Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes

Originally Posted By: CraigOriginally Posted By: javafour

You seemingly didn't really read my two SEPARATE sources, one was a Canadian article, yes, and one was a study--that is two separate sources that show pretty clearly what one should expect in Canada. The blog you cited is pretty lame, BTW.

For example, your socialist blogger buddy drags out the old US infant mortality rate as a 'proof' that socialized medicine is superior. Wrongo! Because of our SUPERIOR medical care here in the US, we have more kids even make it to birth--kids who would have died before or shortly after birth in these wonderful foreign countries. OF COURSE that will skew our stats, but all it shows is that here kids have a much better fighting chance.

WHO CARES what the WHO thinks about anything? Most of the world is a real mess and you couldn't pay me to live there. If you want to wait 20 hours in a Canadian ER or to have the dental care of the British then God bless ya, I like my relationships with my family's doctors and I don't want the government messing with that, thanks. You are welcome to go to Canada or Britain for your medical care but...oh, wait, they all seem to want to come HERE...gee, wonder why that is? Gosh, maybe because our health care here is BETTER and they can get it here when they need it, ie BEFORE they die!

Sure, lots we can do to lower health care costs and that all starts with getting the liberals out of the picture. Reform medical malpractice, allow multi-state insurance pooling, and other free market reforms. The last thing we need is MORE government meddling.

I have traveled abroad extensively and I would not want to copy ANYTHING here that I have seen overseas, thanks. THEY need to be more like us, not the other way around!

I read the CBC article. The waiting time the cite isn't the time waiting to see a doctor, its the waiting time to either be discharged, or sent to another part of the hospital, it says so in the first paragraph. By their definition of a waiting time, if the doctor kept you overnight for observation, your "waiting" time has now become 24 hours It's a very sewed article to say the least.

As for the infant mortality rates. Ask your self, if other "socialized" country are doing better then you in a lot of other areas (life expectancy, most cancer survival rates, heart disease, and a long list of other things) why would you think that the infant mortality rate is scewed because of your better health care. True the US measures this differently then SOME (some not all) countries.

People come to the US because your health care system is great for people who have a lot of cash. It sucks for the poor, and for anyone who's insurance drops them, or they lose their job, or trying to start their own business, etc...

As for the reforms well.

Malpractice is somewhere between 1-200 billion, depending on who you talk to. Health care costs are about 2.2 trillion. Even if you were to remove malpractice entirely, which you can't do of course, it comes out a savings of less then 1/10 of 1%. Its like trimming your fingernails to lose weight.

I suppose its worth mentioning, but most of the payout in malpractice is for future medical costs. If you had a single payer system where the future medical costs for the victim is essentially zero, single payer has no become the ultimate tort reform.

As for competition across state lines read this. I guess you'll want to dismiss it because its from the evil socialist, but its written in plain english, and hard to find disagreement with the logic.

Go here
http://apps.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?countries=[Location].Members
Copy and paste, linking it doesn't work well.

And take the time to compare the US against other industrialized countries (unclick the third world countries to save your self the mess) and then ask your self why your towards the bottom in nearly every health indicator they compiled. Yet you're still spending more then the "socialists." And its not because they have scewed towards making the American system out to look worse.

Sorry, I find far more persuasive the words of Drscott, above. As an actual practicing US medical doctor I heed his warnings.

You folks up north can do as you please, but down here we know that this is neither the proper role nor function of our government as our Founders envisioned it. BTW, I'll take an insurance bureaucrat over a government bureaucrat any old day of the week.
 
individual-mandate-Tough-Love.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawg[
One reason our costs are higher is because of the R&D that goes into medical advancments in the private sector, that other countries benefit from. Take away that private sector and the standard of care goes down even further, to go along with the rationing that occurs under a socialized system.

There is rationing that occurs in the private sector right now though.

The UK has a pharma industry thats huge, and does research that is on par with your own, yet they have a single payer system. Its a private sector business operating in a mostly government run healthcare system.

Costs have to come down, no one disagrees with that. But why is this argument only brought up when it comes to government involvement. Aside from the fact that it has nothing to do with the way the insurance system is run, is really an argument for increased spending across the board.

HERE is an excellent blog about the innovation angle written by someone who is very conservative.
 
Dawg, there is some indications this 'sandwich' might be allowed to expire in the Senate. I really just don't understand why consumers would be forced out of their private insurance companies.
 
