What are the factors driving the rising costs of healthcare?

[member 5645]

Kerry picked Edwards...

Sorry Democrats, but I think that has just about made up my mind for this election year. No 'dark side' ticket for this poster.

Is there any third parties, besided nader, that I can vote for in disgust of my election options?

 

[russ_watters]

Is there any third parties, besided nader, that I can vote for in disgust of my election options?

How about a write-in for Howard Stern? Seriously.

 

[wasteofo2]

Or a write in for Howard Dean

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Kerry picked Edwards.

That was predictable. I was hoping for a surprise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, I'm writing in Jesse Ventura and Jesse Jackson.

 

[Gokul43201]

The folks over at the New York Post were surprised to hear that it was Edwards. The Post had just named Gephardt as the running mate in a front page exclusive.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/07/1089000163898.html?oneclick=true

 

[loseyourname]

You can always write in Gray Davis. He's got nothing better to do.

 

[check]

Well, of the realistic choices I think Edwards was the best... But I'm still disappointed that it's not a Kerry/McCain ticket. Oh well.

 

[GENIERE]

Yeah! A McCain-Kerry duo is a strong ticket. It would be much stronger if Kerry weren’t on it. Strange people these liberals who have no qualms about casting a vote for a lifelong conservative such as McCain. He’s not a moderate Republican; he’s not a liberal in disguise. He’s a real-life, walking, talking, conservative. On the key liberal issues, he has a 0% voting record. The ACLU despises him. I can certainly see why a conservative might vote for McCain, but a Democrat would violate his most basic values. Oh, I get it. There are no values to violate.

Perhaps we all should take McCain’s advice and vote for Bush.

 

[revelator]

I can certainly see why a conservative might vote for McCain,but a Democrat would violate his most basic values. Oh, I get it. There are no values to violate

Isn't that similar to Michael Moore saying that you can't argue with conservatives on moral grounds as they have none, you must appeal to their greed.

In your case and Moore's case, it's a pretty ignorant thing to say.

 

[member 5645]

Okay, I'm writing in Jesse Ventura and Jesse Jackson.

I would sooner vote that pair over almost anything with Edwards on it.

 

[revelator]

I don't know very much about Edwards. What's wrong with him?

 

[member 5645]

I don't know very much about Edwards. What's wrong with him?

My main problem is that he made his millions suing OBGYN's for problems with babies that weren't the doctors' fault. In one case an award of ~$20million was issued. He went through several dozen 'expert witnesses' before he could find one to corraborate his case.
He's against tort reform and is in bed with the trial lawyer unions.
This is not even mentioning his lack of experience.

This is the epitome of what I DON'T want in a leader.

 

[Njorl]

Edwards is significantly more experienced than Bush was 4 years ago.

Arguing against Edwards for being a successful lawyer is nonsense. Would you be happier if those injured by doctors had no recourse? Would you be happier if he was bad at his job? John Edwards never decided a single court case. He never established a single monetary settlement. If you don't like the jury awards, or the judgements, your problem should be with them. If he won a case that was not meritorious, your problem should be with the other lawyer. If you don't believe in the adversarial justice system, your problem is with the United States of America.

Medical malpractice kills almost 100,000 Americans a year. It injures many times that number. Injuries at birth require a lifetime of care, often costing tens of thousands of dollars per year. There is no punishment for medical incompetence other than private lawsuits. For that reason, punitive damages are the only means to stop insurance companies from insuring (and so stop hospitals from hiring) incompetent doctors. Tort reform is a sham designed to make it economical to employ incompetent doctors.

If the AMA does not want juries incorrectly finding against competent doctors, they should reverse their policy of protecting incompetent doctors at all costs.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Edwards is significantly more experienced than Bush was 4 years ago.

