Yay for PelosiCare!

[maxiep]

You started the little pissing match as well, though. It's true that I enjoy pissing matches every bit as much as you do, but at least I don't have some cockamamie conspiracy theory about why you engage in pissing matches.

barfo

Well, I'm not a gimmick poster. All I did was warn BB30 that you were playing a cute little game because you can't defend that 1,990 page pile of excrement.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure what's funnier here - the fact that I can't read, or that I thought it was entirely in character that you defined immorality that way, or that no one noticed the discrepancy.

barfo

I was quoting Reagan. And it's so true and appropriate.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, I'm not a gimmick poster. All I did was warn BB30 that you were playing a cute little game because you can't defend that 1,990 page pile of excrement.

I don't see how dragging the discourse to the gutter helps anything or is interesting reading.

I'm not just talking about this post, or about you.

 

[maxiep]

I don't see how dragging the discourse to the gutter helps anything or is interesting reading.

I'm not just talking about this post, or about you.

And the beauty of the forum is that you're free not to read it.

 

[Denny Crane]

And the beauty of the forum is that you're free not to read it.

Absolutely true.

The opening post and initial discussion was quite interesting to me. It's something I actually like to read. Then it became a bunch of scrolling through stuff that lost me a few brain cells.

I'm not posting this in any official capacity, just offering my opinion of what I'm seeing.

 

[maxiep]

Absolutely true.

The opening post and initial discussion was quite interesting to me. It's something I actually like to read. Then it became a bunch of scrolling through stuff that lost me a few brain cells.

I'm not posting this in any official capacity, just offering my opinion of what I'm seeing.

I agree. The reason I warned BB30 was to stop the thread from going down that road. I'll take some blame for continuing to swat at the fly buzzing around my head, but note, I tried to put the thread back on track.

So, again, I'll ask those that support this bill: What does this bill improve? It's more expensive, it makes coverage worse and destroys the relationship between the physician and the patient.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Let's start by optimizing how much money lawyers get from suing doctors for doing their jobs the best they can.

Can't do that, the lawyers are big donors to Obama and the rest of the party in charge.

As a side note, now that my claims adjusting is specialized to medical malpractice and medical commercial property, for every 100 malpractice lawsuites, 90 have zero merit in any way and the plaintiff attorney is just looking for a quick payday or to stiff arm an insurance company. Of the remaining 10 lawsuites, 5 may be a debatable case of malpractice and the other 5 are clearly malpractice.

I would want to see any health care reform do something about those 90 baseless cases.

 

[yakbladder]

As a side note, now that my claims adjusting is specialized to medical malpractice and medical commercial property, for every 100 malpractice lawsuites, 90 have zero merit in any way and the plaintiff attorney is just looking for a quick payday or to stiff arm an insurance company. Of the remaining 10 lawsuites, 5 may be a debatable case of malpractice and the other 5 are clearly malpractice.

I would want to see any health care reform do something about those 90 baseless cases.

But again, as mentioned previously, it's already been determined that tort reform won't meaningfully affect health costs.

I'd also add that Obama himself brought up tort reform and essentially said to the GOP to bring it to the table.

But instead of trying to insert that into the current bill, NOW they finally get around to producing their own bill which will be released I think this century for debate.

Again, roles are reversed, it's always seemingly a matter of "my way or the highway" with both parties.

 

[blazerboy30]

I already know my answer, that's why I asked for your answer.

Since you are defending this bill, it must optimize what you would like to see optimized. What is this bill optimizing.

Ok. I'd argue that this bill is incremental, but I suppose it is possible to be even more incremental.

Yes.

On the other hand, I'd like to see the problem fixed before the sun goes supernova, so too much incrementalism isn't really a good thing.

barfo

Of course, you exaggerate wildly... speaking of deceptive games with math.
barfo

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

But again, as mentioned previously, it's already been determined that tort reform won't meaningfully affect health costs.

I'd also add that Obama himself brought up tort reform and essentially said to the GOP to bring it to the table.

