It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tort Reform Reduces Federal Deficit, Congressional Analysts Say

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


From Source:


Medical malpractice reform would reduce the annual federal deficit, saving the government $54 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.


Yet you keep saying:



It is $20 a year (cost of present system?), $1.66 a month


IMHO that is your propaganda and no where near the real cost when you figure in "defensive medicine" costs! Look at Jenna's example, look at my example. That is what happens day after day in the clinics, in the hospitals!




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by mental modulator
 





People are out in the streets about taxes etc now... What until someone proposes the first estimate at a human life , I could see the commercials now, that person would be ejected half way to the moon following the media blitz.


FYO, all but 15 states ALREADY HAVE limits on malpractice rewards. When Texas adopted limits, doctors fled to Texas (to avoid excessive malpractice insurance premiums elsewhere)!

I simply propose that Congress apply lower limits across the board. If the states want to be more restrictive they can.

Again, what do you propose instead of lower liability limits?


Well what is the goal???

save less than two bucks per policy per month?

BTW I have never gotten any tests or any of the things you cited. Two separate doctors made my dad walk out of their offices with a brain tumor the size of a grapefruit in his head. My mother walked around with a broken shoulder for two months after visiting the ER 4 times... For one it made my fathers illness much worse and two, my mom almost lost her job because she could not sleep from the pain of multiple fractures and incompetent doctoring.

That is SIX misdiagnosis's in EIGHT visits Plum, 4 to 1 failure in basic due diligence. Both cases clearly warranted more testing, both cases there was a failure of the system.
Zero legal action taken, but plenty of consequence for the full paying policy holders impacted.

Once again the proposed savings is not a huge amount or much of an amount at all , extrapolated, this means that your premiums are NOT being hyper inflated by litigation.

I really think you guys are advocating government interference, the constitution it self is based on common law and TORT. Not to mention that this is a further stripping of individual rights in its access to the courts system which the lobbyist will ensure.

Just seems very contrary to conservative ideology on social issues, having the federal government leverage in such a way on a thing the impacts the Individual on the other side.

Provided you recognize less than $2 a month is not much of a savings, why are you an advocate of this, personally?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by mental modulator
 


From Source:


Medical malpractice reform would reduce the annual federal deficit, saving the government $54 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.


Yet you keep saying:



It is $20 a year (cost of present system?), $1.66 a month


IMHO that is your propaganda and no where near the real cost when you figure in "defensive medicine" costs! Look at Jenna's example, look at my example. That is what happens day after day in the clinics, in the hospitals!



Propaganda


well I would call it mathematics -

did it my self

www.google.com...

54 billion (savings PER YOUR OP)

divided by 290,000,000 (insured Americans)

divided by ten year ( PER YOUR OP and Budget estimates)

divided by twelve months in a year

with that number total being assigned to each person insured

=

Get ready

$1.86

A DOLLAR AND EIGHTY SIX -

Lets increase that number ten fold shall we?

$18.60 cents saved in a month, per person insured

But the budget office did not say it would 540 billion over ten years though, unfortunately.



You guys are making up antic-dotes to bolster your arguments -

Two test, a colonoscopy and a breathing treatment for a stomach ache...
which is a very funny, unrealistic

My REAL examples



1 alzheimer patient (granny)

1 stag 4 g blastoma patent (father)

and 1 two story fall onto concrete (mother)

I took care of all three on them my man,
Two died one survived - I had to fight to get new oxygen tanks, a catheters, anti biotics, pain medication, refills, chemo, IV's, morphine for the death bed, the death bed itself and even simple eval visits.

You guys sound like two generals discussing a pitched battle from half a world away
founded upon the basic assumption that things are cotton candy text book out there,
but they are not.

the number stands as updated per your Evidence @ $1.86 a month savings

I do not want this to get worse for people because big health can buy their way out of proper care by paying a cap off the bat.





[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
54 billion (savings PER YOUR OP)

divided by 290,000,000 (insured Americans)

divided by ten year ( PER YOUR OP and Budget estimates)

divided by twelve months in a year

with that number total being assigned to each person insured

=

Get ready

$1.86


And here's where the problem lies, and where your argument falls apart. That $54 billion isn't savings on premiums, had I realized that's where you were getting your figures from sooner I'd have already pointed this out, it is a projected decrease in the deficit.

CBO estimate on Tort Reform

National implementation of a package of proposals similar to the preceding list would reduce total national premiums for medical liability insurance by about 10 percent, CBO now estimates.


Premiums for medical liability insurance are projected to decrease by 10%.


More recent research has yielded additional evidence that tort reform reduces the use of health care services.


That's the decrease in unnecessary tests and procedures that I've been talking about.


In the case of the federal budget, enactment of such a package of proposals would reduce mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by roughly $41 billion over the next 10 years



Lower costs for health care arising from those proposals would lead to higher taxable wages and thereby increase federal tax revenues by an estimated $13 billion over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Combining the effects on both mandatory spending and revenues, a tort reform package of the sort described earlier in this letter would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years.


It's not talking about our insurance premiums, and I don't know why it didn't click in my head earlier why your numbers just weren't adding up. (Brain must not be functioning properly today I suppose.
)



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by mental modulator
54 billion (savings PER YOUR OP)

divided by 290,000,000 (insured Americans)

divided by ten year ( PER YOUR OP and Budget estimates)

divided by twelve months in a year

with that number total being assigned to each person insured

=

Get ready

$1.86


And here's where the problem lies, and where your argument falls apart. That $54 billion isn't savings on premiums, had I realized that's where you were getting your figures from sooner I'd have already pointed this out, it is a projected decrease in the deficit.

