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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah, who doesn't complain when they are "forced" to bilk customers for more money? There is no way that running a full body scan for every broken bone is less costly than dealing with the odd lawsuit payout because you didn't. No one is forcing them to do this. They do it for the $.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: Bitek
~$6B a yr is still $6B, but a pretty tiny amt of savings. They should still do it regardless, but hardly the worth all the bitching for peanuts.


Dems should gladly give in to Tort reform if it can pull some Reps along with and get this thing done (w/ the medicare for all/public option as the trade)

In another thread on HC reform, I guessed that tort reform would save us at most about 1%. Looks like I OVER-estimated the savings.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,158
20
81
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."

But here's the thing. The entire idea of Tort reform is to cut wasteful spending and to eliminate frivolous lawsuits and to get things back on track. So the idea is to fix something broken and abused. Instead, you claim that cutting wasteful spending will but meaningful spending. It's really just chasing your tail in the end.

"Let's cut wasteful spending!"
"But then you'll cut into useful spending!"

"We're not spending enough on ____"
"But then increasing spending on ____ will lead to torturing people in Gitmo"

I think there's a point when you have to admit that tort reform is GOOD. How much it does is another question. I don't think people here are pushing for tort reform so doctors are un-sueable.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Let's be straight on this.

$6B/yr is NOT chump change. But for all the talk about "tort reform" as a major component of Republican health care reform, that number is seriously lacking in oomph.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: alchemizeNow, 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.

I was able to find a number of stories with a quick Google search for "health care" rescinded cancer. I put very little effort into this; it wasn't difficult to find a couple stories. Here are a few from the first couple of results.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-must-pa_n_289841.html

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."

That appears to be the most an insurance company has ever been ordered to pay in a case involving the practice known as rescission, in which insurance companies retroactively cancel coverage for policyholders based on alleged misstatements - sometimes right after diagnoses of life-threatening diseases.

-------------

Before the cancellation of the policy, an underwriter working for Fortis wrote to a committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy: "Technically, we do not have the results of the HIV tests. This is the only entry in the medical records regarding HIV status. Is it sufficient?" The underwriter's concerns were ignored and the rescission went forward.

"Committee considering whether or not to rescind his policy." Can you say "health insurance death panel?" Here's another:

http://lansing.injuryboard.com...t.aspx?googleid=232258

Patsy Bates was originally approved for health insurance by Health Net effect August 1, 2003. The next month she was diagnosed with cancer. In December Ms. Bates was asked to clarify certain portions of her health insurance application, and then in January 2004 her policy was terminated. This termination occurred while Ms. Bates was receiving chemotherapy treatment and left her with a bill for $129,000, forcing her to discontinue treatment.

Boom! Woman receives cancer diagnosis, insurance company terminates her policy. Here's a link to a National Public Radio story:

Insurers Revoke Policies to Avoid Paying Higher Costs

Here's yet another story.

LA Times: Health Insurers Refuse to Limit Recission of Coverage. Lawmakers ask three executives if they'll stop dropping honest customers. All say no.

Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

Apparently this issue is real enough that Congress looked into it and even held hearings, but you claim no such thing happens.

Time Magazine: When Health Insurance Isn't Health Insurance

In May, 2008, Robin Beaton, a retired registered nurse from Waxahachie, Texas, went to her dermatologist to be treated for acne. He mistakenly wrote down something on her chart that made it appear that she might have a pre-cancerous skin condition.

Not a big deal, right? It shouldn't have been, except that soon after that, she was diagnosed with something far more serious--invasive and agressive breast cancer. Three days before she was scheduled for a double mastectomy, her insurance company, Blue Cross, called her and told her they were launching an investigation into the last five years of her health records. It turned out that dermatologist's note had been a red flag, and the company was looking for a way to cancel her policy on the grounds that she had been hiding a serious medical condition.

What Robin went through after that was a nightmare, one she tearfully described Tuesday morning in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee. "The sad thing is, Blue Cross gladly took my high premiums, and the first time I filed a claim and was suspected of having cancer, they searched high and low for a reason to cancel me," said Robin, whose hair is just beginning to grow back in from chemotherapy.