But instead of trying to insert that into the current bill, NOW they finally get around to producing their own bill which will be released I think this century for debate.

Again, roles are reversed, it's always seemingly a matter of "my way or the highway" with both parties.

And that's a shame. When doctors are forced to treat patients with the knowledge that a meritless lawsuit is always looming it changes the care given- more tests, more RX... and screws up the system for everyone. Healthcare would be more affordable if doctors didn't work with this dagger over them. In fact, many leave the profession, or the state where they work, or leave a specialty field due to these lawsuites and accompaning raise in professional liability insurance rates.

We then add to that much less pay from the national health care plan and I wonder what the long term effect will be.

 

[Denny Crane]

As a side note, now that my claims adjusting is specialized to medical malpractice and medical commercial property, for every 100 malpractice lawsuites, 90 have zero merit in any way and the plaintiff attorney is just looking for a quick payday or to stiff arm an insurance company. Of the remaining 10 lawsuites, 5 may be a debatable case of malpractice and the other 5 are clearly malpractice.

I would want to see any health care reform do something about those 90 baseless cases.

How about, if you lose you pay the defendant's legal bills?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

As a side note, now that my claims adjusting is specialized to medical malpractice and medical commercial property, for every 100 malpractice lawsuites, 90 have zero merit in any way and the plaintiff attorney is just looking for a quick payday or to stiff arm an insurance company. Of the remaining 10 lawsuites, 5 may be a debatable case of malpractice and the other 5 are clearly malpractice.

I would want to see any health care reform do something about those 90 baseless cases.

You aren't making the insurance company the good guys in this senario . . . are you?

If 90-95% of the medical malpractice cases don't succeed, then it sounds like the system works. And for those 5-10% of legit claims, those people get rightfully compensated.

This issue has little to do with the healtcare package.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

How about, if you lose you pay the defendant's legal bills?

Great . . . except good luck trying to recover 20K from a person drowning in medical bills.

 

[maxiep]

It's been estimated that tort reform would save between $50B and $200B in lowered premiums. I'm wondering how this avenue wasn't investigated to lower costs? Instead, we're talking about cutting $500B from Medicare.

Howard Dean was telling the truth right here: [video=youtube;IdpVY-cONnM]

Template public:_media_site_embed_youtube not found. Try rebuilding or reinstalling the s9e/MediaSites add-on.

 

[Denny Crane]

Great . . . except good luck trying to recover 20K from a person drowning in medical bills.

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.

 

[STOMP]

Great . . . except good luck trying to recover 20K from a person drowning in medical bills.

and often facing a dire ongoing medical situation.

My dad is a Doc and faced a seemingly baseless malpractice lawsuit about 10 years back. Though it seemed that most everything was in his favor, there was still the human element of the actual judging that could have come down against him. Because of this, his insurance company continually pressured him to settle. If he had done so his already considerable malpractice insurance rates would have skyrocketed. Going forward, one more successful case brought against him would have meant the end of his medical career.

The day before the case was to be heard the plaintiff's side slashed it's settlement offer. Pops refused. The case was dropped less then an hour before it was to be heard. The plaintiff had developed full blown cancer and died a few months later. My dad had lost 15 pounds to stress and countless hours of productivity. He was out nearly 40K in legal fees. I'd never seen him bitter/cynical before as he had been living his life dream of helping people.

STOMP

 

[barfo]

Actually, the CBO just did a new calculation on the effects of tort reform. They said it could reduce costs by one-half of one percent.

Me, I'm not against saving that one-half of one percent. Bring it on. For me, that would save about 37 cents per month, assuming the savings were passed on to the insured.

But let's not pretend like half a percent is the cure.

barfo

 

[Blaze01]

I fail to see how taking a sledgehammer to the health care system is the correct way to fix it, rather than implementing a series of smaller\incremental fixes....I think mostly everyone agrees that it DEFINITELY needs to be fixed\addressed....but I and obviously a lot of other american voters don't agree that it needs to be done is one massive\expensive piece of legislation....there are a lot of easier\more cost effective moves that could and should be made first before something like this legislation is forced on americans....