CBO estimate on Tort Reform

National implementation of a package of proposals similar to the preceding list would reduce total national premiums for medical liability insurance by about 10 percent, CBO now estimates.


Premiums for medical liability insurance are projected to decrease by 10%.


More recent research has yielded additional evidence that tort reform reduces the use of health care services.


That's the decrease in unnecessary tests and procedures that I've been talking about.


In the case of the federal budget, enactment of such a package of proposals would reduce mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by roughly $41 billion over the next 10 years



Lower costs for health care arising from those proposals would lead to higher taxable wages and thereby increase federal tax revenues by an estimated $13 billion over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Combining the effects on both mandatory spending and revenues, a tort reform package of the sort described earlier in this letter would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years.


It's not talking about our insurance premiums, and I don't know why it didn't click in my head earlier why your numbers just weren't adding up. (Brain must not be functioning properly today I suppose.
)


My point was to equate the nominal amount this figure to health care premiums.

We can do the same for federal spending

$1.55 a month per federal taxes if distributed evenly

or $2.15 a month if the unemployment rate is near 50%


In the case of the federal budget, enactment of such a package of proposals would reduce mandatory spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by roughly $41 billion over the next 10 years


In this case it is $1.26 saved PROVIDED that such savings are reflected in Policy holders policies.

What I am saying is this is chump change frankly -

And I am also saying that in EVERY experience I have had with healthcare in the last five years there was 4 misdiagnosis's to every correct one as I have listed in a previous post. So frankly you and Plum Ranch's assertions are a bit insulting and woefully unrealistic.

Care could be replaced with cap pay outs, talk about death panels...

Another question is do you understand TORT?



Tort law is a body of law that addresses, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs not arising out of contractual obligations.[1] A person who suffers legal damages may be able to use tort law to receive compensation from someone who is legally responsible, or liable, for those injuries. Generally speaking, tort law defines what constitutes a legal injury and establishes the circumstances under which one person may be held liable for another's injury. Torts cover intentional acts and accidents (negligent acts). In contrast to criminal law (in which the offense is against the State and the State is the plaintiff), in tort law, the offense is against a person and that person is the plaintiff.


en.wikipedia.org...

More american than Apple pie or the death penalty




Enacting a comprehensive set of medical malpractice reforms would reduce nationwide health care spending by 0.5* percent, according to a report released today by the Congressional Budget Office. Over 10 years, the changes would reduce federal deficits by $54 billion.

-INCORRECT
Roughly 0.2 percent of the savings would come as a result of the reduction in providers’ malpractice insurance premiums-INCORRECT

CORRECTED- Providers would save 10% on insurance costs

-The 0.2% would be applied to over all HC COST-CORRECTED


, while an additional 0.3 percent would come from “slightly less utilization of health care services,” CBO noted.


CBO’s estimate takes into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.

The estimates are based on a package of reforms “similar” to the following:

– A cap of $250,000 on awards for noneconomic damages;

– A cap on awards for punitive damages of $500,000 or two times the award for economic damages, whichever is greater;

– Modification of the “collateral source” rule to allow evidence of income from such sources as health and life insurance, workers’ compensation, and automobile insurance to be introduced at trials or to require that such income be subtracted from awards decided by juries;

– A statute of limitations—one year for adults and three years for children—from the date of discovery of an injury; and

– Replacement of joint-and-several liability with a fair-share rule, under which a defendant in a lawsuit would be liable only for the percentage of the final award that was equal to his or her share of responsibility for the injury.

Those reforms would reduce federal spending by $41 billion over 10 years, CBO estimated, while increasing revenues an additional $13 billion. The numbers drew immediate praise from Republicans, who have pushed for years to rein in malpractice lawsuits. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who requested the CBO study, issued a statement arguing that the findings “show that this problem deserves more than lip service from policy-makers.”



Do the math with any of these numbers Jenna

divide them by 290,000,000 million

Reducing federal spending by 41 billion over ten years -

$.41 a month per policy - if they paid for the savings

Or malpractice insurance by 0.2%

Saves doctors

$2.00 on every $1,000 dollars spent towards malpractice



– A cap of $250,000 on awards for noneconomic damages;

– A cap on awards for punitive damages of $500,000 or two times the award for economic damages, whichever is greater;

– Modification of the “collateral source” rule to allow evidence of income from such sources as health and life insurance, workers’ compensation, and automobile insurance to be introduced at trials or to require that such income be subtracted from awards decided by juries;

– A statute of limitations—one year for adults and three years for children—from the date of discovery of an injury; and


BS!
INCORRECT-$500,000 cap on punitive-INCORRECT

CORRECTED- Or two times the award for economic damages, whichever is greater;CORRECTED

A bed ridden person (vegetable) costs about 500 - $600 to care for in cost per day

GUESS how much care that money would provide for a person Fubar'ed by a bad operation?

2.7 years

a thousand days - then what Jenna???

This person goes on the federal roster is what - who pays for that???

Passing off corporate responsibility onto the tax payer is what

This person and their family is SOL -

I really think you guys believe you are all immune to life. I damn well expect that if you get Veggied by any doctors mistake that you should be taken care of for the rest of your life, not your fault, you paid the premiums, laid on the op table - Not your fault -

Then we come to

all these unneeded tests


Which would account for $.03 of every $10.00 spent on HEALTH INSURANCE premiums


I am not sure who in the hell you guys are fighting for?

certainly NOT individual liberty -



This is government over stepping its role

The court should act on a case by case basis as stated in common law and the constitution -

Like I said very contrary to socially conservative doctrine

My argument is on fire -

yours needs lots of spinach

EDIT- AND I NEED TO STOP SMOKING CRACK-EDIT


CORRECTED TO INDICATE JENNAS MASTERFUL SQUASHING OF MY BUTT





[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
My point was to equate the nominal amount this figure to health care premiums.


