Discussion:
OT: The Tort Reform you've heard so much about
(too old to reply)
NotBillB
2009-10-17 17:11:10 UTC
Permalink
You've all heard Republicans squawking about "tort reform", right?

Assume the simultaneous implementation of a full package of the typically
proposed medical liability tort reforms (250k cap on general damages, 500k
cap on punitive damages, shortened limitation periods, admission of
collateral source evidence to offset damages, and abolition of joint and
several liability).

1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?

2) Would there be any downside?
FL Turbo
2009-10-17 17:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
You've all heard Republicans squawking about "tort reform", right?
Assume the simultaneous implementation of a full package of the typically
proposed medical liability tort reforms (250k cap on general damages, 500k
cap on punitive damages, shortened limitation periods, admission of
collateral source evidence to offset damages, and abolition of joint and
several liability).
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?
2) Would there be any downside?
Focusing on the amount of money awarded in lawsuits tells only one
part of the story.

The "rest of the story" is how many unnecessary tests and procedures
were performed simply to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit.

"A 10,000 to 1 chance that the procedure might find something?"
"Well, lets go for it. A lawsuit could ruin my career."
"Anyway, the insurance company would pay for the procedure."

Would you deny that line of thought hasn't run through the minds of
hundreds and thousands of doctors?

People with a genuine basis for a lawsuit can always sue an insurance
company.

How do they sue the Gummint if they take over the insurance business?
NotBillB
2009-10-17 18:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Focusing on the amount of money awarded in lawsuits tells only one
part of the story.
The "rest of the story" is how many unnecessary tests and procedures
were performed simply to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit.
"A 10,000 to 1 chance that the procedure might find something?"
"Well, lets go for it. A lawsuit could ruin my career."
"Anyway, the insurance company would pay for the procedure."
Would you deny that line of thought hasn't run through the minds of
hundreds and thousands of doctors?
I'm not denying anything. I am asking you to take all that into account in
arriving at a guess as to how much, as a percent, all those tort reforms are
likely to reduce total national health care expenditures. Take into account
"defensive medicine" or anything else you think is likely to flow from those
reforms. Do you have any guess?
FL Turbo
2009-10-17 18:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
Focusing on the amount of money awarded in lawsuits tells only one
part of the story.
The "rest of the story" is how many unnecessary tests and procedures
were performed simply to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit.
"A 10,000 to 1 chance that the procedure might find something?"
"Well, lets go for it. A lawsuit could ruin my career."
"Anyway, the insurance company would pay for the procedure."
Would you deny that line of thought hasn't run through the minds of
hundreds and thousands of doctors?
I'm not denying anything. I am asking you to take all that into account in
arriving at a guess as to how much, as a percent, all those tort reforms are
likely to reduce total national health care expenditures. Take into account
"defensive medicine" or anything else you think is likely to flow from those
reforms. Do you have any guess?
FL Turbo
2009-10-17 18:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
Focusing on the amount of money awarded in lawsuits tells only one
part of the story.
The "rest of the story" is how many unnecessary tests and procedures
were performed simply to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit.
"A 10,000 to 1 chance that the procedure might find something?"
"Well, lets go for it. A lawsuit could ruin my career."
"Anyway, the insurance company would pay for the procedure."
Would you deny that line of thought hasn't run through the minds of
hundreds and thousands of doctors?
I'm not denying anything. I am asking you to take all that into account in
arriving at a guess as to how much, as a percent, all those tort reforms are
likely to reduce total national health care expenditures. Take into account
"defensive medicine" or anything else you think is likely to flow from those
reforms. Do you have any guess?
Oooops
It got away from me.

No guess.
Do I look look like the CBO or something?

My only guess is that if someone did a poll of doctors, is that plenty
of them had ordered procedures and tests that they wouldn't have
normally done if they weren't afraid of getting sued.

But then, I ain't no Rasmussen.
NotBillB
2009-10-17 18:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
No guess.
Do I look look like the CBO or something?
OK, so what you are essentially saying is you have absolutely no idea how
important or unimportant this issue really is in the grand scheme of things.
Fair enough.

I guess that indicates a really poor PR job by the Republicans, seeing as
they've been pounding this issue for years.
da pickle
2009-10-17 18:40:52 UTC
Permalink
"NotBillB"
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
No guess.
Do I look look like the CBO or something?
OK, so what you are essentially saying is you have absolutely no idea how
important or unimportant this issue really is in the grand scheme of
things. Fair enough.
Actually, what he is essentially saying is exactly what he said. What you
are actually saying is that you do not want anything "fair enough."
Post by NotBillB
I guess that indicates a really poor PR job by the Republicans, seeing as
they've been pounding this issue for years.
Since you posit a false issue and then decide that you are an expert on
debunking the false issue, you win. NH GG.
FL Turbo
2009-10-17 18:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
No guess.
Do I look look like the CBO or something?
OK, so what you are essentially saying is you have absolutely no idea how
important or unimportant this issue really is in the grand scheme of things.
Fair enough.
I guess that indicates a really poor PR job by the Republicans, seeing as
they've been pounding this issue for years.
Yes, I agree.

The Repos really do a poor PR job, year after year.

A poll of the VRWC would confirm that.
NotBillB
2009-10-17 19:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Yes, I agree.
The Repos really do a poor PR job, year after year.
A poll of the VRWC would confirm that.
That is what I am trying to find out. You can't listen to a Republican talk
about health care reform without pimping "tort reform", but it's almost
always short on fiscal specifics. I am trying to get a sense of how big a
problem they have persuaded the general public this issue really represents.
That is, of course, best expressed as how big a chunk of the total health
care pie it could save.

My sense is most people, even politically aware people like you, really have
no clue, and I think that's how they prefer to keep it.
susan
2009-10-17 19:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
Yes, I agree.
The Repos really do a poor PR job, year after year.
A poll of the VRWC would confirm that.
That is what I am trying to find out. You can't listen to a Republican
talk about health care reform without pimping "tort reform", but it's
almost always short on fiscal specifics. I am trying to get a sense of how
big a problem they have persuaded the general public this issue really
represents. That is, of course, best expressed as how big a chunk of the
total health care pie it could save.
My sense is most people, even politically aware people like you, really
have no clue, and I think that's how they prefer to keep it.
Unfortunately, the only posters here who listen only to fox news are people
like you and Jerry who insist that everything they say is untrue.

