Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Socialized Medicine

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 101112
Author
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 4:34pm
Originally posted by pepprdog pepprdog wrote:

Whoa!!!!!! Tort reform IS an issue for all doctors.


oh sure, it's an issue for doctors. They would like their insurance premiums to be lower. But that doesn't translate into a major contributor to the overall cost of healthcare, which it is not.

In fact, I am quite confident that the market could bear premiums quite a bit higher. It would be nice if malpractice insurance were cheaper (or would it...?), but they just don't really contribute that much to the total cost.    


Quote frivolous lawsuits are rampant


no, they are not. I guess it depends on what you mean by "frivolous," but by almost any definition his statement is not only false, but really, really false.

Quote Do you have any idea what it costs a doctor to have to leave their office in order to go to court?


Why yes, I do.


Quote In order to further the plan the lawyers will get the doctor committed to the court date and right before that date and sometime the day of court, have it changed, usually several times.


also false.

The occasional abuse does happen, of course, but presenting this as a widespread cost-running practice is simply false. If this happens regularly to doctors you know, then they need better lawyers.

Quote Donít you wonder about Sokolov and other nationally advertising ilk lawyers?


I don't know this Sokolov fella, but I would suggest to you that most of the national plaintiff's lawyers do mainly class action work, which is mostly irrelevant to malpractice insurance.

Quote You donít see how lawyers make millions tearing at the medical professionals, drug companies and hospitals? You donít see how this will make a difference in healthcare costs?


what I do see is that the amount spent by insurance companies and providers on legal fees suing each other FAR outstrips the amount they spend on defending malpractice claims. It isn't even close.

Quote I can tell many horror stories about the way the lawyers have treated many doctors, I personally know, in order to get a settlement when the physician has done absolutely nothing wrong.


told to you by physicians, no doubt. Somehow nobody ever starts their story of woe with "I made a mistake."

Quote Before you say too much, my father is an MD, my wife is an MD and my son plans on going to Medical School...... against our advice and I've been around longer than OS.


that's great.

Pretty much exactly half of my family are healthcare providers of some kind, mostly physicians. My prior firm is one of the top healthcare law firms. Some of my closest friends are top executives at health insurance companies.

My information is good.

Quote You guys that are all for socializing our healthcare need to talk to people that have actually been involved with Canadian or European medicine, especially the older ones. It is NOT what it is here, no where close. You think they have such a great system, you need to do more research.


Like I said in the other thread - been there, done that.


Quote Remember, there has never been a modern major government project that has come in at or under cost projections.......... they always estimate WAY too low.


wow - impressive claim. And one that is basically impossible to back up.



Edited by Peter Parker - 06 August 2009 at 4:36pm

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 4:42pm
I think the real issue here is this term "tort reform."

people get fixated on the occasional big jury award, or hung up on big legal bills. That's fine, but you have to understand that "tort reform" won't change very much. All it would do it cap punitive damages, and the cap would be pretty high. That isn't a change that will drastically change the legal cos of doom business.

This cost is built I to our entire legal system, and has nothing to do with medical malpractice. To really change the role of lawyer. And lawsuits in the US we would have to make some pretty drastic changes.

And my suspicion is that most people would not like those changes. "Tort reform" is a sop to the AMA, and would not really affect most people at all.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9821
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 4:56pm
OS's last post (regarding the letter from Dr. Janda) made me curious so I tried to follow the link to the health care plan and it didn't work.  Does anyone have an address that is valid for reading through the plans being considered, as opposed to just links to other people's thoughts on the plan?

Edit:  Disregard, I found a link that seems to work.

Second Edit:
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:


Written by Dr. Dave Janda    

Thursday, 23 July 2009

As a physician . . .

Section 102 has the Orwellian title, "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g., if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal.

Having read this section (and developed quite a headache from trying to translate it from Bureaucratize to English) it seems to focus on "grandfathering" in those who already have their own coverage but denying that choice to those who get coverage after the implementation of the plan.  (In the year 2013, referred to as "Y1" throughout the document.)  I base this on the following statement from page 16 (line numbers omitted for ease of reading} :

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.ó
   (A) IN GENERAL.óExcept as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering
         such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is
         on or after the first day of Y1.

Freedom of choice in health care coverage may also be impacted by the "grace period" applicable to employment-related insurance explained on page 17.  Essentially, it seems to give existing employer provided coverage 5 years to conform to the new standards.  To me this seems like being given the choice of using government coverage or keeping one's current coverage which has to match the government coverage within 5 years.  (In other words, this doesn't sound like a real choice.)

. . .  there is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner.

This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care." It is no wonder The Obama Administration does not like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the "enemy" as people would live longer.

Admittedly I had a rough time with this section as it was written in a manner that was very hard to follow.  However, I did not get the impression that it was designed to promote euthanasia.  I was worried about the parts to be determined later such as the quality standards for end of life care being determined by a commission that would be formed after implementation of the law.  (This struck me as a "pass the law and we'll determine what it means later" section.)  This worried me because it does leave the door open for cost savings being generated by decisions which could lead to forcing people to decline treatment if the commission chose to implement "quality standards" that made surviving unbearable.

I rest my case. The ObamaCare Plan is hazardous to the health of every American.

There are definitely some worrisome things in the plan, but it is too early for me to agree/disagree with this statement.  I am planning on further review as long as my aspirin supply lasts.



