Maybe our biggest health care cost problem is a lack of tort reform.

[dkf]

Why are we against it again?

[RC]

1. Because it is a non problem?

You know a distraction from the real problem of the GREED! of the useless, parasitic, middlemen health insurance companies that kill their customers for profit.

[nosmokes]

2. I'm assuming you forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

[supernova]

3. Are you fucking serious?

On this board no less?

[CreekDog]

42. note the posting history

[defendandprotect]

71. Just as an aside ....

how do you check all of someone's prior posts on DU ... ?

Is there a way to do that?

[Morning Dew]

129. +1

[Bluebear]

126. She is totally serious.

[mrcheerful]

4. Because doctors getting sued only cost something like 1% of the total package

and the fact that when medical persons do bad work they should be sued as well as tort reform wants to limit how much an eye or limb is worth in damage to the victim.

[avaistheone1]

6. True. That is why it is a non-issue.

[dkf]

40. But what is the cost of excessive testing due to the threat of being sued?

Shouldn't that be the true cost and not just the cost of the lawsuits?

[MadHound]

75. Why do you think over testing is due to the threat of being sued?

Sorry, but most overtesting is done because it makes the doctors and insurance industry lots and lots o' money.

[dkf]

96. I don't know any doctors who own a share of labs. Does yours?

I've been going to doctors who belong to clinics that are attached to hospitals. Do standalone docs really do this?

[mrcheerful]

124. Yes they really do own or are paid by labs to over test

In fact the doctor I see charges $25 if you go to any other lab for blood work then the one she sends you to.

[dkf]

148. Aren't you suspicious of that?

Or are you happier if you get more tests than you ought to be?

[StevesRedLens]

158. Insurance Conpanies = Suspicion

I am suspicious of ANY proposal that benefits INSURANCE companies PERIOD! Be they health insurance companies or companies providing malpractice insurance. They are all alike.

[AngryAmish]

160. Who do you think owns those clinics?

Usually the doctors. The name on the sign does not mean the hospitals own the clinics. And even if the cliics are non-profit, that does not mean the doctors don't make a killing out of those clinics. (inflated salaries, etc)

[MilesColtrane]

125. So tort reform should reign in excessive testing, yes?

Actually, no.

Since the state of Texas enacted strict liability limits in 2003 the cost of diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare
reimbursements) grew 50 percent faster than the national average.

And, the spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare
reimbursements) far exceeded the national average.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Medical_Malpractice_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Tort reform is championed by Republicans simply to shield their business patrons' bottom line.

I don't know why you're promoting it.

[Enthusiast]

140. Thank you for the information.

That blows a big hole right through her argument.

[ileus]

151. Providers order billions in tests to keep from getting sued.

They'll order one of everything and two of some things just to have it on record. The last thing a provider or hospital wants is to lose money in court, so we all get to pay the higher price for every encounter. Tort reform isn't just about limiting the lawsuit winnings for actual cases.

[PDJane]

5. Because tort reform isn't the issue.

People who get large settlements will have to pay out of pocket for their medical bills for the rest of their lives. That's a lot of money.

The best solution, all around, is to pay for a single-payer system, which makes the cash grants smaller, because you don't have to pay out of pocket for medical care.

Second, torte reform is NOT going to decrease anything but the cash advanced to people who will have to spend it on medical care, because they won't be able to get insurance. It will not lessen the cost of health care; it may make it easier for your doctor, but it won't make in dents in the for-profit insurance industry.

[The Magistrate]

7. Do You Ever Tire Of Trotting Out Republican Platform Planks, Ma'am

[pinboy3niner]

12. +100

:toast:

[hobbit709]

15. + Another 100

[neverforget]

24. All the time +100000

[Hell Hath No Fury]

25. Never, apparently.

Snap to you, Sir! :applause:

[Warren Stupidity]

26. drive by trolling

how unusual

[dkf]

36. What is the downside of just trying it?

After all isnt it something unique to the US?

[The Magistrate]

37. It Is A Red Herring, Ma'am

States have capped malpractice pay-outs, without the slightest decrease in health care costs resulting.

The costs of malpractice insurance are largely the result of business decisions by insurance companies; the outcry concerning the cost of malpractice premiums tracks uncannily with the rise and fall of investment returns enjoyed by insurance companies.

The reason there is little difficulty with suits in the rest of the industrialized world is that there is no need to gain a pilw of money to finance care after a medical error, since the national system provides the care in course of its normal operation.

The true driver of medical costs here is insurance company profits, and the costs of running the companies, most of which is a dwad loss, and in fact operates to reduce the quality of care while increasing its cost.

[dkf]

38. Are you saying there is no cost for defensive medicine?

Why do we test so much more than other countries then? Isn't that really where a lot of our extra costs are?

[jberryhill]

53. In fact, national healthcare reduces litigation costs in ALL industries

You know those stories about how "schools can't build playgrounds" and all the other stuff that gets blamed on lawsuits?

As the Magistrate clearly explained to you, most of the suits are seeking the cost of further necessary medical care.

What tort law, as a system, does is to allocate the costs of risks.

A LOT of even medical malpractice suits are really battles between insurance companies. If I have health insurance, and you injure me through malpractice, then what happens is that my health insurance won't pay my future claims, because they will say that the malpractice insurance is the primary for claims arising from the malpractice. They will force a suit in which you and I are only proxies for our respective insurers.

"Unnecessary tests" are only the ones which turn up negative.

[The Magistrate]

58. Most Extra Tests, Ma'am, Owe To 'Fee For Service' Payment, Where Doctors Have An Interest in The Lab

[dkf]

63. Well maybe insurance companies need to ban these relationships as a conflict of interest.

It doesn't make sense that they would support these practices. Why doesn't Congess ban Medicare and medicaid from paying for this too?

[The Magistrate]

66. Are Suggesting Banning Doctors From Engaging In Entrepreneurship, Ma'am?

Why, ikt sounds like you are suggesting government regulation, even socialized medicine....