Try watching other news outlets - some of them have both Rep. and Dems on
discussing issues. You might actually learn something.
da pickle
2009-10-17 19:33:18 UTC
Permalink
"susan"
Post by susan
You might actually learn something.
This person is not BillB ... even BillB did not think he actually already
knew everything like this imposter.

This guys does not want to learn anything, much less something.
FL Turbo
2009-10-17 19:40:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:33:18 -0500, "da pickle"
Post by da pickle
"susan"
Post by susan
You might actually learn something.
This person is not BillB ... even BillB did not think he actually already
knew everything like this imposter.
This guys does not want to learn anything, much less something.
Are you sure about that?
I don't know.

I'll have to quiz NotBlllB as to his opinion of Hugo Chavez.
That should at least give me a clue.
da pickle
2009-10-17 20:28:50 UTC
Permalink
"FL Turbo"
Post by FL Turbo
I'll have to quiz NotBlllB as to his opinion of Hugo Chavez.
That should at least give me a clue.
It is unlikely that BillB would actually return when he was so clear about
his departure.

BillB is not a liar is he?
susan
2009-10-17 22:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
"susan"
Post by susan
You might actually learn something.
This person is not BillB ... even BillB did not think he actually already
knew everything like this imposter.
I think it is
Bob T.
2009-10-18 01:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by susan
Post by da pickle
"susan"
Post by susan
You might actually learn something.
This person is not BillB ... even BillB did not think he actually already
knew everything like this imposter.
I think it is
I'll go further - I think Pickle knows it is, and that Pickle thinks
that Bill has _always_ thought he knew everything.

- Bob T.
da pickle
2009-10-18 13:53:21 UTC
Permalink
"Bob T."
Post by susan
Post by da pickle
Post by susan
You might actually learn something.
This person is not BillB ... even BillB did not think he actually already
knew everything like this imposter.
I think it is
I'll go further - I think Pickle knows it is, and that Pickle thinks
that Bill has _always_ thought he knew everything.

===============================

You know me so well, Bob. It is nice that BillB has rejoined the group. I
wish him no harm. He has often presented his philosophical ideas in a style
that calls out for challenge in a similar vein as he offers.

To be less vague and obtuse, he states a proposition as the "essentially
saying" of some group (usually wingnuts, Republicans, righties or some other
stereotype) and then decides why his presumption is really foolish and he
cleverly demands those idiots that support his made-up postulate prove that
they are correct.

Anyone in a good mood that day might respond with something simple like:
"You make no sense."

Others actually attempt to point out that when you start with bad
assumptions, no reasonable discussion is possible.

BillB then accuses all that disagree with his now buried and lost originally
posted mis-characterization names and the thread lost to the usual suspects
exchanging inane insults which sometimes degrades into a
longest-number-of-posts contest.

I personally think BillB is a very smart guy.

I liked dueling with him, but I do not think he ever took it very well. He
never seemed to understand almost every time, the original formulation of
his "question" was anything other than a red herring. Claiming to want to
have a reasonable debate on an important issue or concept is a good thing.
Beginning by tossing red meat into a lion's cage is not the best way to set
such a discussion in motion.

You and I, Bob, sometimes get into a bit of a tiff. I still believe that
most of the time, I either misunderstand what you are saying or you
misunderstand something I say and we lose our civility ... at least I do.
Sometimes, it is this medium ... sometimes it is someone who gets involved
as a troll and gets us diverted. I think you are a really smart guy too.

The problem at the base is that I have a very different world view than
either you or BillB. We have very fundamental differences, I think, in what
we view as real or proper or some-other-sort-of-word. Sometimes, all of us
get a little silly at a time when the other person is being serious. It is
almost impossible to recover when that happens.

I enjoy all the different personalities on this group. Even those that I
might believe do not often provide much of a contribution of merit (in my
opinion) ... even those sometimes post something that makes me read or think
about something in a different way.

I know that I have a high opinion of my opinion. I am not alone in that
conceit. I really do try and discuss a serious issue in a serious manner;
sometimes I fail. Perhaps I could try to be a little less witty and a
little more understanding of those with whom I disagree. However, when
someone posts a presumptuous and disingenuous "challenge" ... it is hard to
resist a twist. Know what I mean?
Paul Popinjay
2009-10-19 02:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
You and I, Bob, sometimes get into a bit of a tiff. I still believe that
most of the time, I either misunderstand what you are saying or you
misunderstand something I say and we lose our civility ... at least I do.
Sometimes, it is this medium ... sometimes it is someone who gets involved
as a troll and gets us diverted.
Yeah, blame it on the trolls. Of course it has nothing to do with Bob being
a total fucking idiot.
NotBillB
2009-10-17 19:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by susan
Unfortunately, the only posters here who listen only to fox news are
people like you and Jerry who insist that everything they say is untrue.
I detect some hostility. Did I say something to offend you? Why would you
think I only listen to FoxNews? When have I ever insisted that everything
they say is untrue? I made a post last night stating pretty the opposite. I
believe I said something along the lines that I tune into FOX to hone and
build upon my knowledge. I guess you must have missed it.
Post by susan
Try watching other news outlets - some of them have both Rep. and Dems on
discussing issues. You might actually learn something.
Aren't you are the one who just said "I have no clue" [about the relative
importance of the tort reform issue]? Maybe you should concentrate on your
own education. I'm doing fine with mine.
susan
2009-10-17 20:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by susan
Unfortunately, the only posters here who listen only to fox news are
people like you and Jerry who insist that everything they say is untrue.
I detect some hostility. Did I say something to offend you? Why would you
think I only listen to FoxNews? When have I ever insisted that everything
they say is untrue? I made a post last night stating pretty the opposite.
I believe I said something along the lines that I tune into FOX to hone
and build upon my knowledge. I guess you must have missed it.
Post by susan
Try watching other news outlets - some of them have both Rep. and Dems on
discussing issues. You might actually learn something.
Aren't you are the one who just said "I have no clue" [about the relative
importance of the tort reform issue]? Maybe you should concentrate on your
own education. I'm doing fine with mine.
I have no idea what FOX news says about it.
NotBillB
2009-10-17 20:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by susan
Post by NotBillB
Aren't you are the one who just said "I have no clue" [about the relative
importance of the tort reform issue]? Maybe you should concentrate on
your own education. I'm doing fine with mine.
I have no idea what FOX news says about it.
OK, but my question wasn't about Fox News.