The problem is you can't do that and have it make sense because our insurance premiums and the federal deficit are no where near the same thing. You're comparing apples to Volvo's right now and it just doesn't work that way.


In this case it is $1.26 saved PROVIDED that such savings are reflected in Policy holders policies.


See above.


And I am also saying that in EVERY experience I have had with healthcare in the last five years there was 4 misdiagnosis's to every correct one as I have listed in a previous post.


And that right there should tell you to get a different doctor. Going to the same doctor after 4 misdiagnosis' doesn't make a bit of sense. Don't suppose you bothered doing anything about those misdiagnosis' when they happened did you?


Do you understand that care could be replaced with cap pay outs?


No, but I do understand you're determined to make your $2 savings stick no matter what nonsense you have to throw into it.


do you understand what that means, talk about death panels...

Another question is do you understand TORT?


Did you read my post where I asked you what precendence you were talking about and told you that I have a degree as a paralegal? (Working on my bachelors so I can go to law school if that makes a difference) I have read more about tort law than most people ever will. It's my job to understand it.


Do the math with any of these numbers Jenna

divide them by 290,000,000 million


And again, you can't take a number from the CBO about reduced deficits or savings from medical malpractice insurance and then try to compare them to our health insurance policies. It's a simple concept MM. Yet you're trying to twist the numbers to fit your beliefs that tort reform would be horrible. It just doesn't work that way. If the CBO's estimate was about savings on our health care premiums, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately it's not and you don't.


I really think you guys think you are all immune to life, I damn well expect that if you get Veggied that you should be taken care of for the rest of your life, not your fault, you paid the premiums, laid on the op table - Not your fault -


Nope, sure not. I pay for my insurance and if I ever become "veggied" as you put it I fully expect my insurance to cover it long enough to make sure I'm not going to wake up and then the plug is to be pulled. If I'm not taken care of properly I expect my family to be compensated. However, millions of dollars in punitive damages on top of all the other compensation is not justice, it's taking advantage of an emotional situation and just leads to fatter wallets for lawyers.

Are you aware, MM, that medical malpractice attorneys take anywhere from 15-50% of the damages awarded as their fee based on the difficulty of the case? You think you're fighting for people to be compensated when a loved one doesn't get the care they deserve when in reality what you're doing is supporting a scheme that allows attorneys to get rich off other people's pain. Does that sound like justice to you?


I am not sure who in the hell you guys are fighting for?

certainly NOT individual liberty -


You keep saying this, and honestly I don't get it. How is capping damages awarded somehow taking away any individual liberty? People will still be able to sue for medical malpractice. I haven't seen any legislation that would attempt to prevent them from doing so.


The court should act on a case by case basis as stated in common law and the constitution -


They do, and they will. Putting a cap on how much a jury can award a plaintiff isn't changing that.


Like I said very contrary to socially conservative doctrine


Like I said, I'm not a conservative.


My argument is on fire -

yours needs lots of spinach





posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


With all due respect the frivolous lawsuits brought against providers, especially specialists IS a main reason the quality of care has tanked as well as the prices to rise. As a doctor if you go into a high risk field, your premiums from the insurance companies whom cover you are astronomical. Most people who sue doctors, there lawyers ask for ridiculous amounts, not even with the harm inflicted IF ANY, to cover their costs and line thier pockets. To hell with the person suffering. Here's 10 grand out of 2 million. Tort reform needs to happen. Lawyers should be banned from politics as well. Thier profession is to bend the truth to their clients benefit and make as much money out of it as possible. PERIOD.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna






The problem is you can't do that and have it make sense because our insurance premiums and the federal deficit are no where near the same thing. You're comparing apples to Volvo's right now and it just doesn't work that way.


Well slice me up some numbers Jenna -

How does it work a???

You seem to be talking as if you have some gigantic savings imperitive hidden up your sleeve, but you don't.

The OP was based up savings in USD - to which I gave perspective when the numbers are placed upon the backs of tax payers OR premium payers. I think you are without a
strong LOGICAL position. Instead you are are trying to protect the NOMINAL numbers by attacking my cross tabulation.

My point was to prove that Defacing TORT will NOT even dent the high cost of healthcare -

The best number I can come up with is shaving off $435.00 off of the $8,900.00
average cost after insurance mark up - And that is after I mix apples and volvos

Like I also said DOCTORS would save $2.00 on every $1,000 spent on malpractice

2/10 of 1% Jenna

I am not convinced that this has any large fiscal benefit - I am going after that first

On a Human/Moral level this leads to a dance that will burden everyone who is unfortunate enough to suffer a catastrophic mistake. Seems you and Plum Ranch are insulated by good fortune
Bully for you!






And I am also saying that in EVERY experience I have had with healthcare in the last five years there was 4 misdiagnosis's to every correct one as I have listed in a previous post.




And that right there should tell you to get a different doctor. Going to the same doctor after 4 misdiagnosis' doesn't make a bit of sense. Don't suppose you bothered doing anything about those misdiagnosis' when they happened did you?


No Jenna, we sat about while my father went blind and while my mother cried everytime she moved... Of course we did - a different doctor every misdiagnosis

SIX doctors - SIX misdiagnosis

Four different facilities

Four out of network


No, but I do understand you're determined to make your $2 savings stick no matter what nonsense you have to throw into it.


Well now I understand that you have no economic basis for your argument -
Your entire argument is moot, we have gone from talking about financial savings
to attacking mathmatic tabulation because I do not posses all the numbers to give a
number which represents totality. I have tried to slice the pie in many ways and you
have presented squat.




