CBO: Tort Reform cuts deficit by $54 Billion over 10 years

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Example of defensive medicine:

I broke a bone in my foot, but it was a hairline fracture. So they did a bone scan to get a better image. But they scanned my whole body...took like 2 hours instead of 15 minutes. Super-expensive machine taking 6 times as long. Why? Because they had been sued by somebody that had cancer and had a bone scan, and they didn't scan the whole body.

No way I buy that. Not that it didn't happen, but their motivation. Sounds like they were just padding their own pockets.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sciwizam
CBO: Tort Reform cuts deficit by $54 Billion over 10 years

That's it?

Why worry about $54 Billion when the leftists are saving unicorms.

Have you ever posted anything of substance or do you just troll all the time?

As far as tort reform goes, what do people have in mind? I don't want to limit people's ability to seek compensation in the event a doctor screws up through negligence. I also don't want might seem like ridiculous cases cases being thrown out when only the surface story is reported to the media to whip people up into an anti-lawyer frenzy. Now, I'm not denying the existance of truly ridiculous cases, but those real, ridiculous ones should be easy to dismiss outright after the discovery process shows that something has no merit.

But with only $5.4 billion/year in savings, it seems like there are much bigger fish to fry within medical reform than this.

Tort reform is a smokescreen the GOP uses to protect their REAL interest corporate profits to bad some Democrats that were bought off are guilty of this too.

I do see tort reform as a smokescreen; you only hear about the occasional ridiculous cases because tort-reformists want to whip people into a frenzy and make it seem like ridiculous cases are overloading the court system. How many cases are legitimate that we don't hear a peep about?

Smoke screen like "health care reform"? How many people will still be w/o insurance after HCR?

No. Smokescreen like .... Texas already tried it and it did jack shit.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sciwizam
CBO: Tort Reform cuts deficit by $54 Billion over 10 years

That's it?

Why worry about $54 Billion when the leftists are saving unicorms.

Have you ever posted anything of substance or do you just troll all the time?

As far as tort reform goes, what do people have in mind? I don't want to limit people's ability to seek compensation in the event a doctor screws up through negligence. I also don't want might seem like ridiculous cases cases being thrown out when only the surface story is reported to the media to whip people up into an anti-lawyer frenzy. Now, I'm not denying the existance of truly ridiculous cases, but those real, ridiculous ones should be easy to dismiss outright after the discovery process shows that something has no merit.

But with only $5.4 billion/year in savings, it seems like there are much bigger fish to fry within medical reform than this.

Tort reform is a smokescreen the GOP uses to protect their REAL interest corporate profits to bad some Democrats that were bought off are guilty of this too.

I do see tort reform as a smokescreen; you only hear about the occasional ridiculous cases because tort-reformists want to whip people into a frenzy and make it seem like ridiculous cases are overloading the court system. How many cases are legitimate that we don't hear a peep about?

Smoke screen like "health care reform"? How many people will still be w/o insurance after HCR?

Well if you side get's any more amendments passed it will be a hell of alot more.

The party w/o any ideas?

Yeah, that's about right.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Topic Title: CBO: Tort Reform cuts deficit by $54 Billion over 10 years

At whose expense? If tort "reform" legislation comes at the expsense of cutting off victims of incompetent, negligent or malicious health care providers from fair compensation for their injuries, or if it limits penalties against those who commit egregious or repeated breaches of their responsibilities, it's not worth the money it might "save."

This.

I have no problem with limited tort reform.

But before they draft the first tort reform bill the AMA and Congress must press for the release of private information on the health care providers and physicians who commit the most officious acts of malfeasance.

If 100,000 folks die each year from crappy practices we have a right to know the who, what. when where and why.

Something tells me that folks in such a 'free market' will not utilize these hacks and a lofty percentage of that litigation will vanish.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: alchemize
Example of defensive medicine:

I broke a bone in my foot, but it was a hairline fracture. So they did a bone scan to get a better image. But they scanned my whole body...took like 2 hours instead of 15 minutes. Super-expensive machine taking 6 times as long. Why? Because they had been sued by somebody that had cancer and had a bone scan, and they didn't scan the whole body.

No way I buy that. Not that it didn't happen, but their motivation. Sounds like they were just padding their own pockets.

I can't attest to their motivation, but that's exactly the way it was explained to me by the technician.

I know from experience that there are numerous greedy, fraudulent doctors/hospitals out there. Very much a cat and mouse game catching them.