My question was, if all the typical medical tort reforms sought by the
Republicans (the ones I listed) were enacted, by approximately what
percentage would national health care expenditures be reduced? I was just
looking for a wild guess from anyone brave enough to make one, based on, if
nothing else, the emphasis the Republicans are placing on this issue. So far
I've only gotten one guess, but I'm quite certain it was sarcastic.
da pickle
2009-10-17 20:46:38 UTC
Permalink
"NotBillB"
Post by NotBillB
Post by susan
I have no idea what FOX news says about it.
OK, but my question wasn't about Fox News.
Your vagueness is only exceeded by your disingenuousness.
Tom White
2009-10-18 15:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by susan
Unfortunately, the only posters here who listen only to fox news are people
like you and Jerry who insist that everything they say is untrue.
I only watch Fox News. My problem with CNN and MSNBC isn't that
they're one-sided; it's that their on-air talent is humorless
and totally outclassed by Fox's.

My problem with with Fox News is that at least two of their
war analysts still pronounce "cache" as "cash-ay" rather
than "cash". Weapons "cash-ay" (cachet) is when your bandolier
and the stock of your AK47 are Prada designed; it's not a stash
of weapons.
FL Turbo
2009-10-17 19:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
Yes, I agree.
The Repos really do a poor PR job, year after year.
A poll of the VRWC would confirm that.
That is what I am trying to find out. You can't listen to a Republican talk
about health care reform without pimping "tort reform", but it's almost
always short on fiscal specifics. I am trying to get a sense of how big a
problem they have persuaded the general public this issue really represents.
That is, of course, best expressed as how big a chunk of the total health
care pie it could save.
Well, I'm a political junkie, so I have no idea what the general
public knows or doesn't know.

As one theory goes, the "collective, gut feeling knowledge" of
ordinary people is greater than the knowledge of any single subset of
them.

Possibly the general public collectively knows more than you and I
think they know.

I'd like to think that is true.
Post by NotBillB
My sense is most people, even politically aware people like you, really have
no clue, and I think that's how they prefer to keep it.
I like to think that I am always open to new data as it comes in.
If you find any data that indicates how much money is wasted on
unnecessary tests or procedures, just let me know.
NotBillB
2009-10-17 19:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by NotBillB
My sense is most people, even politically aware people like you, really have
no clue, and I think that's how they prefer to keep it.
I like to think that I am always open to new data as it comes in.
If you find any data that indicates how much money is wasted on
unnecessary tests or procedures, just let me know.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood that last sentence. I phrased it poorly. By
"they", I meant the Republicans, not the people with no clue (i.e. they, the
Republicans, are trying to be a vague as possible about this issue)
da pickle
2009-10-17 20:27:42 UTC
Permalink
"NotBillB"
Post by NotBillB
Sorry, I think you misunderstood that last sentence. I phrased it poorly.
By "they", I meant the Republicans, not the people with no clue (i.e.
they, the Republicans, are trying to be a vague as possible about this
issue)
You have assumed a straw man issue and not in any way shown that you have a
clue even about what you think you know about your created issue. No one
can be as vague as you.
FL Turbo
2009-10-18 16:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
Post by NotBillB
My sense is most people, even politically aware people like you, really have
no clue, and I think that's how they prefer to keep it.
I like to think that I am always open to new data as it comes in.
If you find any data that indicates how much money is wasted on
unnecessary tests or procedures, just let me know.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood that last sentence. I phrased it poorly. By
"they", I meant the Republicans, not the people with no clue (i.e. they, the
Republicans, are trying to be a vague as possible about this issue)
Maybe the Repos keep it vague when they don't really know the answer
for a fact.

Maybe the Demos are more comfortable lying to us.

I dunno
da pickle
2009-10-18 17:24:18 UTC
Permalink
"FL Turbo"
Post by FL Turbo
Post by NotBillB
Sorry, I think you misunderstood that last sentence. I phrased it poorly. By
"they", I meant the Republicans, not the people with no clue (i.e. they, the
Republicans, are trying to be a vague as possible about this issue)
Maybe the Repos keep it vague when they don't really know the answer
for a fact.
Maybe the Demos are more comfortable lying to us.
I dunno
I have to disagree, turbo ... I think that the Repos lie to us too.

In the current situation, BillB has just decided to go with his group of
liars ... and their lies are going to have really, really worse consequences
than the lies of the past ... no matter who was lying to us.
NotBillB
2009-10-18 18:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Maybe the Repos keep it vague when they don't really know the answer
for a fact.
Potential savings generated by a particular course of action "for a fact"?
That would be a very rare thing. Of course they don't know "for a fact", but
they have a pretty damn good estimate in hand generated from a
knowledgeable, unbiased source. The question is, why aren't the Republicans
advertising that number?

As I've shown here, if a majority of political junkies have "no clue", and
can't even offer a "wild guess", then it's a pretty safe bet the general
public is no better informed. Yet, I bet if you polled 1000 registered
Republicans and asked them if they were for "tort reform", you'd get at
least 95% nodding their heads (otherwise known as "mega-dittos").
Travel A
2009-10-18 19:29:17 UTC
Permalink
BillB wrote:
"Potential savings generated by a particular course of action "for a
fact"? That would be a very rare thing. Of course they don't know "for a
fact", but they have a pretty damn good estimate in hand generated from
a knowledgeable, unbiased source. The question is, why aren't the
Republicans advertising that number?
As I've shown here, if a majority of political junkies have "no clue",
and can't even offer a "wild guess", then it's a pretty safe bet the
general public is no better informed. Yet, I bet if you polled 1000
registered Republicans and asked them if they were for "tort reform",
you'd get at least 95% nodding their heads (otherwise known as
"mega-dittos")."




I wrote:
Most people are against frivolous lawsuits in general. It seems that
you're the "mega-ditto" and ill informed, not registered Republicans.

Th only down side to tort reform is for trial lawyers and chiselers. If
someone has a legitimate case, tort reform isn't stopping anyone from
taking it to court, and doctors won't be "sloppier".

Read up on the tort reform implementation in Mississippi. Tort reform is
good for health care.
NotBillB
2009-10-18 19:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
Most people are against frivolous lawsuits in general. It seems that
you're the "mega-ditto" and ill informed, not registered Republicans.
Th only down side to tort reform is for trial lawyers and chiselers. If
someone has a legitimate case, tort reform isn't stopping anyone from
taking it to court, and doctors won't be "sloppier".
Read up on the tort reform implementation in Mississippi. Tort reform is
good for health care.
OK, you've answered question #2. You don't think there is any downside.

