Tort Reform Reduces Federal Deficit, Congressional Analysts Say

Tort Reform Reduces Federal Deficit, Congressional Analysts Say

www.foxnews.com

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.
The finding bolsters one of Republicans' top health care reform proposals, and provides them with momentum to press for tort reform to be included President Obama's sweeping health care legislation.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxn ews.com
www.americanthinker.com
www.washingtonpost.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Health care reform in Washington today isn't about health, or reform.

Unfortunately Obama and his supporters are in bed with the lawyers and don't want change. However, medical malpractice is one of the largest waists in the present system and until limits are in place there is no hope of large savings in health care. Doctors pay $100,00 to $250,000 a year for malpractice insurance even if they never have a claim. They, of course, pass that expense off in fees to the public.

And here is the most important aspect: Malpractice expense doesn't just drive up the price of medical care, it also leads to defensive medicine, meaning doctors order all sorts of tests they wouldn't otherwise order just to make sure they won't get sued. Patients never get to pick just what they need in medical care they have to take a whole package of tests they don't want or need just because the doctor is forced to protect his behind from unnecessary lawyers.

Obama and Pelosi will try to sweep this under the rug but now that this study is out, obfuscation will be more difficult!

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by plumranch
And it gets worse than the $54 billion it costs the government.

All the self-insured and privately-insured patients bear the burden of the increased overhead, unnecessary staffing and duplicative or worthless procedures, too.

Those costs don't figure ino the Federal deficit, but they affect our productivity and GDP (health care is 1/6 of GDP).

Then, there's the medical professionals who just "drop out" of certain practices due to the likelihood of litigation, regardless of fault. Some counties in some states lack Ob-Gyn practitioners altogether. Some hospitals no longer support certain procedures because the equipment to do so is too expensive.

The effects are far-reaching, indeed.
s&f
jw

reply to post by jdub297

Then, there's the medical professionals who just "drop out" of certain practices due to the likelihood of litigation, regardless of fault. Some counties in some states lack Ob-Gyn practitioners altogether. Some hospitals no longer support certain procedures because the equipment to do so is too expensive.

Exactly! Why would you want to practice Ob-gyn when you KNOW sooner or later some schmuck lawyer is going to sue you?

And the sad thing is that Obama and his Congress ignore the entire problem when it could be fixed so easily with reasonable limits!

While they bad mouth pharmaceuticals and doctors! Absolutely untenable!

While I may agree tort reform would probably save some money, I don't find that to be even close to the root of the problem.

Health care is pretty much a product of the system, same as anything involving large quantities of (basically) money moving around. The answer is, has, and always will be the government that rules it.

Sorry, but even Republicans are out of the loop on this one. Reps and Dems are moving into an unconstitutional area in two different directions. Seems to me we have a choice between single payer or heavier handed government diddling in State's business.

Health care in general can easily be handled on the State level across the board. Massachusetts wants universal health care for their state, cool. New Hampshire has no public social programs, cool too.

Live how you want.

I stopped trusting practically all Republicans after Part D (most before that thought).

reply to post by KrazyJethro

TI may agree tort reform would probably save some money, I don't find that to be even close to the root of the problem. ext

My viewpoint is from inside the system and I see tremendous waist because of the lack of malpractice fire control. Incredible waist!

And Medicare D was back in 2003. You don't forget do you! I wasn't for it then but I certainly didn't want to go off with the Democrats because of part D. Olympia Snow is the only Republican off the reservation on Obama Care!

However, I would think that some Independants and Republicans could be lured over in Tort Reform were included in some version.

Live how you want.

Ok, I'll agree on the state's rights issue. Let liberal Massechusetts have socialized state medicine. Keep the Feds out!

Originally posted by plumranch
My viewpoint is from inside the system and I see tremendous waist because of the lack of malpractice fire control. Incredible waist!

And Medicare D was back in 2003. You don't forget do you! I wasn't for it then but I certainly didn't want to go off with the Democrats because of part D. Olympia Snow is the only Republican off the reservation on Obama Care!