[dkf]

80. Hell yeah I support socialized medicine.

I think reining in the medical profession with lawsuits is stupid. It needs to be more direct than that. I can't believe this is the avenue liberals want to use...the free market contained by the justice system. Give me a break. The government pays for most of our healthcare anyway whethr through Medicare, Medicaid, benefits to employees, research, drugs, grants to universities, the VA, clinics, tax exemptions for employees health care plans and on and on and on.

[The Magistrate]

86. Then Stop Trotting Out Republican Platform Planks, Ma'am, And Support It

Under the system at present, the only way people injured by a doctor's error or negligence can hope to cope with the consequences is by a law-suit for money damages, and arguing against such suits, and just pay-outs from suits which win, is simply defending insurance company profits, and screwing over the injured twice.

[dkf]

90. If they don't drive costs up for other people who then can't afford medical care then i wouldn't

bother. But if they do then it is a case of picking winners and losers. In the end you know this is what the debate is about.

I guess most people here think the winners or tort reform are just rich people. But I see these costs bankrupting all of us so I don't view things this way.

[The Magistrate]

92. No, Ma'am: You Are Taking Republican Party Platform Planks Out For Walkies

It has been abundantly demonstrated to you here that limits on malpractice pay-outs do not reduce costs, and that the recovery of damages through tort law is not a leading driver of health industry costs.

[dkf]

98. I've seen with my own eyes what a culture driven by fear of lawsuits does.

Like it or not it affects behavior.

Maybe it is the truth that the fear of lawsuits overstates the direct costs of lawsuits and creates behaviors in excess of the threat. And maybe the true irony is that doctors have less to fear from suits than insurance companies. That would be too funny.

[The Magistrate]

102. Of Course You Have, Ma'am....

"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

[dkf]

107. Well we all have to take people's word for it right?

I give you the benefit of the doubt...

I don't see the point of deliberately lying anyway. I'm kind of uptight about things like that.

[The Magistrate]

109. If You Say So, Ma'am

"If your mother says she loves you --- check it out."

[Gabi Hayes]

184. a kudos to you for holding it in so well.

was there ever a more transparent you know what (no name caller, I) on this forum?

and don't you love the "aw, shucks" approach?

golly gee, maybe it's Rumsfeld!

[liberalhistorian]

97. It's called for-profit medicine and it makes a LOT

of profit for doctors and hospitals and that is no secret. Many doctors own financial stakes in testing facilities and labs or in medical equipment companies and they steer work to them to increase their income. It's really that simple. You don't see that in other countries because they have public option/single payer universal systems, and not for-profit systems.

[Enthusiast]

142. "Defensive medicine" is a RW myth. nt

[Bluebear]

183. +

[dkf]

50. More about The costs of excessive/unnecessary testing.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/40244116/download?commit=Download+Now&secret_password=

“Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that 5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product-—$700 billion per year –goes to tests and procedures that do not actually improve health outcomes…The unreasonably high cost of health care in the United States is a deeply entrenched problem that must be attacked at its root.”

[The Magistrate]

62. You Mis-Characterize the Quote, Ma'am

The statement 'tests and procedures that do not actually improve health outcomes' is not interchangeable with 'tests ordered to shield against possible law-suits'.

A better citation from the article you reference appears not far below the item you have tried to palm off as supporting your position:

'For example, doctors typically are paid on a “fee-for-service” basis. That
encourages them to order more services—more procedures, more tests, more
examinations—but it does not necessarily lead to the best, most efficient, or
most medically appropriate care. According to Brent James at Intermountain
Healthcare, hospitals typically spend more than one-half of their budgets on
unnecessary treatments, including efforts to correct preventable foul-ups.'

[jberryhill]

67. That and getting a good ROI on "the machine that goes PING!" /nt

[dkf]

73. Someone did point out to me that hospitals sometimes order equipment

That they actually do not have the population to support in addition to all the other hospitals in the area with that equipment.

I can see where that would drive unnecessary tests for hospitals. But I'm not sure how many doctors do this.

All I know is that if someone in the profession tells me it is a problem I will consider it.

I worry that our side has created these defenses against tort reform because of our donors. I can't tell if I'm being fed a line or not. I wonder if the little guy really does use the legal system to get justice. Isn't it too expensive anyway? Don't most get the brush off?

[The Magistrate]

77. I See, Ma'am: All Lies from Those Damned Trial Lawyers, Hey?

It is like looking through a pane of glass, Ma'am....

[dkf]

87. I don't really care about other practices, but health care costs are a shared burden.

They could break this country if we can't contain them. That is what I care about.

[The Magistrate]

89. Then Attack Insurance Company Profits And Denials Of Care, Ma'am

Those are both lethal and costly.

You are displaying here an instinct for the capillary that is a repellent spectacle....

[dkf]

94. No one seems to remember how worthless I thought healthcare reform was because it entrenched

Health insurance companies. I don't see the purpose of debating how they ought to treat people better when I'm against that system period.

[The Magistrate]

95. Then Denounce It, Ma'am, And Leave The Republican Platform Planks In the Kennel

As long as you hew to them, you will get the response those lines of argument deserve, and tythe reputation which naturally attaches to those who promote them.

[dkf]

111. I like to find things out for myself, not follow the dictates of others.

I don't like to label things left or right or white or black or whatever. Nope. Let me do my own thinking instead of shooting them down because this group is for or against it.

This is my journey to find my way of thinking. . I won't short circuit it because some call me names.

[The Magistrate]

114. Cute, Ma'am, But No Cigar

These are questions of fact, and you are on thew wrong side of the facts already....