Say what you want Craig. The bill before the Senate is a gargantuan power grab by government that will do NOTHING to control healthcare costs. Ya'll chose the hammer and sickle route a long time ago. Patriots here will fight to the death to avoid it.
 
Originally Posted By: javafour

Sorry, I find far more persuasive the word of Drscott, above. As an actual practicing US medical doctor I heed his warnings.

You folks up north can do as you please, but down here we know that this is neither the proper role nor function of our government as our Founders envisioned it. BTW, I'll take an insurance bureaucrat over a government bureaucrat any old day of the week.

Your just taking the word of one doctor who agrees with your point of view though. There is an expression that goes like so "For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." I suppose the same could be said for Md's I suppose.

I've pointed to mdcarrol.com who works in the health care policy field, chose to believe him or not, but at least read it.

I thought I would point this out, we rely on the government, at some level for sewage, roads, power (in some places) building regulations, and a whole host of other things. Most of which the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned.

Just imagine if sewage and garbage disposal operated privately and some couldn't afford it, or choose not to.
 
Originally Posted By: CraigOriginally Posted By: redeyeddawg[
One reason our costs are higher is because of the R&D that goes into medical advancments in the private sector, that other countries benefit from. Take away that private sector and the standard of care goes down even further, to go along with the rationing that occurs under a socialized system.

There is rationing that occurs in the private sector right now though.

The UK has a pharma industry thats huge, and does research that is on par with your own, yet they have a single payer system. Its a private sector business operating in a mostly government run healthcare system.

Costs have to come down, no one disagrees with that. But why is this argument only brought up when it comes to government involvement. Aside from the fact that it has nothing to do with the way the insurance system is run, is really an argument for increased spending across the board.

HERE is an excellent blog about the innovation angle written by someone who is very conservative.


Your claims about the British pharmaceutical industry being "on par" with ours are just factually inaccurate.

Here is someone who knows what they are talking about:

Bad Medicine
by Thomas Sowell

The one monumental fact that is being ignored in all the political schemes to bring down the cost of pharmaceutical drugs is that it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop one successful new medicine.

No matter how cleverly the politicians try to shift those costs around, somebody has to end up paying those hundreds of millions of dollars, if you expect new pharmaceutical drugs to continue to be developed to cope with AIDS, Alzheimer's, cancer, and all the other maladies that afflict human beings.

Senator Hillary Clinton and other political demagogues make a lot of noise about how Canadians and others are paying much less than Americans pay for the same medicines that are produced in the United States. Apparently all we need to do is to get our prices down to the level of Canadian prices, whether by re-importing these drugs from Canada or by other means. But is that true?

What is really happening is that Americans are paying more of the high fixed costs of developing new medicines, which then allows others to pay the lower costs of producing these medicines. But if American prices also come down to the lower prices charged in other countries, then the high costs of developing new medicines will not be covered, and a slowdown in developing new medicines becomes virtually inevitable.

But, by that time, Senator Clinton will have been re-elected -- and that's all that matters, isn't it?

Those who are constantly pointing to the prices and the practices of other nations when it comes to pharmaceutical drugs ignore the fact that those other nations lag far behind the United States when it comes to creating new medicines. A majority of the most widely sold medicines in the world are American. The United States has more invested in pharmaceutical research than all of Europe put together.

The kinds of policies in other countries that we are being urged to follow has led to a decline in those countries' roles in creating new medicines. Germany, once a worldwide leader in pharmaceutical research, has fallen far behind the United States, and some leading German pharmaceutical firms are expanding their operations in the United States more so than in Germany.

Canada, Germany and other countries get the benefits of American research but contribute much less than the United States does to the creation of drugs. On the surface, these countries have a good deal, but in reality everyone is worse off, because the development of new medicines is slower than it would be if worldwide prices were high enough to cover research costs, rather than the much lower cost of manufacturing medicines that have already been developed in the United States.

You pay one way or you pay another. Paying in needless pain, debilitation and early death is one of the worst ways of paying.

As someone who knows what it is to be rushed to the nearest hospital emergency room by paramedics because I forgot to take my medication, I am grateful that today's clever political schemes for controlling the prices of pharmaceutical drugs did not exist in years past, when these medications were being developed. Otherwise, I might not be here.

