The AMA's stated mission is to promote the art and science of medicine for the betterment of the public health, to advance the interests of physicians and their patients, to promote public health, to lobby for legislation favorable to physicians and patients, and to raise money for medical education. As I pointed out before, the AMA represents only about 20% of parcticing physicians. I know several physicians that do not belong and do not support AMA activities. (Interestingly, a couple of these physicians also support a public option.) Contrary to their public statements, the AMA is a physician organization. Interests of patients are secondary. If AMA were focused on patients they would take a stand on physician advertising and physician owned/operated vertically integrated clinics - you know, the ones with everything from a lab to x-rays to exam rooms to pharmacies - the ones that allow a physician an increasing chunk of the profit pie with every procedure and test that they order. I don't know what experience you have with civil cases. I have, at one time or another, been a plaintiff, a defendant and a juror. In fact, I was a juror on a real "frivolous case" and we awarded no damages. That is right, we found that the physician made a significant error but awarded NO DAMAGES. The physician had begun knee surgery on the wrong knee, discovered the error and backed out, and then successfully completed surgery on the correct knee. We found that any "damages" caused by the mistake were insignificant to pain, suffering and economic loss incurred by the surgery itself. The procedure was covered by the plaintiff's health insurance, the recovery was identical with or without the mistake, as was the time lost from work. No damage. My point is, the system in my experience works. Few cases that make it to court are "frivolous", regardless of what you read in the newspaper. There is almost always more to the story. The McDonald's coffee caper stands as a good example. On the other hand, I think that attorney compensation in both contingency and class action cases deserves a very close look. In the just settled Yahoo click fraud suit, "of the US$4.3 million settlement, US$4.17 million is going to the lawyers." Now, something is definitely wrong there. But, back to tort reform, I think that my support or not has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The CBO figures still stand at 1/2 of 1% of health care costs. The impact of tort reform is negligible.
(sigh) Yeah. After reading how "forced" and malformed his last post was, I have to agree with you. He has absolutely no respect for truth, he just likes disagreeing. I'll remember that the next time he sticks his neck out.
We are still waiting for you to address the CBO figures with something more cogent than, "I don't believe those numbers. They don't sound right." Do you have an alternative estimate of the actual dollar saving in US health care achievable by tort reform? Sorry, but "liability crisis" is awfully vague and misses the cost savings point entirely. BTW, how is it that a thread on unemployment got sidetracked into a discussion about tort reform and health care? Where are the thread police when you need them - probably playing in the MM Clubhouse with the other lemmings I suppose.
Um willy, I DID address those numbers. Was it too over your head? More like you are inconveniently ignoring them. Let me summarize - the cost of malpractice insurance can be 50% or more for certain procedures. The reason why certain life-saving drugs are so damned expensive, where the chance of survival is low, is that as much as 80% to 95% of the cost of the drug goes towards malpractice insurance (the cost of manufacturing the chemicals in those little pills is less than $1). THESE are the situations where the patient's cost of insurance goes up - because part of the cost of insurance is the HMO's liability insurance in case they get sued. Oh, BTW - last Monday, President Obama quoted AMA statistics. He seems happy with the accuracy of their figures. I've seen no one dispute them. And, you might want to take a look at Australia. Some of the best government-sponsored health care on the planet, made possible by strict tort control. Canada has limits on medical lawsuits, too. Got it, Willy?
You still have not adressed the CBO numbers. Quoting malpractice as a percent of specific drugs or procedures is a completely different thing. You might want to look up cost averaging. You have presented nothing that refutes the CBO numbers and nothing that supports your assertion of disbelief. Do the math Corwin. On a per capita basis Australia pays double what is being proposed for the US. And, their system provides very limited benefits to boot. Do you know anyone from Australia? I do. Even so, they do like the Aussie system a whole lot more than the US system. Too bad it costs so much...
That's what Willy just cannot see past. Its not the law suits and judgment or payout costs themselves that is the issue with regard to tort. Its the costs involved in insuring doctors and other medical professionals. We had 3 OBGYN's over the course of my wife's pregnancy. Why? Simple. The last OB we got explained that the medical group that employed him could not afford the malpractice and salary of the last two. He was willing to work for less. In the end our last OB made $125k/yr. But cost the medical employer/group $562k/yr. Do the math, that is if you can actually add and subtract Willy. Why do you think procedures cost so much? Why do you think everything is so expensive? Once people in congress, and chaps like yourself can come to the realization that "Health Care" is not the problem, but the costs associated with it are, then you'll have a greater appreciation as to why people like myself disagree with the notion that we should reform health care. Health care is not what needs reformation. Its the costs associated with insurance, medical conglomerates, and the pharmaceutical industry that need "reformation". Some people will just never get it.
