bpwallace49 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The cost of tort is on medical care is higher than the 2.2% profits the insurance companies make. Some estimate it to be as high as 10%. Regardless it is higher than what you want to pin it on. Look at post #23 for additional reasons health care cost is so high. I'm sure I left out a few. The idea that it is all the insurance companies like you and Ursa want to pretend is just ludicrous. Equally ludicrous is the concept that all these are taken up by tort suits. Perch, you should really go back to when Chavez provided you with links that disprove your opinions on this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 The cost of tort is on medical care is higher than the 2.2% profits the insurance companies make. Some estimate it to be as high as 10%. Regardless it is higher than what you want to pin it on. Look at post #23 for additional reasons health care cost is so high. I'm sure I left out a few. The idea that it is all the insurance companies like you and Ursa want to pretend is just ludicrous. that is plain bullsh!t but you know that already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Equally ludicrous is the concept that all these are taken up by tort suits. Perch, you should really go back to when Chavez provided you with links that disprove your opinions on this matter. I didn't say it was the only cost, there are plenty more which I have listed you just choose to zero in on this one of about 5 i listed. that is plain bullsh!t but you know that already. Huge contingency fees and damage awards are the mother's milk of frivolous lawsuits. That's why 30 states have adopted caps on awards as the core of their reform, with huge success. Texas imposed malpractice caps in 2003, and the state has been rewarded with fewer lawsuits, a 50% drop in malpractice premiums, and a flood of new doctors. The House bill is intended to discourage other states from doing the same..........Never mind that reducing medical lawsuits is a rare reform provision that really would reduce health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the savings at $54 billion over a decade. Consulting firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin has suggested the direct cost of medical tort litigation is more like $30 billion annually. PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that last year $240 billion in health expenditures were the result of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures to protect against the risk of lawsuits. Link A recent survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society and the University of Connecticut Health Center revealed that among physicians surveyed, 83% reported that they had practiced defensive medicine. That study showed that an average of 28% of tests, procedures, referrals and consultations were ordered for defensive reasons, for fear of lawsuits. The study also concluded that 13% of all hospitalizations ordered by physicians were ordered for defensive purposes. Such care is expensive as well as unnecessary. Defensive medicine—when physicians order more tests or procedures than medically necessary in order to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit—has been estimated to cost between $100 billion and $178 billion per year, according to a study by Daniel Kessler and Mark McClellan of Stanford University. That is an additional $1,700 to $2,000 paid every year by the average American family for unnecessary healthcare. In states such as California, which enacted limits on jury awards for malpractice in 1975, healthcare costs are between 5% and 9% less than other states because physicians in California and other states with similar reforms do not practice defensive medicine. Link So you are worried about a 2.2% profit you are free to share in if you buy an insurance companies stock (I mean if they are making such a killing I'm sure 80% of your portfolio is in their stock), but you aren't worried about the 5%-9% everyone is paying because of lawyers. Again, tort reform is not a silver bullet, but it should be incorporated into any real medical reform, and the fact that it isn't is even being considered by the left makes this whole process a joke as far as I'm concerned. It shows me there is no real intention of controlling cost, just control. Edited December 1, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Again with the 2.2%. That number is meaningless. It has nothing to do with how the insurance industry manages costs. I'd like to see a 10 year trend of claims expense versus premium revenue. Those numbers would more accurately reflect what's going on in that industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Again with the 2.2%. That number is meaningless. It has nothing to do with how the insurance industry manages costs. I'd like to see a 10 year trend of claims expense versus premium revenue. Those numbers would more accurately reflect what's going on in that industry. +1 Perch how about this . . . Some docs simply practice defensive medicine because they are "scared" versus ordering up tests that while they may or may not be necessary, they generate a LOT of money. Nahh . . . it MUST be all the lawsuits! Also if they are competent doctors, why should they be scared? Also, is malpractice insurance like car insurance? You know . . if you get into an accident, they raise your rates? Soo if you are found to be a crappy doc, you pay more in premiums? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 +1 Perch how about this . . . Some docs simply practice defensive medicine because they are "scared" versus ordering up tests that while they may or may not be necessary, they generate a LOT of money. Nahh . . . it MUST be all the lawsuits! Also if they are competent doctors, why should they be scared? Also, is malpractice insurance like car insurance? You know . . if you get into an accident, they raise your rates? Soo if you are found to be a crappy doc, you pay more in premiums? no no all doctors are goodly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 +1 Perch how about this . . . Some docs simply practice defensive medicine because they are "scared" versus ordering up tests that while they may or may not be necessary, they generate a LOT of money. Nahh . . . it MUST be all the lawsuits! Also if they are competent doctors, why should they be scared? Also, is malpractice insurance like car insurance? You know . . if you get into an accident, they raise your rates? Soo if you are found to be a crappy doc, you pay more in premiums? People do a lot because they are scared. I waste a ton of money because I'm scared in my business. I'm the only local contractor that has a full time safety officer and it is to mitigate risk. You also have to remember sometimes people die, and when they do their families aren't always rational. Their irrationality costs people money even if it never goes to court. I don't know what you do for a living, but have you ever made a mistake in your job? I know I have. I've actually had a couple of big ones that have cost me 5 figures, but that is one time penalty, and I didn't get sued for it. Do you think doctors are infallible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 People do a lot because they are scared. I waste a ton of money because I'm scared in my business. I'm the only local contractor that has a full time safety officer and it is to mitigate risk. You also have to remember sometimes people die, and when they do their families aren't always rational. Their irrationality costs people money even if it never goes to court. I don't know what you do for a living, but have you ever made a mistake in your job? I know I have. I've actually had a couple of big ones that have cost me 5 figures, but that is one time penalty, and I didn't get sued for it. Do you think doctors are infallible? Outside of you sidestepping the question . . . . doesnt malpractice premiums go UP if they are found to be in error? So it is a mistake of their own making? And how many tests are ordered , not because they are needed or doctors are "scared" of malpractice suits, but because that extra MRI costs a grand to administer and the hospital needs to have a good month financially? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Outside of you sidestepping the question . . . . doesnt malpractice premiums go UP if they are found to be in error? So it is a mistake of their own making? And how many tests are ordered , not because they are needed or doctors are "scared" of malpractice suits, but because that extra MRI costs a grand to administer and the hospital needs to have a good month financially? Do you get sued every time you make a mistake? As to the second part of your response there is an easy way to take care of that and it won't cost the tax payers a dime. Make it to where all testing except in emergencies be done at independent clinics and make it to where doctors can not have any ownership in these clinics unless they are publicly traded. There that problem is solved and doesn't cost a trillion dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 From your link: PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that last year $240 billion in health expenditures were the result of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures to protect against the risk of lawsuits. Such as routine mammograms to otherwise healthy women? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 From your link: Such as routine mammograms to otherwise healthy women? Ooooo . . . . tough for Perch to combat that one . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Make it to where all testing except in emergencies be done at independent clinics and make it to where doctors can not have any ownership in these clinics unless they are publicly traded. There that problem is solved and doesn't cost a trillion dollars. This is a good one. Very easy to do and pretty much free. It addresses part of the conflict of interest problem, though by no means all of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 As to the second part of your response there is an easy way to take care of that and it won't cost the tax payers a dime. Make it to where all testing except in emergencies be done at independent clinics and make it to where doctors can not have any ownership in these clinics unless they are publicly traded. There that problem is solved and doesn't cost a trillion dollars. I like the concept, but how does it apply to Docs that work in hospitals that need to show a profit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterwing Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 The senate isnt even allowed to appropriate taxes.....current "elected leaders" are a wash--so is the media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 From your link: Such as routine mammograms to otherwise healthy women? Yeah the American Cancer Society is worried about getting sued, that is why they recommend women over 40 get a mammo ever year. You used to make sense some times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I like the concept, but how does it apply to Docs that work in hospitals that need to show a profit? They will just have to charge more in other areas. That equipment and the infrastructure required for it are very expensive. They will make up a lot of it by not having to buy as many diagnostic machines and powering them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Yeah the American Cancer Society is worried about getting sued, that is why they recommend women over 40 get a mammo ever year. You used to make sense some times. you really cant be this dense....can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 So let me get this straight, Perch wants Government to tell him when he should get mammograms? If Perch knows he is at high risk he still wants government approval before taking action? Come on Perch I know you want the Government to take care of you but this is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 So let me get this straight, Perch wants Government to tell him when he should get mammograms? If Perch knows he is at high risk he still wants