Any guess on question #1?
Travel A
2009-10-19 07:49:18 UTC
Permalink
I wrote:
Most people are against frivolous lawsuits in general. It seems that
you're the "mega-ditto" and ill informed, not registered Republicans.
Th only down side to tort reform is for trial lawyers and chiselers. If
someone has a legitimate case, tort reform isn't stopping anyone from
taking it to court, and doctors won't be "sloppier".

Read up on the tort reform implementation in Mississippi. Tort reform is
good for health care.




BillB wrote:
OK, you've answered question #2. You don't think there is any downside.
Any guess on question #1?


I wrote:
Is there something in particular that's wrong with your brain? That's
been addressed. Feel free to scroll-up at will and reread.
O-PGManager
2009-10-19 03:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
Th only down side to tort reform is for trial lawyers and chiselers. If
someone has a legitimate case, tort reform isn't stopping anyone from
taking it to court, and doctors won't be "sloppier".
The only "reform" I see being proposed is capping damages. Please tell me
how this only effects "frivolous" cases.
Post by Travel A
Read up on the tort reform implementation in Mississippi. Tort reform is
good for health care.
It very well could be. But simply capping damages doesn't just effect
frivolous cases.


----------------------------------------------------
The comic stylings of two RGP conservatives...

On President Obama:
"I thought that his father tried to denigrate him by marrying his mother."
-Alim Nassor

"Now, maybe I'm wrong, but if the Republicans denigrated the President,
wouldn't he just be a skinny, goofy white guy?" -Dave the Clueless

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Travel A
2009-10-19 08:34:15 UTC
Permalink
I wrote:
The only down side to tort reform is for trial lawyers and chiselers. If
someone has a legitimate case, tort reform isn't stopping anyone from
taking it to court, and doctors won't be "sloppier".


Dopey Manager wrote:
The only "reform" I see being proposed is capping damages.

I wrote:
Then that's your problem isn't it. What you claim "to see", means zero.


Dopey Manager wrote:
Please tell me how this only effects "frivolous" cases.


I wrote:
No idea what you're talking about. "how this only effects frivolous
cases", what does that even mean?


I wrote:
Read up on the tort reform implementation in Mississippi. Tort reform is
good for health care.


Dopey Manager wrote:
It very well could be. But simply capping damages doesn't just effect
frivolous cases.


I wrote:
Who said it did? You apparently think you're getting in "a good one". It
doesn't even look like it's good strawman coming.
O-PGManager
2009-10-19 16:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by O-PGManager
The only "reform" I see being proposed is capping damages.
Then that's your problem isn't it. What you claim "to see", means zero.
http://www.mississippi.org/index.php?id=170

There's the summary of your precious Mississippi tort reform. It caps
damages and indemnifies owners from a sub-contractors mistakes. Tell me
what I'm missing. Tort reform is sold as "better managing frivolous
cases" that drive up costs for everyone. There is nothing in tort reform
that addresses "frivolous" cases any differently than totally valid cases.
However, in a Republican's mind who's eager to give up his right to sue
all cases are frivolous.
Post by O-PGManager
No idea what you're talking about. "how this only effects frivolous
cases", what does that even mean?
Read slowly. Tort reform advocates say "tort reform will have no effect
on legitimate cases!" - wrong.
Post by O-PGManager
Read up on the tort reform implementation in Mississippi. Tort reform is
good for health care.
Just read about it. Not impressed. You proudly cite a link reporting
lower malpractice insurance premiums as evidence that "it works!" Great.
Lowering malpractice insurance premiums isn't supposed to be the
overarching goal. Where are the meaningful reductions in health care
costs to the end consumer?



----------------------------------------------------
The comic stylings of two RGP conservatives...

On President Obama:
"I thought that his father tried to denigrate him by marrying his mother."
-Alim Nassor

"Now, maybe I'm wrong, but if the Republicans denigrated the President,
wouldn't he just be a skinny, goofy white guy?" -Dave the Clueless

---- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
O-PGManager
2009-10-19 17:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by O-PGManager
There's the summary of your precious Mississippi tort reform. It caps
damages and indemnifies owners from a sub-contractors mistakes. Tell me
what I'm missing.
Sorry, I did miss something else. It expressly defines disfigurement as a
"non-economic damage" (because being disfigured clearly never effects your
earning power) and caps them at 500k. Phew - all those greedy disfigured
people filing lawsuits - problem handled.


----------------------------------------------------
The comic stylings of two RGP conservatives...

On President Obama:
"I thought that his father tried to denigrate him by marrying his mother."
-Alim Nassor

"Now, maybe I'm wrong, but if the Republicans denigrated the President,
wouldn't he just be a skinny, goofy white guy?" -Dave the Clueless

-------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Travel A
2009-10-20 09:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Dopey Manager wrote:
"Tell me what I'm mssing"



I wrote:
Ummm, a brain, and the ability to control demagogue-tourette's syndrome?
Travel A
2009-10-20 09:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Well, there's the specious strawman argument right on time, lol.

Dopey Manager, that's a laughable red herring that's always trotted-out.
There's a pressing need for tort reform. No suprise that you'd take the
chiselers, and anti-free enterprise side.
O-PGManager
2009-10-17 20:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
My sense is most people, even politically aware people like you, really have
no clue, and I think that's how they prefer to keep it.
Very similar to the welfare budget. My republican friend is convinced all
budgetary problems would be solved if we just "stopped giving handouts to
crack addicts".


----------------------------------------------------
The comic stylings of two RGP conservatives...

On President Obama:
"I thought that his father tried to denigrate him by marrying his mother."
-Alim Nassor

"Now, maybe I'm wrong, but if the Republicans denigrated the President,
wouldn't he just be a skinny, goofy white guy?" -Dave the Clueless

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
2009-10-18 02:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
Yes, I agree.
The Repos really do a poor PR job, year after year.
A poll of the VRWC would confirm that.
That is what I am trying to find out. You can't listen to a Republican talk
about health care reform without pimping "tort reform", but it's almost
always short on fiscal specifics. I am trying to get a sense of how big a
problem they have persuaded the general public this issue really represents.
That is, of course, best expressed as how big a chunk of the total health
care pie it could save.
Read the article by Sen. John Kyl called "Jackpot Justice". He puts the
cost at $100 billion a year, but others estimate it to be higher. Here is
the truth about health care reform:

If we implemented serious tort reform and eliminated the fraud from
Medicare & Medicaid we would have about $200 billion a year. This is
enough money to provide health care coverage to the 12 to 15 million
Americans who do not currently have it or access to it. (The 45 million
number the Democrats throw around includes those who are already eligible
for Medicare or Medicaid but have not signed up, those making >$75K a year
but choose to self-insure and illegal aliens). Couple that with some
reasonable regulatory changes to the insurance industry including letting
companies compete nationally, and you could solve the health care problems.