Did you read my post where I asked you what precendence you were talking about and told you that I have a degree as a paralegal? (Working on my bachelors so I can go to law school if that makes a difference) I have read more about tort law than most people ever will. It's my job to understand it.


well good on you, then I think you should respect the individuals access to recourse
a little more.



And again, you can't take a number from the CBO about reduced deficits or savings from medical malpractice insurance and then try to compare them to our health insurance policies. It's a simple concept MM. Yet you're trying to twist the numbers to fit your beliefs that tort reform would be horrible. It just doesn't work that way. If the CBO's estimate was about savings on our health care premiums, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately it's not and you don't.


Fine lets stick to what you have presented right here

Doctors would save $2.00 on every $1,000 spent of malpractice insurance PER the CBO report.

Which would mean a $250 to $500 savings on malpractice premiums depending on the state of pratice and specific vocation. PER YEAR

Patient Policy holders would save $.03 on every $10.00's spent on premiums for "unnessisary testing"



Nope, sure not. I pay for my insurance and if I ever become "veggied" as you put it I fully expect my insurance to cover it long enough to make sure I'm not going to wake up and then the plug is to be pulled. If I'm not taken care of properly I expect my family to be compensated. However, millions of dollars in punitive damages on top of all the other compensation is not justice, it's taking advantage of an emotional situation and just leads to fatter wallets for lawyers.


HAVE you read any proposed caps???

$500,000 max - I posted it above

after a persons current financial situation is factored in


I am not for the lawyers, I am for the individual and the consumer.
Did you ever take into account that BIG HEALTH legal firms drug on litigation in order
to out spend and mire plantiff progress, in hopes of frustration and a lower settlement?
Is this not a part of the problem? Hell you didn't even mention the lawyers who line their pockets on the other side which says a lot.



Are you aware, MM, that medical malpractice attorneys take anywhere from 15-50% of the damages awarded as their fee based on the difficulty of the case? You think you're fighting for people to be compensated when a loved one doesn't get the care they deserve when in reality what you're doing is supporting a scheme that allows attorneys to get rich off other people's pain. Does that sound like justice to you?


Are you aware of the Retainers that BIG BUSINESS pays to squash and perposlly protract every single case they can? You seem to be anti - certain lawyers -
but kindly forget about the other ones


NOT to mention the industry that will stiff anyone, anytime they can


I would be all for putting a cap on Attorney pay outs - but that is NOT how Washington works. The actual plantiff will eat shaft, get a cap slapped on there, then get drug thru court anyways and there we have it - Gawd Bless Amewika!



You keep saying this, and honestly I don't get it. How is capping damages awarded somehow taking away any individual liberty? People will still be able to sue for medical malpractice. I haven't seen any legislation that would attempt to prevent them from doing so.


Because our system has always been based upon the merits of each specific case.
A dead father of six will not leave the same burden to his family as a single person.
A musician losing an arm is not the same thing as a teacher losing am arm.

Proposing a cap is like giving an aspirin for a headache ache and hemmeroid alike-
Capping is like Dealing in apples in Volvos



They do, and they will. Putting a cap on how much a jury can award a plaintiff isn't changing that.


A?

Yes it is -

The preamble to the bill of rights



Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Common Law includes TORT - This would be undermining a very basic part of the foundation of our country and US capitalism -

Currently the legal process and instruments determine punitive and economic damages.
It is this way because they judge each case on the merits of EACH CASE. Not on the successful lobbying efforts of BIG HEALTH shills and the funding of campaigns for cooperative politicians.

You still did not address the cost of a bed ridden person per a $500,000 cap and
the $500 a day cost associated with that care.

The arbitrary cap would provide 1,000 days of care - 30 some odd months of care

So yes, this persons individual access to proper and due recourse would be left holding the bag after the third year.

And the tax payers would then have to pay for the misdeeds of business -



Why are you for TORT reform, Where are you coming from, what are you advocating...?


[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Say hello to my little friend

The modern behind the scenes VOICE for tort reform in the last decade

ahhh!



Tillinghast - Towers Perrin

and Annuity Systems, Inc. (ASI
) have announced an equity risk management alliance dedicated to providing risk management solutions for companies providing equity-based insurance products worldwide, including variable annuities

, equity-indexed annuities, segregated funds and unit-linked products.

In the alliance, Tillinghast - Towers Perrin and ASI jointly provide the tools and techniques needed for a complete and innovative risk management solution. RisQ(TM), a risk management system utilizing the latest technology developed by ASI, monitors and manages the exposure from guarantees provided on equity-based insurance products on a real-time basis, with a live feed to the capital markets. Tillinghast - Towers Perrin will provide the risk management consulting

services and product expertise needed to integrate this system into the life insurer's risk management process. Risks addressed in this context include the economic risks from payouts under the guarantees and the loss/volatility of revenues, accounting exposure and operational risks.


www.towersperrin.com...

And Plum and Jenna likey the message!

And guess who this firm lobbies for? Gee???

Say no to lawyers


But embrace the lawyer that is in the company of a lobbyist or ten.


Oh wait,,, here they are doing the lords good work

www.insurancejournal.com...

No --- here they are

www.justice.org...