Couldn't agree more on this point. But boy, if one starts suggesting regulation of the insurance industry it starts sounding pretty liberal Mia. And, breaking up or prohibiting conglomerates sounds downright socialistic, don't you think? You would regulate the patient's ability to seek relief. As I have said before, there is nothing inherently wrong with regulation, it's just that the wrong things are usually regulated... Interesting story in WSJ today about the health care system in Hawaii - lowest costs in the nation, and they have a State law that mandates employer provided health insurance for anyone working 20 hours or more.
So why is it that you keep harping on tort reform, amongst other things, when presented with factual, supported arguments to the contrary? Your only response to the numbers released by the CBO were that you don't believe it. You have not presented any other estimate of the savings to the overall health care spending. 1/2 of 1%. Those are the only figures on the table corwin. Can you show, anywhere, a different figure for the overall savings to health care spending if tort reform were enacted? Either put up, or go jump off the cliff with the other lemmings...
Here's some numbers for you to chew on Mia... Last year the CEO of the 2nd largest healthcare company, United Healthcare, pulled a salary of $3.2 million, but took $766,000,000 (yes million) in stock options for a total compensation package of $102,000 an hour. That is enough to pay annual insurance premiums for 8.5 families an hour, 42.5 families a week, 2210 families a year. United Healthcare spent 35% of their budget on administrative costs compared to 3% for government run medicare. Talk to any physician about the costs associated with working with insurance companies. How many staff hours are consumed by the differing requirements of insurers for the doctor to receive payment for services? Enough that some doctors no longer accept insured patients, and others have opted to work for salary in clinics where they just don't have to deal with it all anymore. The whole myth of tort reform savings began with a study of heart patients conducted by two Stanford economists back in 1996. Unfortunately, other studies have not supported their conclusions. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public Health "did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs.". A 1999 study in the Journal of Health Economics found only tiny savings – less than three-tenths of one percent – when studying the cost of Caesarian sections in states with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits. (compare that to the current estimate of 1/2 of 1 percent) A 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies, and concluded: "it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine." Tort reform is, unfortunately, not the answer. Its impact is so minimal as to not exist at all.
It's correct that the cost are the issue. The only way to bring the costs of healthcare down is to double the amount of general practioners. That's not going to happen. Costs are driving small business out-of-business. The big companies receive the taxpayer subsidies and the small business get hit with more costly regulation.
Consumerism will save the economy, people need to buy things, they need things to buy. Roads are not a purchasable commodity, they are simply used and sometimes are revenue generators, but you don't buy what is produced by the construction workers at any store. When the same construction workers build a house, for instance, and that house (the product) is later purchased it produces wealth and charges the machinery of our economy. Even better if the construction worker builds, then is able to buy the house. This is the machinery of the economy, not just motion, consumerism.
My mom used the phrase, "Like nailing a slug to a tree..." Over here you threw your complete support behind robjones assertion that tort reform would solve the majority of the health care issue in the US. Now that we have moved you off that position with a flood of factual information you condescendingly suggest that we "are finally getting it."
While my Mom was fond of nailing slugs to trees, my Dad had a better story - the one about the moron with one foot nailed to the floor who ran around in circles all the time. Your words. I will, however, grant you your moment of liberalism in these discussions. Over here you agreed that: Now that we have agreement about what a small part tort reform would play, maybe we can get on with the real work of implementing effective regulation of the insurance and finance industries.
Um, Willy? Don't look now, but you are quoting figures from ten to 19 years ago. In case you haven't noticed, health care is a LOT more expensive since then. Six years ago, 60 Minutes did a story on a clinic here in Boston that took care of difficult births - those births where the mother had been told that, due to complications, the baby could not be delivered alive. These babies had a 0% chance of survival because their doctor told them the procedure would be a stillbirth. 0% survival rate. This clinic did their best to deliver the babies alive, and had a remarkable 33% success rate. Well, this clinic was finally driven out of business by some in the 66% that got themselves predatory lawyers and sued the clinic out of existence.
You would look less foolish if you read the entire post. Isn't it interesting that the two most recent looks at the issue - that would be 1999 and the current CBO report - both found that tort reform would result in 1/2 of 1% or less reduction health care costs. A far cry from the 5-9% claimed in the 1996 Kessler-McClellan study that started the myth. If you have access to more recent studies on the issue, please do share. Inquiring minds and all that...
I did read the entire post. You would look a lot less foolish if you read MY entire post. Specifically, the difficult birth clinic in Boston that was driven out of business by frivolous malpractice lawsuits. This clinic isn't a survey - this is cold reality. A legal system that has resulted in children now being born dead. Perhaps you can sooth the pain of those mothers with those figures of yours.