[dkf]

131. Do you completely discount all the concerns listed below?

Defensive medicine

Defensive medicine is the practice of diagnostic or therapeutic measures conducted primarily not to ensure the health of the patient, but as a safeguard against possible malpractice liability. Fear of litigation has been cited<1> as the driving force behind defensive medicine. Defensive medicine is especially common in the United States of America, with rates as high as 79%<2> to 93%<3>, particularly in emergency medicine, obstetrics, and other high-risk specialties.

Defensive medicine takes two main forms: assurance behavior and avoidance behavior. Assurance behavior involves the charging of additional, unnecessary services in order to a) reduce adverse outcomes, b) deter patients from filing medical malpractice claims, or c) provide documented evidence that the practitioner is practicing according to the standard of care, so that if, in the future, legal action is initiated, liability can be pre-empted. Avoidance behavior occurs when providers refuse to participate in high risk procedures or circumstances.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_medicine

[The Magistrate]

132. Wikipedia, Ma'am?

That is a confession of bankruptcy.

Give it a rest, and while you are at it, give the Republican platform planks a rest.

[dkf]

135. Why not address the substance instead of simply trying to invalidate it as "republican"?

And I can accept if your argument is that doctors use "defensive medicine" as their fig leaf to cover for unnecessary tests that they benefit from. But then you could also argue that tort reform would invalidate this as an excuse.

[The Magistrate]

144. There Is No Substance To Address, Ma'am, Only a Politicized Claim That is False To Fact

The policy you are urging, which is a plank of the Republican party platform, has been proved to do nothing to reduce rising medical costs, in those states where 'reform', or rather restrictions on damages paid persons harmed by a doctor's negligence or gross error, has been made law. The only reason anyone crusades for 'tort reform' is to see to greater corporate profit --- in the field you are now pressing it in, greater insurance company profits.

[CreekDog]

145. we have tort reform in California for decades --why don't you know that?

it hasn't fixed our problems. although malpractice insurance premiums are less expensive here due to state regulation, all the usual problems of the US healthcare system persist and in some ways are worse in California --all despite your "tort reform" which includes a 250k cap which discourages attorneys from taking on all but the very worst cases.

despite that, insurance is still unaffordable, we still have tons of people without coverage, tons of people with inadequate coverage and so forth.

[dkf]

147. The $250k cap only addresses the punitive damages.

The cost to take care of the person can be millions in addition to the $250k.

Someone was arguing earlier that the reason you must collect so much is to pay for the crazy costs of future care and that is very true.

This is actually why I'm thinking the only way to cure defensive medicine is for the federal government to take care of these people. The Feds must take the liability of the lower testing levels we need to contain costs.

On the other hand is it something as small as not conducting a test the type of thing that would make one liable for a catastrophic case.

[The Magistrate]

150. Anything But An Insurance Company Paying on a Policy, Ma'am, Seems To Be Your Battle Cry Here

For someone who claims not to like them, you sure do carry a lot of their water....

[Warren Stupidity]

164. So let me understand your point here.

You not only want to limit punitive damages, you want to limit the awards based on the actual cost of care that results from an incident of malpractice? Who then do you expect to pay for that care? The damaged individual? Her family? Us? Or the person and/or institution that inflicted this damage?

[Jefferson23]

176. So how much time have you invested in researching this subject?

After all the dialogue here, you remain unsure??

THE INSURANCE CYCLE, NOT THE LEGAL SYSTEM, DRIVES UP RATES

Typical Soft Market: Insurers make most of their money from investment income. During years of high interest rates and/or excellent insurer profits, insurance companies engage in fierce competition for premium dollars to invest for maximum return. Insurers severely underprice their policies and insure poor risks (where there likely will be claims to pay) just to get premium dollars to invest. This is known as the “soft” insurance market. Americans for Insurance Reform, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007.

Typical Hard Market: When investment income decreases because interest rates drop or the stock market plummets, or price cuts during the soft market make unbearably low profits, the industry responds by sharply increasing premiums and reducing coverage, creating a “hard” insurance market usually degenerating into a “liability insurance crisis.” Americans for Insurance Reform, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007.
Periodic Cycles: Such “liability insurance crises” associated with “hard markets,” have occurred three times in the last 30 years – in the mid 1970s, in the mid-1980s, and between 2002 and 2006. Eventually, rates stabilized and availability improved everywhere as the “soft market” took hold. Americans for Insurance Reform, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007.

With each new hard market, insurers have tried to cover up their investment losses by blaming lawyers and the legal system. To buy this position, one would have to accept the notion that juries engineered large jury awards in the mid-1970s, then stopped for a decade, then started again in the mid-1980s, stopped 17 years and the started again from 2002-2006. This is ludicrous, and not true. At no time did claims or payouts spike during these period and since 1975, medical malpractice payouts have risen almost precisely in sync with medical inflation. Americans for Insurance Reform, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007.

Today. Investment losses throughout the industry now threaten to cause another hard market. Kathy Chu and Sandra Block, “Insurance premiums rise on sour profits,” USA Today, April 20, 2009.

The facts produced by Americans For Insurance Reform are devastating to anyone who cares about the truth - journalists and elected politicians, are you listening and reading and thinking? The fact is that insurance company insiders have agreed:

Victor Schwartz, General Counsel, American Tort Reform Association: “Insurance was cheaper in the 1990s because insurance companies knew that they could take a doctor's premium and invest it, and $50,000 would be worth $200,000 five years later when the claim came in … An insurance company today can't do that.” Honolulu Star Bulletin, April 20, 2003.

National Underwriter: Standard & Poor’s Rating Service in London, recognizing problems created by “historic highs and lows of cyclical underwriting,” is calling for the industry to change its underwriting practices. S&P’s Christian Dinesen says, “A less cyclical insurance market would be revolutionary for the industry, with such fundamental change promising a more stable underwriting environment.” National Underwriter Online, October 29, 2002.

