Tort Reform Reduces Federal Deficit, Congressional Analysts Say

Originally posted by Jenna
Does that $20 a year take into account all the unnecessary and needless procedures and tests that won't be done anymore when doctors aren't constantly worried about covering their tails? Somehow I don't think it does and that's a cost that we pay that needs to be taken into account before just dismissing tort reform as pointless monetarily.

Hey Jenna let me just say I know where your coming from and ironically its from the experiences of a very close friend. He worked as a teacher at a primary school.... his a guy and likewise there are a shortage of teachers, in addition to a large ratio difference of gender in schools, particularly primary schools and it has become an issue in this nation... but likewise his a passionate guy and his a great teacher... and yet every time at work he finds himself having to watch his tail every second around kids when his trying to do his job. He does coaching but its as if he has to be on edge to avoid an "abuse lawsuit". Unfortunately with the history of males involved in school crimes.... he has to walk with this stereotypical bullseye on his back everday his at the job. There are biases in the system of justice still in this country... where the victim is always right.... its a shame.... and its people in high demand jobs like this who have to day in and day out watch their tails to avoid an opportunist.... they just want to do their jobs... but theres the history of assuming the victim is always... a victim.

But in my opinion this history of fraudulent lawsuits that consume time and money of even the innocent in a practice, is due to a system of justice where there are biases, where you can sue anybody for anything... It will not be solved by the government giving special attention to anybody in court, limiting what charges can be applied from/to either side. It can be solved by changing a system of justice where these fraudulent lawsuits slip through. There are real victims that deserve justice, but likewise there are real defendants who are innocent and who are being falsely accused. Both sides need to defend/request justice without the government limiting them to do so and by howmuch.

Nobody should be protected more than the other in court room. The judges and the jury decide whether there is sufficient evidence or whether the case was fraudulent or as to howmuch the compensation should really be. The issue will not be solved by paying special attention to the rights of one side, the issue is about reforming the justice system to assure that the innocent are not charged. Ironically the issue presented by the OP is the very same issue that will arise if the government limits what another side can charge. Neither side should have it easier under the justice system. There should be equal rights to defend and request justice... neither side should be protected more.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by Jenna

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 I am talking apples and you just said reducing malpractice would not be reflected in the CBO estimates to premiums did you not?

I know first have that my doc only assigns an actual price to out of pocket patients.
All other charges are determined by the Insurance side... A doctor could pay 15 million dollars for a policy and still make the exact same amount on the EOB (explaination of benefits- bill/receipt) If a doctor is in network it means they have agreed to the level of malpractice determined and the price structure stipulated in the initial contract per policy.

So why do you insists that skimming 10% off delivery will impact premiums in anyway?
The doctors work for the insurance co's not the other way around.

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 I like perspective - so it helps to apply money spent by a society to the size of the society. If we are talking doctors we could be talking a $2,000 - to $16,500 savings on malpractice per the CBO report depending on the vocation and location.

But as I said the delivery system cannot pass this benefit on to consumers directly, it doesn't work that way, once again the doctors do not bill the patient, they bill the insurance company for the patient - that cost is already predetermined when contracts are signed to be IN NETWORK...

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 think you are being stubourn with purpose - I am talking about delivery -
if the entirety of that 54 billion was directly applied to savings on premiums
it would amount to that figure. That is simple math - I am trying to determine the benefit to people who pay premiums - I found that if you chopped up the number and applied it to the currently insured it would indicate a $2 saving on premiums, that IS accurate. I am applying a large number to the market and market base it is related to - what else should I compare it to?

You expand on this, you show me some humor and tell me how to determine how this will impact my pocket, so my little brain can wrap its feeble tenticles around the benefits, please?

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.

not in Texas - some of their counties have double the national average in costs. One has the second highest in the entire country, with tort reform cap at $250,000 - Second to Fort Lauderdale Florida -

Like I said the two costs are Independent, seriously Jenna... The price of my pizza is NOT affected by the price of the delivery mans car insurance or gas... For the how ever many times, a contracted doctor is paid by the insurance company, not the patient (less co pays or deductibles)- The insurance company CHARGES -

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

perscribed discount - this is the Amount an insurance company pays a doctor for any given procedure. The difference between the PD and what the doctor gets for a procedure/s is the profit, which is assigned by insurance companies - not doctors.
Doctors sign a contract which caps their own pay in order to have access to the insurance pool.

