The Mucca Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 I can agree with that. So you are saying that unmerited lawsuits are somehow the cause of exorbitant health care costs? That it such a de minimus percent of the overall picture. That is like saying the free doughnuts at the car dealership is the reason Chrysler went bankrupt. I am saying that anything that can lower the cost of insurance is a good thing. When I bought my Ford last year, no free doughnuts were in sight, so maybe there is something there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/12/31/med...imated-savings/ Even the new, higher estimates don’t suggest that tort changes (such as capping noneconomic damages) would be a silver bullet for health costs; CBO says the changes would lower the nation’s health-care bill by about 0.5% Does changing tort law to reduce medical liability lead to worse outcomes for patients? The evidence on that question is mixed, and the answer isn’t clear, CBO says., So, even after the CBO nearly doubles their projected savings from tort reform we are talking a proverbial spit in the ocean of costs; and reform may also effect quality of health care. Again, while ambulance chasers may be a popular right wing scapegoat for our outrageous health care costs, its a very minor factor in a much larger and complex picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/12/31/med...imated-savings/ So, even after the CBO nearly doubles their projected savings from tort reform we are talking a proverbial spit in the ocean of costs; and reform may also effect quality of health care. Again, while ambulance chasers may be a popular right wing scapegoat for our outrageous health care costs, its a very minor factor in a much larger and complex picture. From your Blogger Malpractice premiums. CBO cites several studies that found that, over the long run, premiums decline when changes to tort law lower medical liability. Patient health. Does changing tort law to reduce medical liability lead to worse outcomes for patients? The evidence on that question is mixed, and the answer isn’t clear, CBO says. So what are you saying here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 So what are you saying here It's not brain surgery. You wondered aloud how much medical malpractice effected our health care costs, the CBO projects it has a very minimal impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 It's not brain surgery. You wondered aloud how much medical malpractice effected our health care costs, the CBO projects it has a very minimal impact. That's not what I read, the CBO says premiums decline when changes to tort law lower medical liability. Good thing you're not a brain surgeon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 That's not what I read, the CBO says premiums decline when changes to tort law lower medical liability. That's part of the reason they changed their projections to a whopping 0.5%. Apparently you missed the 2nd sentence? Even the new, higher estimates don’t suggest that tort changes (such as capping noneconomic damages) would be a silver bullet for health costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 "Enacting a typical set of proposals would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee of Taxation. That figure includes savings of roughly $41 billion from Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, as well as an increase in tax revenues of roughly $13 billion from a reduction in private health care costs that would lead to higher taxable wages." From CBO I'll take a $54 billion budget deduction over 10 years any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 LINK I doubt the true cost will ever be known. Pretty sure it doesn't go anywhere close to closing the gap in the graph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Not nearly enough get dismissed, and the ones that do, still cost thousands of dollars. Better doctors would have no effect on the amount of frivolous lawsuits. here you are wrong again .. but there is no point telling you otherwise. while i agree that lawyers are the 2nd lowest life form on the planet. the ones that do actual medical clams wont go into it unless hou front money for expert witness and doctors etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) Mandating lessening the value of my life when the doctor f*cks up is the solution? That's not a free market approach. Edited January 2, 2010 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Mandating lessening the value of my life when the doctor f*cks up is the solution? That's not a free market approach. I tend to agree with you here, club. But anyone that thinks quality or cost will improve with fedgov meddling either truly doesn't see the gov for what it is or is just not very bright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 I tend to agree with you here, club. But anyone that thinks quality or cost will improve with fedgov meddling either truly doesn't see the gov for what it is or is just not very bright. or maybe they want something new?? what do you suggest ,all knowing and powerful one?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Mandating lessening the value of my life when the doctor f*cks up is the solution? That's not a free market approach. That is the best summation of the argument. Well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) I tend to agree with you here, club. But anyone that thinks quality or cost will improve with fedgov meddling either truly doesn't see the gov for what it is or is just not very bright. Exactly how bright is it to automatically rally against any kind of govt mandated health care reform when what we have now clearly isn't sustainable? Not even considering evaluating or supporting reform because "it's the big bad gubbment" is a definite Pavlovian head in the sand scthick relative to whats at stake. Edited January 2, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Exactly how bright is it to automatically rally against any kind of govt mandated health care reform when what we have now clearly isn't sustainable? Not even considering evaluating or supporting reform because "it's the big bad gubbment" is a definite Pavlovian head in the sand scthick relative to whats at stake. And how bright is it to look at Medicare and SS which cost something like 100 times their estimates and think that fedgov can take this over when THAT clearly won't be sustainable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Mandating lessening the value of my life when the doctor f*cks up is the solution? That's not a free market approach. I agree, however, there needs to be some middle ground here on