Wall Street Journal: “ price war that began in the early 1990s led insurers to sell malpractice coverage to obstetrician-gynecologists at rates that proved inadequate to cover claims.… Some of these carriers had rushed into malpractice coverage because an accounting practice widely used in the industry made the area seem more profitable in the early 1990s than it really was. A decade of short-sighted price slashing led to industry losses of nearly $3 billion last year.” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2002.

Donald J. Zuk, chief executive of Scpie Holdings Inc.: “I don’t like to hear insurance-company executives say it’s the tort system – it’s self-inflicted.” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2002.

Charles Kolodkin, Gallagher Healthcare Insurance Services: “The market is in chaos…Throughout the 1990s…insurers were…driven by a desire to accumulate large amounts of capital with which to turn into investment income. Regardless of the level of…tort reform, the fact remains that if insurance policies are consistently underpriced, the insurer will lose money.” “Medical Malpractice Trends?”, September 2001.

National Association of Attorneys General: “The facts do not bear out the allegations of an ‘explosion’ in litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty insurers today. They finally do not support any correlations between the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and such a litigation ‘explosion.’ Instead, the available data indicate that the causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the insurance industry itself.” Analysis of the Causes of the Current Crisis of Unavailability and Unaffordability of Liability Insurance, Ad Hoc Insurance Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, May 1986.

Maurice R. Greenberg, them President and CEO of American International Group, Inc. - AIG: “The industry’s problems were due to price cuts taken ‘to the point of absurdity’ in the early 1980s. Had it not been for these cuts, Greenberg said, there would not be ‘all this hullabaloo’ about the tort system.” Business Week, March 31, 1986.

http://honolulu.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/tort-reform-myth-the-legal-system-causes-high-malpractice-insurance-premiums.aspx?googleid=262696

[StevesRedLens]

161. Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source to back up any argument

Not accepted in any academic circles that I know of.

Anyone can add entries and edit entries. Obviously this entry you cite is biased. IF a Wikipedia article CITES other sources (that agree with your postion), go to those entries and cite them IF they are from reputable - normally peer-reviewed sources or other reliable, independent sources, leaving Wikipedia out of any citations you give. Because anyone familiar with serious research automatically doubts your argument as soon as they see "Wikipedia." Just a tip on backing up you arguments.

[dkf]

133. Or how about this?

Currently, the Obama administration is trying to cut down on what are deemed unnecessary tests. If a patient has a headache and gets a head CT scan and it is positive, all is well. However, if the CT scan is normal the government wants to enact rules that refuse payment -- all in the name of preventing excessive testing. However, the government doesn't want to assume the increased medical malpractice liability risk that is certain with those kinds of policies.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/739947

[trotsky]

188. I want to print out this post and frame it.

Excellent as always, sir.

[StevesRedLens]

116. Another screwing of the poor and middle classes

The Downside is that tort-reform is another screwing of the poor and middle classes (mostly) since the wealthy can afford the best doctors and thus the incidence of malpractice would be less. (I'm sure there is a study on that but I don't have the citations).

The poor and middle-classes have limited (or no) power to choose their doctors (in many cases) and could end up getting the sub-par treatment.

How many poor people go to the Mayo or Cleveland Clinics to get treated? Or Bethesda Naval Hospital, etc. Usually the best doctors work in places like that. All I can afford to do is go to the local community health agency which has a sliding scale on payment. My doctor is great (family practitioner) and I trust her but then again others aren't so lucky. Anyway, I'm getting off topic I think...

[xphile]

121. Well why don't we let some doctor injure you in a way that requires medical attention for the rest

of your life which will probably cost millions and give you a mere 250,000 dollars for your injury. And see how long that will last you when you can't get insurance because of said injury in the first place.

I'll stick with the torte system as it is in the meantime.

[CreekDog]

43. +1

:banghead:

[jberryhill]

47. At long last /nt

[Autumn]

51. I must build a shrine to worship you, just

for those 11 words.:yourock:

[QC]

91. No, sir. Never. n/t

[Bluebear]

127. Never. Ever.

[Enthusiast]

141. PLUS ONE...............nt

[Marrah_G]

153. +1

[Maru Kitteh]

8. I live in a state w/very stringent tort reform - hasn't brought cost down at ALL.

Imagine that.

[taterguy]

9. Because 'reform' is a code word for 'screw the powerless'

Just like bankruptcy 'reform.'

[abelenkpe]

19. +1000 nt

[aquart]

10. Because it's a scam?

Jesus H. Christ.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. No, it's the welfare queens in Cadillacs..

Or is it the gay agenda? I forget. AH! Remembered: it's the abortions on demand!

[Enthusiast]

143. And Sharia Law being imposed on Americans. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

165. Yeah, that too. -nt

[Warren Stupidity]

13. please provide the evidence for your claim.

edit: this is why I will miss "unrec".

[dkf]

32. I was talking to someone who left the health care industry and she says it was huge for them

I was in a meeting where they were laughing at the idea that the rich could pay for everything and that the middle class had to realize their taxes were going up too.

So I piped up with the fact that our biggest spending problem was health care costs and that is what makes everything unsustainable. That shut everyone up.

As we left one person offered to me that having just left the field, she felt the biggest driver of services was the fear of being sued. Take it for what it's worth.

I don't understand why if we think it's not a big deal, what is the downside of just trying it.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. so your proof is a "friend of..." story?

Seriously? Yeah, I'll take that for what it is worth. The stats are that malpractice costs are around 1% of total health care costs. The facts are that 'tort reform' means cutting off the only access the non-rich have to the civil side of the judicial system. The rich can hire lawyers to sue your ass whenever they feel like it. Us peasants rely on the contingency fee system to have any say at all in the civil courts. You can take your right wing tort reform, I'm sure you know what to do with it.

[dkf]

54. Well Peter Orszag thinks excessive practices costs us $700 billion a year.

“Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that 5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product-—$700 billion per year –goes to tests and procedures that do not actually improve health outcomes…The unreasonably high cost of health care in the United States is a deeply entrenched problem that must be attacked at its root.”