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.

I don't dismiss it, but I do not see it in a shinning glow either. I worry that it can limit access to the courts as a filter used to weed out false claims might be utilized to screw the truly messed up.

So how much will you save from tort reform per the CBO??? give me an estimate ?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
but likewise his a passionate guy and his a great teacher... and yet every time at work he finds himself having to watch his tail every second around kids when his trying to do his job. He does coaching but its as if he has to be on edge to avoid an "abuse lawsuit".

It's sad really. Men are just as capable in teaching and babysitting roles as women are, yet being male it's assumed that there must be something "wrong" with them if that's what they want to do. The best teachers I ever had in school were male. They all seemed to actually enjoy the subjects they taught as opposed to the women who seemed more concerned with us being quiet and the day passing quickly.

but theres the history of assuming the victim is always... a victim.

Agreed. There's this horrible tendency to assume that people only claim they're victimized because they are. When in reality it's not always the case. Some "victims" are just angry and want to make someone pay no matter who it is.

Nobody should be protected more than the other in court room. The judges, the jury decided whether there is sufficient evidence or whether the case was fraudulent or as to howmuch the compensation should really be.

Agreed with one exception. I believe that the courts and juries should decide whether cases are fraudulent or warranted and that they should decide the level of compensation. However, I don't believe it's unreasonable to cap punitive and non-monetary damages. The monetary damages should not be capped, and it hasn't been suggested, due to that being what loss of income and the costs associated with medical care, funerals, and living with a disability fall under. Non-monetary (pain and suffering and loss of consortium) and punitive damages (punishment for the defendant) should be capped though.

The former can't really be added up with any degree of reliability. What I find unbearable to live with someone else might find bearable though not ideal. The latter I believe is equivalent to beating someone over the head with a baseball bat when they've already handed over their wallet, keys, watch, and everything else of value they have on them. They're already being punished for their negligence by paying monetary and non-monetary damages. Tacking on a few million on top of it to punish them is just redundant.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
but likewise his a passionate guy and his a great teacher... and yet every time at work he finds himself having to watch his tail every second around kids when his trying to do his job. He does coaching but its as if he has to be on edge to avoid an "abuse lawsuit".

It's sad really. Men are just as capable in teaching and babysitting roles as women are, yet being male it's assumed that there must be something "wrong" with them if that's what they want to do. The best teachers I ever had in school were male. They all seemed to actually enjoy the subjects they taught as opposed to the women who seemed more concerned with us being quiet and the day passing quickly.

but theres the history of assuming the victim is always... a victim.

Agreed. There's this horrible tendency to assume that people only claim they're victimized because they are. When in reality it's not always the case. Some "victims" are just angry and want to make someone pay no matter who it is.

Nobody should be protected more than the other in court room. The judges, the jury decided whether there is sufficient evidence or whether the case was fraudulent or as to howmuch the compensation should really be.

Agreed with one exception. I believe that the courts and juries should decide whether cases are fraudulent or warranted and that they should decide the level of compensation. However, I don't believe it's unreasonable to cap punitive and non-monetary damages. The monetary damages should not be capped, and it hasn't been suggested, due to that being what loss of income and the costs associated with medical care, funerals, and living with a disability fall under. Non-monetary (pain and suffering and loss of consortium) and punitive damages (punishment for the defendant) should be capped though.

The former can't really be added up with any degree of reliability. What I find unbearable to live with someone else might find bearable though not ideal. The latter I believe is equivalent to beating someone over the head with a baseball bat when they've already handed over their wallet, keys, watch, and everything else of value they have on them. They're already being punished for their negligence by paying monetary and non-monetary damages. Tacking on a few million on top of it to punish them is just redundant.

Hell SG is the man -

It takes him to help me understand you further - I can agree with you on this whole post, I can be about as smooth as cactus...