The secret -- and the tragedy -- of welfare state politics, especially in an election year, is that you can always do some immediate good, right under your nose, at costs that are hidden, ignored or postponed. But those costs don't go away. They can grow even bigger in the dark.

Too many politicians see prices as just things to be manipulated, the way they manipulate words and emotions to get votes. But the underlying realities which prices convey are not going to go away just because the prices themselves are controlled.

Price controls in general have a centuries-long record of reducing the quantity and quality of whatever product or service has its price controlled. Price controls on food have produced hunger and even starvation in some countries. Rent control produces housing shortages in cities around the world. Medicine is not exempt from economics -- or from politics.

The political temptation with pharmaceutical drugs, as with other things, is to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. But, in this case, that can also amount to killing sick people.
 
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawgSay what you want Craig. The bill before the Senate is a gargantuan power grab by government that will do NOTHING to control healthcare costs. Ya'll chose the hammer and sickle route a long time ago. Patriots here will fight to the death to avoid it.

The bill sucks, I'm not saying it doesn't.

I'm just saying that your healthcare system isn't that great for those who don't have access to it, or lose their access though unemployment or simply being dropped by their insurance companies when they get sick.

Ask your self these questions honestly though.

Why is medicare so good for people over 65, yet it would be catastrophic for anyone under that age. Ever here a anyone argue that getting rid of the socialized Medicare program is a good idea?

Why is the VA so good for veterans yet a system like it is bad for the general populace. (PS the VA is much more socialized then Canada's system)

Why do you spend 2-3 times more money then other industrialized countries, yet still have poorer access to healthcare? And still measure near the bottom in most quality metrics.

In regards to the above, do you really think that the WHO has played with the numbers everywhere in order to make the American system look worse?

Would you argue to get rid of the socialized garbage and sewage disposal system thats under your house right now?
 
Craig, what you don't realize about malpractice, is that it has nothing to do with our costs of insurance. Medicine in this country is practiced very defensively because Dr.'s live in fear of the malpractice suit that not only goes after the limits of their insurance but also everything they have been able to accumulate. I am old enough that I could not stand a financial hit that wiped me out. It would not be fair to my family. So even though I personally have never had a suit brought against me, I worry constantly about the financial liability that could happen. I do not have a company retirement or insurance policy so I must look to myself for those things. Trust me when you are self employed it takes a lot of money or investments to retire.

drscott
 
Originally Posted By: CraigOriginally Posted By: redeyeddawgSay what you want Craig. The bill before the Senate is a gargantuan power grab by government that will do NOTHING to control healthcare costs. Ya'll chose the hammer and sickle route a long time ago. Patriots here will fight to the death to avoid it.

The bill sucks, I'm not saying it doesn't.

I'm just saying that your healthcare system isn't that great for those who don't have access to it, or lose their access though unemployment or simply being dropped by their insurance companies when they get sick.

Ask your self these questions honestly though.

Why is medicare so good for people over 65, yet it would be catastrophic for anyone under that age. Ever here a anyone argue that getting rid of the socialized Medicare program is a good idea?

Why is the VA so good for veterans yet a system like it is bad for the general populace. (PS the VA is much more socialized then Canada's system)

Why do you spend 2-3 times more money then other industrialized countries, yet still have poorer access to healthcare? And still measure near the bottom in most quality metrics.

In regards to the above, do you really think that the WHO has played with the numbers everywhere in order to make the American system look worse?

Would you argue to get rid of the socialized garbage and sewage disposal system thats under your house right now?


The WHO is an arm of the UN and as such it has ZERO credibility with me. Get us OUT of the UN!

Again Craig, listen up to somebody who knows what they are talking about and applies logic over the WHO's girlish emotionalism:

Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
By John Stossel

The New York Times recently declared "the disturbing truth ... that ... the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care."

As usual, the Times editors get it wrong.

They find evidence in a 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May.

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."

The Commonwealth Fund looked at Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States -- and ranked the U.S. last or next to last on all but one criterion.

So the verdict is in. The vaunted U.S. medical system is one of the worst.

But there's less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading.

First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.

Even with all that, it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care? The last famous case I can remember is Rock Hudson, who went to France in the 1980s to seek treatment for AIDS.

So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.

The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.

Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
 
Originally Posted By: javafourTo long to quote


If you want to look at that is really just an argument that higher healthcare costs lead to an increase in innovation.


How is this not an argument against any sort of cost control. Be it tort reform, state line issues or what have you.

By that logic we should never do anything to control costs since doing so reduces innovation. No one argues that your paying to much, yet the argument of reduced innovation is only brought up when we are talking about government involvement.

Have you ever heard anyone saying we need to spend more on health care? Why not if we need to spend to innovate?

This issue is never brought up when we talk about insurance regulations, tort reform, state line shopping or any other republican idea to reduce costs? Why not if reducing costs leads to less innovation then any idea the republicans have to cut costs must also reduce innovation.

Aside from having little to nothing to do with the way your insurance runs, if innovation is such an important point, and it is, why not make its own policy?

If you want to believe that reducing costs will lead to less innovation, then by extension you also have to apply that argument to anything anyone does, republican or democrat, to reducing health care costs.
 
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawgSay what you want Craig. The bill before the Senate is a gargantuan power grab by government that will do NOTHING to control healthcare costs. Ya'll chose the hammer and sickle route a long time ago. Patriots here will fight to the death to avoid it.




Expert: Healthcare Reform Hidden Costs To Trigger 'Massive' New Taxes

Friday, November 13, 2009 11:38 AM

By: David Patten Article Font Size




Congress is using "every budget gimmick in the book" to conceal hundreds of billions in healthcare-reform costs that will lead to "massive tax increases" and higher insurance premiums, one of the country's leading healthcare experts warns.

Dr. Robert E. Moffit, a senior official in the Department of Health and Human Services during the Reagan administration, who now directs the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies, tells Newsmax that taxpayers are about to be blindsided by a spiraling healthcare expenses.

Moffit says the sharp jump in costs will occur despite what he calls President Obama's "absurd promise" that that his healthcare reform proposals would bring sharp reductions in Americans' healthcare bills.


To see the video of Newsmax's conversation with Moffit — Click Here.



Special: Get Sarah Palin’s New Book – Incredible FREE Offer -- Click Here Now.


As a candidate, Obama pledged his plan would save the typical American family $2,500 a year in healthcare costs.

"We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers," the Annenberg FactCheck.org Web site reported at the time. "And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance."

Masking the true cost of healthcare is exactly what Democrats have done, Moffit says.

"You're going to see higher premiums, you're going to have higher taxes, you're going to have higher premiums for Medicare," Moffit tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. "And you're not getting a bend in the spending curve, but rather a $1.3 trillion dollar explosion in additional spending over the next 10 years.

"So I don't know what the White House thinks we're drinking, but the truth of the matter is, none of this is believable," he says.

Moffit says taxpayers' first installment on healthcare's hidden costs may come as early as next week, when the House is scheduled to take up the $210 billion "doctor's fix" bill.

The "doctor's fix," Beltway insiders say, is a familiar congressional ruse. Members pass supposed Medicare "cuts" that make them appear fiscally prudent, but then later "fix" the funding to restore what was supposed to be trimmed. So the $210 billion payment enables Congress to avoid making good on an earlier pledge to trim the deficit by limiting Medicare reimbursements to doctors.

Majority leader Harry Reid recently suffered an embarrassing loss when he tried to pass a similar "doctor's fix" in the Senate. That bill was defeated in committee by moderate Democrats and Republicans, who didn't want their names attached to another spending bill.

Originally, the House's $210 billion "doctor's fix" was included in the healthcare reform proposal presented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in July.

The Congressional Budget Office determined Pelosi's original bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years, however. That sent House Democrats back to the drawing board, and Pelosi simply removed the "fix," introducing it as separate legislation.

During an interview conducted by Kathleen Walter of Newsmax.TV, Moffit said: "We've been through this as long as I can remember going all the way back to the Reagan administration. Banking serious healthcare savings on projected cuts in Medicare is folly. There is no ground for believing any of these cuts will ever ultimately materialize."

Moffit likens the congressional shell game to keeping the balance low on one credit-card by shifting expenses to another. Sooner or later, taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

According to some Democrats, removing the $210 billion item from healthcare reform was legitimate because narrowing the gap between doctors' true costs and their Medicare reimbursements had nothing to do with healthcare reform.