....but then again liberals seem to relish the idea of telling other people how they think they should live practically every aspect of thier lives...and therein lies the ultimate error of thier ways...

 

[yakbladder]

And that's a shame. When doctors are forced to treat patients with the knowledge that a meritless lawsuit is always looming it changes the care given- more tests, more RX... and screws up the system for everyone. Healthcare would be more affordable if doctors didn't work with this dagger over them. In fact, many leave the profession, or the state where they work, or leave a specialty field due to these lawsuites and accompaning raise in professional liability insurance rates.

We then add to that much less pay from the national health care plan and I wonder what the long term effect will be.

Except that again you seem to avoid the fact that it was already brought up by the President himself. I don't see the GOP trotting out amendments regarding tort reform. I see them talking about, but no action. They just say no and expect to get their way.

 

[maxiep]

and often facing a dire ongoing medical situation.

My dad is a Doc and faced a seemingly baseless malpractice lawsuit about 10 years back. Though it seemed that most everything was in his favor, there was still the human element of the actual judging that could have come down against him. Because of this, his insurance company continually pressured him to settle. If he had done so his already considerable malpractice insurance rates would have skyrocketed. Going forward, one more successful case brought against him would have meant the end of his medical career.

The day before the case was to be heard the plaintiff's side slashed it's settlement offer. Pops refused. The case was dropped less then an hour before it was to be heard. The plaintiff had developed full blown cancer and died a few months later. My dad had lost 15 pounds to stress and countless hours of productivity. He was out nearly 40K in legal fees. I'd never seen him bitter/cynical before as he had been living his life dream of helping people.

STOMP

Allow me to say something that is unpopular: Doctors are human. They make mistakes. Of course, when they make a mistake, the consequences are huge. That being said, they're not perfect and it's a foolish to ever believe they should be. That's why you get a second opinion on anything serious.

Malpractice is a real problem because there are bad docs out there. Identifying those bad docs and making them pay is an important job. In that sense, my hats are off to trial lawyers. That being said, anyplace there is a potential for profit, there are bad actors who will attempt to exploit the system.

If you're a victim of gross malpractice, you should still only receive a sum to cover your health care costs or to keep up your current standard of living. Punitive judgments hurt everyone through higher premiums. The goal should be to price bad docs out of the business by raising their insurance rates so high, they can no longer practice. But good docs become victims too. STOMP highlighted the personal costs these docs suffer.

In short, we badly need tort reform. It's too bad the Democrats are too afraid to take on part of their base.

 

[maxiep]

Except that again you seem to avoid the fact that it was already brought up by the President himself. I don't see the GOP trotting out amendments regarding tort reform. I see them talking about, but no action. They just say no and expect to get their way.

Err, Paul Ryan brought up a tort reform amendment. It was voted down in a party line vote. Check your facts.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

How about, if you lose you pay the defendant's legal bills?

I like the idea, but it's not really fair to the claimants.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Except that again you seem to avoid the fact that it was already brought up by the President himself. I don't see the GOP trotting out amendments regarding tort reform. I see them talking about, but no action. They just say no and expect to get their way.

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

 

[maxiep]

Actually, the CBO just did a new calculation on the effects of tort reform. They said it could reduce costs by one-half of one percent.

Me, I'm not against saving that one-half of one percent. Bring it on. For me, that would save about 37 cents per month, assuming the savings were passed on to the insured.

But let's not pretend like half a percent is the cure.

barfo

I'll take a savings of $35,000,000,000.00 a year. That's $116.67 for every man, woman and child in the US or $466.67 for a family of four. That's real money.

 

[Denny Crane]

I like the idea, but it's not really fair to the claimants.

Sure it is.

Anytime something goes wrong medically, there's going to be a lawsuit and regardless of how good the doctor is and the excellence of the care provided.

I would say that the 90% of the cases that are frivolous are brought by lawyers who will take the case on spec (a % of the settlement or award) and who end up funding the plaintiff's costs. From their standpoint, it's worth a shotgun approach. Take 10 cases and if you lose 100% of the costs on 9 of them but make $5M on the 10th, you're way up.

