Heathcare Reform: 1st Step - Tort Reform

[TheFranklinParty]

All you individuals that are in love with the current Congress and Administration, please explain to me why Tort Reform isn't the first step to bringing down the cost of insurance and lowering overall costs.

Mississippi is a great test case that has seen a 91% decrease in malpractice lawsuits since 2004. Their regulations allow you to recover earnings lost and medical expenses but cap non-economic gain to $500,000. They have seen a reduction in healthcare insurance and more competition. More doctors and businesses have come to Mississippi since the legislation became law.

http://tinyurl.com/la4hsf

I hate to say it, but the Trial Lawyer lobby has invested so much money into the campaigns of almost every Congressional legislator it is hard to think this will get more than a quick glance as we are in such a hurry to get massive legislation signed.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

here is one reason

rate of UnInsured in Miss..

16.8 in 2004-5
19.8 in 2006-7

ranking 5th most with no insurance in the US
by comparison

Minnestoa where I am
8.2 in 04-05
8.8 in 06-07

I am sure it helps the insurance companies alot...but its not helping the UnInsured.

maybe you can at least show the average cost for
coverage for the DR's from there insurance and what drop they had...

maybe we should have a public option for Dr's as well

I have no issue trying to reduce some costs in this area, and prevent lawsuits that have no buisness being filed...bu its not going to fix the problems.

But just think about that....Miss, has almost 20% of its people with no insruance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#Uninsured_Rates_by_State

 

[TheFranklinParty]

here is one reason

rate of UnInsured in Miss..

16.8 in 2004-5
19.8 in 2006-7

ranking 5th most with no insurance in the US
by comparison

Minnestoa where I am
8.2 in 04-05
8.8 in 06-07

I am sure it helps the insurance companies alot...but its not helping the UnInsured.

maybe you can at least show the average cost for
coverage for the DR's from there insurance and what drop they had...

maybe we should have a public option for Dr's as well

I have no issue trying to reduce some costs in this area, and prevent lawsuits that have no business being filed...bu its not going to fix the problems.

But just think about that....Miss, has almost 20% of its people with no insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninsured_in_the_United_States#Uninsured_Rates_by_State

Agreed, it isn't the whole answer, but why isn't at least a part.

The thing to keep in mind when you look at a state like Mississippi is that there is a great deal of poverty and they are working to overcome it by bringing in new business. This will take decades to catch up with the industrial states of the north. Many of the uninsured are from primarily farming communities, that have never relied on insurance, but instead family doctors.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Agreed, it isn't the whole answer, but why isn't at least a part.

The thing to keep in mind when you look at a state like Mississippi is that there is a great deal of poverty and they are working to overcome it by bringing in new business. This will take decades to catch up with the industrial states of the north. Many of the uninsured are from primarily farming communities, that have never relied on insurance, but instead family doctors.

and if your going on family dr's you can pay out of pocket...it means alot of people are going to die from lack of real care. Family Dr cant do Cemo, lung trasnplant ext...and like I showed in one of the other threads...average cost just from a Apendix bursting and needing to be removed...was 12-14000 with some costs going well lover those. And thats for one of the most basic operations you can have done. Some of the bills actuly do have reforms for lawsuits in them I belive. At least one I know had a medical panal review all cases before they could go to court to weed out those with no merit. I know this was a key part of John Edwards plan back in 2004 when I worked for him...of course no one would want to have him backing it now lol.

Fact is alot of the tort reform stuff is bogus, and just used by insurance companies to raise rates and make more profit...there are legit reasons to have it, but it has less to do with lawyers then it does insurance companies I would suspect.

and to be real, why is it not a bigger part of the reform plan? SImple Republicans will not support a any plan, its there big reform they want, since they have basicly made it clear they are just going to vote against any plan anyway...why listen to them or give them what they want.

I bet you 100 bucks though, you reform torts, and 5 years later, Insurance costs for Drs is still more then it was today and the costs to the insurance company is lower...

 

[TheFranklinParty]

and if your going on family dr's you can pay out of pocket...it means a lot of people are going to die from lack of real care. Family Dr cant do Cemo, lung trasnplant ext...and like I showed in one of the other threads...average cost just from a Apendix bursting and needing to be removed...was 12-14000 with some costs going well lover those. And thats for one of the most basic operations you can have done. Some of the bills actuly do have reforms for lawsuits in them I belive. At least one I know had a medical panal review all cases before they could go to court to weed out those with no merit. I know this was a key part of John Edwards plan back in 2004 when I worked for him...of course no one would want to have him backing it now lol.

Fact is alot of the tort reform stuff is bogus, and just used by insurance companies to raise rates and make more profit...there are legit reasons to have it, but it has less to do with lawyers then it does insurance companies I would suspect.

and to be real, why is it not a bigger part of the reform plan? SImple Republicans will not support a any plan, its there big reform they want, since they have basicly made it clear they are just going to vote against any plan anyway...why listen to them or give them what they want.

I bet you 100 bucks though, you reform torts, and 5 years later, Insurance costs for Drs is still more then it was today and the costs to the insurance company is lower...

I'll take the bet and you make a good point. The issue is that this big master reform is crazy. Both aprties should back away from trying to boil the ocean and make a handful of changes at a time. The first should be to rein in some of the insurance fraud around claims and non-coverage. the next should be around tort reform and interstate competition. Then handle the illegal immigration isse which would allow us to have more funding to cover the uninsured through Medicaid.