Obama's left wing plan to have the federal government take over health
care to create a massive entitlement program to buy votes, will be a total
disaster for this country. The American people know this and that is why
56% of them and 63% of seniors have said they do not want Obama care. The
Democrats know this, which is why they are in such a panic to jam their
big government health care plan through before the 2010 mid term elections.

Irish Mike

OK folks, our phone lines are open and the tenth caller will win... The
Nobel Peace Prize!

----- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
NotBillB
2009-10-18 03:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irish Mike
Read the article by Sen. John Kyl called "Jackpot Justice". He puts the
cost at $100 billion a year, but others estimate it to be higher. Here is
If we implemented serious tort reform and eliminated the fraud from
Medicare & Medicaid we would have about $200 billion a year. This is
enough money to provide health care coverage to the 12 to 15 million
Americans who do not currently have it or access to it. (The 45 million
number the Democrats throw around includes those who are already eligible
for Medicare or Medicaid but have not signed up, those making >$75K a year
but choose to self-insure and illegal aliens). Couple that with some
reasonable regulatory changes to the insurance industry including letting
companies compete nationally, and you could solve the health care problems.
A question and a point, Mike.

Question: Why do you appear to embrace the numbers of a staunch partisan
like Kyl, over those of the non-partisan, highly respected CBO? Using your
cited CBO number of $53 billion, that's far less than half Kyl's number (he
actually said $100 billion would be the savings just from the "defensive
medicine" aspect, citing an unnamed study). Don't you think it would be
wiser to rely on the CBO's numbers than Kyl's?

Point: Almost nobody who makes $75k a year is truly "self-insuring". What
they are doing is sponging off the system by betting they never get hit with
a catastrophic illness. I once worked in the law department of a major
Canadian utility. It self-insured, but then again it had billions of dollars
in cash to back that up that bold move. Very few who make $75k a year are in
a position to truly "self-insure" against catastrophic illness.
NotBillB
2009-10-18 03:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Using your cited CBO number of $53 billion, that's far less than half
Kyl's number (he actually said $100 billion would be the savings just from
the "defensive medicine" aspect, citing an unnamed study). Don't you think
it would be wiser to rely on the CBO's numbers than Kyl's?
OK, I found the study Kyl was talking about. No wonder he didn't name it. I
am afraid that one's been long debunked, Mike.

From Factcheck.org:

"That "leading study" was a 1996 paper by Stanford economists Daniel P.
Kessler and Mark McClellan. McClellan - who is both an economist and a
physician - served more recently as President Bush's senior White House
policy director for health care, and is now the head of the Food and Drug
Administration."

CBO and GAO both question whether the results Kessler and McClellan observed
in hospitalized heart patients can be applied to patients in cancer wards,
nursing homes, doctors' offices, maternity wards and elsewhere.
...

In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too
narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive
medicine:

GAO: Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital
setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given
the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed.

And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the
Kessler-McClellan study wasn't a valid basis for projecting total costs of
defensive medicine.

CBO: When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients
hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it
found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical
spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no
statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending
between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.

Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who
previously was chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic
Advisers.
Travel A
2009-10-18 15:28:12 UTC
Permalink
This is a typical BillB bullshit argument: ask the dumb, loaded
question, and then give the prepared, bullshit answer while criticizing
the respondent's sources and questioning the numbers. The problem for
BillB is that he never has anything BUT bogus sources, exaggerations and
embellished anecdotes in rebuttal.

The importance of tort reform savings would be measured by the
percentage cut from the waste and fraud in heath care, not the
percentage of the overall expenditures. Tort reform is a cost cutting
and borderline fraud issue with regard to health care If one looks at
the issue of how much money is wasted through waste, fraud and abuse in
the health care system, the savings from tort reform would be a big
percentage in that area.
Of course, BillB is deceitfully taking a specific (tort reform savings)
and applying it to the general, total health care expenditure for a
percentage; in order to belittle the importance of tort reform.

Combine tort reform with other means of cutting waste in health care and
we're getting somewhere. We can improve the current health care system
and lower/stabilize premium costs to the people with private/employer
insurance (ya know, those 200 million racist assholes who work and want
to keep their own money). If that happend, the 85% of people who like
the current system, maybe would have their premiums costs under control.

The cost of Obama's commiecare is actually a side issue. The major issue
is that it's socialized medicine, which has been proven to be a
disaster, and far, far inferior in quality to the U.S. health care
system. The truth of the matter is, whatever the costs of the current
system, commiecare costs will be through the roof in a few short years
and dwarf the costs of the current system.


Tort reform has already been implemented in Mississippi: (It works, read
it and weep)

http://www.governorbarbour.com/news/2009/feb/MACMinsurance2009.htm
NotBillB
2009-10-18 17:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
This is a typical BillB bullshit argument: ask the dumb, loaded
question, and then give the prepared, bullshit answer while criticizing
the respondent's sources and questioning the numbers. The problem for
BillB is that he never has anything BUT bogus sources, exaggerations and
embellished anecdotes in rebuttal.
Asking how much tort reform would save is not a "loaded question". When
Republicans are constantly advocating for "tort reform", anyone who accepts
their position without knowing, asking or caring how much it will likely
save (and weighing those saving against any potential downsides) is an
idiot.

You don't fall in that group, do you Travel? How much do you think it will
save, and do you see any downside?
Post by Travel A
Tort reform is a cost cutting and borderline fraud issue with regard to
health care.
I can agree it's a borderline fraud issue.
Travel A
2009-10-18 19:14:44 UTC
Permalink
I wrote:
This is a typical BillB bullshit argument: ask the dumb, loaded
question, and then give the prepared, bullshit answer while criticizing
the respondent's sources and questioning the numbers. The problem for
BillB is that he never has anything BUT bogus sources, exaggerations and
embellished anecdotes in rebuttal.


BillB tried to defend his loaded question:
"Asking how much tort reform would save is not a "loaded question". When
Republicans are constantly advocating for "tort reform", anyone who
accepts their position without knowing, asking or caring how much it
will likely save (and weighing those saving against any potential
downsides) is an idiot.
You don't fall in that group, do you Travel? How much do you think it
will save, and do you see any downside?"