Second Edit:  For those who say that everyone would pay less the "Surcharge on High Income Individuals" which is explained starting on page 197 would indicate differently.  It refers to additional taxes ranging from 1% to 5.4% of income based on various income brackets.


Edited by Mack - 06 August 2009 at 6:00pm
Back to Top
pepprdog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Zeus of the Mod Squad

Joined: 07 June 2002
Location: Seychelles
Status: Offline
Points: 436471
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pepprdog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 8:02pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

I think the real issue here is this term "tort reform."

This cost is built I to our entire legal system, and has nothing to do with medical malpractice. To really change the role of lawyer. And lawsuits in the US we would have to make some pretty drastic changes.

And my suspicion is that most people would not like those changes. "Tort reform" is a sop to the AMA, and would not really affect most people at all.




So you think reformation of the legal system relating to lawsuits is something most people wouldn't like? HMMMmmmm..... maybe in your crowd...heh, heh.....
Personally I would like to see a risk-reward system. You bring suit, you lose, you pay all the costs for both sides. Right now it's lopsided only benefiting the person bringing suit and almost always costing the person defending themselves even when that person is proven to have done nothing wrong. In these cases winning is still losing..........You lose time, money and suffer unnecessary stress.....
Maybe I needed to be more specific, "Medical Tort reform" would affect a lot of people in the medical professions.

Try this link about government "estimates";

http://downsizinggovernment.org/government-cost-overruns#sampling

NRA Certified;Range Safety officer
NRA Certified Instructor:     
Basic Pistol-Home Firearm Safety-Ohio Concealed Carry
"Refuse to be a victim"
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 August 2009 at 8:30pm
Originally posted by pepprdog pepprdog wrote:

You bring suit, you lose, you pay all the costs for both sides.


In my business I think we call that "chilling effect."
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 August 2009 at 12:06am
Chilling indeed.  What pepprdog is describing is the law in many countries, including the UK, which is otherwise the most similar to the US legal system.  And the results of this one difference are quite striking, and this would be one change that I am quite confident most Americans would object to if they fully understood the implications.
 
Let's say you got hit by a car while crossing the road.  Today, you get a settlement offer from the insurance company before you even get to the ER.  Why?  Because you could easily sue, which, as peppr pointed out, will cost the insurance company money no matter what happens. 
 
And if you don't like the offer, you can indeed sue - any number of lawyers will happily take your case, at no upfront cost to you. 
 
Either way, it is quite likely that your injuries will be covered, financially speaking, by the driver or his insurance.
 
Now let's say we have a British cost allocation system.  First off, no settlement offer from the insurance company.  They basically dare you to sue them.  And no plaintiff's lawyers banging on your door either - a corollary of the legal cost reimbursement is that contingent fees almost have to be illegal, so the plaintiffs' lawyers work on an hourly basis.  This, of course, makes plaintiff's work less attractive, so fewer plaintiffs' lawyers and less ambulance chasing.
 
And even if you find a lawyer, he will want a retainer before taking your case, since he is now working by the hour.  So to sue the insurance company, you need a $10,000 down payment on legal, plus the $30k+ each month through the trial.  Pretty much makes any claim for less than a couple of million not worth the money, and places the judicial system effectively out of the reach of 80% of Americans.  (And I note as a theoretical aside that there would very likely be serious constitutional issues with this.)
 
But let's say you have the cash and you find the lawyer.  You try the case.  You have a legitimate claim, and it's a close call, but in the end the jury finds for the defendant.  Bummer.  Oh, and by the way, you now owe the insurance company $500,000 for their legal fees.  Any time before tomorrow would be fine.
 
Chilling indeed.
 
We often put this type of loser-pays-all language in contracts between big companies - for the express purpose of discouraging litigation.  It is very effective even for the biggest of companies.  For most individuals it would render the courts completely useless.
 
So how do the Brits get by with this system?  Well, there is one major difference between life in the US and life in the UK:  socialized healthcare.  In the US, if you can't pay for the injuries resulting from your injuries, you either sue the tortfeasor or just roll up in a ball and die.  In the UK, you go to the hospital.  Reduced earnings from accident-resulting disabilities?  In the US, too bad so sad.  In the UK, government disability.
 
But shifting the cost burden is only one possible changeup.  A more exciting (and fundamental) change is to abandon the entire fault-based system.  In the US, everything is somebody's fault, and that somebody pays.  In some other systems, "fault" is not the central question.  This type of change WOULD significantly alleviate the cost of malpractice insurance, but it would also have many other exciting effects...
 
My point here is that the US legal system is the way it is not by accident but by evolution in response to the rest of US society.  You can't just make a big change to the legal system without understanding that there will be consequences beyond the intended.
 
"Tort reform" is just another example of a knee-jerk response from people who do not understand the justice system or have a dog in the race, like mandatory sentencing, or three-strikes laws, or California Proposition - well, pretty much all of them.  Unintended consequences will abound.
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
maltese View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Guested

Joined: 02 September 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maltese Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 September 2011 at 3:00am
NecroSpamBump

Edited by Evil Elvis - 06 September 2011 at 5:12pm
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 September 2011 at 3:50am
wut?
Back to Top
deadeye007 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: Your Face
Status: Offline
Points: 1253
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadeye007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 September 2011 at 10:42pm
Could it spam a recent post atleast?
Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 101112
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.