BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Peter (Yes, that one)

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:30:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't mind differing opinions... if they can be supported by facts or
intelligent thought about an opinion. For example, one can argue that the
Afg. war is needed or not needed. But to claim things to be the opposite of
what is easily checked is just posturing. Even posturing is better than
nothing, which is what the poster is doing by the "I'm outta here"
statement. If he were really serious, he'd cite some facts to back up his
story. Acedotes are interesting, but they don't necessarily speak to the
larger issues.

--

You are reporting the tort lawyer's side and he is reporting the
doctor's side.
You are not acknowledging the defense lawyers side and the insurance
company cut. (probably more than one company)
There is a health insurance company with their lawyer and a
malpractice insurance company with their lawyer.
The doctor and the next patient pay 4 lawyers and 2 insurance
companies, all because patient #1 didn't get the result he wanted.

Since this involves a posting of mine, I will respond to what you said.
First, Mr W1TEF is not reporting "the doctors side."
He is reporting a particular doctor's experience with health insurance
premiums.
I clearly stated in my reply to him that even for OB/GYNs the
malpractice insurance premiums vary wildly by state.
Because states regulate the insurance companies.
This is a known FACT.
I saw a chart of OB/GYN premiums where the cost in Colorado and
Wisconsin is $20,000 and in NY and Florida $120,000 for the same
coverage. But in Dade county the premium is +$200,000.
So just blaming lawyers won't do as an analysis, though I suspect Dade
county is a lawyer heaven and that accounts for the high premiums there.
Which only shows that lawyers are a part of the problem.
I did not cite those charts since I expected that the source would be
attacked, as "kill the messenger" seems to be a de rigeur means of
argument here.
You employed it above - "reporting the tort lawyer's side."
Second, I clearly stated that the widely accepted figure of .5% of total
health care costs was comprised of payouts to plaintiffs and total
litigation costs. That includes the insurance company defense lawyers.
Third, I explicitly said to look at the insurers and their premiums for
the rest of the costs.
You are welcome to provide actual cites of costs if you care to, but I
hope you are specific in your argument when doing so.
"Malpractice" is an industry. There are many players.
You may blame lawyers all you want, but their part of it and claims paid
comprising .5% or less of health care costs is often reported by
disparate sources, and can be quantified by court filings.
The most recent number I've seen is $6.6 billion.
A few years old, but that is often the case with statistic gathering.
Bye the bye, I often have a customer, usually a woman (that's just my
experience, and I'm making no sexist remark here) who asks for a size 6
shoe. When I fit it is clearly too small, and she needs a size 7.
I say "Hmmm. Let me measure."
I put her foot in the Brannock, and it says her foot is size 7.
Not one customer has argued after that.
Because the Brannock doesn't lie.
Facts are facts.
Now, having said all that, let me be clear that I think tort reform is
necessary, if only to eliminate frivolous and fraudulent litigation, and
insurance company premium gouging.
Additionally, I won't stand firmly behind any figures I have presented,
because I question everything until there is a general agreement as to
the facts.
There is no sense arguing without facts.
When you argue without facts, it is called "politics."

Peter