Health care

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Health care

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Health care

Page: [1]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Health care - 7/30/2009 8:02:29 AM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

A lot of debate has been going on about health care lately. I have yet, though, to see one of the main underlying problems addressed. Tort reform. Something between 30 and 45 cents of every dollar spent on health care by the American public ends up in the pocket of a lawyer. Cut down on that number and you will cut down on the cost of health care. Bottom line is this. the united states has about 5% of the world's population. We also have HALF of the attorneys on the entire planet. These people produce nothing except for the need for more attorneys (the old saying is. "one lawyer in a small town will starve to death. two lawyers in a small town will both get rich")
Unfortunately, I dont see much being done as for tort reform as a majority of congress is........... you guessed it. lawyers

Post #: 1

RE: Health care - 7/30/2009 8:07:44 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

A lot of debate has been going on about health care lately. I have yet, though, to see one of the main underlying problems addressed. Tort reform. Something between 30 and 45 cents of every dollar spent on health care by the American public ends up in the pocket of a lawyer.

Uh okay.

Now can we have something to substantiate that?

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 2

RE: Health care - 7/30/2009 8:44:09 AM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Journal of the AMA a few years ago

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 3

RE: Health care - 7/30/2009 9:14:56 AM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Journal of the AMA a few years ago

I think you are mis-remembering that statistic somewhat...35-40% of health care dollars wind up in the pockets of lawyers or malpractice premiums (used to fight those lawyers).

Take a look at a Doctor's budget. It varies by practice area, and it has gone down somewhat in the past few years as other costs have risen, but malpractice insurance is still a huge line item (in the high 20s at least) and at one time was in that 35-40% range for some specialties. Overall I dont think it approaches those levels..more like the teens...but its still too damn high.

Tort reform has been addressed in health care threads, but only tangentially, and a thread on its own couldnt hurt...but the subject line could be more explicit!

< Message edited by willbeurdaddy -- 7/30/2009 9:17:38 AM >

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 4

RE: Health care - 7/30/2009 9:16:56 AM

Lorr47

Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

A lot of debate has been going on about health care lately. I have yet, though, to see one of the main underlying problems addressed. Tort reform. Something between 30 and 45 cents of every dollar spent on health care by the American public ends up in the pocket of a lawyer. Cut down on that number and you will cut down on the cost of health care. Bottom line is this. the united states has about 5% of the world's population. We also have HALF of the attorneys on the entire planet. These people produce nothing except for the need for more attorneys (the old saying is. "one lawyer in a small town will starve to death. two lawyers in a small town will both get rich")
Unfortunately, I dont see much being done as for tort reform as a majority of congress is........... you guessed it. lawyers

I mentioned tort reform as an area needing study to save medical expenditures in a previous thread. One problem pointed out in the "Inner Compass" was that an estimated 100,000 people are murdered (I use the word intentionally) by blatant medical malpractice a year while on the other hand in Dade County elders use the threat of suit to make expenses even higher. Also, the examples of rabid tort reform persons going the other way when one of their own is injured are rampart. Maybe some sort of caps on the recovery for a specific injury. Also, this forum shopping trying to get into high recovery courts is ridiculous.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 5

RE: Health care - 7/30/2009 9:20:14 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Journal of the AMA a few years ago

Well thanks, but since you posted it I believe it is incumbent on you to substantiate the claim.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 6

RE: Health care - 7/30/2009 10:24:03 AM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

No problem. I spent a few years in grad school for Biology before I worked as a materials scientist (youd be amazed at the crossover once you reach the upper levels of any scientific area) and If I had turned in a paper with a claim like that that wasnt footnoted, Id have been given a big assed F.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 7

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 5:37:58 AM

MmeGigs

Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

Michigan Hospital: Saying 'Sorry' Reduces Malpractice Suits

quote:

When a treatment goes wrong at a U.S. hospital, fear of a lawsuit usually means "never daring to say you're sorry."

That's not the way it works at the University of Michigan Health System, where lawyers and doctors say admitting mistakes up front and offering compensation before being sued have brought about remarkable savings in money, time and feelings.

quote:

According to Boothman, malpractice claims against his health system fell from 121 in 2001 to 61 in 2006, while the backlog of open claims went from 262 in 2001 to 106 in 2006 and 83 in 2007. Between 2001 and 2007, the average time to process a claim fell from about 20 months to about eight months, costs per claim were halved and insurance reserves dropped by two-thirds.

I heard a story about this on the radio a long time ago, and was happy to see there's a recent article on the subject. They (whoever "they" was - I don't recall now) did a study of patients who sued for malpractice and found that most of them wouldn't have sued if their medical provider had just acknowledged that they'd made a mistake and apologized. It's nice to see that this is working so well in practice.

I don't think that there's any one thing that will solve the problem of health care costs, but I think that there are a lot of this sort of win-win money saving solutions to be found.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 8

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 8:25:53 AM

servantforuse

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

TORT reform is not even on the table. Trial lawyers gave way to much money to Obama in last Novembers election. Now it's payback time..