I wrote:
Are you nuts? The issue has been discussed to death, already. Maybe you
should move from the Yukon to someplace that has newspapers and cable.

Also, it's a loaded question because it's not a serious question and
you're determined to deny the truth, regardless. I mean, you're the one
who laughably insists that Canadian health care is vastly superior to
the U.S. because it's socialist, aren't you?

Irish Mike provided you with an estimate. You had you answer. You also
tried to obfuscate the facts of the matter, as everyone knew you would,
with your phony "percentages". I've seen this issue discussed on FOX and
there are estimates. Go Google.



The Republicans have been shut out of the process of the health care
bill debate. If they weren't, and the Republicans had the same
majorities and a Republican president in office, you'd be hearing plenty
about the tort reform aspect.


I wrote:
Tort reform is a cost cutting and borderline fraud issue with regard to
health care.


BillB wrote:
I can agree it's a borderline fraud issue.

I wrote:
Then you're half right.
NotBillB
2009-10-18 20:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
Also, it's a loaded question because it's not a serious question and
you're determined to deny the truth, regardless.
How is asking how much tort reform will save not a serious question?
Post by Travel A
I mean, you're the one
who laughably insists that Canadian health care is vastly superior to
the U.S. because it's socialist, aren't you?
I think I might have said the Canadian *system* is superior. I doubt I used
the word vastly. I'm not totally satisfied with the Canadian system either.
But any health care system that excludes coverage for ~10% of the
population, and spends almost double per capita for generally inferior
results, is a failure in my book.
Post by Travel A
Irish Mike provided you with an estimate. You had you answer. You also
tried to obfuscate the facts of the matter, as everyone knew you would,
with your phony "percentages". I've seen this issue discussed on FOX and
there are estimates. Go Google.
I gave him a partial answer. I informed him that he should look to
non-partisan sources for these estimates, rather than relying on someone who
received $400,000 from insurance companies between 2001 and 2006. I also
pointed out to him that the unnamed "study" Jon Kyl misquoted has been
debunked by both the CBO and the GAO.

I will give a more complete answer later today.
Travel A
2009-10-19 08:13:36 UTC
Permalink
I wrote:
Also, it's a loaded question because it's not a serious question and
you're determined to deny the truth, regardless.


BillB obfuscates again:
How is asking how much tort reform will save not a serious question?

I wrote:
You deliberately pretend that you don't understand. Tort reform is a
serious issue, but you're not serious in seeking answers to your
(presented as loaded) questions. You're serious in denying truths that
you don't want to hear.


I wrote:
I mean, you're the one
who laughably insists that Canadian health care is vastly superior to
the U.S. because it's socialist, aren't you?


BillB wrote:
I think I might have said the Canadian *system* is superior. I doubt I
used the word vastly. I'm not totally satisfied with the Canadian system
either. But any health care system that excludes coverage for ~10% of
the population, and spends almost double per capita for generally
inferior results, is a failure in my book.


I wrote:
Well, at least you admit that you're clueless.


I wrote:
Irish Mike provided you with an estimate. You had you answer. You also
tried to obfuscate the facts of the matter, as everyone knew you would,
with your phony "percentages". I've seen this issue discussed on FOX and
there are estimates. Go Google.


BillB wrote:
I gave him a partial answer. I informed him that he should look to
non-partisan sources for these estimates, rather than relying on someone
who received $400,000 from insurance companies between 2001 and 2006. I
also pointed out to him that the unnamed "study" Jon Kyl misquoted has
been debunked by both the CBO and the GAO.
I will give a more complete answer later today.

I wrote;
That's exactly what we're talking about. You get your answer from a
credible source, and then you attack that credible source with made-up
bullshit. That's why Pickel won't even talk to you. Nothing you've
stated about the Kyl estimate is true, or at least has "the other side
of the story" in rebuttal. I've seen estimates higher that Kyl's from
research sources. Funny you don't know how to use the Google feature
sometimes.

The bottom line is, your credibility stacks-up as a zero compared to a
respected U.S. senator with the means for conducting a legitimate study
and/or fact gathering capability.
O-PGManager
2009-10-19 03:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travel A
Of course, BillB is deceitfully taking a specific (tort reform savings)
and applying it to the general, total health care expenditure for a
percentage; in order to belittle the importance of tort reform.
No, that's what Republicans do when they give cite it as their one idea to
fix the healthcare system. It's their plan A B and C for reform. (D is
die quickly)

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
2009-10-18 05:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by Irish Mike
Read the article by Sen. John Kyl called "Jackpot Justice". He puts the
cost at $100 billion a year, but others estimate it to be higher. Here is
If we implemented serious tort reform and eliminated the fraud from
Medicare & Medicaid we would have about $200 billion a year. This is
enough money to provide health care coverage to the 12 to 15 million
Americans who do not currently have it or access to it. (The 45 million
number the Democrats throw around includes those who are already eligible
for Medicare or Medicaid but have not signed up, those making >$75K a year
but choose to self-insure and illegal aliens). Couple that with some
reasonable regulatory changes to the insurance industry including letting
companies compete nationally, and you could solve the health care problems.
A question and a point, Mike.
Question: Why do you appear to embrace the numbers of a staunch partisan
like Kyl, over those of the non-partisan, highly respected CBO? Using your
cited CBO number of $53 billion, that's far less than half Kyl's number (he
actually said $100 billion would be the savings just from the "defensive
medicine" aspect, citing an unnamed study). Don't you think it would be
wiser to rely on the CBO's numbers than Kyl's?
The $53 billion number was the CBO's initial estimate and they have a
history of under-estimating government costs in general and health care
costs in particular. I listened to the interview with Kyl, as well as
read his article. Based on that, and what I have found in other sources,
I think that , if any thing, Kyl's $100 billion figure is a conservative
estimate.
Post by NotBillB
Point: Almost nobody who makes $75k a year is truly "self-insuring". What
they are doing is sponging off the system by betting they never get hit with
a catastrophic illness. I once worked in the law department of a major
Canadian utility. It self-insured, but then again it had billions of dollars
in cash to back that up that bold move. Very few who make $75k a year are in
a position to truly "self-insure" against catastrophic illness.
If you make $75k a year, or more, you can afford to buy some type of
health insurance. However, some people with this income choose not to buy
health care insurance. They feel they are healthy or lucky enough not to
need it. However, the Democrats choose to count these folks as
"uninsured" to bolster their argument that we need the federal government
to take over health care.

