Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

CBO: Senate bill would increase individual insurance premiums...


posty
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Perchoutofwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

:wacko:

 

Nahh . . . it MUST be all the lawsuits! :D 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+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.

 

:wacko:

 

Nahh . . . it MUST be all the lawsuits! :D 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+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.

 

:wacko:

 

Nahh . . . it MUST be all the lawsuits! :D 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your link:

 

 

 

Such as routine mammograms to otherwise healthy women? :wacko:

 

Yeah the American Cancer Society is worried about getting sued, that is why they recommend women over 40 get a mammo ever year. :D You used to make sense some times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 . . ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information