Word

Wow the formatting got messed up on that one. You'll have to forgive me if I miss something, but I'll try my best not to.

Originally posted by mental modulator
Well I am talking apples and you just said reducing malpractice would not be reflected in the CBO estimates to premiums did you not?

Huh? No. Where on earth did you get that idea?

So why do you insists that skimming 10% off delivery will impact premiums in anyway? The doctors work for the insurance co's not the other way around.

Do you work for your health insurance provider? I sure don't. And seeing as how you've said you work in billing for a doctor neither do you. Doctor's work for their patients, not the insurance companies.

It's not 10% off delivery, it's 10% off the premiums for malpractice insurance. You seem to be getting confused...

Well I like perspective - so it helps to apply money spent by a society to the size of the society. If we are talking doctors we could be talking a $2,000 - to $16,500 savings on malpractice per the CBO report depending on the vocation and location.

Perspective is fine. It's when you try to gain perspective by comparing things that are in no way similar that you run into a problem. Apples and Volvo's. The only thing they have in common is they are inanimate objects until messed with.

But as I said the delivery system cannot pass this benefit on to consumers directly, it doesn't work that way, once again the doctors do not bill the patient, they bill the insurance company for the patient - that cost is already predetermined when contracts are signed to be IN NETWORK...

Read the CBO estimate. That would be an excellent starting point to understanding.

I think you are being stubourn with purpose

No I'm trying to explain the color blue to the blind.

I am talking about delivery

Which unfortunately has nothing to do with the CBO estimate.

I am applying a large number to the market and market base it is related to - what else should I compare it to?

Apply that large number to the people who will actually be benefiting directly. That would be the doctors, not people who don't pay for malpractice insurance. The way you've been trying to do it is like me trying to the amount of money given to a car company in their wonderful bailout, comparing it to the number of people in the country who drive and then saying "Oh, well it's not that much." It wouldn't make sense and it wouldn't be accurate. It's rather silly honestly. What absolutely blows my mind is how stubbornly you've been clinging to your estimate even when shown without a doubt that it's not even close to what is spoken of in the CBO's.

You expand on this, you show me some humor and tell me how to determine how this will impact my pocket, so my little brain can wrap its feeble tenticles around the benefits, please?

I've tried, you just refuse to comprehend it for some reason.

not in Texas - some of their counties have double the national average in costs. One has the second highest in the entire country, with tort reform cap at $250,000 - Second to Fort Lauderdale Florida -

Tell that to the CBO and the studies they've cited in their estimate. They still disagree with you.

The price of my pizza is NOT affected by the price of the delivery mans car insurance or gas.

You mean like total savings in regards to medical malpractice according to the CBO is not affected by the number of people who have health insurance policies? And actually the price of your pizza is slightly affected by the price of gas. Gas went up and so did delivery charges.

perscribed discount - this is the Amount an insurance company pays a doctor for any given procedure.

Ahh. I see. Pesky health care acronyms, only useful to people who already know what they mean.

I don't dismiss it, but I do not see it in a shinning glow either. I worry that it can limit access to the courts as a filter used to weed out false claims might be utilized to screw the truly messed up.

And your worry is unfounded. No one is talking about limiting who can file a lawsuit and who can't. Capping the award won't prevent Billy Bob from filing a lawsuit. The only thing that will do that is him not finding a lawyer who thinks he has a case and that happens now.

So how much will you save from tort reform per the CBO??? give me an estimate ?

I'm not a fortune teller, nor am I in the habit of pulling numbers out of thin air. I can only tell you what's in the estimate and I have, repeatedly.

EDIT:

Originally posted by mental modulator
Hell SG is the man -

It takes him to help me understand you further - I can agree with you on this whole post, I can be about as smooth as cactus...

SG and I being in agreement on things is a new development. Ask him, he'll tell you we usually butt heads on issues.

I'm really not that unreasonable. I promise. You and I agree on several points, they've just gotten lost in the flurry of posts.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Jenna

Huh? No. Where on earth did you get that idea?

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.

Do you hate me or wish me insanity???

Do you work for your health insurance provider? I sure don't. And seeing as how you've said you work in billing for a doctor neither do you.

