- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I agree. This is a ranking of health, not of the health care system. Our health is bad due to decisions we make - we eat a lot of processed foods, we smoke, we eat less fish, we drive a lot and walk less, we have more guns.
They should have thought of that years ago when the employer based system was set up complete with tax breaks for companies that provided it. The Govt. should have taken over then instead but it was "Communism" and the sky would fall so this is what we got stuck with.
How about the ones whose names are on the bottom of the ORIGINAL document.
Sorry, but that's not the way I see it and never will be the way I see it. You know what the Constitution means to me at this point?.... It's a piece of used toilet paper. That's what we've turned it into over the last 150 years. How's that sit with you?
NOBODY has a right to health care. The rich have an easier time affording the privilege of health care but nobody has a right to it.
We have the most expensive system in the advanced world, with some of the worst health outcomes. That's because our for profit pay for service model is totally and completely maladapted for health care -- for well known reasons, the most obvious being lack of price elasticity.
It's time for single payer. End of story. Our rationing of health care by income has failed.
I think it has alot to do qwith the price of mal-practice insurance.
Imaging, in your work, that one mistake can ruin your life, and that is after years and years of school.
Why would you be opposed to better outcomes at lower costs?
No, the facts don't support this claim. Every study made has shown that malpractice insurance/lawsuits adds a de minimus amount to health care inflation, less than 1%.
Morever most malpractice suits are brought against a small group of physicians, who keep causing harm, but who remain in practice because the AMA has trouble policing itself. Something like 5% of doctors are responsible for about 90% of malpractice claims. If the AMA would do a better job weeding out bad doctors, we wouldn't have this problem.
Related Medical Malpractice Statistics•$4 billion dollars paid by insurers for malpractice in the USA 1999 (When Good Doctors Get Sued, 2001)
•Estimated 25% of practicing physicians sued annually (When Good Doctors Get Sued, 2001)
•Estimated 50-65% physicians sued at least once during their career (When Good Doctors Get Sued, 2001)
•Estimated 10-20% of malpractice claims reach trial phase (When Good Doctors Get Sued, 2001)
•Majority of malpractice cases involve misdiagnoses, diagnostic errors or delayed diagnosis (When Good Doctors Get Sued, 2001)
•Medical malpractice payment reports by frequency:
◦86,057 physicians had 1 medical malpractice payment report against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦24,731 physicians had 2 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦8,078 physicians had 3 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦3,340 physicians had 4 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦1,459 physicians had 5 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦746 physicians had 6 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦372 physicians had 7 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦224 physicians had 8 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦142 physicians had 9 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
◦386 physicians had more than 10 medical malpractice payment reports against them in the US 1990-2003 (2003 Annual Report, National Practitioner Data Bank, US DHHS)
Medical liability: By late career, 61% of doctors have been sued
An AMA report on medical liability lawsuits illustrates the need for federal and state reforms, the Association says.
By Carolyne Krupa, amednews staff. Posted Aug. 16, 2010.
Six out of 10 physicians 55 and older have been sued, according to a new American Medical Association study.
More at source
I can think of two answers to your question:
1) we might not believe, in the system you're proposing, that the result will be either better outcome or lower costs.
2) we might not be willing to sacrifice the last shreds of our liberty for even more security.
The answers were posted. Your ability to comprehend and accept those answers are your own issue.
The # of doctors sued is irrelevant. The # of doctors who are successfully sued is
$4 billion dollars paid by insurers for malpractice in the USA 1999
You didn't answer the question
Um... aren't the figures adjusted for population?
Since the AMAs the problem, no serious person uses its statistics on this.
Here read this and report back in, a sadder but wiser man.
Malpractice a Tiny Percentage of Health Care Costs
The CBO has reaffirmed its earlier findings that tort reform does not lower health care costs. In 2008, the agency found that “the effect [of tort limits] would be relatively small— less than 0.5 percent of total health care spending.”- Budget Options Volume 1 Health Care, Congressional Budget Office, December 2008.
Would Tort Reform Lower Costs? - NYTimes.com
But some academics who study the system are less certain. One critic is Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” who believes that making the legal system less receptive to medical malpractice lawsuits will not significantly affect the costs of medical care. He spoke with the freelance writer Anne Underwood.
Q.
A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn’t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?
A.
Because it’s a red herring. It’s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.
Q.
Why not?
A.
As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.
But wait, there's more!
http://www.medmalfacts.com/facts-and-myths/
I can think of two answers to your question:
1) we might not believe, in the system you're proposing, that the result will be either better outcome or lower costs.
2) we might not be willing to sacrifice the last shreds of our liberty for even more security.
Now, try reading the links. Btw, the number of doctors IS listed. And you seem to have missed the very first line:
Okay, you posted a bunch of unsourced nonsense about the amount of doctors affected by malpractice,.
I'm not interested in childish "No, you didn't", "Yes I did" games. Many conservatives do not believe a single payer system of healthcare delivers either or both better outcomes or lower costs. So your transparent and weak attempt at a "when did you stop beating your wife" question was answered. You just can't accept the answers.
I love how conservatives are constantly having to deny statistical and scientific reality to support their delusions.
I'm not conservative.
I'm not conservative.
You are very conservative, or did you mean you don't call yourself conservative?
That's what they all say. Even conservatives realize the term has become a laughingstock.
I'm a pro-life (mild), green (market based and personal), hawk (DemPeaceTheory) libertarian (liberal socially and economically, except as noted). See signature.
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?