thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water
shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their
malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect
doctors from malpractice claims.

I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would
keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people
talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts.
Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor
screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken
care of.


A number of reputable sources state that malpractice insurance and
payout adds maybe 2% to medical costs. I've seen a survey that claims it
approaches 7%.

Meanwhile, many health insurers are earning profits of more than 25%,
and for what? It's not as if they add value. In fact, they increase
costs dramatically for businesses and individuals. When the
monster-sized private insurers force hospital and doctors to accept
rates that don't cover costs, who do you think makes up the difference?
The smaller insurers and those who insure themselves.

I like the Swiss schema. There's mandatory national health insurance for
everyone, and it isn't free, and there are private supplemental programs
you can buy or not buy.

Taking the profit out of health insurance will dramatically lower costs.