government approval before taking action? Come on Perch I know you want the Government to take care of you but this is ridiculous. You can't possibly be that stupid. My problem is the Department of Health and Human Services is stating the new "recommendation" for mammograms is a decade later and 1/2 as frequent as the American Cancer Society. Given this administration and Nancy Pelosi's desire for a single payer system this new "recommendation" would be what is used when the government takes over health care, instead of the more well established American Cancer Society recommendations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 You can't possibly be that stupid. My problem is the Department of Health and Human Services is stating the new "recommendation" for mammograms is a decade later and 1/2 as frequent as the American Cancer Society. Given this administration and Nancy Pelosi's desire for a single payer system this new "recommendation" would be what is used when the government takes over health care, instead of the more well established American Cancer Society recommendations. To be fair, HHS made no such recommendation. The findings were from a study by an outside organization that was commissioned by the Bush Admin. Sebelius would not commit to the findings and said it should be up to each patient and their doctor and that medicare/medicaid would continue to pay for the screenings at the current rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 You can't possibly be that stupid. My problem is the Department of Health and Human Services is stating the new "recommendation" for mammograms is a decade later and 1/2 as frequent as the American Cancer Society. Given this administration and Nancy Pelosi's desire for a single payer system this new "recommendation" would be what is used when the government takes over health care, instead of the more well established American Cancer Society recommendations. Many in the public were shocked by these changes in breast cancer screening guidelines, but these guidelines and this controversy are not new. … A National Institutes of Health consensus panel came to similar conclusions in 1997. In fact, historically, the scientific evidence has not supported the breast cancer screening methods that have been vigorously promoted in our country. Today, we have even more evidence and a greater understanding of breast cancer, but it appears that once again, emotion and conventional wisdom are taking precedence over science, evidence, and progress. Because a health message has been given over and over again and has become rooted in the public consciousness does not make it correct. … Too many times … beliefs have taken hold when there was in fact no real evidence behind them, and these actions resulted in harm to women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Many in the public were shocked by these changes in breast cancer screening guidelines, but these guidelines and this controversy are not new. … A National Institutes of Health consensus panel came to similar conclusions in 1997. In fact, historically, the scientific evidence has not supported the breast cancer screening methods that have been vigorously promoted in our country. Today, we have even more evidence and a greater understanding of breast cancer, but it appears that once again, emotion and conventional wisdom are taking precedence over science, evidence, and progress. Because a health message has been given over and over again and has become rooted in the public consciousness does not make it correct. … Too many times … beliefs have taken hold when there was in fact no real evidence behind them, and these actions resulted in harm to women. There is no doubt money can be saved by not testing women in their 40's just as there is no doubt that by not testing them more women in their 40's will die of breast cancer. This is similar to the argument for providing health care for more people. If we do it is going to cost more. If we don't more people die. I guess it is ok to spend my money to increase the entitlement class and those dependent on the government but it's not going to be ok to actually save lives if it cost a little bit more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 They will just have to charge more in other areas. That equipment and the infrastructure required for it are very expensive. They will make up a lot of it by not having to buy as many diagnostic machines and powering them. I am calling horsecrap on some of that right now. Some of the diagnostic machines they use are NOT that expensive, and have paid for themselves many, many times over. A good friend of mine sells medical devices that are used for spinal surgeries. He openly admits that most of his stuff costs less than 1% of the price that is charged. he also uses allen wrenches he buys from a hardware store to make adjustements because they work better than the tools provided by the instruments themselves . . .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I am calling horsecrap on some of that right now. Some of the diagnostic machines they use are NOT that expensive, and have paid for themselves many, many times over. A good friend of mine sells medical devices that are used for spinal surgeries. He openly admits that most of his stuff costs less than 1% of the price that is charged. he also uses allen wrenches he buys from a hardware store to make adjustements because they work better than the tools provided by the instruments themselves . . .. There was an excellent NPR piece on this last week. In Pensacola you can get an MRI with an average machine for somethign like US$600 at a local clinic. There is an MRI only boutique cliinc also in town that uses a state of the art MRI machine and it costs...US$150.00 Reason? The general clinic increases their prices to account for other services they offer to keep those prices down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 There was an excellent NPR piece on this last week. i stopped reading right there. Biased liberal reporting. 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.