Respected legal scholars have criticized Towers Perrin’s work. Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago concluded that Towers Perrin’s work was “almost certainly exaggerated, given the financial connection between the firm and the insurance industry.”3 Law professors Tom Baker, Herbert Kritzer, and Neil Vidmar have also criticized the author’s methods and lack of peer review.4
Congressional Quarterly Called Conclusions of Towers Perrin Study “Sketchy at Best.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly did an entire story describing the evidence behind the figures cited by President Bush in his call for legal restrictions “sketchy at best.” They examined the “tort tax” figure and found, “Nearly all the assertions about the growing cost of the tort system are based on the figures from just one actuarial and management consulting firm, Towers-Perrin, that works for the insurance industry, which has a stake in limiting lawsuits. … The company’s estimates of tort costs include the insurance industry’s administrative expenses and payments on claims that never involve courts or lawyers, such as auto collisions.”5
Towers Perrin Admitted that Past Study Not a Reflection of the Tort System. After being criticized for the methodology, Towers Perrin was forced to admit in their 2005 edition that “the costs tabulated in this study are not a reflection of litigated claims or of the legal system.”6
The Study's Primary Author Said Study Used in a Misleading Way. Russ Sutter, primary researcher for the study, admitted in 2005 that tort reform advocates use the data “in a way that's probably misleading.”7
Towers Perrin has taken money from the insurance industry and other "tort reform" groups to fund studies. This has included the American Tort Reform Foundation, NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company, the Physician Insurers Association of America and the HealthCare Liability Alliance (which includes the American Medical Association). All of these groups have spent millions to undermine the civil justice system.
Wall Street Journal: New Version of Towers Perrin Study "Includes Payments that Don’t Involve the Legal System at All.” The Wall Street Journal previewed the new version of the Towers Perrin report, and noted that it includes costs that are not part of the legal system: “…critics of past years' studies -- and there are many -- say the number and the projections that come with it are deeply flawed. For instance, they include payments that don't involve the legal system at all. Say somebody smashes his car into the back of your new SUV and his insurance company sends you a $5,000 check to fix the damage. That gets counted as a tort cost in Towers Perrin's number. Critics say it's just a transfer payment from somebody who wasn't driving carefully to somebody who has been legitimately wronged. How is that evidence of a system run amok?”8



Our good friends who lobby for the industry and who have been the key proponents for tort reform.

Paid shills who have mixed apples, volvos and cat jerky -


then we have this exciting bit

savvyconsumer.wordpress.com...





Specifically, the study found, adjusting for inflation, that:

Medical malpractice premiums are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years.
Medical malpractice claims are down 45 percent since 2000.
Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been very profitable over the last five years.
In states that have substantially limited consumers’ ability to go to court for medical malpractice, the insurance premiums for doctors are basically the same as in other states.
As the health care debate heats up, there will be an increased effort to reduce the costs of health insurance. This study suggests that medical malpractice is not a significant cause of skyrocketing health costs. In fact, medical malpractice claims constitute one-fifth of one percent of annual health care costs in the country, according to the report. Cutting costs through medical malpractice reform is not likely to result in significant savings in health care reform legislation.

When people get hurt by medical errors, doctors and hospitals should be held liable. According to one study by the Institute of Medicine, 400,000 preventable injuries occur each year related to bad prescriptions alone.


Oh and guess which state has the highest healthcare costs and Mucho Tort reform?

Texas baby!







[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
How does it work a???


I already linked the CBO's estimate for you and quoted pertinent sections. But if I must do so again, here you go:


National implementation of a package of proposals similar to the preceding list would reduce total national premiums for medical liability insurance by about 10 percent


That's 10% not 2% as you keep ranting about. $10 out of every $100 or $100 out of every $1000, however you want to look at it.


CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical malpractice liability [...] will total approximately $35 billion, or about 2 percent of total health care expenditures.


That's $3.5 million that would be saved with legislation enacted similar to the list given in the estimate.


The OP was based up savings in USD - to which I gave perspective when the numbers are placed upon the backs of tax payers OR premium payers. I think you are without a strong LOGICAL position. Instead you are are trying to protect the NOMINAL numbers by attacking my cross tabulation.


The problem here is your "logic" doesn't make a bit of sense when there aren't 300 million doctors in this country. Spreading the amount the CBO estimates could be saved on 300 million insured patients makes no sense whatsoever when the savings are estimated for doctors. Keep comparing those apples and Volvo's if it makes you feel better, but the simple fact is you're wrong.


Like I also said DOCTORS would save $2.00 on every $1,000 spent on malpractice


See above. They'd save $100 on every $1000.


Well now I understand that you have no economic basis for your argument - Your entire argument is moot, we have gone from talking about financial savings to attacking mathmatic tabulation because I do not posses all the numbers to give a number which represents totality. I have tried to slice the pie in many ways and you have presented squat.


I'd say I've given a sight more truth for my argument than you have. Your mathematical tabulation is based on false assumptions which makes them useless as far as this discussion is concerned.


well good on you, then I think you should respect the individuals access to recourse a little more.


I do. But I also understand the difference between punitive damages, monetary damages, and non-monetary damages. Something you obviously have no clue about, no offense. Here's a short law term lesson for you so you'll better understand what we're talking about.

Monetary damages: Medical expenses, funeral expenses, lost wages, repairs or replacement of property, costs of living with a disability

Non-Monetary damages: pain and suffering, loss of consortium (this is for your spouse's loss of companionship)

Punitive damages: Not compensation for the victim, these are used for punishment of the defendant and to make others think twice before engaging in similar behavior.

What you keep ranting about fall under monetary damages. No one wants to cap those and they typically get at least partially covered by the plaintiffs insurance at any rate, with the remainder covered by the defendant when the jury finds in the plaintiffs favor. Punitive and non-monetary damages are a completely different animal and that is what the CBO estimate is talking about. The CBO estimate calls them non-economic damages but the definitions are identical.


Doctors would save $2.00 on every $1,000 spent of malpractice insurance PER the CBO report.