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/40244116

[The Magistrate]

64. As You Know, Ma'am, That Quote Does Not Endorse Your Point

You would need to find Mr. Orszag saying that seven hundred billions are spent on tests and procedures intended to ward off law-suits to support your point, and that you cannot do....

[Doctor_J]

119. What does that have to do with tort reform?

Doctors get paid by the procedure, so of course they order more than they need to.

[tkmorris]

122. Auto mechanics routinely perform unneeded repairs as well

Do you think they do that to avoid being sued by the owner of the unfortunate automobile?

[Carolina]

169. the lawyers and the insurance companies

are the real profiteers. Even if you prevail in a "malpractice" case, the lawyer gets a huge cut off the top.

Medicine is not an exact science or we would all have the same reaction(s) to all drugs at the prescribed dosages. Things can, and do, go awry that may be totally unanticipated, yet the ambulance chasing attys (note all their TV ads) and the populace want to blame someone and get paid! Yes, there are some bad docs but, in general, they do their best.

As an example, look at OB-GYNs who are held responsible for the outcome of pregnancy and can (or at least used to be able to) be sued by the child when s/he reaches 18. What do you think happens to the MD on call when a woman in labor appears in the ER with no prenatal care, history of substance abuse, or exposure to x-rays (before she knew she was pregnant) and the outcome is less than optimal? That poor sucker gets sued for malpractice.

I could cite numerous examples from my experience in medical academia, but the bottom line is that the for-profit insurance companies rule everything about medicine and they are the prime cause of escalating costs.

[WinkyDink]

137. No doctor gives away his salary and leaves the profession for this non-existent "fear."

[xphile]

14. Because it's not our biggest health care cost problem and

it allows entities to injure people and not make them whole by underpaying them for the costs they will incur because of said injury.

Why is this right winged bullshit being posted here?

[Edweird]

16. Ok, "maybe". Anything is possible. But in this case almost definitely not.

Just because something is 'possible' doesn't make it 'probable'.

[surrealAmerican]

17. You're putting the cart before the horse here.

People will be far less inclined to sue if their subsequent health care costs are not apt to bankrupt them.

[dkf]

60. Very true.

It shouldn't be this way.

[pnwmom]

18. It isn't even close to our biggest cost problem.

It's the escalating costs of medications and tests that's the problem.

[mmonk]

20. The same reason we are against tort reform in other industries.

Corporations and practitioners that want to be absolved of the responsibilities of the consequences of their actions that harm others.

[defendandprotect]

72. Thank you -- !!! And actually it seems to me that ...

they have already put some "reforms" which are more deform in place --

am I wrong?

[mmonk]

79. You're correct.

[liberalhistorian]

21. Because medical errors and negligence

DOES HAPPEN and costs tens of thousands of lives a year, and grave harm and injury to tens of thousands more. Because, just like in every single other profession, doctors are not God and will commit negligence that will cost lives or grave harm and must be held accountable for that harm, particulary if a patient is unable to work due to the harm and is left with major chronic medical bills they have no way of paying.

Because many hospitals have refused or failed to enact simple procedures that would cut down on life-threatening medical errors and infections/complications and real people pay the price for that. Because the vast majority of malpractice cases filed are NOT "frivolous" as the RW would have you believe (unless they are the ones filing it, then it's always legitimate), as most attorneys who take such cases do not do so without a thorough investigation and review of the medical records by other physicians to ensure that it's a legitimate, viable case, as it costs tens of thousands of dollars just in upfront fees and expenses to prepare a case, let alone the months of work on it without pay.

Because it's been shown, in the states that have enacted such so-called "reform", that it has not lowered costs or malpractice insurance and that it, in fact, has little to do with it. Because real people suffer and die with medical negligence/errors, and doctors should be as accountable as any other profession (for factors within their control, of course, which is most of treatment). Because the RW these past decades have done a great job in demonizing victims and attorneys who try to help them get justice and making it seem as if EVERY SINGLE CASE is somehow "frivolous" and that the poor, saintly, put-upon, harassed medical profession never, ever makes any mistakes or ever commits negligence, never. Does that answer your question?

Now, perhaps you can tell us why you think the medical profession should be any less immune to accountability for the harm and deaths it can cause through negligence and error? I lost my lifelong best friend of thirty years to a horrendous case of inexcusable medical negligence, in which she suffered terribly for a year before finally succumbing and this was AFTER she'd fought a battle against cancer and WON earlier in her life. I had no problem whatsoever with her family bringing suit against the hospital and doctors involved and winning. It never, ever should have happened and she suffered terribly. Yet the RW and people like you would have us thinking that SHE was somehow at fault (as the defense attorney tried to assert, which was promptly and rightfully shut down) and the poor, put-upon, saintly doctor was just being unfairly hounded and badgered and that is why costs are so high. Bull. Shit.

Another friend lost her husband to a heart attack after he was sent home from the ER following his first heart attack, even though his tests and blood work CLEARLY showed he'd had a heart attack and should have received immediate treatment. A co-worker lost her young daughter to meningitis because the ER doctor couldn't be bothered to fully examine her or do any tests despite her obviously worsening condition and didn't even check on her, claiming she was "faking it". Yeah, she faked it right up until her death twelve hours later.

Are you seriously suggesting that the medical professionals involved shouldn't be held accountable, at all? These are REAL LIVES here we're talking about.

[Zebedeo]

33. +1

Your post is 100% correct on this issue.

:applause:

[dkf]

39. Why punish bad medical practice with funds paid though.

Shouldn't bad doctors simply lose their licenses to practice? And I can see paying for medical care if a person has suffered, but I can't see the general public experiencing higher costs to pay for punitive damages.

[jberryhill]

48. They SHOULD lose their licenses

But what you have in the medical profession is a lot of coddling of fellow practitioners.