"That's strictly true," writes Peter Suderman, associate editor for Reason Magazine, "but I also think it was in the original House bill for a reason: It's the offering Democrats are using to buy the support of doctors, who don't want to see their Medicare reimbursements cut. By putting it in the original bill, I think Democrats signaled pretty clearly that they think the two are related -- but now that CBO-certified deficit neutrality has become their major concern, they're trying to back away."

Both the American Medical Association and the AARP have endorsed the healthcare reform bill passed by the House, which includes the controversial public-option run by the government. The reform bill also purports to cut Medicare costs.

Democrats in Congress, Moffit adds, are disregarding recent polls showing most Americans oppose the current reform proposals. Polls also show voters expect reform will increase rather than reduce their healthcare expenses.

"What I find remarkable about this entire thing," Moffit tells Newsmax, "and frankly I've never seen anything like this before … is knowing this is true, Congress is basically saying to the American people: '…We frankly do not care what you think, we're going to give this to you, we're going to impose this on you, whether you like it or not.' … They really don't care what ordinary Americans think about what they're trying to do to their healthcare system."

Moffit reluctantly concludes that "when it comes to fiscal responsibility, members of Congress are simply not trustworthy."

Several research studies conducted by insurance companies predict consumers' health insurance premiums could more than double, if current reform proposals are enacted.

Paying doctors the additional $210 billion, according to CBO estimates, will also trigger a $49 billion hike in seniors' Medicare Part B premiums between 2011 and 2019.

Despite growing taxpayer resistance, congressional Democrats are beginning to discuss imposing a major new value added tax.

"We're looking at massive tax increases," Moffit warns, "and probably much higher deficits. Because when you put it all together, you're talking about a massive increase in spending."
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Dawg, there is some indications this 'sandwich' might be allowed to expire in the Senate. I really just don't understand why consumers would be forced out of their private insurance companies.


It is really pretty simple to see HB. For one the bill says that if you change from your private insurance you will take the Gov't plan, period. So if you move or your present insurance company can't compete with the tax subsidized plan you have no choice. You can't pick another private plan you have to go with the Gov't plan. There isn't any way private insurance companies or any business can compete with a tax subsidized business. The tax subsidized(socialist) run business doesn't have to make a profit to survive to compete all they have to do is raise taxes to stay afloat. Soon after this massive takeover is launched private insurance will become extinct. Those that will survive will cater to the Unions and Congress who for some unknown reason will be exempt from this bill.
 
-Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

Thats factually incorrect go HERE

Aside from the fact that the numbers are wrong, Homicides only account for about 5 per 100,000 people. Or 0.005 percent, not enough to change the results in any signifigant way.

-We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries

Wrong again go HERE

Your 40th place. Behind the UK, Germany, Canada and a whole host of other countries that are ranked higher then you are on the healthcare scale.

-The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy
-The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed.

Wrong again go HERE and start searching on ranking criteria, and see for your self exactly how they rank countries.

-The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

Shouldn't it? Isn't that what both parties are trying to fix in some way? No one dissagrees that some of the best doctors are in the US, but the problems you have stem from the fact that they are not affordable to far to many people.

I gave you a link in the previous post that you could use to search any metric of health care that you choose. Have you done it, and have you asked why the US falls so far down in the list, in almost anything you choose to search?

Or have you convinced your self that the WHO is simply making things up to make it look like the US isn't doing as well as they are?

Wonder why the blogger doesn't bring up things like cancer survival rates, heart disease. Or mention the fact that even though he's wrong about traffic, and homicide fatalities, the numbers are so low they effect life expectancy little.
 
Originally Posted By: drscottCraig, what you don't realize about malpractice, is that it has nothing to do with our costs of insurance. Medicine in this country is practiced very defensively because Dr.'s live in fear of the malpractice suit that not only goes after the limits of their insurance but also everything they have been able to accumulate. I am old enough that I could not stand a financial hit that wiped me out. It would not be fair to my family. So even though I personally have never had a suit brought against me, I worry constantly about the financial liability that could happen. I do not have a company retirement or insurance policy so I must look to myself for those things. Trust me when you are self employed it takes a lot of money or investments to retire.

drscott

Yes but malpractice only accounts for some 50-200 billion, including the extra costs from defensive medicine. Google it, and you'll come up with a ton of different numbers, and different ways to measure it.