Here's another. Keep in mind, once again, that it was very easy to find these references; it took less than 2 minutes to find this stuff.

Why You Can't Trust Your Health Insurer. Private insurance companies dump very sick claimants based on stupid technicalities. That's reason enough to support health reform.

-----------------

And there you have it, a link to a number of easy-to-find references reporting on rescission at private health insurance companies and those companies' desires to welch on their contracts, essentially committing acts of criminal fraud or at least an unconscionable bad faith dealing. But you say that this is all fiction.



 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
click me!

scroll down to:
"Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?"

check how much the US .gov expends compared to the UK .gov and the german .gov. so, insurance companies are the reason for the vast discrepancy? that's horseshit.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: ElFenix
click me!

scroll down to:
"Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?"

check how much the US .gov expends compared to the UK .gov and the german .gov. so, insurance companies are the reason for the vast discrepancy? that's horseshit.

These numbers are from 2005:

UK 87.1
U.S. 45.1

The key word here is "government expenditure". Presumably, the reason why the U.S. number is lower than the UK number is that the UK is fully socialist and nationalized, so almost all of the expenditures for health care in the UK are paid for by the government. In contrast, most of the U.S. expenses are paid for by people and businesses themselves. (Does the U.S. figure even factor in what state and local governments spend?) Presumably if you factor in the money spent by individuals and businesses for health care and add that to the amount the U.S. and state governments spend and determine the per capita amount, it would be much higher than the UK amount.

Here's the GDP numbers from 2005:

United Kingdom 8.2
United States of America 15.2
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Let's be straight on this.

$6B/yr is NOT chump change. But for all the talk about "tort reform" as a major component of Republican health care reform, that number is seriously lacking in oomph.

QFT it wont fix shit
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,653
2,395
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Let's be straight on this.

$6B/yr is NOT chump change. But for all the talk about "tort reform" as a major component of Republican health care reform, that number is seriously lacking in oomph.

It is one half of one percent, or five parts per one thousand. Some potential savings perhaps, if all the OMB assumptions are proven correct but to be honest I rate it closer to trivial than to significant.

A quotation usually attributed to the late great Senator Everett Dirksen "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,256
1
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah, who doesn't complain when they are "forced" to bilk customers for more money? There is no way that running a full body scan for every broken bone is less costly than dealing with the odd lawsuit payout because you didn't. No one is forcing them to do this. They do it for the $.

If insurance does not deem it medically necessary, they will not pay for it. Most doctors actually care about their patients AND being paid, and have no interest in bankrupting their source of revenue.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Originally posted by: Ausm
Originally posted by: Bitek
~$6B a yr is still $6B, but a pretty tiny amt of savings. They should still do it regardless, but hardly the worth all the bitching for peanuts.


Dems should gladly give in to Tort reform if it can pull some Reps along with and get this thing done (w/ the medicare for all/public option as the trade)

You can find 6 billion dollars cleaning out America's couch.

I love how the Republican's whine about not being included in the healthcare debate even though they have numerous amendments that are to be included yet they will still not vote for it...

WTF - Democrats spend $6 billion at the drop of a hat on bullshit like "renewable energy research for green jobs" and thousands of other pet projects, you should be thankful that the Republicans actually came up with some "found cash" in the cushions for you to spend instead of bitching about the amount.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
click me!

scroll down to:
"Per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$) ?"

check how much the US .gov expends compared to the UK .gov and the german .gov. so, insurance companies are the reason for the vast discrepancy? that's horseshit.

Why are you limiting this analysis to per-capita GOVERNMENT expenditure on health care? Of COURSE the U.S. figure is going to be lower than systems with fully socialized medicine.

Now, try looking at the TOTAL per-capita expenditure (private + government). The U.S. figure is $6350 - the highest of ANY country.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
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 power?

Stop spouting this nonsense. God, it' so freaking ignorant.