Compare lawyer disbarments to loss of medical licenses. Lawyers have no problem kicking out the egregiously awful. Doctors just won't do it.

If my auto insurance rates were too high in my state, do you think I might start wondering about why there are so many lousy drivers?

[dkf]

52. I just don't think the legal system does a good job of producing good outcomes.

[jberryhill]

56. Which has nothing to do with self-regulation of the medical profession

[The Magistrate]

68. Heavens Forbid, Ma'am, An Injured Person Be Made Whole By the Courts....

[liberalhistorian]

100. And the medical system does?

You think the medical profession/system gives a shit about people it kills/harms/gravely injures? You think it actually does or wants to do anything about it? Hell, their only focus nowadays is on how to AVOID accountability and making people whole; they act as if no doctor ever harmed anyone and there's no such thing as medical negligence.

[Warren Stupidity]

168. true enough: the courts are wildly stacked in favor of wealthy corporations

and individuals with sufficient resources to pursue their goals through the civil court system. The way normal people get any redress at all in civil courts is through the torte system and through contingency based fees. That is why the plutocrats would like to get rid of contingency fees and punitive awards - puts another brick in the wall. They count on fools to help them.

[quaker bill]

178. and tax cuts will cure the economy

and dropping environmental regulations will makes us competitive

and making everyone carry a gun will reduce crime.

[WinkyDink]

185. Great evidence for support! "I just don't think...."

[liberalhistorian]

104. You "can see paying for medical care if

a person has suffered?" My, how fucking generous of you. What about people who are DEAD BECAUSE OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, like my best friend and the two other examples I gave that I personally know of? What about the tens of thousands of others who die every year as a result of medical negligence? What about the hundred thousand plus who are injured/harmed, many of them permanently so that they can no longer work? But they still have life expenses to pay for and families to support? What about THEM? God forbid the very medical system that caused their suffering and disability actually be forced to be accountable for it. How is a doctor losing his or her license going to help the disabled person who can't work support themselves and their families? The point of punitive damages is to ensure more efficiency and accountability from the profession, which, frankly, has little of it now. Attorneys are far better at weeding out and kicking out the bad apples who cause harm than the medical profession ever was or is.

[StevesRedLens]

155. Let a Jury Decide, Not a Lawmaker

Remember that someone has to convince a jury of the merits of their case for damages before any are awarded. I would much rather a jury of my peers determine culpability and damage amounts (using expert provided opinions and estimations) than I would having a lawmaker decide how much a life is worth or the loss of a life's worth of wages and companionship is worth.

[defendandprotect]

74. Have to recheck the figures, but 100,000+ patients in hospitals unnecessarily dead -- !!

[liberalhistorian]

105. Yeah, but to the OP and the RW they're just

"collateral damage" in the all-consuming mission of protecting doctors and hospitals from their negligence if they kill or harm someone.

[FLAprogressive]

22. no, it isn't, that's a RW talking point.

[CreekDog]

101. The OP knows that LOL

:rofl:

[girl gone mad]

23. Right.. and the big banks are completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

:crazy:

[me b zola]

27. thats what republicans say

...and you?

[eridani]

28. Stop with the rightwing fucking bullshit, OK?

Want to know why French GPs pay $100/month for malpractice insurance and specialists $650/month? Because France has fucking universal health care, no exceptions, period. People with bad outcomes, whether those outcomes had anything to do with malpractice or not, have guarnateed healt care to fix the outcomes. Therefore they don't have to sue anybody in order to get health care.

[jberryhill]

55. And it's not just in healthcare either

I was at a conference in a European country and was having a chat with some lawyers there. I noted that the conference center had an uneven payment and a slight step-up just in front of one of the main entrance doors. As people walked in, quite a few stumbled on it, and it was a real trip hazard.

I said, "You know, in the United States, that hazard would be a real liability issue."

"Oh, yes, you Americans are fond of suing each other for things like that, aren't you?"

Defensively, I said without thinking, "Yes, but someone could sustain a serious injury there. If they tripped and shattered a kneecap, they'd lose work time and have large medical bills."

And there was something of a pause while they waited for me to think about that for a minute, and I caught myself after a few seconds, and said...

"Oh, right, you guys have a social service system that takes care of that, don't you?"

And they both smiled and said, "That's right" - both of them amused that an American could actually figure that out.

[eridani]

123. Nice anecdote. I think I'll steal it! n/t

[demodonkey]

29. Yes, Tort reform is needed -- to stop HOSPITALS FROM SUING PATIENTS.

http://www.hospitaldebtjustice.org/about.html

And it ain't just in New Haven folks, it ain't just in New Haven.

That's all I am saying, for now.

[ejpoeta]

30. it's funny, because whenever anyone tries to regulate, the judicial system is used as the

thing which equalizes everyone and keeps everyone honest. Then the people who just made that argument turn around and try to change the rules so that you can't sue anyone when they screw up.

[dkf]

44. Well maybe that doesn't work.

Dont we need more uniform practices to make things more efficient? I think you are right that this is the tradeoff. That would mean we are in favor of a free market with the courts to enforce. I am thinking that is an awful way to control costs.

[ejpoeta]

134. exactly. for the most part, people who sue do so because of something that was done

that wasn't even just some minor mistake. i mean, leaving things inside people? oops? that could kill someone. I mean, let's just put aside for a moment the overworked doctors and nurses with their double shifts and the increase in mistakes that alone would cause. The fact that most doctors have to take hundreds of patients which only affords them five minutes with each patient which is hardly enough time in most cases to determine if there might be something wrong. How about the insurance companies fervor to NOT do testing so that something that could have been caught and treated turns into some big life threatening, money draining event.

Let's forget all of that for a moment and just consider the fact that we have created this 'monster' of litigiousness. We created this system in which we force people to sue in order to get anything. Insurance companies will stonewall and try to get away with as little as possible and basically force a person to sue them to get their rightful amount. And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with punitive damages for many of these cases in which it seems they could have prevented it.

