.

And, yes, if a person checks himself into a hospital because of a headache he should definitely have a CT (and/or other relevant tests). Even though you altered the question, the answer's the same.

If a person has a headache bad enough for a hospital visit, they need to be checked out thoroughly.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I can't give you a better source than the CBO. Did you read the source material? You should read it. The numbers are there.

Why don't you point it out to me directly, I don't want to go digging in your material.

And, yes, if a person checks himself into a hospital because of a headache he should definitely have a CT (and/or other relevant tests). Even though you altered the question, the answer's the same.

If a person has a headache bad enough for a hospital visit, they need to be checked out thoroughly.

But if it's a hypochondriac then surely this isn't their first time to come into the hospital for a headache. You're telling me that the guy should get a CT scan every time? You think that insurance has to pay for that?
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
phattonez said:
If about 20 million people are saying that they don't have insurance when Medicaid says that they are insured, it's a big difference.
I believe this is where you're getting off the mark. This is showing that there is a discrepancy of 20 million in whether someone has Medicaid or not, NOT whether they have any insurance or not. You haven't proven correlation between the two, only speculation.





Here's an article that perhaps explains what I'm trying to say a little better.

Cumulative evidence shows that a small percentage of Medicaid enrollees mistakenly report being uninsured, resulting in modest upward bias in estimates of uninsurance. A somewhat larger percentage of enrollees report having some other type of coverage than no coverage, biasing Medicaid enrollment estimates downward but not biasing estimates of uninsurance significantly upward.

The Medicaid Undercount and Bias to Estimates of Uninsurance: New Estimates and Existing Evidence | State Health Access Data Assistance Center

pdf of the study

http://www.shadac.org/files/shadac/publications/HCFO_undercount_brief_Sept08.pdf
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,830
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
We have a system, Judge, Jury, that's the way it is. I guess nobody can be trusted to be as smart as you, but there is a system in place and its the one we use, whether we are elitist or not.

Fair point that most people are not as smart as me. But that is not the issue. The issue is frivalous lawsuits and runaway juries. I would less of a problem with an arbrtration system set up by experts in both medicine and economics who could fairly figure out if there truely was malpractice and if so what the fair value of compensation would be.

It is not elitist to admit that most people know little about finance. If that was not the case we would not be having all of these foreclosures and so many people on food stamps. But that is not the issue. What the issue should be for progressives is to insure that ALL people are treated fairly.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I believe this is where you're getting off the mark. This is showing that there is a discrepancy of 20 million in whether someone has Medicaid or not, NOT whether they have any insurance or not. You haven't proven correlation between the two, only speculation.

If you have Medicaid, is that the same as having no insurance? You have coverage do you not? Trying to make some kind of distinction between insurance and Medicaid is just being disingenuous and you know it.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
See post #8.

Other than that, we are going nowhere on this issue.

Because the only measured direct costs in the lawsuits, not the indirect cost of unnecessary defensive medicine.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
washunut1059039933 said:
Fair ;point that most people are not as smart as me.

You're not as smart as you think, you forgot to put in a smiley face after that statement.

washunut1059039933 said:
But that is not the issue. The issue is frivalous lawsuits and runaway juries. I would less of a problem with an arbrtration system set up by experts in both medicine and economics who could fairly figure out if there truely was malpractice and if so what the fair value of compensation would be.

It is not elitist to admit that most people know little about finance. If that was not the case we would not be having all of these foreclosures and so many people on food stamps. But that is not the issue. What the issue should be for progressives is to insure that ALL people are treated fairly.

The issue to you may be a 'runaway' system, but if malpractice amounts to less than 2% of costs, you're exaggerating greatly.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The issue to you may be a 'runaway' system, but if malpractice amounts to less than 2% of costs, you're exaggerating greatly.

Why do you keep conveniently ignoring the cost of defensive medicine?
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
phattonez said:
Trying to make some kind of distinction between insurance and Medicaid is just being disingenuous and you know it.
There is a distinction between being insured/uninsured vs. enrolled in Medicaid/not enrolled in Medicaid. That's the whole point. The University of Minnesota study showed how.

Your whole argument is that the census uninsured figure is erroneous (or in your own words - "a lie, a greatly, greatly exaggerated lie") based on the count discrepancy of Medicaid enrollees.

Again, your original assertion:
phattonez said:
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:

You have shown no correlation to support your accusations.

I have provided a University of Minnesota study that refutes your speculation.

Anyway, I can see that your going to steadfastly cling to your unsupportive view, however the information is there for all to see and makeup their own mind.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why do you keep conveniently ignoring the cost of defensive medicine?

I posted facts and links regarding malpractice and proved my point about malpractice, that its great costs are a complete myth, per the thread title. What is your point about defensive medicine? It adds to medical costs, but how much? Make your point.
 
Top Bottom