Which would mean a $250 to $500 savings on malpractice premiums depending on the state of pratice and specific vocation. PER YEAR

Patient Policy holders would save $.03 on every $10.00's spent on premiums for "unnessisary testing"


See the first part of my post. Typing it three times in one post doesn't make it correct.


HAVE you read any proposed caps???

$500,000 max - I posted it above

after a persons current financial situation is factored in


Yes I have. From the CBO estimate:


A cap on awards for punitive damages of $500,000 or two times the award for economic damages, whichever is greater


You conveniently ignore the part I've bolded however in a failed attempt to bolster your argument.


Hell you didn't even mention the lawyers who line their pockets on the other side which says a lot.


No I didn't because they're not the topic of our discussion. But yes you are correct that both sides do it.


Because our system has always been based upon the merits of each specific case. A dead father of six will not leave the same burden to his family as a single person. A musician losing an arm is not the same thing as a teacher losing am arm.


That is where the monetary damages come in. Again, a completely different animal from non-monetary and punitive damages. For someone who claims to have read up on tort law you seem to be quite confused when it comes to basic terminology.


It is this way because they judge each case on the merits of EACH CASE. Not on the successful lobbying efforts of BIG HEALTH shills and the funding of campaigns for cooperative politicians.


Cases will still be judged on their merits, as they should be. You're inventing horror stories here and it's not helping your case any.


You still did not address the cost of a bed ridden person per a $500,000 cap and the $500 a day cost associated with that care.


Again, monetary damages. See the definitions above.


Why are you for TORT reform, Where are you coming from, what are you advocating...?


I'm for it because I understand the trickle down effect. I understand that the more a business (doctors) have to pay out the more they charge the consumers (patients). The less they have to pay out, the less they charge. It's a simple concept. The more they pay for malpractice insurance just for working in a risky area, brain surgery or obstetrics for example, the more they charge their patients. Tort reform will benefit everyone if done correctly.

I'm advocating reform that is done correctly. Meaning that caps on punitive damages need to happen. This will lower malpractice insurance premiums for doctors and lead them to do fewer unnecessary tests. This in turn will lead to lower premiums for the rest of us and lower out of pocket costs. Many states have already done this and the result was lower premiums for doctors, fewer unnecessary tests, and lower health care costs.

The studies are cited right there in the estimate had you bothered to read it.


More recent research has yielded additional evidence that tort reform reduces the use of health care services. Lakdawalla and Seabury (2009) and Baicker, Fisher, and Chandra (2007), using data on hospitals’ total expenditures and Medicare’s spending for Part A and Part B services, found that reductions in the cost of medical liability lowered health care expenditures. In addition, Avraham, Dafny, and Schanzenbach (2009) found that several types of reform significantly lowered the costs of health plans offered by self insured employers.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Too bad the CBO estimate doesn't even mention Towers Perrin or their research.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Too bad the CBO estimate doesn't even mention Towers Perrin or their research.


Ya too bad the saving accrued from a combination of CBO estimates would only equate to

half of one percent in savings to the 2.5 trillion dollar 2009 estimate, after mixing apples and oranges.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


It's ok to admit you were wrong. I certainly wouldn't think less of you for doing so.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by mental modulator
It's a simple concept. The more they pay for malpractice insurance just for working in a risky area, brain surgery or obstetrics for example, the more they charge their patients. Tort reform will benefit everyone if done correctly.



Unless we are talking about at out of pocket procedure, doctors do not charge patients
anything but co pays or applied deductibles.

Doctors in the current system work under a PD (prescribed discount) system in which they are contracted to receive the insured. Doctors in essence work with a cap on the amount of procedures and variety of procedure. Contractual protocol stipulates that a doctor will perform a procedure at the contracted rate which is indicated by the insurance company.

I may be light on the law, but I sure know my medical billing as it is my job.

Point is the in network contract requires all participating providers to posses malpractice insurance at the companies determination and amount. The contract always stipulates that the legal burden is on the doctors performance first. Where industry is liable is in determination and access. Much of the demand for this insurance is per request of the Father industry, Blue Cross, UHC etc...

the point I should have lead with is that Doctors do not determine cost, Insurers do,
therefore the cost of Mal- Ins will not effect the cost of healthcare because it is separate to the cost of premiums. It is demanded of the doctors either way and the industry regulates the cost on both sides, delivery and market side.

Basically it does not matter to the consumer - as the CBO stated a combination would lead to a savings of 0.5% to Volvos and Apples combined.

anyhow this is a ploy for the insurance companies - they will still demand their "staff"
to meet acceptable coverage determinations in that field - however they WILL use the "reform" to protect their own necks. Tort is a drop in the bucket -

I would much rather cap other things


and is not trickle down, it is flood up



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by mental modulator
 


It's ok to admit you were wrong. I certainly wouldn't think less of you for doing so.


You skinned me up - all hail the mighty Jenna a true patriot and scholar!

I still think CBO number is a pittance...

I can show all of you 30% profit/"cost" that appears after the Physician applies the PD on an EOB or 1500. (insurance forms)

Makes the CBO numbers and malpractice dues look like expired food stamps









[edit on 11-10-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
Unless we are talking about at out of pocket procedure, doctors do not charge patients anything but co pays or applied deductibles.


Even with insurance many, if not most, people still have out of pocket costs and those can get expensive. Especially if insurance denies a claim or only covers part of a procedure. I have bills sitting next to me right now from insurance denying a claim (paperwork mix up and they told the doctors office my son wasn't covered which left me with a $400 bill) and from insurance not covering much of his baby shots. (They covered about 3/4's but that still left me owing around $250 I think.) The first is being resubmitted now that I've straightened it out, the latter I'm working on. $250 may not seem like a lot, but when you're a single-income family recovering from being a no-income family it hurts.