Irish Mike

_____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
2009-10-18 02:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by NotBillB
Post by FL Turbo
Focusing on the amount of money awarded in lawsuits tells only one
part of the story.
The "rest of the story" is how many unnecessary tests and procedures
were performed simply to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit.
"A 10,000 to 1 chance that the procedure might find something?"
"Well, lets go for it. A lawsuit could ruin my career."
"Anyway, the insurance company would pay for the procedure."
Would you deny that line of thought hasn't run through the minds of
hundreds and thousands of doctors?
I'm not denying anything. I am asking you to take all that into account in
arriving at a guess as to how much, as a percent, all those tort reforms are
likely to reduce total national health care expenditures. Take into account
"defensive medicine" or anything else you think is likely to flow from those
reforms. Do you have any guess?
Oooops
It got away from me.
No guess.
Do I look look like the CBO or something?
The CBO's preliminary estimate is around $53 billion a year. However,
Senator John Kyl, and others who are also doctors estimate the cost of
frivolous law suits and the defensive medicine they cause, to be well over
$100 billion a year. But this is really a moot point. The trial lawyers
are one of the biggest single group of financial contributors to
Democrats, which is why they have fought and block every serious effort to
implement tort reform. Which is also why meaningful tort reform will not
be included in the version of big government Obama care that the Democrats
are getting ready to jam down the throats of the American people.

Irish Mike

OK folks, our phone lines are open and the tenth caller will win... The
Nobel Peace Prize!

_____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Clave
2009-10-18 02:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by NotBillB
You've all heard Republicans squawking about "tort reform", right?
Assume the simultaneous implementation of a full package of the typically
proposed medical liability tort reforms (250k cap on general damages, 500k
cap on punitive damages, shortened limitation periods, admission of
collateral source evidence to offset damages, and abolition of joint and
several liability).
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?
2) Would there be any downside?
Focusing on the amount of money awarded in lawsuits tells only one
part of the story.
The "rest of the story" is how many unnecessary tests and procedures
were performed simply to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit.
The *rest* of the rest of the story is the malpractice insurance companies'
refusal to cap premium raises, even if payouts are capped.

Jim
O-PGManager
2009-10-17 18:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?
85% or so?
Post by NotBillB
2) Would there be any downside?
There's never any downside to giving up your right to sue.

----------------------------------------------------
The comic stylings of two RGP conservatives...

On President Obama:
"I thought that his father tried to denigrate him by marrying his mother."
-Alim Nassor

"Now, maybe I'm wrong, but if the Republicans denigrated the President,
wouldn't he just be a skinny, goofy white guy?" -Dave the Clueless

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
NotBillB
2009-10-17 18:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by O-PGManager
Post by NotBillB
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?
85% or so?
That's a little high, but I can certainly see how you'd get that impression
if you were a regular FoxNews viewer.
susan
2009-10-17 18:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
You've all heard Republicans squawking about "tort reform", right?
Assume the simultaneous implementation of a full package of the typically
proposed medical liability tort reforms (250k cap on general damages, 500k
cap on punitive damages, shortened limitation periods, admission of
collateral source evidence to offset damages, and abolition of joint and
several liability).
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce
national health care expenditures?
2) Would there be any downside?
I have no clue, but I do know that Harry Reid said the new plan was going to
cost 2 TRILLION dollars

http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/10/16/opinion/doc4ad8c97106275557157244.txt
johnny_t
2009-10-17 20:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by susan
I have no clue, but I do know that Harry Reid said the new plan was going to
cost 2 TRILLION dollars
Are these 2 Trillion new dollars, or the same two trillion dollars that
would be spent, but through a different path?

Is the new path more efficient, or less damaging?

Is the tax paid by those unfortunate enough to get sick that causes
total wipe out of family and hope, more morally correct than a society
that helps mitigate that risk that we all face?

Considering how few people get murdered, should we spend all that money
preventing people getting murdered and courts and prison and stuff.
Maybe the money would be better spent by people hiring private murder
protection agencies and stuff rather than taxing people. That would be
better for everyone.
NotBillB
2009-10-18 02:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by susan
I have no clue, but I do know that Harry Reid said the new plan was going
to cost 2 TRILLION dollars
http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/10/16/opinion/doc4ad8c97106275557157244.txt
I think you have misunderstood what he is saying. I can't be absolutely sure
without hearing the entire context, but I'm pretty sure the $2 trillion he
is talking about is not the cost of the "new plan", but the macroeconomic
figure for annual health care expenditures in the US. You know how you keep
hearing Republicans say, "Obama wants to take over 15% of the economy by
controlling health care!"? That works out to just over $2 trillion. Reid is
actually understating his argument for the sake of using round numbers.
johnny_t
2009-10-17 20:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
2) Would there be any downside?
There is no downside to bad or overly expedient medicine, or medical
technology, or pharmaceuticals.

Patients are not given fully informed consent or transparency, tort and
threat of tort is their only saviour.

People will die, people will suffer. Those that cause this, will not
suffer enough consequences and worse, the calculation of risk or moral
hazard will put people at risk. Those that suffer, will not be
adequately compensated for live changing horrible results of this moral
hazard.

People do this CURRENTLY, under the current system. It just has to get
worse given the dramatically lower costs and risks.
mo_charles
2009-10-17 21:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
You've all heard Republicans squawking about "tort reform", right?
Assume the simultaneous implementation of a full package of the typically
proposed medical liability tort reforms (250k cap on general damages, 500k
cap on punitive damages, shortened limitation periods, admission of
collateral source evidence to offset damages, and abolition of joint and
several liability).
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?
maybe reducing insurance premiums and increasing profitability ensures the
next great medical scientist won't go into banking.
Post by NotBillB
2) Would there be any downside?
for the lawyer whores?

mo_charles

--- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
NotBillB
2009-10-17 22:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by mo_charles
Post by NotBillB
You've all heard Republicans squawking about "tort reform", right?
Assume the simultaneous implementation of a full package of the typically
proposed medical liability tort reforms (250k cap on general damages, 500k
cap on punitive damages, shortened limitation periods, admission of
collateral source evidence to offset damages, and abolition of joint and
several liability).
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?
maybe reducing insurance premiums and increasing profitability ensures the
next great medical scientist won't go into banking.
Well, if we knew how much the tort reform lowered total national health care
expenditures, wouldn't that give us a pretty good idea of how much it should
reduce premiums?

