Tort Reform is a Red Herring, Not a Silver Bullet »
Posted By mesodude 1 month, 2 weeks ago in Political NewsThere is simply no way that damage caps could ever produce the billions of dollars in savings that proponents claim. In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office determined that, at most, tort liability accounted for less than 0.5% of health care costs, and probably far less than that.
Indeed, once you add up the cost of all the lawsuits in America, the percentage of GDP swallowed up by torts actually dropped nearly 10% between 1986 and 2004. It's nonsense to think that lawsuits explain the double-digit rise of health care costs over the last ten years.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
283 Views Share Story 18 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 18 (view all)
-
-
71%
simonsez1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The rewards are only part of it.
Reply
When a hurricane hits the gulf states, the cost of insurance goes up for everyone in the gulf states.
The same is true with health malpractice insurance ... when large punitive rewards happen, the insurance costs are raised to the insureds.
The cost of the insurance they are forced to buy is what drives up the costs of health care.-
-
67%
mesodude1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The same is true with health malpractice insurance ... when large punitive rewards happen, the insurance costs are raised to the insureds."
Reply
--Um...But why are people in court in the first place? Because their health care is being rationed. Right?
-
-
-
100%
jimdoze1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no doubt that caps on non-economic damages is not the silver bullet to the Health Care conundrum. It is just as clear that Health Insurance Company profits are not either...
Reply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33470129/ns/politics-h...
"Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones."
"Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans." -
100%
Leemck021 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You will realize the impact if you ever have it affect you or yours. Don't treat it like a sterile subject, an issue that the political parties are promoted or demoted by it. Just ask what if that doctor or hospital messes you up and there is a cap to the relief decided by the insurance companies (their lawyers)? Nope, let the people do it on the jury.
Reply -
67%
Endoscopy1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The middle man does it again. He posted a story about $800 billion in waste. In it this line is significant.
Reply
"Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year."
This is a direct result of the need for tort reform. Then he posts this story saying that part of his other story is wrong. 37% of health care is a very large number and is caused by the massive punitive damages the lawyers get. On a lawyer call in show one lawyer said that the settlement quite often depends on not the justice of the claim but the sympathy the client can get. The lawyers milk that for all it is worth. Keep in mind that the lawyers get 1/3 to 1/2 of the total settlement.
Learn to read and think middle man.-
0%
Georgia501 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excellent point about justice and sympathy, but lest that point be lost, let's put it another way. In our system, the lawsuits that a tort lawyer will accept are not those with the most merit or the most egregious ethical or technical mistakes by the medical profession, but the ones most likely to engender sympathy from the right jury in the correct courtroom.
Reply
So many cases that deserve legal redress never see the light of justice because these ambulance chasers cherry-pick the cases they will take.
-
-
100%
mesodude1 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think what is called for here is a level head and some common sense on this subject and I'm happy to oblige. Try this, my fellow Americans on the right: Look at the huge amount of litigation and bankruptcy associated with America's health care system and compare it to litigation and bankruptcies in all the countries right wingers love to smear and spread lies about. There is your answer. It's really very simple: When you cover their health care costs, people tend to be quite happy and don't end up in court filing malpractice lawsuits and declaring bankruptcy.
Reply
People, all this demonizing lawyers and discussions of how the insurance industry doesn't make as much profit as other industries is pure methane. It's smoke and mirrors opponents are sinking to as they realize the clock is running out on insurance industry mega-millions. Let's just be honest--our for profit system is broken and it's time to go with a model we know works (because it works quite well in many other countries).-
0%
Georgia501 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Harvard LIE about health care and bankruptcy has been exposed for the fraud it is. A reasonable person does not accept that any death for any reason that results in a bankruptcy is due to the health care system. Only Harvard LIARS and fools who believe them accept that brazen level of stupidity.
Reply -
0%
Leftist1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for that Mesodude! It is abundantly clear that when the profit is taken out of the health care system, costs will go down. Its a no-brainer that even the brain dead right should grasp. No more ever increasing insurance costs to feed the greedy, no more denied coverage and subsequent deaths and bankrupcies, no more trips to the emergency room for treatment for chronic problems, no more lawyer fees and malpractice insurance premiums. Why do the insurance companies, lawyers, pharmacuetical companies, and even doctors have to get fat in the provision of basic human rights?
Reply -
Neutral
chevydog1 month, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
meso -- Sort of think you missed the point. For whatever reason (pick one), we in the US have been conditioned to believe that medicine can fix anything. We read almost daily of medical miracles; or things that that promise medical miracles if only "they" wouldn't stand in the way.
Reply
Bottom line is that if something doesn't work the way that we've been led to believe it should work, our inclination is often (though not always--always is a bad word) that "Someone did something wrong." Not that our something may only work in 90% of the cases ;or any other qualifiers that doctors could and sometimes do give you. And if "Someone did something wrong", the answer in our litigatious society is often litigation.
I have to agree that what we call tort reform is not a magic bullet. But I likewise think that to minimize any impact it may have is to willingly ignore human nature and how we've been conditioned to think about certain things. No evil bogey men need apply; it's just us exercising our normal expectations and sympathies. But I also have to confess that what the actual details of "reform" might be are far beyond my pay grade.
A little story. My wife's father died over 40 years ago (1968) in a VA hospital on Long Island. He was taken there after he collapsed from pain; turned out that one of his spinal discs had completely dissolved away. Anyway, they had him in a full body cast and were constantly dribbling a calcium solution into him to (as they hoped) help rebuild his bones. One morning, my mother-in-law got a call that her husband had just died during the night -- and that was that. They had to go up to St. Alban's for final consultations. The docs didn't really know what he died of; my wife sneaked a look at some of the notes and saw "might be ca". Of course, ca could be cancer; but it could also be calcium.
Flash forward 40 years, and she's an accomplished and fine nurse. I asked her once what she thought that the VA might do differently now if her Father came in in the same situation. Her unhesitating reponse was that they'd do a lot more tests. No particular moral to all this. Other than we all want to know; and that somehow the failure to know is not good. Even if knowing doesn't really help us. Some docs trade on this, not necessarily with bad intent.
I think that one of the things that bothers me about this whole health care debate is the tendency to deamonize people. I don't see many deamons in there. What I do think I see is people doing normal things with normal motivations and other people making these guys out to be evil. Not a pretty look at humanity.
-
-
-
-
67%
Georgia501 month, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Isn't it amazing how tort liability is SO important...until someone threatens it. Then it becomes strangely insignificant.
Reply
Isn't it the least bit curious to liberals how the health care insurance companies can be so e-VILLE and vile with their reckless profiteering, but attorneys who skim 30% off the top of these lawsuits are only looking out for the good of others? And in the process, these attorneys by themselves have created a whole new level of insurance that adds to the cost of heath care: malpractice liability. How come the malpractice insurance companies are never accused of profiteering when their existence is entirely arbitrary in the first place?
But lest I suffocate liberals with this digression into reality, let's get back to the article. No one is saying tort liability would save billions. The issue is not tort liability but malpractice insurance premiums. We're saying that elimination of malpractice insurance costs would save hundreds of millions of dollars in health care costs. There's no magic to these numbers. Simply add up what each specialty averages in premiums, and there's the cost that can be eliminated or substantially eliminated. End of discussion (for reasonable people).
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.