Really - you wish me hair loss for your pleasure

I work for a doctor(healthcare PROVIDER in a DELIVERY roll)

Doctor's work for their patients, not the insurance companies.

UHHH...

No they work WITH the patients, their compensation is serviced thru insurance companies. They are only able to honor your insurance and your business if they are contracted with YOUR insurance company, provided you have insurance. If your insurance is accepted they are in a financial contract with the insurance company directly, they are in an implied contract with the patient.

It's not 10% off delivery, it's 10% off the premiums for malpractice insurance. You seem to be getting confused...

delivery does not set prices for I9 diagnosis coding to insured patients, insurance companies do. However a 10% off premiums will benefit the delivery side - a doctor
is the primary tool in any delivery system.

and ya I am not sure if you are actually fooking with me for fun, are you?

Perspective is fine. It's when you try to gain perspective by comparing things that are in no way similar that you run into a problem. Apples and Volvo's. The only thing they have in common is they are inanimate objects until messed with.

How are they not similar - you are not retarded - it is a figure applied to health costs
and a market - you have the problem - You are purposely being difficult or you have zero ability to extrapolate, but I -------

NEVERMIND -I have never had such an unreasonable discussion in my entire time on ATS, I may get off on horrible sadistic humor but it is not meant to be mean spirited.
However it seems you enjoy to dominate for the sake of the empowerment it provides you, not on the merits of accuracy or in this case the promotion of understanding and discussion. I do hope you become more self aware one day.

Hasn't been very fun,expansive or particularly illuminating, but you are a certifiable bully, brow beater while being personable and smart as can be - no doubt you will go far in this world

Good luck, wish you and yours the best in all regards, I will not engage with you again.

MM



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

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

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

The one thing malpractice lawsuits does is drive the worst doctors out of the profession.

Even if the doctor wins the cases the insurance investigators will know if the doctor is right.

If the insurance investigatorsfind that the doctor did things wrong he will find getting insurance harder.

After a couple cases a bad doctor will find that he can not get insurance.
Though some just change medical fields to shrinks, podiatrist or other non invasive medical fields. where its hard if not imposable to prove malpractice.

In some cases this makes them more dangerous.
Why do you think we have all the dangerous mental cases on the streets in the US. In many cases they were released by shrinks that did not care or did not see them as anything but a way to get payed.

Originally posted by mental modulator
Do you hate me or wish me insanity???

Neither. Our health insurance and medical malpractice insurance are not in any way, shape, or form the same thing. Being in medical billing you should understand what health insurance is.

No they work WITH the patients, their compensation is serviced thru insurance companies.

And? I'm sure your doctor (by which I mean your employer) doesn't pay you out of his own pocket every two weeks.

and ya I am not sure if you are actually fooking with me for fun, are you?

Nope, I'm explaining common sense to you and you're just refusing to comprehend it. If anyone's being toyed with here it's me.

How are they not similar - you are not retarded - it is a figure applied to health costs and a market - you have the problem - You are purposely being difficult or you have zero ability to extrapolate, but I

Oh for the love of all that is holy MM. How on earth can you go from being reasonable one post to being completely obtuse in the next? Seriously, how do you do it? Are you sure you work in medical billing? If so you deal with health insurance all the time, and as I said before you should understand what it is.

Health insurance is insurance against loss due to ill health.
Medical malpractice insurance is insurance against loss due to negligence by act or omission.

If we were talking about car insurance, would you apply the total cost against everyone of of driving age or against everyone who pays for car insurance? If we were talking about life insurance, would you apply the total cost against everyone in the country or against everyone who pays for life insurance? In both cases you would apply it against the people who actually pay for it. I'm starting to believe you are intentionally playing dumb..

Hasn't been very fun,expansive or particularly illuminating, but you are a certifiable bully, brow beater while being personable and smart as can be - no doubt you will go far in this world

I'm not bullying or brow beating you and you know it. I've explained where your estimate went wrong 15 times now and you just refuse to admit that you were wrong in applying the total savings to everyone with health insurance when the savings don't apply to them. You may be able to pull that faulty logic off on the gullible but it doesn't fly in the real world.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Jenna]