You don't have any guess either?
mo_charles
2009-10-18 21:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by mo_charles
maybe reducing insurance premiums and increasing profitability ensures the
next great medical scientist won't go into banking.
Well, if we knew how much the tort reform lowered total national health care
expenditures, wouldn't that give us a pretty good idea of how much it should
reduce premiums?
only for the intellectually vacuous.
Post by NotBillB
You don't have any guess either?
somewhere north of zero and south of $50 trillion within the first five
years.

mo_charles

---- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
NotBillB
2009-10-18 21:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by mo_charles
Post by NotBillB
Post by mo_charles
maybe reducing insurance premiums and increasing profitability ensures the
next great medical scientist won't go into banking.
Well, if we knew how much the tort reform lowered total national health care
expenditures, wouldn't that give us a pretty good idea of how much it should
reduce premiums?
only for the intellectually vacuous.
So you don't think there is a known relationship between health care
expenditures and health insurance premiums? I'd be careful about calling
others intellectually vacuous if I were you.
Post by mo_charles
Post by NotBillB
You don't have any guess either?
somewhere north of zero and south of $50 trillion within the first five
years.
In other words, you have no clue. Fair enough. But again, people in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones.
mo_charles
2009-10-19 13:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
Post by mo_charles
only for the intellectually vacuous.
So you don't think there is a known relationship between health care
expenditures and health insurance premiums? I'd be careful about calling
others intellectually vacuous if I were you.
you asked about tort reform savings, and i answered. the real world
doesn't give a fuck if idiots don't like answers.
Post by NotBillB
Post by mo_charles
somewhere north of zero and south of $50 trillion within the first five
years.
In other words, you have no clue. Fair enough. But again, people in glass
houses shouldn't throw stones.
i didn't speculate on something that's immeasurable. you think you can -
and further, that a politician can supply some kind of answer - that makes
you a king-sized moron.

mo_charles

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
2009-10-18 02:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by NotBillB
You've all heard Republicans squawking about "tort reform", right?
Assume the simultaneous implementation of a full package of the typically
proposed medical liability tort reforms (250k cap on general damages, 500k
cap on punitive damages, shortened limitation periods, admission of
collateral source evidence to offset damages, and abolition of joint and
several liability).
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?
Senator John Kyl wrote an article called "jackpot justice" and estimates
tort reform could reduce health care costs by well over $100 billion a
year. In addition, 83% of doctors polled admitted that they practice
"defensive medicine", which is ordering extra and unnecessary tests and
procedures to guard against frivolous law suits. Also, the sky rocketing
malpractice insurance premiums they pay are all passed on to their
patients. Or, they just close down their practice, leaving even fewer
doctors and driving up costs even further.
Post by NotBillB
2) Would there be any downside?
Yes, the Democrats would lose one of their biggest, and most staunch,
financial contributors, which is trial lawyers and the national
association of trial lawyers. Which is why Democrats have fought and
blocked every meaningful effort to implement tort reform. One of the
trial lawyers biggest supporters is Joe Biden. Which means Obama's big
government health care bill will not include any meaningful tort reform.

On 8/17/09 Howard Dean was asked why the Democrat Democrat health care
bills do not include tort reform. In rare moment of honesty Dean replied
that it is because "they are afraid to take on the trial lawyers.

Irish Mike

"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
people's money."

_____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
NotBillB
2009-10-18 02:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irish Mike
Post by NotBillB
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would reduce national
health care expenditures?
Senator John Kyl wrote an article called "jackpot justice" and estimates
tort reform could reduce health care costs by well over $100 billion a
year. In addition, 83% of doctors polled admitted that they practice
"defensive medicine", which is ordering extra and unnecessary tests and
procedures to guard against frivolous law suits. Also, the sky rocketing
malpractice insurance premiums they pay are all passed on to their
patients. Or, they just close down their practice, leaving even fewer
doctors and driving up costs even further.
Thanks Mike. You are the one of first ones to come right and give me an
answer. It's like pulling teeth around here to get a straight answer out of
anyone.

You didn't give me your answer in the form I was looking for, but
extrapolating, you're going with $100 billion saved/$2.2 trillion total
annual health expenditures (2007 figure). So it sounds like you are
estimating about 4.5%? Does that sound about right?

One more follow-up question for you, if you don't mind. What percentage
would you guess the tort reforms will, on average, reduce doctors' liability
insurance premiums (and, in the process, persuade them not to quit
medicine)?
Post by Irish Mike
Post by NotBillB
2) Would there be any downside?
Yes, the Democrats would lose one of their biggest, and most staunch,
financial contributors, which is trial lawyers and the national
association of trial lawyers. Which is why Democrats have fought and
blocked every meaningful effort to implement tort reform. One of the
trial lawyers biggest supporters is Joe Biden. Which means Obama's big
government health care bill will not include any meaningful tort reform.
On 8/17/09 Howard Dean was asked why the Democrat Democrat health care
bills do not include tort reform. In rare moment of honesty Dean replied
that it is because "they are afraid to take on the trial lawyers.
The evil trial lawyers. Now there's a group everyone can agree to hate!
Jerry Sturdivant
2009-10-18 14:25:57 UTC
Permalink
"NotBillB"
Post by NotBillB
Assume the simultaneous implementation of a full package
of the typically proposed medical liability tort reforms
(250k cap on general damages, 500k cap on punitive damages,
shortened limitation periods, admission of collateral source
evidence to offset damages, and abolition of joint and several
liability).
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would
reduce national health care expenditures?
I believe I've heard a number about that very thing. It was in the
neighborhood of 1 or 2%.
Post by NotBillB
2) Would there be any downside?
Doctor could be sloppier. Like the one here in Las Vegas that infected
dozens of people with Hepatitis C because he instructed his doctors and
staff to reuse vials and needles. He's claimed incompetence to stand trial
and bankruptcy. He's living well.


Jerry 'n Vegas

- What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
NotBillB
2009-10-18 17:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Sturdivant
Post by NotBillB
1) Can anyone here offer a guess on what percent that would
reduce national health care expenditures?
I believe I've heard a number about that very thing. It was in the
neighborhood of 1 or 2%.
You are getting warm.
Post by Jerry Sturdivant
Post by NotBillB
2) Would there be any downside?
Doctor could be sloppier.
Good answer.
Post by Jerry Sturdivant
- What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
One of my favorite songs.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...