 

[Ausm]

Maybe this website could help people understand the GOP's contribution to healthcare.

http://www.democrats.org/page/content/callemoutboehner/

Oh don't forget this one too

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/settingtherecord

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's a whole lot easier to go after tort reform than it is to even name the real problem--for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's a whole lot easier to go after tort reform than it is to even name the real problem--for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations.

Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong. You could take away every penny of profit and admin costs from those companies and not move the costs more than 10%.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's a whole lot easier to go after tort reform than it is to even name the real problem--for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations.

Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong. You could take away every penny of profit and admin costs from those companies and not move the costs more than 10%.

Clearly given what other countries pay for health care without for-profit insurance that's not true.

 

[DealMonkey]

$5.4B/year seems mighty slim. I suppose if it's the token the Dems have to throw the GOP in order to get some real legislative stuff done, I guess it's worth it. Bonus: much less whining from the doctors paying $100K/year in malpractice insurance.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's a whole lot easier to go after tort reform than it is to even name the real problem--for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations.

Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong. You could take away every penny of profit and admin costs from those companies and not move the costs more than 10%.

Nope, the rates are super high and negotiated down / services denied payment.

When services get denied payment they get written off or paid by individuals at hugely inflated amounts.

Thus, spending keeps going up. A product of our insurance co.'s

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's a whole lot easier to go after tort reform than it is to even name the real problem--for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations.

Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong. You could take away every penny of profit and admin costs from those companies and not move the costs more than 10%.

Clearly given what other countries pay for health care without for-profit insurance that's not true.

LOL. Where to start...

First, I'll report both of you to flag@whitehouse.gov

Second, do some research on what US HC costs are composed of before you spout off. You don't just magically wave a wand and say "voila - implement single payer, US healthcare costs per capita just dropped 50% because that's how it is in the UK".

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

It's a whole lot easier to go after tort reform than it is to even name the real problem--for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations.

Absolutely, completely and utterly wrong. You could take away every penny of profit and admin costs from those companies and not move the costs more than 10%.

Nope, the rates are super high and negotiated down / services denied payment.

When services get denied payment they get written off or paid by individuals at hugely inflated amounts.

Thus, spending keeps going up. A product of our insurance co.'s

Wow the stupid is strong in this thread. Reported to flag@whitehouse.gov

Your first statement is semi-correct, the last statement applies to a tiny number of claims.

Your second statement is semi-correct, other than the "hugely inflated" amounts statement.

Your last statement is a complete falsehood and completely illogical.

Spending keeps going up because of the care being administered, advances in technology, lard asses and smokers, an aging population, end of life costs (treat till you die), defensive medicine, and administrative inefficiencies. All make up varying percentages...all well researched.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Gonad the BarbarianClearly given what other countries pay for health care without for-profit insurance that's not true.

Also, they aren't merely spending less money but have much better coverage--full coverage for the populace. Perhaps the insurance companies are not wholly responsible for the entire gap in spending, but they're a large component of it and the main point is that other nation's have systems that have proven to be far superior to ours.

 

[IronWing]

So how come tort "reform" in Texas hasn't brought down costs or increased the number of people with coverage?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: alchemizeSpending keeps going up because of the care being administered, advances in technology, lard asses and smokers, an aging population, end of life costs (treat till you die), defensive medicine, and administrative inefficiencies. All make up varying percentages...all well researched.

Perhaps socialized medicine would be more expensive in the U.S. than in other nations; that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be superior to our current system where insurance company death panels routinely rescind paying customers' insurance at the drop of a cancer diagnosis.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Example of defensive medicine:

I broke a bone in my foot, but it was a hairline fracture. So they did a bone scan to get a better image. But they scanned my whole body...took like 2 hours instead of 15 minutes. Super-expensive machine taking 6 times as long. Why? Because they had been sued by somebody that had cancer and had a bone scan, and they didn't scan the whole body.

Your doctor bilked your insurer, and you went along for the ride.

Take responsibility for your own healthcare.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: alchemizeSpending keeps going up because of the care being administered, advances in technology, lard asses and smokers, an aging population, end of life costs (treat till you die), defensive medicine, and administrative inefficiencies. All make up varying percentages...all well researched.

Perhaps socialized medicine would be more expensive in the U.S. than in other nations; that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be superior to our current system where insurance company death panels routinely rescind paying customers' insurance at the drop of a cancer diagnosis.

Christ on crutches you are quite the liar.

Your first lie, which you can't defend:

"for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations."

Then you come back with the next lie:

"insurance company death panels routinely rescind paying customers' insurance at the drop of a cancer diagnosis."

