Republic Now!
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 2,671
- Reaction score
- 1,075
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Think it is due to two things. Some posters seem to do this as some type of job, not sure if they get paid or are just hyper partisans. Then there are some who have been here for a while, their arguments have been debunked and now they are left with personal attacks as their sole defense. Would appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Youre kidding. No I mean really, you have to be joking with that stance.Tort reform - A minor issue. In any case, this *was* offered as a bargaining chip to get Republicans on board. Obama said many times that he was willing to play ball on tort reform. No dice.
In recent studies, more than 90 percent of physicians reported practicing positive defensive medicine in the past 12 months; unnecessary imaging tests accounted for 43 percent of these actions. More than 92 percent of surgeons reported ordering unnecessary tests to protect themselves.
Another study found a direct relationship between higher malpractice awards and malpractice premiums and Medicare spending, especially with imaging services. The increased spending, however, had no measurable effects on mortality.
In a recent Gallup survey, physicians attributed 34 percent of overall healthcare costs to defensive medicine and 21 percent of their practice to be defensive in nature. Specifically, they estimated that 35 percent of diagnostic tests, 29 percent of lab tests, 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits.
Liability reform has been estimated to result in anywhere from a 5 percent to a 34 percent reduction in medical expenditures by reducing defensive medicine practices, with estimates of savings from $54 billion to $650 billion.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center researchers estimate that U.S. orthopaedic surgeons create approximately $2 billion per year in unnecessary health care costs associated with orthopaedic care due to the practice of defensive medicine. Defensive medicine adds billions to healthcare costs | Healthcare Finance News
ATLANTA -- Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine to be between 26 and 34 percent of total annual healthcare costs, according to a recent report by Jackson Healthcare. At an estimated $2.5 trillion in annual spending, this means $650-850 billion is spent each year on medical orders intended to avoid lawsuits rather than treat patients.
The cost of ‘defensive’ medicine – tests, procedures, referrals, hospitalizations, or prescriptions ordered by physicians fearful of lawsuits – is huge and widespread, according to a study by the Massachusetts Medical Society and UConn Health Center researcher Robert Aseltine Jr.
The study is based on a survey – believed to be the first of its kind – that was completed by more than 900 physicians in Massachusetts. It asked about their use of seven tests and procedures: plain film X-rays, CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasounds, laboratory testing, specialty referrals and consultations, and hospital admissions.
About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons.
Such practices were estimated to cost a minimum of $1.4 billion per year in Massachusetts.
As Republican Rep. Dave Camp correctly pointed out, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that limiting malpractice liability would "reduce the federal deficit by more than $50 billion." More precisely, that’s $54 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO. But CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted the savings would "reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009)."
Kandahar and liberals in this thread, do you really think its just insurance companies adding to the cost of health care?
No one seemed to reply to this post
and it seems to highlight that malpractice avoidance is contributing a hefty percentage to health care costs.
FactCheck.org : Summit Extras: Medical Malpractice
I favor tort reform, but it is not going to have a huge impact.
It's less than 2% of our health care costs. That isn't nothing, but there are much bigger problems to worry about.
No one can know for sure what the cost of defensive medicine is. I would be shocked if the figure above or $5 billion a year in a system of $2.7 trillion is accurate. Is there something that you have that breaks this into categories. For example the cost of medical insurance premiums, what percent of tests are done for defensive purposes, the cost of taking doctors out of hospitals because they have to appear in court, the cost of lawyers hired by hospitals, the amount of money paid out to settle claims. Just a list while typing so I am sure I am missing many other things.
I understand that trial lawyers are a key donor base for the democratic party, but do really believe that health care spends only $ 5 billion in this area???
No one can know for sure what the cost of defensive medicine is. I would be shocked if the figure above or $5 billion a year in a system of $2.7 trillion is accurate. Is there something that you have that breaks this into categories. For example the cost of medical insurance premiums, what percent of tests are done for defensive purposes, the cost of taking doctors out of hospitals because they have to appear in court, the cost of lawyers hired by hospitals, the amount of money paid out to settle claims. Just a list while typing so I am sure I am missing many other things.
I understand that trial lawyers are a key donor base for the democratic party, but do really believe that health care spends only $ 5 billion in this area???
So if no one can know, why are you making assumptions? Why throw out the studies done on the subject then continue to act like it is a big cost saver?
I think you are missing the point. Defensive medicine to avoid suit is driving a good percentage of health care costs. If tort reform were enacted that would allow insurance costs to drop by placing ceilings on lawsuits, they will curb costs by requiring fewer tests.
There are hidden costs, not just lawsuit savings that will take some cost out of the system. Tort reform is a common sense solution to curb costs. But, we unfortunately have more than a few lawyers in Congress that are lobbied pretty heavily. Tort reform as a legislative goal will be a long haul.
Can you please provide specific and detailed sources to back up your claim that "Republicans Hate Health Care"?
Thank you
A pretty good sign is their attack on the insurance mandate which they themselves created as an alternative to UHC, wouldn't you say?
Most states already have some sort of tort reform.
Tort Reform Since 1986 - By State
It's benefited Doctors and insurance companies, has done nothing for the consumer.
The reconciliation process could probably be used to get rid of the mandate, yes. But it would not be sufficient to repeal the entire law.
Most states already have some sort of tort reform.
Tort Reform Since 1986 - By State
It's benefited Doctors and insurance companies, has done nothing for the consumer.
A pretty good sign is their attack on the insurance mandate which they themselves created as an alternative to UHC, wouldn't you say?
It was sufficient to pass it but not repeal it?
:roll:
The sequence of events was like this:
December 24, 2009 - The Senate passes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on a vote of 60-39. PPACA contains all of the major provisions we now associate with "Obamacare" (e.g. individual mandate, Medicaid expansion, ban on preexisting conditions, end of lifetime maximums, health insurance exchanges, subsidies and taxes, Independent Payment Advisory Board, ban on rescission, restrictions on price discrimination).
January 19, 2010 - Scott Brown is elected to the Senate.
February 4, 2010 - Scott Brown takes office, reducing the number of Democratic senators to 59.
March 21, 2010 - PPACA passes the House of Representatives, as-is, on a vote of 219-212, and heads to the White House to be signed into law.
March 21, 2010 - The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA) passes the House of Representatives on a vote of 220-211. This bill made some tweaks to the dollar amounts and timetables in PPACA.
March 23, 2010 - President Obama signs PPACA into law.
March 25, 2010 - A slightly modified version of HCERA passes the Senate under budget reconciliation rules, by a vote of 56-43.
March 25, 2010 - The modified version of HCERA passes the House, by a vote of 220-207.
March 30, 2010 - President Obama signs HCERA into law.
Obama lied - pure and simple. For all the Dems out there a question . . . . . . who said: "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" How many times was GB the elder bashed with that comment?
The Repubs have every right to bash President Obama and the rest of the Dems with this lie IMO.
With all of the talk of the wonders of PPACA law(s) and how ACCESS will be improved (i.e. 30 million will be added to the rolls of the "insured") nobody has explained HOW that could possibly reduce costs, the stated GOAL of the law. Everyone seems to agree that medical care insurance is simply a FOR PROFIT third party in the "system" that gives no care at all, yet does add costs (the ACCEPTABLE limits on these costs are stated in PPACA as 20%). All discussion seems to be about "fairness", "compassion" and "insurance", while NO talk of the REAL cost of U.S. medical care (1/6 of our economy) is EVER mentioned. Hmm....
See below. Very little of the law was passed using reconciliation...just a few minor tweaks. PPACA, which has the meat of the law, passed with 60 votes in the Senate.
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?