« Back to story "Malpractice: Savings Reconsidered"

Story Comments

Posted by: CHAM 1 month, 3 weeks ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

100%
CHAM1 month, 3 weeks ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

The Ridiculous claim by Republicans and Conservatives that Malpractice denial - and this is what they want, would reduce the cost of Health Care significantly is rubbish.

What the Annenberg Foundation claims 1/2 of 1% amounts to 50 cents of every $100 dollars you spend for Health Care. Think about that. So that they can get an extra 50 cents from you they want you to give your right to sue a doctor for wrongdoing. How asinine can some people be.

And the Insurance Industry and their Staunch supporters, the Republican Party have no limitations on their own greed. They don't give a damn whether patients have any rights just as long as they can get that extra 50 cents.

Wise people would tell them to go to hell.

You think the Republican faithful will do that? The leaders won't because they are rotten to the core, the rank and file won't because they are stuck on stupid while supporting the Party. Lord would you give those people some wisdom?

See if you can get them to become Americans first.

( And I might point out that they are a Right Wing support group - take a look at their board of Directory and their donors )

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 2) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
2 Replies

loading ...
- Neutral
  chevydog1 month, 3 weeks ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we just last week on Propeller discussing the 37% of supposed "waste" in the health care system that is a result of doctors prescribing testing strictly to avoid the possibility of lawsuits? This amounts to something over $200 billion. Those figures were provided by Prez O's spokesmen.
  
  Now I can believe that there is no significant impact if one is looking at direct awards. But doctors performing testing to avoid lawsuits doesn't fit this category; and it's always problematic when you ask "would you do this if...".
  
  My belief is that people who don't think that this is a factor are deliberately tyrying to take human nature out of the equation. Don't think it's in the least realistic to believe that one's behavior wouldn't change depending on whether there was "infinite penalty" or "no penalty".
  Logic tells you that if there would be "infinite penalty", someone would tend to do more to avoid that possibility. If someone came to me with a draft report that said otherwise, I'd tell them to go back because they obviously missed something, and it doesn't even pass the laugh test.
  
  That having been said, do I believe that it's the entire answer? No. Do I believe it should be part of the anwer? -- yes. In what form? -dunno.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 3) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  1 Reply
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    CHAM1 month, 3 weeks ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    chevydog
    
    Sorry to be so late in responding, I just didn't see the reply on my page.
    
    What you say is correct. O did push that figure. But not being an Obama fan, I let it go on by because, it is a transient figure. No one is able to say it is correct or it is not correct.
    
    But the story was about how much could be saved if Tort was taken of the table. I think the figure to look at is the amount of awards given. That is the 0.2% figure ( some go as high as 0.5% ) but as I might have said in that other thread, which ever it was, thats 50 cents per every $100 dollars of Medical cost. If that's going to put providers out of business, then I need to get my knee pads on and kneel at the alter of the Insurance God.
    
    How much Insurance is the soaking the Provider for - to provide against the loss of 50 cents per $100 dollars? It would be hard to convince me that cost would be more than a pimple on my derriere.
    
    But you could be right. Maybe doctors just can't afford that 50 cents. I somehow bet that's not a problemn.
    
    Who wants Torts erased? Insurance Companies, that's who. Adds a little to the bottom line. Not much, but there is no risk involved and they get a return for that. Back in the day that might have been called a protection racket.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...