(in reply to MmeGigs)

Post #: 9

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 8:39:08 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

Michigan Hospital: Saying 'Sorry' Reduces Malpractice Suits

quote:

When a treatment goes wrong at a U.S. hospital, fear of a lawsuit usually means "never daring to say you're sorry."

That's not the way it works at the University of Michigan Health System, where lawyers and doctors say admitting mistakes up front and offering compensation before being sued have brought about remarkable savings in money, time and feelings.

quote:

According to Boothman, malpractice claims against his health system fell from 121 in 2001 to 61 in 2006, while the backlog of open claims went from 262 in 2001 to 106 in 2006 and 83 in 2007. Between 2001 and 2007, the average time to process a claim fell from about 20 months to about eight months, costs per claim were halved and insurance reserves dropped by two-thirds.

I heard a story about this on the radio a long time ago, and was happy to see there's a recent article on the subject. They (whoever "they" was - I don't recall now) did a study of patients who sued for malpractice and found that most of them wouldn't have sued if their medical provider had just acknowledged that they'd made a mistake and apologized. It's nice to see that this is working so well in practice.

I don't think that there's any one thing that will solve the problem of health care costs, but I think that there are a lot of this sort of win-win money saving solutions to be found.

Its well known that what will get you sued, more often than not, is not what you did wrong, but how you handled the situation after the wrong was discovered.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to MmeGigs)

Post #: 10

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 8:39:43 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

TORT reform is not even on the table. Trial lawyers gave way to much money to Obama in last Novembers election. Now it's payback time..

And you don't think medical associations and insurance lobbies gave equally to candidates on the other side?

We had a wonderful scare program in Ohio, and I think I've mentioned this to you before.

Unless limits were passed on malpractice liability we were going to be without doctors because they would all be leaving for states with more favorable laws.

Unfortunately, that created a broad brushstroke that may limit frivolous suits but also limits punitive and compensatory damages for those legitimately injured by negligence.

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 7/31/2009 8:40:51 AM >

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 11

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 8:50:57 AM

servantforuse

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

The right to file a suit will always be there. I do think that there should be some type of a cap on the amount of money you could recieve from a lawsuit.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 12

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 8:57:36 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

cap based upon what? that too can be potentially harmful. then we go into the "how many suits can i successfully lose before it becomes a hardship" kind of thing. sorta like playing the odds.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 13

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 8:58:38 AM

substobbws

Posts: 65
Joined: 1/17/2006
Status: offline

I saw a commercial designed to scare you by stating the dollar amount it's going to cost us if we do nothing. The problem is, they didn't say what it's going to cost by having the government do SOMETHING.

When you're in your 80s and need a heart valve, you're really going to want a politician coming between you and a doctor, deciding what's feasible and what isn't.

There's no perfect system in anything. I'm sure accidental shootings go up wherever concealed carry is voted in. Doesn't erase the fact that many more murders DON'T take place. The better net result.

Like one financial adviser says about social insecurity. Let them take 90% of what they do now, keep it, and give you no benefits. You invest the other 10% spread out over mutual funds and you'll get a better return than you do via the government's 100%. That's how bad it is. What did AARP make in the stock market a few years ago? Over $700 million in one year? While preaching AGAINST privatization for you? LOL.

I'm not confident that bigger government is the correct answer to anything. If the government gets it's hands on it and it doesn't work, what are the chances of it willingly giving it back up? Where is THAT demonstrated in history? Governments gaining power are like a one way ratchet. If you think the system is corrupt now?

< Message edited by substobbws -- 7/31/2009 9:02:49 AM >

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 14

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 9:33:39 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

The right to file a suit will always be there. I do think that there should be some type of a cap on the amount of money you could recieve from a lawsuit.

Really?

So if you were paralyzed for life by a surgeon's negligence would you be satisfied with a $250,000 cap on punitive damages?

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 15

RE: Health care - 7/31/2009 9:38:26 AM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: substobbws

Like one financial adviser says about social insecurity. Let them take 90% of what they do now, keep it, and give you no benefits. You invest the other 10% spread out over mutual funds and you'll get a better return than you do via the government's 100%.

So, let's say that Bush's plan to privatize had gone through.

What would be the value of your Social Security now?

Anything like the value of your 401K?

(in reply to substobbws)

Post #: 16

RE: Health care - 8/1/2009 8:18:22 AM

MmeGigs

Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
TORT reform is not even on the table.

I don't think that it should be. It will take a lot of time and negotiating to sort out changes to medical malpractice law. It would probably be appropriate to roll that in with the discussions about consumer protection, since it has a lot in common with personal injury cases of other sorts. However, when it comes to addressing health care spending, it's a distraction from issues with actual potential to save money.

Premiums for malpractice insurance made up 0.6% of total health care spending in 2006. The cost of actual malpractice payments was 0.18% of total health care spending in 2006, and we spent even less in 2008. I've heard that these costs could be cut by up to a third with some changes to the malpractice system, including caps on awards, arbitration, reviewing cases to weed out frivilous suits before they get to court. That figure was inflated because it used jury award figures rather than what the plaintiffs ended up settling for - about half the award, on average - but if we take that inflated figure, that's at best a 0.2% savings in overall health care costs. Caps on non-economic awards would save virtually nothing since most of the 0.18% that gets paid out is damages rather than awards, and most awards don't exceed the limits that have been suggested. "Frivilous" lawsuits account for about 10% of cases as a whole, and are nearly always thrown out of court. Trying to eliminate them would cost more than it would save.