However, I would think that some Independants and Republicans could be lured over in Tort Reform were included in some version.

To be clear, yes. It is a problem, and not a small one. However, in the long run I have no desire to be lured or lure other people to either side because tort reform certainly wouldn't solve a lions share of the problems.

It's the economy (and monopoly/facism specifically) that I have a problem with. The plans in contention (regardless of sweetening) really don't resolve any issues now, nor do they create solvency in the long run (even the plans not in contention).

Any government increase in health care WILL create a second Social Security. If nothing else crushes us, it will if done nationally.

Perhaps we could take a large snip off the military and leech groups (lobbyists).

There is a reason the majority of top elected politicians are lawyers, or were before their move into politics.

It ain't gonna happen.

The lawyers run the country.

They aren't going to ever pass legislation that would harm business for lawyers and law firms.

So, if some Medicaid doctor maims your loved one for life, you don't mind receiving a $15,000 settlement, while in-home health care costs you 50k annually for the rest of their life?
Let the punishment reflect the crime.
Tort law should consider minor errors from gross negligence. There should NOT be a monetary limit on major medical violations. Removing the wrong leg is a huge violation in comparison to faulty stitches. All tort law is not excessive.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by lostviking]

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 think we are at an interesting threshold that rarely seems to be crossed.

If one thinks the government is broken and untrustworthy in the extreme and they have given themselves ample legal resources to spin things until they either go away or they can pass a law, what exactly is to be done about it?

My guess is nothing. It's the only thing that ever really gets done.

The funny thing about TORT reform is that it is a part of common law that extends back to English common law...

The tort we are talking about is usually neglect in some fashion

Torts may be categorised in a number of ways: one such is to divide them into Negligence Torts, and Intentional Torts.
The dominant action in tort is negligence. The tort of negligence provides a cause of action leading to damages, or to injunctive relief, in each case designed to protect legal rights, including those of personal safety, property, and, in some cases, intangible economic interests. Negligence actions include claims arising primarily from automobile accidents and personal injury accidents of many kinds, including clinical negligence, workers negligence and so forth. Product liability cases may also be considered negligence actions, but there is frequently a significant overlay of additional statutory content.

Creating a specific tort cap for doctors OR CORPORATIONS would be a huge governmental line to cross. It would create a protected class and I do not trust
any conglomerate endeavor that much. In may cases this could result in paying the cap
and abandoning, botching or poisoning (drug companies) without worrying about consequence. For example a company could accept the tort cap cost as a better option then providing due diligence to the very sick, hell or contractual obligation.

IMO this is tampering with the very foundation of law, a system that is intended to prevent negligence with a possible consequence.

Anyhow I am sure there is no room in ye minds or hearts to consider the very real very f-ed up things that occasionally happen in hospitals.

"SORRY... We fooked up your 18 year old daughters operation, ya... she is now cauliflower, but rest assured folks,,, he have a $250,000 tort cap check here so you can cover three years of her new life as a vegetable"

en.wikipedia.org...

I am sure Blue cross will pass on the savings to the C.E... I mean consumer!

reply to post by mental modulator


"SORRY... We fooked up your 18 year old daughters operation, ya... she is now cauliflower, but rest assured folks,,, he have a $250,000 tort cap check here so you can cover three years of her new life as a vegetable"

Is that what they are proposing? That's stupid. I thought they were at least trying to weed out fraudulent cases. Good people will get screwed with that. Definitely not something I would want to see.

I am sure Blue cross will pass on the savings to the C.E... I mean consumer

Lol...on a roll man.

They make billions off of the peril and struggle of others...and it's not just the CEO's...it's the stockholders who are making ridiculous amounts of money as well.




[edit on 10-10-2009 by David9176]

reply to post by plumranch



BTW

If you do the math that is a savings of $16.37 a year for each person if the population is
330,000,000 people...

Just saying

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mental modulator

 

"SORRY... We fooked up your 18 year old daughters operation, ya... she is now cauliflower, but rest assured folks,,, we have a $250,000 tort cap check here so you can cover three years of her new life as a vegetable"

Is that what they are proposing? That's stupid. I thought they were at least trying to weed out fraudulent cases. Good people will get screwed with that. Definitely not something I would want to see.