Let's take the end of 200 billion. 200 billion is a lot of money, no doubt. But when compared to 2.2 trillion spend on health care, its a drop in a very big bucket.

I'm not against tort reform, but its not the be all end all solution to the problem.
 
I've enjoyed this a lot but now I have to go.

Don't think i'm running away from the debate, but I drive a semi, and internet access on the road is touchy at best.

Cheers
 
Craig you aren’t listening, it has nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Dr.'s practice defensive medicine and drive up health care cost considerably to protect themselves from litigation. This is one of the major factors driving up the cost of health care. So any health care reform that does not address the liability issue is never going to cut costs. According to your findings practicing defensive medicine only accounts for about 2% of costs. I think we all know that figure is not even close to being realistic.

drscott
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: drscottCraig you aren’t listening, it has nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Dr.'s practice defensive medicine and drive up health care cost considerably to protect themselves from litigation. This is one of the major factors driving up the cost of health care. So any health care reform that does not address the liability issue is never going to cut costs. According to your findings practicing defensive medicine only accounts for about 2% of costs. I think we all know that figure is not even close to being realistic.

drscott
I'm guilty of miss wording my argument, and some really bad math let me be more clear. I was referring to the fact the the savings brought about by tort reform is little compared to the total cost of medicine, and isn't the be all end all answer to health care that some would like it to be.

200 billion, the high end estimate of what medical liability costs is 10% of medical bills. Of course thats the high estimate, a lot of studies put in the 10's of billions. Who knows I suppose it depends on what point your trying to make.

Any serious reform that could take place would result in not a whole lot of savings. The high end estimate is 41 billion , the CBO scored it around 4 billion, about 6 months ago. You can look around and find 67 different numbers all some place in the low 10's of billions. Either number is a very small percentage of 2.2 trillion.

Now you can't remove the liability pay outs entirely, doctors like every other person makes mistakes.

And even if you could simply take away the whole 200 billion (on the high end) your still only removing 10% of the cost in a system that pays out double or even triple what other systems do, that as a whole experiences worse out comes then the rest of the world does. Its not enough to even start to come close to sustainable reform.

Now the funny thing is, a single payer system is about the ultimate tort reform. Liability pay outs are for the most part to cover the costs of future medical expenses. Take away that part of liability your left with vastly lower payouts, less need to practice defensive medicine. Its a far better solution then anything anyone has put forth so far.
 
Originally Posted By: CraigOriginally Posted By: drscottCraig you aren’t listening, it has nothing to do with the cost of malpractice insurance. Dr.'s practice defensive medicine and drive up health care cost considerably to protect themselves from litigation. This is one of the major factors driving up the cost of health care. So any health care reform that does not address the liability issue is never going to cut costs. According to your findings practicing defensive medicine only accounts for about 2% of costs. I think we all know that figure is not even close to being realistic.

drscott
I'm guilty of miss wording my argument, and some really bad math let me be more clear. I was referring to the fact the the savings brought about by tort reform is little compared to the total cost of medicine, and isn't the be all end all answer to health care that some would like it to be.

200 billion, the high end estimate of what medical liability costs is 10% of medical bills. Of course thats the high estimate, a lot of studies put in the 10's of billions. Who knows I suppose it depends on what point your trying to make.

Any serious reform that could take place would result in not a whole lot of savings. The high end estimate is 41 billion , the CBO scored it around 4 billion, about 6 months ago. You can look around and find 67 different numbers all some place in the low 10's of billions. Either number is a very small percentage of 2.2 trillion.

Now you can't remove the liability pay outs entirely, doctors like every other person makes mistakes.

And even if you could simply take away the whole 200 billion (on the high end) your still only removing 10% of the cost in a system that pays out double or even triple what other systems do, that as a whole experiences worse out comes then the rest of the world does. Its not enough to even start to come close to sustainable reform.

Now the funny thing is, a single payer system is about the ultimate tort reform. Liability pay outs are for the most part to cover the costs of future medical expenses. Take away that part of liability your left with vastly lower payouts, less need to practice defensive medicine. Its a far better solution then anything anyone has put forth so far.

Not to speak for the doc, but you are not getting what he is talking about: defensive medicine. That is the huge cost of tests and proceedures done not out of medical necessity but to CYA in the event of a lawsuit. That's a huge number IN ADDITION to the malpractice premiums and other direct legal costs.
 
Back
Top