Some of the rhetoric on this issue makes it sound like there are hoards of people out there just looking for a chance to sue the pants off someone and live the lush life on the proceeds, and that quite a few of them are succeeding. That's a bunch of bull. The fact is that fewer than 1 in 20 folks who are injured sue. There's clear evidence that even fewer sue when the providers take responsibility and try to make it right, which doesn't just mean money.

quote:

Trial lawyers gave way to much money to Obama in last Novembers election. Now it's payback time..

The insurance companies make *much* more money from the medical malpractice system than trial lawyers and plaintiffs do. They gave a lot of money to the folks on the house and senate committees dealing with health care. Perhaps that's who's getting paid back. Or maybe the president and the folks in congress just see this for the distraction that it is in the context of the larger health care debate and are going to concentrate on things that offer a more bang for the buck. There are many ways that one can spin this.

From what I've heard, Obama's approach to the issue is to try to decrease the number of claims by decreasing the number of people who are injured. I think that's a fine place to start, and apparently it is something that works to bring malpractice insurance premiums down.

quote:

Anesthesiologists used to get hit with the most malpractice lawsuits and some of the highest insurance premiums. Then in the late 1980s, the American Society of Anesthesiologists launched a project to analyze every claim ever brought against its members and develop new ways to reduce medical error. By 2002, the specialty had one of the highest safety ratings in the profession, and its average insurance premium plummeted to its 1985 level, bucking nationwide trends. Similarly, feeling embattled by a high rate of malpractice claims, the University of Michigan Medical System in 2002 analyzed all adverse claims and used the data to restructure procedures to guard against error. Since instituting the program, the number of suits has dropped by half, and the university's annual spending on malpractice litigation is down two-thirds. And at the Lexington, Ky., Veterans Affairs Medical Center, a program of early disclosure and settlement of malpractice claims lowered average settlement costs to $15,000, compared with $83,000 for other VA hospitals.

http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

Why not go with something that has not only been proven to work to control malpractice costs, but also results in better outcomes for patients?

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 17

RE: Health care - 8/1/2009 9:36:39 AM

Brain

Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline

That's not true. If they do it right not only will it cost nothing but it will save a lot of money making costs similar to other countries that already have implemented healthcare reform.

(in reply to substobbws)

Post #: 18

RE: Health care - 8/1/2009 11:26:05 AM

MmeGigs

Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: substobbws
I saw a commercial designed to scare you by stating the dollar amount it's going to cost us if we do nothing. The problem is, they didn't say what it's going to cost by having the government do SOMETHING.

Overall medical spending won't increase as a result of government involvement. It's really more a matter of whose pocket it's going to come out of, or how many pockets it's going to move through rather than it is how much it costs. If we pay for it with tax dollars, as we would be with a single-payer plan, employers aren't going to be paying these costs. It's a substantial amount of money, even for crappy insurance - thousands of dollars per employee. One would hope that businesses would share the savings through lower prices and/or higher wages, which would offset increases in taxes. Slapping a high rate on top earners would encourage businesses to share the savings, or help to fill in the gap if they chose not to.

quote:

When you're in your 80s and need a heart valve, you're really going to want a politician coming between you and a doctor, deciding what's feasible and what isn't.

If you're in your 80's in the US, Medicare is your primary insurance provider now so this is pretty much a moot point. I don't hear a lot of seniors complaining about Medicare interfering in their dealings with their Dr. It certainly hasn't come up as a big issue in the health care debates, except as a scare tactic. Every insurance policy has limits. Neither govt nor private plans will pay for everything.

It doesn't seem that private insurance companies can be counted on to look out for the best interests of the insured. I was listening to something recently about some companies that sell health insurance to individuals. Certain diagnoses will trigger a review of the policyholder's application and they will nit-pick it to death to try to find a reason to deny coverage. One guy who needed surgery had his insurance cancelled after years of paying premiums because his insurance agent put the wrong weight on his application. This wasn't an isolated incident.

quote:

I'm not confident that bigger government is the correct answer to anything. If the government gets it's hands on it and it doesn't work, what are the chances of it willingly giving it back up? Where is THAT demonstrated in history? Governments gaining power are like a one way ratchet. If you think the system is corrupt now?

Do you think that the private sector is less corrupt, or more likely to give up power once they get their hands on it? Who do you think it is that's pumping in the money to influence politicians?

The private sector is the best answer for some things, but not for everything. It definitely has its limitations, a lack of a sense of civic responsibility being one of them. We know that government isn't the answer for everything, but it is our mechanism for dealing with stuff that has to be done, costs money and doesn't generate any revenue, or not enough to cover the expenses, like health insurance for the elderly, chronically ill, low-income folks, etc.

(in reply to substobbws)

Post #: 19

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Health care

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.172