Arguing against Edwards for being a successful lawyer is nonsense. Would you be happier if those injured by doctors had no recourse? Would you be happier if he was bad at his job? John Edwards never decided a single court case. He never established a single monetary settlement. If you don't like the jury awards, or the judgements, your problem should be with them. If he won a case that was not meritorious, your problem should be with the other lawyer. If you don't believe in the adversarial justice system, your problem is with the United States of America.

Medical malpractice kills almost 100,000 Americans a year. It injures many times that number. Injuries at birth require a lifetime of care, often costing tens of thousands of dollars per year. There is no punishment for medical incompetence other than private lawsuits. For that reason, punitive damages are the only means to stop insurance companies from insuring (and so stop hospitals from hiring) incompetent doctors. Tort reform is a sham designed to make it economical to employ incompetent doctors.

If the AMA does not want juries incorrectly finding against competent doctors, they should reverse their policy of protecting incompetent doctors at all costs.

Njorl

blah blah blah... the other lawyer didn't go through his dozens of expert witnesses trying to find one to support this claim. This is a great character story IMO. It shows Edwards true colors.
The system IS screwed up, and Edwards is against tort reform, and for protectionism. ATLA is his best friend.

Protecting incompetent doctors? Perhaps I am more sensitive to this all since I am in Texas, but in 2001, 52% of Texas physicians were sued for malpractice. You're telling me that is right? that is what is supposed to be happening?? That is a lawyer problem, not a doctor problem.


EDIT - and let's not forget that he is also against tort safety for doctors who donate their time to do free procedures. A doctor goes to help for a day at an inner city area, short of doctors from huge tort, and in exchange he gets sued for his FREE assistance.

 

[member 5645]

And I guess with the idea that it's the jury's fault, not edward's case, then this won't matter:

Yes yes, I can see that it's a conservative domain name...
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200401\POL20040120a.html

Wallstreet journal story on edward's favorite, 'baby brain damage' cases:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-delivering_justice.htm

Tons more where this comes from www.google.com
Edwards cases were built on sifting through tons of witnesses and flaky science. Despite this, he still supports no tort reform.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Perhaps I am more sensitive to this all since I am in Texas, but in 2001, 52% of Texas physicians were sued for malpractice. You're telling me that is right? that is what is supposed to be happening?? That is a lawyer problem, not a doctor problem.

Sounds like a Texas problem.

and let's not forget that he is also against tort safety for doctors who donate their time to do free procedures. A doctor goes to help for a day at an inner city area, short of doctors from huge tort, and in exchange he gets sued for his FREE assistance.

So incompetent doctors who practice on poor people for free should not be attacked? What about the poor victims of the incompetence, should they be told "Tough luck, but remember you got damaged for FREE!".

 

[Njorl]

blah blah blah... the other lawyer didn't go through his dozens of expert witnesses trying to find one to support this claim.

So the other lawyer was an incompetent dunce. How is this a problem with John Edwards?

This is a great character story IMO. It shows Edwards true colors.

I'm glad you realize that. He believes that you should do your job well. If all Americans were as vigilant and hard working I'm sure our country would be greatly improved.

The system IS screwed up, and Edwards is against tort reform, and for protectionism. ATLA is his best friend.

Good for Edwards. "The system" is still skewed toward large corporations. There is no state mechanism in place to force them to pay you just damages, even if they commited a crime in injuring you. A trial lawyer working for a contingency fee is the only recourse for ordinary people injured by any corporate entity. Large corporations don't like that. It is in their economic interest to injure people with impunity.

Protecting incompetent doctors? Perhaps I am more sensitive to this all since I am in Texas, but in 2001, 52% of Texas physicians were sued for malpractice. You're telling me that is right? that is what is supposed to be happening?? That is a lawyer problem, not a doctor problem.

No, that is a doctor problem. Because it is known that incompetent doctors are free to practice, it makes it likely that a medical mishap was caused by incompetence. If doctors don't want to be sued, they should make it unprofitable for lawyers to sue. The only way to do that, is to strip incompetent doctors of their right to practice. If the AMA would eliminate 90% of the incompetent doctors, lawyers would find that they were losing a disturbingly large number of cases. After losing cases, they would hesitate to sue. Instead, the AMA fights every medical incompetence finding tooth and nail. There are no incompetent doctors, according to the AMA.