I am sure Blue cross will pass on the savings to the C.E... I mean consumer

Lol...on a roll man.

They make billions off of the peril and struggle of others...and it's not just the CEO's...it's the stockholders who are making ridiculous amounts of money as well.




[edit on 10-10-2009 by David9176]

I am not sure how it could be done

Tort is applicable to anything really, a dog bite, car crash, fist fight...
The only thing I can see is if they make doctors and their employers a protected class.
It is messing with the whole system if they change TORT in general and if they apply it to healthcare only I can imagine the implications. Doctor and HMO can save money on the expensive stuff because a death might be cheaper in some cases. Of course at the same time prices are inflated by many unnecessary tests out of fear, solution = NOT FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE! I do not trust this monster enough to sign away my rights for such a nominal amount in savings

- per person with tort reform

$16.00 and some change every year

Savings to the CEO bonus pay out

Priceless!

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Is that what they are proposing? That's stupid. I thought they were at least trying to weed out fraudulent cases.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by David9176]

I am sure that is the intent in some cases

but WHO DETERMINES such a thing???

The courts -

Who would if Tort reform passes?

Who benefits?

Does this mean that Doctors, facilities and MEGA HEALTH are not liable for their choices and decisions?

Thats my thinking, people who have been Fubar'ed will get caught up in the whole thing.

NEXT CASE



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

reply to post by mental modulator


The only people that will benefit are those who already have plenty of money. That's the reality of it.

I'd love to see it non profit as well but it will never happen. It's too much money and power for them to give up.

Originally posted by plumranch


Unfortunately Obama and his supporters are in bed with the lawyers and don't want change. However, medical malpractice is one of the largest waists in the present system and until limits are in place there is no hope of large savings in health care. Doctors pay $100,00 to $250,000 a year for malpractice insurance even if they never have a claim. They, of course, pass that expense off in fees to the public.

And here is the most important aspect: Malpractice expense doesn't just drive up the price of medical care, it also leads to defensive medicine, meaning doctors order all sorts of tests they wouldn't otherwise order just to make sure they won't get sued. Patients never get to pick just what they need in medical care they have to take a whole package of tests they don't want or need just because the doctor is forced to protect his behind from unnecessary lawyers.

Obama and Pelosi will try to sweep this under the rug but now that this study is out, obfuscation will be more difficult!

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

While I agree that med mal suits are often frivolous and cause medical insurance prices to go up, there are many people who would suffer greatly and have no recourse without it. People have gone in for surgical amputation of one leg only to have the other leg removed. There are a billion stories like this...

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mental modulator

 

The only people that will benefit are those who already have plenty of money. That's the reality of it.

I'd love to see it non profit as well but it will never happen. It's too much money and power for them to give up.

YA, its screwed anyway you slice it

too bad...

We could do so much better

Originally posted by really

Originally posted by plumranch


Unfortunately Obama and his supporters are in bed with the lawyers and don't want change. However, medical malpractice is one of the largest waists in the present system and until limits are in place there is no hope of large savings in health care. Doctors pay $100,00 to $250,000 a year for malpractice insurance even if they never have a claim. They, of course, pass that expense off in fees to the public.

And here is the most important aspect: Malpractice expense doesn't just drive up the price of medical care, it also leads to defensive medicine, meaning doctors order all sorts of tests they wouldn't otherwise order just to make sure they won't get sued. Patients never get to pick just what they need in medical care they have to take a whole package of tests they don't want or need just because the doctor is forced to protect his behind from unnecessary lawyers.

Obama and Pelosi will try to sweep this under the rug but now that this study is out, obfuscation will be more difficult!

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

While I agree that med mal suits are often frivolous and cause medical insurance prices to go up, there are many people who would suffer greatly and have no recourse without it. People have gone in for surgical amputation of one leg only to have the other leg removed. There are a billion stories like this...

But at least you still have one leg left

until they take to right one



Here's your check Stumpo - sign out over at that window