Yay for PelosiCare!

[maxiep]

Not sure where you are getting the 35 billion/year. CBO estimates a savings of 11 billion for 2009. But yes, let's take that savings. It still amounts to only a savings of half a percent.

barfo

From Page 2 of the report:

CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical
malpractice liability—which consist of malpractice insurance premiums together with
settlements, awards, and administrative costs not covered by insurance—will total
approximately $35 billion, or about 2 percent of total health care expenditures.

 

[maxiep]

It's too bad, then, that the republicans have never had majorities in the house and senate and held the presidency at the same time - if that had ever happened, they would have been able to enact real tort reform.

I mean besides 2001-2006, of course. Six years isn't nearly enough time to get things done.

barfo

There's absolutely no question that era will go down as a shameful one for the Republicans. The question is why are the Democrats trying to top them?

 

[barfo]

Let's impeach the guy who wrote that article. Go for it.

It's mostly just his opinion. No need for impeachment.

It's not a bad argument except for the "let's just stipulate that whatever figures anyone throws out are correct" part.

And I think he misstates the conclusions of the 2004 CBO report.

But I don't have any problem with his conclusion, even so.

I think if the democrats are confident they have the votes to get the overall bill passed, it would be a good thing to add in tort reform too. As long as they are in a position where they might not have the votes, they are probably smart to hold on to tort reform as a possible bargaining chip for that one last senator's vote.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

So a doctor accidently chops off the wrong arm or someone contracts the AIDS virus due to neglegence of the doctor's office and they are limited to economic damages and 250,000 in punitive damages.

Sounds like a hell of a deal . . . for the insurance company.

Do you believe that physicians should be required to be perfect? There's gross negligence and there's medical mistakes. The former should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; the latter needs to try to make the patient whole, not to win the lottery.

 

[barfo]

From Page 2 of the report:

That's the total cost. Tort reform isn't going to completely eliminate medical malpractice liability, unless you've got in mind to say no one has the right to ever sue a doctor for any reason.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Tort reform would have the added benefit of reducing the practice of defensive medicine, which would allow services to be provided to more people.

 

[maxiep]

That's the total cost. Tort reform isn't going to completely eliminate medical malpractice liability, unless you've got in mind to say no one has the right to ever sue a doctor for any reason.

barfo

You're right. My bad. Let's use the $11B number. That's $36.67 for every man, woman and child in the US or $146.67 for a family of four. I think that's a significant savings. Why not pursue it?

Howard Dean told the truth.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

It's too bad, then, that the republicans have never had majorities in the house and senate and held the presidency at the same time - if that had ever happened, they would have been able to enact real tort reform.

I mean besides 2001-2006, of course. Six years isn't nearly enough time to get things done.

barfo

Even when they had a majority, they couldn't get it passed. The plaintiff attorney lobby is one of the two or three toughest.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Do you believe that physicians should be required to be perfect? There's gross negligence and there's medical mistakes. The former should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; the latter needs to try to make the patient whole, not to win the lottery.

Prosecute? I'm not talking criminal charges against the doctor.

But I do believe doctors should be held to a high standard given what is at stake. I might even be OK with a standard of gross negligence for a patient to prevail (although I think regular negligenceis a perfectly fine standard).

What I think is ridiculous is limiting how much a patient can recover through legislation . . . that is for a jury to decide under the facts of the particular case.

 

[maxiep]

Even when they had a majority, they couldn't get it passed. The plaintiff attorney lobby is one of the two or three toughest.

I really don't think they tried too hard. I was incredibly disappointed with those Congresses and the domestic policies of our President. It was a great chance to scale back government, and they expanded it dramatically.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

"Where the cap is insufficient in particularly egregious cases a "Health Court" could hear appeals and make awards above the cap from a compensation fund provided by the healthcare industry."

"Health Court" instead of a jury of your peers . . . hate the idea.

It's like filing a complaint with the internal affairs division of the police department.

 

[maxiep]

"Health Court" instead of a jury of your peers . . . hate the idea.

It's like filing a complaint with the internal affairs division of the police department.

It reduces the beta of the settlements. I think it's a good idea. These juries would hear only malpractice suits, and would, in essence become experts on some complex issues.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The lawyers are taking the cases on spec, it'd be the lawyers who'd choose not to sue if they don't think there's a real case to be taken to court or a settlement reached. It'd be the ambulance chasers paying the defendant's bills.

I don't understand, are you saying the law firm should be responsible for the costs of the other side if they lose . . . because I've never seen that proposed before.

Should the doctor pay for the plaitiffs costs if the prevail?

 

[maxiep]

I don't understand, are you saying the law firm should be responsible for the costs of the other side if they lose . . . because I've never seen that proposed before.

Should the doctor pay for the plaitiffs costs if the prevail?

They have it in the UK. The losing side pays attorney's fees and court costs.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

It reduces the beta of the settlements. I think it's a good idea. These juries would hear only malpractice suits, and would, in essence become experts on some complex issues.

Who pays these health court people?

As long as there are no caps and these health court people are really unbiased, it could work. But I don't think the concept (if doctor was negligent) is that complex of an issue and a jury is better than having to appeal to some specialized health court who I fear would have an agenda.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

They have it in the UK. The losing side pays attorney's fees and court costs.

I don't see how that would be implemented in the US . . . but as long as both sides were held to the same standard, that is a start.

It might just stop those insurance companies to stop fucking around with legit claims.

 

[maxiep]

Who pays these health court people?

As long as there are no caps and these health court people are really unbiased, it could work. But I don't think the concept (if doctor was negligent) is that complex of an issue and a jury is better than having to appeal to some specialized health court who I fear would have an agenda.