For forty years there have been stories of wrong limbs being amputated, left instead of right. There is a simple solution. Every medical school in the country should adopt exactly the same regime to denote which side of the body a limb should be amputated from. Very simple. In one generation the problem will vanish. It still has not been done. It can not be done. It can not be done because the AMA would have to admit that its past practices were flawed in an obvious manner. Since no doctor has ever made a mistake, that just can't be.

EDIT - and let's not forget that he is also against tort safety for doctors who donate their time to do free procedures. A doctor goes to help for a day at an inner city area, short of doctors from huge tort, and in exchange he gets sued for his FREE assistance.

Perhaps we should also issue liscences to philanthropists allowing them to hunt and kill a few poor people, depending on how much they give.

So, because the victim of incompetence is poor, they should be allowed to be mutilated and killed with impunity? Say some doctor doesn't bother washing his hands between patients and spreads a lethal resistant strep infection to 20 people whom he treated for free. He should be forgiven? And you know who are the biggest violators of hospital policies about handwashing are - not orderlies not nurses, it's doctors.

The biggest problems in medical malpractice law would be most effectively alleviated by eliminating a significant number of incompetent doctors.

No inner city area in this country is short of doctors because of torts. Poor areas are short of doctors because they are short of people with health insurance. Any effect of torts would be at a state level.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

1>Sounds like a Texas problem.




2>So incompetent doctors who practice on poor people for free should not be attacked? What about the poor victims of the incompetence, should they be told "Tough luck, but remember you got damaged for FREE!".

1>For now...
2>As I have posted, this isn't just incompetent doctors being sued. But Yes. I know I would not be willing to risk a lawsuit, my livliehood. I would be thinking "I'd love to donate my time, but **** the risk!" You ARE aware that many other groups of people are protected from prosecution. Good samartin laws in my area keep that from happening, so that you can't be charged with HELPING. Malpractice and gross negligence are not one in the same.

 

[member 5645]

Njorl, with an argument like "all the lawsuits are just happening because they are witch hunting the really bad ones, and it's okay", I think we shall discontinue this.

Kerry canceled my vote with this move. Done and done.

 

[Njorl]

Just one little note about "Texas medicine".

No doctor in Texas has had his liscense revoked for incompetence since 1997.

Now, either there is something about Texas that makes medical incompetence impossible, or it doesn't matter how badly you screw up, you can't get your license revoked.

All I have to say is, "Hi eveybody!"

http://www.simpsonscollectors.com/wospdb/figure.asp?fig=f0112

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Just one little note about "Texas medicine".

No doctor in Texas has had his liscense revoked for incompetence since 1997.

Now, either there is something about Texas that makes medical incompetence impossible, or it doesn't matter how badly you screw up, you can't get your license revoked.

All I have to say is, "Hi eveybody!"

http://www.simpsonscollectors.com/wospdb/figure.asp?fig=f0112

Njorl

Claims against Texas physicians doubled from approximately 16 per 100 physicians in 1996 to more than 30 in 2000. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the number of claims filed is growing at 60 percent a year. (Texas Department of Insurance)

I guess the doctors here are getting 'doubley' bad every 5 years! It can't be that the lawyers are hopping on the bandwagon. Malpractice is not the same as the gross negligence that Edwards and his pals claim caps would target.

Secondly, your statement is highly misleading. Since 1997 no doctor has had their license revoked for medical malpractice. They have been revoked for gross negligence, drug abuse, and prescription misuse.

 

[check]

Anyone else think that a universal healthcare system would significantly reduce the number of (frivolous) lawsuits brought against doctors and hospitals?