I see the bogus claim that tort claims only cost some small % of the overall costs. There's a lot more to it than the amount of settlements and the cost of malpractice insurance. It drives good doctors out of practice altogether or into other specialties that are reasonably (or excessively) profitable. And then there are a lot of extra procedures performed by doctors just to cover their asses for the expected lawsuit, no matter the medical outcome.

 

[barfo]

I'll take a savings of $35,000,000,000.00 a year. That's $116.67 for every man, woman and child in the US or $466.67 for a family of four. That's real money.

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

 

[barfo]

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

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

 

[Denny Crane]

"It will be tough to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they're looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits... some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable." (President Obama, American Medical Association June 2009).

"Anyone who denies there is a crisis in medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer."
(Barack Obama 1996 Illinois State Senate race).

Now the vaunted CBO and GAO won't score the savings anywhere near that number. (Both argue that so many states have enacted different tort reform laws that an assessment of savings is not possible). But the CBO has reviewed the few credible reports that do exist and concluded, "A number of those studies have found that state level tort reforms have decreased the number of lawsuits filed, lowered the value of claims and damage awards... thereby reducing general insurance premiums. Indeed premiums fell by 40% for some commercial policies". (CBO Report June 2004)

Then there is the restriction to accessible healthcare resulting from malpractice lawsuits. A GAO report in August 2003 concluded, "Actions taken by healthcare providers in response to malpractice pressure have contributed to localized healthcare access problems....pregnant women in rural central Mississippi (for example) travel 65 miles to locate obstetric wards to deliver because family practitioners at local hospitals faced with rising malpractice insurance premiums stopped providing obstetric services."

Since those states that have enacted tort reform have such disparate caps on pain and suffering malpractice lawyers "venue" shop for states with higher caps and more plaintive-friendly juries. The attractiveness of class action suits, which can result in millions of dollars (30 to 40% of the award goes to lawyers), often result in pitifully small payments to the injured parties.

Let's be clear, there are thousands of legitimate malpractice cases where doctors and hospitals cause terrible damages. National standards for medical malpractice would mandate full payment for economic damages a cap of $250000 in punitive damages would be a reasonable award in most of these cases. 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.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...he_hole_on_health_care_tort_reform_97919.html

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

 

[The_Lillard_King]

"It will be tough to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they're looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits... some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable." (President Obama, American Medical Association June 2009).

"Anyone who denies there is a crisis in medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer."
(Barack Obama 1996 Illinois State Senate race).

Now the vaunted CBO and GAO won't score the savings anywhere near that number. (Both argue that so many states have enacted different tort reform laws that an assessment of savings is not possible). But the CBO has reviewed the few credible reports that do exist and concluded, "A number of those studies have found that state level tort reforms have decreased the number of lawsuits filed, lowered the value of claims and damage awards... thereby reducing general insurance premiums. Indeed premiums fell by 40% for some commercial policies". (CBO Report June 2004)

Then there is the restriction to accessible healthcare resulting from malpractice lawsuits. A GAO report in August 2003 concluded, "Actions taken by healthcare providers in response to malpractice pressure have contributed to localized healthcare access problems....pregnant women in rural central Mississippi (for example) travel 65 miles to locate obstetric wards to deliver because family practitioners at local hospitals faced with rising malpractice insurance premiums stopped providing obstetric services."

Since those states that have enacted tort reform have such disparate caps on pain and suffering malpractice lawyers "venue" shop for states with higher caps and more plaintive-friendly juries. The attractiveness of class action suits, which can result in millions of dollars (30 to 40% of the award goes to lawyers), often result in pitifully small payments to the injured parties.

Let's be clear, there are thousands of legitimate malpractice cases where doctors and hospitals cause terrible damages. National standards for medical malpractice would mandate full payment for economic damages a cap of $250000 in punitive damages would be a reasonable award in most of these cases. 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.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...he_hole_on_health_care_tort_reform_97919.html

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

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.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

"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."