Money is the only thing they understand. And by 'we' and 'they' I mean the insurance companies and the people who are putting these doctors in the middle of this. Doctors who may be great doctors working in untenable situations. Right now they are putting all of their money into making it harder for people to hold them accountable for their putting money ahead of patient care. I mean, one could argue that their job is to maximize profit, but when it is at the cost of the "product" I would argue that is no way to run anything. But I guess that is why I am not the multimillionaire.

[ET Awful]

31. Our biggest health care cost problem is for-profit primary health insurance.

Malpractice claims are under 1% of total healthcare costs in this country.

[The Magistrate]

35. While Insurance Companies, Sir, Consume One Fifth Of Health Spending, And Add No Value At All

[ET Awful]

61. Bingo. More than 30% of every dollar spent on health insurance is pure overhead

the majority of which lines the pockets of executives.

[Enthusiast]

146. Exactly

The insurance companies do not contribute a single thing to actual health care.

[Curmudgeoness]

34. Seriously? After all the proof in several states with tort reform

where malpractice insurance prices continue to increase, why are you even considering that this will be the magic wand to bring health care costs down? It has not even registered a tiny blip on the radar of insurance costs when it has been instituted.

Most of the time, malpractice cases do not win in the first place. So all those jury awards you hear about are bullshit and all the problems with lawsuits are garbage. In the extremely rare case where someone will win a malpractice suit, the evidence is overwhelming that something horrid had happened. If it was your husband/wife who was killed by an incompetent doctor or a careless mistake, and you had four kids, why should there be a minimal cap on the amount someone can receive when the costs of the loss will be huge?

Maybe you should be advocating for the medical community to stop protecting incompetent practitioners instead. The protection of their own that they condone are most of the reasons for malpractice.

[myrna minx]

41. Why don't you tell us why you're for it?

;crazy:

[dkf]

46. I think defensive medicine is one cost driver.

Why else do we have so much more testing than all the other countries with socialized medicine?

[The Magistrate]

83. Again, Ma'am, You Miss The Point

In countries where medical care is not a costly burden on the patient's pocketbook, a patient does not have to acquire funds somehow to pay for dealing with the consequences of an error by a doctor.

In countries where there is no industry devoted to maximizing profits from provision of health care, there is no incentive to press for frills and extras to pad out the take.

[RB TexLa]

45. Compared to what doctors steal from insurance companies everyday what is won

in court is nothing.

[Fumesucker]

57. Robert Bork is probably the strongest single supporter of "tort reform"..

And yet when he fell off a stage thanks to his own clumsiness he sued for $1 million..

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/07/robert-bork-files-slip-and-fall-lawsuit-against-yale-club/

Robert Bork , the one-time U.S. Supreme Court nominee, has sued the Yale Club for negligence. He is seeking $1 million in damages for injuries he sustained from a fall at the club last year. Here’s a copy of the complaint

Bork was at the Yale Club last June to speak at an event sponsored by The New Criterion, a monthly review of the arts and intellectual life. According to the suit filed in federal court in Manhattan, the club failed to provide steps and a handrail to climb onto the dais. Bork fell backward as he was attempting to climb the dais, striking his leg on the stage and his head on a heat register, the suit says.

Basically those who advocate for "tort reform" are hypocrites of the highest order because as soon as *they* are injured the first thing that happens is they file a lawsuit against someone.

[dkf]

59. It is ironic that you use his suing for such a stupid reason to support not touching tort reform.

[Fumesucker]

70. Not at all, the *real* irony is that a world class "tort reformer"...

Totally lacked the courage of his convictions.

When given a chance to show that he was better than those whom he castigated for "frivolous lawsuits" he did a complete 180 on his freely and vociferously stated principles.

Typical conservative, really.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

108. Don't forget Rick Santorun, another HUGE proponent of tort reform.

He and his wife sued the wife's chiropractor for $500k as the result of a wrenched back.

[CreekDog]

99. okay, then corporations can't sue either --deal?

:shrug:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

112. You seem to be confusing the "merits of the case" with the ability to make a case.

Bork may very well have a legitimate claim. A million seems high but who knows when surgery is involved on a high-risk patient. And failure to provide handrails SHOULD open up a defendant to liability.

Except Bork and YOU would deny the injured party a chance to work it out in court.

The 80-year-old Bork suffered a large hematoma, or swelling of blood, in his lower left leg as a result of the fall and the hematoma eventually burst, according to the lawsuit. The injury required surgery and months of physical therapy, according to the complaint. He claims to have suffered “excruciating pain” as a result of the injury and continues to walk with a limp, according to the complaint.

[The Magistrate]

115. Glad To Hear It Hurt, Sir: Excruciating Pain is Something This Creature Cannot Get Too Much Of....

[Hassin Bin Sober]

120. Tee Hee! I know I shouldn't ... but you're right.

Btw, that "education" you provided up-thread was a real pleasure to read (as always). I love it when you get a "live one" on the hook.

As Slim Pickins once said "You use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore" :)

[Unvanguard]

65. Only if by "Maybe" you mean "It is logically possible that."

In some possible world, the biggest health care cost problem in the United States is a lack of tort reform.

This is not that possible world.

[Throd]

76. I want to ask an honest question here...

It seems that the mere mention of the term "tort reform" has aroused some very passionate responses.

Terms like this have different definitions depending on who you ask.

How do you define it?

[Unvanguard]

78. Restrictions on medical malpractice suits.

You're right that the details of the proposals vary, and I don't oppose medical tort reform across the board. I just think it misses the point to blame the health care cost crisis on lawsuits, when there are far bigger culprits.

[defendandprotect]

69. Because the rw "reform" is a deform which attacks the rights of citizens for

compensation from corporations --

You're for something you don't understand?