Doctors in the current system work under a PD (prescribed discount) system in which they are contracted to receive the insured. Doctors in essence work with a cap on the amount of procedures and variety of procedure. Contractual protocol stipulates that a doctor will perform a procedure at the contracted rate which is indicated by the insurance company.


Doctors also know how to get around those limits and get insurance to pay for whatever it is they're wanting to do. I know this from first-hand experience and my OB telling me he'd take care of it when I told him insurance wasn't going to cover an ultrasound. And he did.


I may be light on the law, but I sure know my medical billing as it is my job.


Then you know tons more than I do about it. I've worked in health care but never in billing. (I'm a jack of all trades.
)


the point I should have lead with is that Doctors do not determine cost, Insurers do, therefore the cost of Mal- Ins will not effect the cost of healthcare because it is separate to the cost of premiums. It is demanded of the doctors either way and the industry regulates the cost on both sides, delivery and market side.


The CBO and studies they've cited disagree with you.


Basically it does not matter to the consumer - as the CBO stated a combination would lead to a savings of 0.5% to Volvos and Apples combined.


The CBO also stated that it would lead to savings. You can dismiss them as unimportant, or you can accept that $54 billion is a large number that would indeed make a difference.


anyhow this is a ploy for the insurance companies - they will still demand their "staff" to meet acceptable coverage determinations in that field - however they WILL use the "reform" to protect their own necks. Tort is a drop in the bucket -


Oh, we were making progress and you had to go the dismissive route instead. The CBO goes by proposed legislation and whatever studies have been done, not by lobbyists or insurance companies.


I would much rather cap other things


Such as?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna



Even with insurance many, if not most, people still have out of pocket costs and those can get expensive. Especially if insurance denies a claim or only covers part of a procedure. I have bills sitting next to me right now from insurance denying a claim (paperwork mix up and they told the doctors office my son wasn't covered which left me with a $400 bill) and from insurance not covering much of his baby shots. (They covered about 3/4's but that still left me owing around $250 I think.) The first is being resubmitted now that I've straightened it out, the latter I'm working on. $250 may not seem like a lot, but when you're a single-income family recovering from being a no-income family it hurts.


Ya when you are new to a doctors office the billing folks are supposed to call or login in to check your eligibility. I would suggest you call yourself to find out your youngins benefits in regards to shots, ask what is your deductible is and find out the POST DEDUCTABLE breakup 72/25 100/100, etc. Stall on the bill a bit and poke your nose around with a couple calls, often times the billers can be lazy, the biller might have inputed a code sequence wrong (one number off or out of order is a big deal to insurance co's) and finally the INSURANCE co might be doing their usual (which is stall and dodge every which way hoping you will pay). You are in the hands of a vast machine of incompetence - I usually screw up me first go 20% of the time and catch the rest at the end on a second go. I know about those bucks...



Doctors also know how to get around those limits and get insurance to pay for whatever it is they're wanting to do. I know this from first-hand experience and my OB telling me he'd take care of it when I told him insurance wasn't going to cover an ultrasound. And he did.


ya they do, usually when they like you they make it work with some creative billing or will take a bit of a hit for that on returns and they write it off out of the goodness of their heart.



The CBO and studies they've cited disagree with you.


well we can't trust me anymore -

but if you look at the numbers the savings to ( a volvo or apple?) is .02%
when applied to (a volvo or apple?)

The reason a 10% decrease in mal-premiums does not reflect a higher savings in
the over all (volvo or apple) is because the cost is not on the insurer side - it is on the delivery side. Most of the income doctors get is from the insurer side which demands the coverage in order for a provided to be in network. The Middle man is the insurers and our premiums are not impacted by a delivery cost - doctor premiums. If you are private out of pocket yes - however doctors always give discounts for out of pocket because the middle man takes 30 - 75% for holding the provider contract, so they usually earn more anyways by discounting a cash customer.



The CBO also stated that it would lead to savings. You can dismiss them as unimportant, or you can accept that $54 billion is a large number that would indeed make a difference.


Well if you assumed one portion of those savings if divided by the population or the insured... there you would get my infamous $2 figure - Like I said I know where
30% to 75% of cost comes from - there we are talking a trillion and more, which is some real coin. But to each their own -


anyhow this is a ploy for the insurance companies - they will still demand their "staff" to meet acceptable coverage determinations in that field - however they WILL use the "reform" to protect their own necks. Tort is a drop in the bucket -




Oh, we were making progress and you had to go the dismissive route instead. The CBO goes by proposed legislation and whatever studies have been done, not by lobbyists or insurance companies.


Well, the truth is the insurance companies are funding the main lobbying effort for this,
and the truth is also the $2 figure. You slice up the 54 billion - its like a doughnut and coffee every month and I is not a substancal figure when it is distributed across the entire market or population. The real savings will be for the industry and Pharma (if applicable)

I still don't know why you think ANY additional savings will be passed on to the consumers. think about it, the industry has already assigned their legal costs on policy holders at a premium. They pay 100 million for a retainer and bill the expense at a premium to the insurance pool, make 20 million off of the lawyers by passing it on.
But why anyone would think this would be reflected in cost reduction is not thinking like a business, the goal of business is to expand profits, why reduce prices when you can dump half of it a capital hill and the other half towards some other expense.

Remember a fact - If you are insured the doctor has nothing to do with the price you pay, they do not control that figure in usual circumstances.


I would much rather cap other things


Such as?


CAP the PD - you doctor might get $100.00 for a procedure that the Insurance company
bills the pool @ $160.00. That is the majority of cost right there - your premiums reflect
a $160.00 charge and doc has only received $100-

Anyhow I suspect we might not see any of this issue in the same light, whooped me good though.