the waist of frivolous lawsuits. Even if that could save $10 billion over 10 years instead of $54 billion, that's worth it. At $1 billion a year, how many uninsured people could you insure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 what do you suggest ,all knowing and powerful one?? Whatever Ayn Rand says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 And how bright is it to look at Medicare and SS which cost something like 100 times their estimates and think that fedgov can take this over when THAT clearly won't be sustainable? Those estimates were made under a set of circumstances that no longer prevail. For instance, in the case of SS, people were only expected to live two years while collecting it. That has long since been surpassed yet the basic age to collect remains 62, a ludicrously low number. Therefore the cost has gone way up. In the case of Medicare, it could be argued that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy in that the reason people live much longer is.......Medicare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Those estimates were made under a set of circumstances that no longer prevail. For instance, in the case of SS, people were only expected to live two years while collecting it. That has long since been surpassed yet the basic age to collect remains 62, a ludicrously low number. Therefore the cost has gone way up. In the case of Medicare, it could be argued that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy in that the reason people live much longer is.......Medicare. And of course they have all the assumptions 100% correct this time, oh great and all knowing ones? I'm sure there are absolutely no ludicrous assumptions which will be proven false in ten years yet by that point, just like SS and MC, anyone who will want to do anything reasonable to correct the issue will be painted as someone who wants widows and orphans to just die in the streets. Do you folks not see the folly in trying to have it both ways? You sound like that mac commercial. "This entitlement program isn't going to have ANY of the problems of those old ones. TRUST me!" You gotta be kidding me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 And of course they have all the assumptions 100% correct this time, oh great and all knowing ones? I'm sure there are absolutely no ludicrous assumptions which will be proven false in ten years yet by that point, just like SS and MC, anyone who will want to do anything reasonable to correct the issue will be painted as someone who wants widows and orphans to just die in the streets. Do you folks not see the folly in trying to have it both ways? You sound like that mac commercial. "This entitlement program isn't going to have ANY of the problems of those old ones. TRUST me!" You gotta be kidding me. Both SS and Medicare should have been adjusted to cope with the demographic changes that have taken place. In fact, they should have had them built in from the get-go. Why didn't they? It's not the people that have their names on the ballot sheets that are to blame, it's the people that fill in the circles and pull the levers. How's that, you say? Well, when it all comes down to it, everyone just loves their own entitlement and any politician with the balls to tell it like it really is (and like it needs to be) is very quickly an ex-politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Do you folks not see the folly in trying to have it both ways? Compartmentalizing everyone who sees the obvious need for health care reform in the wrong is a folly. Something needs to be done, the most recent version of the bill is nothing more than an acknowledgment of having to pay for some of the future costs when every other administration either willfully ignored it or didn't have the political capitol or will to do something. I don't know what the silver bullet answer is, but complaining about any effective govt. attempt at reform comes across as simpltistic schtick when you can't offer any pragmatic solutions when doing nothing isn't an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Compartmentalizing everyone who sees the obvious need for health care reform in the wrong is a folly. Something needs to be done, the most recent version of the bill is nothing more than an acknowledgment of having to pay for some of the future costs when every other administration either willfully ignored it or didn't have the political capitol or will to do something. I don't know what the silver bullet answer is, but complaining about any effective govt. attempt at reform comes across as simpltistic schtick when you can't offer any pragmatic solutions when doing nothing isn't an answer. Well that one remains to be seen. I think the biggest problem people are having is not knowing the cost and where exactly the monies will come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Well that one remains to be seen. I think the biggest problem people are having is not knowing the cost and where exactly the monies will come from. Huh. They voted on something without knowing all the ins and outs? No way. I thought Obama was going to change that. I bet you will now go on and tell me that this bill has earmarks and that some politicians got better deals than others. That last sentence was a joke because I do remember Obama saying something about change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Huh. They voted on something without knowing all the ins and outs? No way. I thought Obama was going to change that. I bet you will now go on and tell me that this bill has earmarks and that some politicians got better deals than others. That last sentence was a joke because I do remember Obama saying something about change. It's obvious. He's changed who is in charge and who gets all of our money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Huh. They voted on something without knowing all the ins and outs? No way. I thought Obama was going to change that. I bet you will now go on and tell me that this bill has earmarks and that some politicians got better deals than others. That last sentence was a joke because I do remember Obama saying something about change. It is amazing that elcting one guy would somehow completely alter every single person that works in gubmnet and suddenly make every single politicians . . and their staffs . . and every other gubmnet employee . . . suddenly reverse decades of doing business a certain way. First Obama is blasted for trying to institute change. Then when he cant exert his superman powers to reverse the entire flow of gubmnet, he is blasted for not "changing" things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.