Seriously, reported to flag@whitehouse.gov. Come back when you're not spewing bald faced lies.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: alchemizeYour first lie, which you can't defend:

"for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations."

Are you saying that you disagree that insurance company administration as well as benefit managers at businesses don't consume huge amounts of money and thus represent a tremendous economic inefficiency? Where do you think all of the money to pay insurance company employees, benefits plan managers at businesses, and billings people at doctors' offices and hospitals comes from?

Then you come back with the next lie:

"insurance company death panels routinely rescind paying customers' insurance at the drop of a cancer diagnosis."

There are numerous stories about insurance companies doing this to people. Just pull your head out of your ass and read the newspapers or search around the Web. How could you miss the stories about insurance employees whose sole job was to find ways to rescind sick people's policies, often earning them bonuses or commissions?

 

[Rainsford]

What's the expected increase in occurrences of medical malpractice as a result of decreased liability costs? It's hard to believe that capping medical malpractice settlements would have no impact on quality of health care provided.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: alchemizeYour first lie, which you can't defend:

"for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations."

Are you saying that you disagree that insurance company administration as well as benefit managers at businesses don't consume huge amounts of money and thus represent a tremendous economic inefficiency? Where do you think all of the money to pay insurance company employees, benefits plan managers at businesses, and billings people at doctors' offices and hospitals comes from?

Then you come back with the next lie:

"insurance company death panels routinely rescind paying customers' insurance at the drop of a cancer diagnosis."

There are numerous stories about insurance companies doing this to people. Just pull your head out of your ass and read the newspapers or search around the Web. How could you miss the stories about insurance employees whose sole job was to find ways to rescind sick people's policies, often earning them bonuses or commissions?

Back for more, are ya? First, review this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Now, let's bring your statements back, with a bit of bolding:

"for-profit insurance company middlemen that are responsible for huge difference in GDP spent on health care between the U.S. and other first world nations."

"insurance company death panels routinely rescind paying customers' insurance at the drop of a cancer diagnosis."

What you stated I'm sure is easily referenced on the web, I'll wait for your supporting links.

PS: you do understand the difference between anecdotes, and statistics, don't you? Or perhaps you need a lesson in that too...

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: sciwizam
CBO: Tort Reform cuts deficit by $54 Billion over 10 years

That's it?

Why worry about $54 Billion when the leftists are saving unicorms.

Have you ever posted anything of substance or do you just troll all the time?

As far as tort reform goes, what do people have in mind? I don't want to limit people's ability to seek compensation in the event a doctor screws up through negligence. I also don't want might seem like ridiculous cases cases being thrown out when only the surface story is reported to the media to whip people up into an anti-lawyer frenzy. Now, I'm not denying the existance of truly ridiculous cases, but those real, ridiculous ones should be easy to dismiss outright after the discovery process shows that something has no merit.

But with only $5.4 billion/year in savings, it seems like there are much bigger fish to fry within medical reform than this.

Tort reform is a smokescreen the GOP uses to protect their REAL interest corporate profits to bad some Democrats that were bought off are guilty of this too.

I do see tort reform as a smokescreen; you only hear about the occasional ridiculous cases because tort-reformists want to whip people into a frenzy and make it seem like ridiculous cases are overloading the court system. How many cases are legitimate that we don't hear a peep about?

Smoke screen like "health care reform"? How many people will still be w/o insurance after HCR?

No. Smokescreen like .... Texas already tried it and it did jack shit.

Illinois did too.

 

[dawp]

Ya have to ask you self what is you life worth? Is it > $750,000 because that is what you would get under this plan. If an incompetent doctor makes it so i can't work another day in my life or kills me, I sure as hell want more than that. And capping malpractice awards does diddly squat for lowering medical cost.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Pens1566


No. Smokescreen like .... Texas already tried it and it did jack shit.

Illinois did too.

Exactly, can the government actually cut some $hit instead of coming up with all the BS projections that's nothing more than saleman's pitch so they can pass their bills?

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: alchemize
Example of defensive medicine:

I broke a bone in my foot, but it was a hairline fracture. So they did a bone scan to get a better image. But they scanned my whole body...took like 2 hours instead of 15 minutes. Super-expensive machine taking 6 times as long. Why? Because they had been sued by somebody that had cancer and had a bone scan, and they didn't scan the whole body.

No way I buy that. Not that it didn't happen, but their motivation. Sounds like they were just padding their own pockets.

Bullcrap. While there may be some doctors who just want to line their pockets, I have heard many (in person) complain about being forced to practice defensive medicine.