[Goblinmonger]

81. Because the law suits of everyone else are bullshit but when YOU need a lawyer

you have all the good reasons in the world. Except when YOU need a lawyer, you've let the Republican assholes legislate away any ability for you to actually get damages because you didn't think that anyone else in the world could POSSIBLY have a legitimate reason for suing someone.

[Throd]

82. Do not some lawsuits lack merit?

[Fumesucker]

85. Of course, that's what we have courts for..

To determine the merits of cases brought before them, both civil and criminal.

[Goblinmonger]

88. Those usually get thrown out,

don't survive summary judgment, or fail to win. We should limit the rights and ability of people to recoup losses because someone might possibly file a lawsuit without merit? Seems like using a cannon to get rid of a problem that a tweezer could solve.

[Doremus]

84. Troll.

Why are you still here?

[devilgrrl]

167. Excellent question.

Helen Keller has been wondering that for quite some time.

[theophilus]

93. I don't think that will solve anything for the common people. However, I would

like to see the Government sell malpractice insurance and make it a tiny fraction of the cost to Docs it now is. I would also like to see a one,two, or three strike policy to take away Doctor's licenses if their cock-ups are serious enough.

[CreekDog]

103. !

[jmowreader]

106. This makes me laugh

Our biggest health care cost problem is the private sector is running the American civilian healthcare system.

If you were to deduct insurance company overhead and healthcare facility overhead, I would be willing to bet money that civilian private-sector healthcare systems, when you add the insurance company overhead to the healthcare company overhead, you get no more than 50 percent efficiency. IOW, for every $100 spent on healthcare only $50 goes to healthcare rather than overhead

Contrast this with either of the two true single-payer systems in the US--the VA and the military health system--and their 97 percent efficiency rate. The friggin' Teabaggers spent the last year and a half telling America the government can't run a healthcare system when the government runs probably the best ones in America.

[StevesRedLens]

110. Biggest Issue?? Tort Reform My Ass

[McCamy Taylor]

113. This MD/MPH says "No, our biggest health care problem is lack of disease prevention."

Defensive medicine is a drop in the bucket compared to the medical costs and lost productivity from preventable chronic diseases.

[Angry Dragon]

117. Greed is the biggest problem

and it starts with insurance companies, medicare fraud(rick 'penis head' scott),

follow the money and then get back to us

[StevesRedLens]

157. Agree

[Doctor_J]

118. Why are you here?

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

128. Tired of talking about 'illegals'?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

171. Oh? Does it have a thing for "illegals" too? nt

[Bluebear]

174. Bigtime.

Nothing delighted her more than the Arizona "show me your papers" law.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

175. Yet somehow it's still here free to spread this bullshit. I'm not forgetting the islamophobic

threads either.

[Jakes Progress]

130. Maybe you have a profound lack of information

about the healthcare system. I certainly hope so. I hope that is the reason you are promoting one of grover norquist's fundamental planks of the NeoCon manifesto as a good idea.

Ignorance can be treated. Rightwing ideological claptrap can't.

[WinkyDink]

136. Bwahahahaha! Yes, let's limit the citizenry's rights to redress, shall we? There but for the Grace

of God go you.

[NNN0LHI]

138. How many people have you known during your lifetime who successfully sued a doctor?

I don't know of even one.

Don

[Enthusiast]

139. The corporate right wing

wants us to believe that the biggest health care cost problem is a lack of tort reform. It simply is not true.

I do not understand your motive for this OP. Unless, of course, you want to push a corporate agenda. That is your right, I guess. Don't expect progressives to like it.

[ileus]

149. Providers order expensive tests just to keep lawyers at bay.

And it's costing Billions and billions just so they can't be sued.

There doesn't have to be a suit filed and won for the lack of tort reform to cost money.

[StevesRedLens]

156. And your Source for this statement is?

Is it possible that extra tests are ordered most of the time to accurately diagnose the root of the problem or to discount other possibilities?

[Marrah_G]

152. Our biggest issue with healthcare costs are greedy Insurance companies.

[QC]

154. Maybe we should lift the yoke of socialism from the necks of the productive classes

so that they do not go Galt!

[eShirl]

159. No,our BIGGEST health care cost problem is that millionaires need more tax cuts.

[RandiFan1290]

162. OMC!!!!

ooops, I mean OMG!!!

[Bluebear]

177. ---

:spray:

[devilgrrl]

163. Why hasn't this thread, brimming with right wing talking points been locked?

:nuke:

[dionysus]

166. rofl.... uh yeah...

:rofl:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

170. No. The biggest problem is the non mosque not at ground zero followed by DU's "hatred" of

corporations. I get what you're trying to do. But why not just go out on a teabaggy blaze of glory once and for all? That would be so much more fun to watch.

[ItNerd4life]

172. Because socialist Europe has it and we don't want to be like them.

oh wait, if Europe has loser pays then why don't we? It's actually a valid question but closed minded people don't want to discuss it.

[Ilsa]

173. WE HAVE MEDICAL TORT REFORM IN TEXAS.

We still have issues with health care funding. It may have lowered doctor's premiums, but it did not reduce the cost of medical care or resolve how it is paid for.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

179. Because attorneys have very powerful lobbyists working for them.

But the fact of the matter is that every $ spent by doctors to protect themselves from these parasites is one less $ that will be spent on health care.

[The Magistrate]

180. That Is Just Too Cute For Words, Sir....

"One hundred percent fact-free --- guaranteed!"

[treestar]

182. Insurance companies and doctors do too

The "parasites" also get money that goes to the victim of malpractice. So you may as well call the plaintiffs the same name.

[WinkyDink]

186. Right. Because doctors' salaries are used for patient health-care.

[treestar]

181. It closes the courthouse door to poorer people

So that if you are treated negligently, you can't afford a lawyer to pursue it?

The medical establishment had protections other defendants don't have, already.

[WinkyDink]

187. This is the entire point of "tort reform." Notice the wealthy always "lawyer up" when they want.