 

[Njorl]

Claims against Texas physicians doubled from approximately 16 per 100 physicians in 1996 to more than 30 in 2000. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the number of claims filed is growing at 60 percent a year. (Texas Department of Insurance)

I guess the doctors here are getting 'doubley' bad every 5 years! It can't be that the lawyers are hopping on the bandwagon. Malpractice is not the same as the gross negligence that Edwards and his pals claim caps would target.

Secondly, your statement is highly misleading. Since 1997 no doctor has had their license revoked for medical malpractice. They have been revoked for gross negligence, drug abuse, and prescription misuse.

I saw none for gross negligence.

Just drug abuse and sexual misconduct. That was as of May 11, 2004.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Anyone else think that a universal healthcare system would significantly reduce the number of (frivolous) lawsuits brought against doctors and hospitals?

Well, it would reduce them to zero if we had universal health care like Britain. You can't sue in that system. If you are injured in a way requiring medical care, that is already free. If you lose the ability to earn, you are put on welfare.

Even I wouldn't go that far.

It isn't really a big issue. There is not that much money involved, on a percentage basis.

You can find lots of statistics that show how much individual specialties pay, or how big some settlements are, or how much premiums change on a percentage basis.

Numbers you never see are total premiums paid, total lawsuit reimbursements and total physician earnings. New Jersey state law requires premiums be tallied. That is the only state for which I could find this info. It turns out that in New Jersey, doctors pay 3.2% of their salary on average for malpractice insurance. Specialists like anaestesiologists, neurosurgeons and ob/gyn's have higher premiums, but also make more.

It is also a myth that payouts affect premiums in the manner that we've seen recently. All insurance companies make money by playing the stock market. It is assumed that an insurance company will gauge the risk of insuring a physician well enough to make a profit by investing premiums in a broad array of stocks. During the 90's, stocks were rising so fast that the competition to get insurance premiums was fierce. Premiums were artificially supressed by an overperforming market. With the plunge in stock values, all insurance companies lost money. Many went bankrupt. This reduced competition. Malpractice insurance became a sellers market. To make up losses, those companies that stayed in business were free to raise their rates drastically without fear of losing business. The amounts of money involved in malpracticed suits is laughably small in comparisson to the money lost by insurance companies in the stock market.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds like a Texas problem.

Its a Pennsylvania problem too - a lawyers in PA problem, to be more specific.

Anyone else think that a universal healthcare system would significantly reduce the number of (frivolous) lawsuits brought against doctors and hospitals?

If coupled with tort reform, certainly - but then, why not just do tort reform on its own?

 

[check]

but then, why not just do tort reform on its own?

Because a universal healthcare system would serve the populous better than just tort reform.

 

[Njorl]

The AMA has staged some propaganda events in Pennsylvania to bring attention to the flight of doctors to other states. The problem is, it just isn't happening. Pennsylvania has increased its per capita physician level every year recently.

Doctors want more money. Insurance companies want more money. Trial lawyers want more money. That's all it is. There is no tort crisis; no malpractice award crisis. There is a medical malpractice crisis. Roughly one out of forty deaths is due to an avoidable medical error. That's well over double either drunk driving or homicide.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Because a universal healthcare system would serve the populous better than just tort reform.

DO NOT open that can of worms. I will vote for ANY politician that opposed a politician supporting a Socialized healthcare system. IT is the single biggest issue that trumps all others in my eyes for an election.

 

[member 5645]

Numbers you never see are total premiums paid, total lawsuit reimbursements and total physician earnings. New Jersey state law requires premiums be tallied. That is the only state for which I could find this info. It turns out that in New Jersey, doctors pay 3.2% of their salary on average for malpractice insurance. Specialists like anaestesiologists, neurosurgeons and ob/gyn's have higher premiums, but also make more.

l

How interesting, since New Jersey inacted malpractice tort reform laws, including a 78 million dollar pot to subsidize the doctors malpractice insurance costs.
Nice example...