The problem with solving the problem in manageable parts is it doesn't drive the special interest groups agenda.

Here is a fun fact...Who manages Medicare and Medicaid in most states? That's right, the same insurance companies that everyone is complaining about. It isn't the government. It is subcontracted out. So, if we get a single payer plan, do you really think it will change the profits of these companies? Nope, they'll just make the money through services contracts which are much more profitable and carry less risk for the insurers.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I'll take the bet and you make a good point. The issue is that this big master reform is crazy. Both parties should back away from trying to boil the ocean and make a handful of changes at a time. The first should be to rein in some of the insurance fraud around claims and non-coverage. the next should be around tort reform and interstate competition. Then handle the illegal immigration isse which would allow us to have more funding to cover the uninsured through Medicaid.

The problem with solving the problem in manageable parts is it doesn't drive the special interest groups agenda.

Here is a fun fact...Who manages Medicare and Medicaid in most states? That's right, the same insurance companies that everyone is complaining about. It isn't the government. It is subcontracted out. So, if we get a single payer plan, do you really think it will change the profits of these companies? Nope, they'll just make the money through services contracts which are much more profitable and carry less risk for the insurers.

And if we did subcontract it out....then we still get to set the rules dont we? They cant just Drop everyone on Medicare now can they? But they sure as hell can just drop you if you get sick...what you going to do ? sue lol have fun with that....suing to get what you paid for, when you know even if you do, its years and years later, and you had those bills stacked up for those years, you lost your house and you gave up the lawsuit.....They have you where they want you, and they have your money, and they have more lawyers then you can dream off....But they have your best interest at heart, and the health of the people....not the stock holders.....also want to buy a bridge?

My first issue will always be, cover everyone. As someone who worked 2 jobs 60-80 hours a week , and had no insurance for years....I could care less about Tort Reform if we are not going to find a way for everyone to have access to affordable health care...and Tort Reform as I showed does no do that...

also as for the one step at a time idea....Millions of Americans dont have time to wait...and Millions need major reform today...And if you don't go big, don't go at all. the nickle in dime crap just makes people say, hey its solved and wait 8 years before addressing it again,

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I'll take the bet and you make a good point. The issue is that this big master reform is crazy. Both aprties should back away from trying to boil the ocean and make a handful of changes at a time. The first should be to rein in some of the insurance fraud around claims and non-coverage. the next should be around tort reform and interstate competition. Then handle the illegal immigration isse which would allow us to have more funding to cover the uninsured through Medicaid.

The problem with solving the problem in manageable parts is it doesn't drive the special interest groups agenda.

Here is a fun fact...Who manages Medicare and Medicaid in most states? That's right, the same insurance companies that everyone is complaining about. It isn't the government. It is subcontracted out. So, if we get a single payer plan, do you really think it will change the profits of these companies? Nope, they'll just make the money through services contracts which are much more profitable and carry less risk for the insurers.

Excellent point, and one that I've been strongly in favor of. The process MUST be 1) identify the problem, 2) isolate possible solutions, 3) review projected results, 4) re-examine for potential conflicts (possible exacerbation of other issues or unintended consequences) and 5) implement improvements.

Torte reform MUST be a strong component, and one of the things that has potential far-reaching POSITIVE "unintended consequences" than nearly any other aspect. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies - all cite one of their top reasons for high costs is legal action and protection. That reflects both torte potential and government regulatory requirements.

Amazingly, there is tons of scorn heaped on CEO's for their exorbitant salaries and bonuses. Yet where is the outcry for law firms who charge outrageous fees? In the situation cited in the WSJ article on Mississippi, did anyone mention that the lawyers for the $1 Billion settlement received nearly $400 million? What, no outrage over that? Go figure.

I thought you might like this Common Good poll, entitled "NEW NATIONWIDE POLL FINDS MOST AMERICANS WANT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SYSTEM CHANGES AS PART OF HEALTH CARE REFORM". Some will, no doubt, claim that the survey is slanted. I did not see that in the questions and the numbers are, in the very least, startling.

 

[top gun]

Agreed, it isn't the whole answer, but why isn't at least a part.

The thing to keep in mind when you look at a state like Mississippi is that there is a great deal of poverty and they are working to overcome it by bringing in new business. This will take decades to catch up with the industrial states of the north. Many of the uninsured are from primarily farming communities, that have never relied on insurance, but instead family doctors.

Did you not listen to the President's speech to Congress?

He said he would consider going into this during negotiations. The fact just as pocket pointed out is this is only a tiny tiny reduction once it gets to the consumer.

The only way to make it otherwise would be to screw... SERIOUSLY SCREW over Americans that have very legitimate negligence and malpractice cases so their awards would be a pittance of what they are now. And that's ridiculous. It not only removes any deterrent effect but people that have loved ones that are seriously injured or killed by negligence and/or malpractice should get reasonably high awards.

I've said this before... I can go with some Tort reform. But it won't be enough to create any big savings. Possibly let the jury find guilt or innocence but have the judge set the award (as juries can be over emotional at times).

As far as awards I think treble damages are in order (3 times the injured or killed persons lifetime earning potential plus all attorney & case fees and all lifetime care, treatment & medication if applicable. And there would have to be some reasonably high minimum set so the elderly & poor aren't seen as a lower risk of loss by the insurance companies.

And we're not falling for the scare tactics... we're going to get some good done.