We do. It would just become a specialized branch of the judiciary. It wouldn't result in additional costs, it would just funnel malpractice cases to a specific court.

 

[blazerboy30]

Not sure where you are getting the 35 billion/year. CBO estimates a savings of 11 billion for 2009. But yes, let's take that savings. It still amounts to only a savings of half a percent.

barfo

What is the most savings, in percent, we can get out?

 

[maxiep]

I don't see how that would be implemented in the US . . . but as long as both sides were held to the same standard, that is a start.

It might just stop those insurance companies to stop fucking around with legit claims.

It's a tough deal. Of course it stops frivilous lawsuits, but it also keeps many worthy claims from being pursued. Could you imagine risking a few million dollars in defendant attorney fees to pursue a claim? I'm not sure I would.

 

[barfo]

What is the most savings, in percent, we can get out?

That's a very good question, and if you find the answer let me know.

But I think we can all agree that saving a half-a-percent, on anything, is not a game-changer.

barfo

 

[The_Lillard_King]

We do. It would just become a specialized branch of the judiciary. It wouldn't result in additional costs, it would just funnel malpractice cases to a specific court.

I'm OK with specialized juries . . . I'm not OK with an internal department that will review appeals to decide if they have merit.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

It's a tough deal. Of course it stops frivilous lawsuits, but it also keeps many worthy claims from being pursued. Could you imagine risking a few million dollars in defendant attorney fees to pursue a claim? I'm not sure I would.

The problem I have with all of thees analogy is it is assuming it is only the plaintiffs that are the problem.

If I'm a big insurance company looking at a legit million dollar lawsuit, why wouldn't I drag the whole process out for a couple of years while earning interest on the money and maybe even cause the plaintiff enough stress in their lives to settle for a lot less ($250,000) just so they can pay their bills and get on with their life.

 

[blazerboy30]

That's a very good question, and if you find the answer let me know.

But I think we can all agree that saving a half-a-percent, on anything, is not a game-changer.

barfo

I'm not so sure. If you told me the most savings we could hope for was 1%, then a half-a-percent savings from a known source would be significant.

$11billion in savings should be able to provide decent healthcare coverage to 11 million people. That is already half of the additional insured numbers some of these bills are targeting, with no cost to tax payers.

Seems significant to me.

 

[maxiep]

That's a very good question, and if you find the answer let me know.

But I think we can all agree that saving a half-a-percent, on anything, is not a game-changer.

barfo

This is a case where statistics can be deceiving. In behavorial economics, one learns if you wish to minimize the impact of figures, with large numbers use percentages, with small numbers use amounts. In other words, $11B is much more impressive than 0.5%. If you were buying a $0.25 pencil instead of a $0.20 pencil, you would say $0.05 rather than 20%.

 

[barfo]

I'm not so sure. If you told me the most savings we could hope for was 1%, then a half-a-percent savings from a known source would be significant.

Well, it would be a significant fraction of the available savings. But it isn't going to make the difference on whether it is affordable or not. If you can't afford the stated price, and the most savings on a purchase that you can hope for is 1%, then you have to stop worrying about cost cutting and start thinking of alternatives.

$11billion in savings should be able to provide decent healthcare coverage to 11 million people. That is already half of the additional insured numbers some of these bills are targeting, with no cost to tax payers.

Seems significant to me.

I think your math must be off. If we can insure 11 million for 11 billion, then we can insure 300 million for 300 billion. Yet current spending (for less than 300 billion served) is apparently 11 billion/0.005 = 2.2 trillion.

barfo

 

[yakbladder]

Tort reform is brought up continuously by the republicans, but it goes nowhere.

Care to link to the last time a GOP member tried to put a tort reform amendment on the health care bill?

 

[barfo]

This is a case where statistics can be deceiving. In behavorial economics, one learns if you wish to minimize the impact of figures, with large numbers use percentages, with small numbers use amounts. In other words, $11B is much more impressive than 0.5%. If you were buying a $0.25 pencil instead of a $0.20 pencil, you would say $0.05 rather than 20%.

Well, I agree with that, and $11B is a lot of dollars. But it is still true that it is only a half-a-percent.

And if you can't afford 100%, you probably can't afford 99.5%.

Or if you want to see that in big numbers, if you can't afford to pay $2,200,000,000,000, you probably can't afford $2,189,000,000,000 either.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Well, I agree with that, and $11B is a lot of dollars. But it is still true that it is only a half-a-percent.

And if you can't afford 100%, you probably can't afford 99.5%.

Or if you want to see that in big numbers, if you can't afford to pay $2,200,000,000,000, you probably can't afford $2,189,000,000,000 either.

barfo

I don't think the American people can afford the government they want. Polls show that we don't want a public takeover of the healthcare system, so what makes anyone think we can afford a government we don't want?

 

[blazerboy30]

Well, it would be a significant fraction of the available savings. But it isn't going to make the difference on whether it is affordable or not. If you can't afford the stated price, and the most savings on a purchase that you can hope for is 1%, then you have to stop worrying about cost cutting and start thinking of alternatives.



I think your math must be off. If we can insure 11 million for 11 billion, then we can insure 300 million for 300 billion. Yet current spending (for less than 300 billion served) is apparently 11 billion/0.005 = 2.2 trillion.

barfo

11 billion / 1000 = 11 million. Are you denying that decent healthcare insurance can be purchased for $1000 / year?

 

[barfo]

11 billion / 1000 = 11 million. Are you denying that decent healthcare insurance can be purchased for $1000 / year?

No, I'm not denying that. I don't in fact know whether it can or not. Although, it appears that unless I'm making a math error, my employer is paying $6000/year for my insurance.

I'm saying that according to the CBO, we as a country spend far more than $1000 per capita on heathcare.

barfo