The real cost in healthcare happens in the billing - thats where the real money is-
when procedure is capped by insurance, who then inflate actual costs to their heart desire - until that is addressed...

From my perspective TORT Ref. is like assuming the price a pizza delivery man pays for car insurance is going to effect the cost of a pizza.



[edit on 12-10-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
Ya when you are new to a doctors office the billing folks are supposed to call or login in to check your eligibility. I would suggest you call yourself to find out your youngins benefits in regards to shots, ask what is your deductible is and find out the POST DEDUCTABLE breakup 72/25 100/100, etc. Stall on the bill a bit and poke your nose around with a couple calls, often times the billers can be lazy, the biller might have inputed a code sequence wrong (one number off or out of order is a big deal to insurance co's) and finally the INSURANCE co might be doing their usual (which is stall and dodge every which way hoping you will pay). You are in the hands of a vast machine of incompetence - I usually screw up me first go 20% of the time and catch the rest at the end on a second go. I know about those bucks...


It's the same doctors office we've gone to for years. The doc is the one who helped my OB with the youngest's delivery actually. The insurance we have is Tricare (hubby's in the military on active orders) so it was a mixup that happened when he orders changed. We were still covered, it just didn't get put in the insurance companies system correctly. One phone call fixed it though. The lady I got when I called took one look and said "Well that's not right."
Just a matter of waiting for it to be resubmitted.


ya they do, usually when they like you they make it work with some creative billing or will take a bit of a hit for that on returns and they write it off out of the goodness of their heart.


Yep. Fortunately my OB liked me quite a bit since he works with my mother on occasion. He did some creative billing since his daughter has Tricare as well and he knows what a pain they can be. And I'm convinced he wrote off the remainder since I never got a bill. Tricare isn't known for covering every last dime of anything. He's a good man and a good doctor. I lucked out when I picked him to be my OB.


well we can't trust me anymore -


Nope.



but if you look at the numbers the savings to ( a volvo or apple?) is .02% when applied to (a volvo or apple?)


We'll say the volvo is the malpractice insurance and the apple is our health insurance. Volvo's cost more, and so does malpractice.


I still don't know where you're getting .2% from. If you're referencing this:


Therefore, lowering premiums for medical liability insurance by 10 percent would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent.


It's not talking about our health insurance premiums.


The reason a 10% decrease in mal-premiums does not reflect a higher savings in the over all (volvo or apple) is because the cost is not on the insurer side - it is on the delivery side.


The CBO and several studies still disagree with you.


Well if you assumed one portion of those savings if divided by the population or the insured... there you would get my infamous $2 figure


But again, you can't take savings from malpractice insurance and divide it by the number of people with health insurance. They're not even close to the same thing nor does the number of doctors in the US come anywhere close to 300 million people. That would make every insurance policy holder a doctor and that's simply not true.


Well, the truth is the insurance companies are funding the main lobbying effort for this, and the truth is also the $2 figure. You slice up the 54 billion - its like a doughnut and coffee every month and I is not a substancal figure when it is distributed across the entire market or population. The real savings will be for the industry and Pharma (if applicable)


Still trying to compare things that are not in any way comparable. You can post it as many times as you like. It doesn't make it any more accurate than the first time you did.


I still don't know why you think ANY additional savings will be passed on to the consumers.


Because it's been shown to do so. States have put caps on punitive damages and lo and behold malpractice insurance rates dropped as did the number of unnecessary tests and procedures.


CAP the PD - you doctor might get $100.00 for a procedure that the Insurance company bills the pool @ $160.00. That is the majority of cost right there - your premiums reflect a $160.00 charge and doc has only received $100


PD? I'm not sure what that's an acronym for unless it's punitive damages?


The real cost in healthcare happens in the billing - thats where the real money is- when procedure is capped by insurance who then inflate actual costs to their heart desire - until that is addressed, nothing else is worth half a damn IMO


I agree. But tort reform isn't about billing, it's for after health care if something goes wrong. The costs involved in the actual care need to be adjusted and tort reform isn't meant to be a cure-all that magically fixes all of health care all on it's own. But it does need to happen in conjunction with other reforms on the industry. To dismiss it completely just because it won't magically fix everything just doesn't make any sense to me.

Edit: fixed external tags

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by plumranch
 


Why should the government play favourites in these lawsuits? As far as I can see it, where there is an issue regarding malpractice, it needs to be settled in the courts, period. Let the courts deal with it. There shouldnt have to an "official cap" either, let the courts establish whats a realistic sum and whats unacceptable according the evidence.

Regarding the loss of money by healthcare providers concerning fraudulent cases, I'd say its an issue of reforming the laws and the justice system so that these fraudsters are caught out. You want the government to play favourites in what should be a court case based on evidence, what is a matter concerning the justice system, not the healthcare industry.

Its rather funny this comes from Fox news and the republicans, covering up for the private multi-billion dollar insurance companies. Damn straight they are concerned about the losses of money to these healthcare providers, because its costing their health insurance lobbyists. What is obviously a matter where the justice system should be reviewed, they conveniently argue the government to play favourites. Seriously



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Tort reform needs to be done but is no way going to fix the problem by itself. It's the only thing i hear conservatives yelling for.

More needs to be done...and I don't trust anyone in either party to do the right thing when they have all been payed for by corporations and banks.


I believe that the laws and justice system needs to be reviewed. I dont believe the government should make it "easier" on either side of the court room, we have the judges and the jury to do so according to evidence.

But I agree mostly with your statement there David.... our healthcare system is broken and for the part the american people are sufferineg... its rather convenient for calls concerning the healthcare providers, the insurance companies, not the ones suffering the most through this, the people...




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join