On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:44:34 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

uh...you have a problem

you assume that what the insurance companies charge is related to what
they pay out in insurance claims.

got any proof of that? because what the companies DO do is use
premiums to cover their investment losses.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:44:34 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

uh...you have a problem

you assume that what the insurance companies charge is related to what
they pay out in insurance claims.

got any proof of that? because what the companies DO do is use
premiums to cover their investment losses.

Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.
This is a quantifiable cost.
"Defensive" medicine costs can't be determined.
A case can be made that "defensive" medicine is simply "thorough and
careful" medicine.
Even among OB/GYNs - a high premium specialty - the rate can vary
drastically, eg 600%, due to what state the practice is in, since it the
states that regulate the insurance companies.
As always, it is the insurance company middlemen raking it in.
Dealing with insurance companies, whether with exorbitant malpractice
premiums, or with nitpicking health care claims, is the doctor's curse.
They can deal with it, work to change the system, or find another
occupation.
That's pretty much what I do in selling and fitting shoes.
When confronted by smelly feet, I recommend these to my customers.

http://www.amazon.com/Pair-Anti-Odor...Insoles-Smell-
Eater/dp/B001M5JKXU

I think carrying these in the shop would be profitable, but haven't been
able to convince management of that. We do sell orthopedic insoles, and
they move pretty good. Rack space is limited, and the margin on the
orhtos is better than the smell-eaters.
I do love my job, try to help people, change what I can, and accept what
I can not change. Learned that early from Ann Landers.

Peter

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter



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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:53:44 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

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

I suppose the real answer would be to get a comprehensive list of what
doctors pay for various specialties across the country. I will see if
my ex can come up with that. I bet she already knows someone who has
it.
That still ignores the defensive medicine costs.

Just as an example using the cost of a root canal:

Downtown, DC: $3,000
Bethesda, MD: $2,500
Rockville, MD: $2,200
Gaithersburg, MD: $2,000
Damascus, MD: $1,700
Mount Airy, MD: $1,400

The costs vary depending upon lots of variables, even within 20 miles of
Washington, DC. The biggest one in the DC area being the cost of the
space need for your office and then the cost of the hired help. The
supplies are the same the procedures are the same.

Dentists don't get sued as often as OB/GYNs and I would imagine that
people in Miami (Dade County) are not as tolerant of the vagaries of
life as the people in Colorado or Wisconsin. Sometimes the genes just
don't mix well.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:53:44 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

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

I suppose the real answer would be to get a comprehensive list of what
doctors pay for various specialties across the country. I will see if
my ex can come up with that. I bet she already knows someone who has
it.
That still ignores the defensive medicine costs.

You have not defined "defensive medicine."
Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means.
"Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive
medicine."
Can you describe such a test?
It seems to me that all testing should be done to pinpoint or eliminate
a cause of an ailment, either current or predicted.
It would be a waste of time to bother your ex for premium rates.
They could change tomorrow.
I found this, which is a good unbiased look at malpractice insurance.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf

The complexities are worse than I thought.
And reliable data also less than I imagined.
My view is that the federal government with their regulatory authority
is the only entity capable of bringing the pieces together to make sense
of it and improve it. Similar to the FDIC insurance authority, but this
is more complex due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits.
This would greatly benefit physicians in some states, but perhaps cost
physicians in other states more because premiums would be federally
equalized.
The goal is taking the malpractice premium worry off the backs of good
physicians, and reducing costs, including tort reform to penalize
frivolous lawsuit filers.
Of course that federalizing will ruffle many "free market" and states
rights feathers.
Oddly, those are the same states rightists want to federally impose
payment caps across all states.
But if you prefer the free market, live with the current "system."
As always, it will charged with political nonsense.
I hear it from my customers all the time, when they attempt to engage me
in such political talk. I reply by addressing the actual issues, and
asking a few questions about policy.
The discussion invariably ends there, and we are back to shoes.
But as long as the customer walks away with a well fitting pair of
shoes, I'm happy with the outcome.
I'm pretty single-minded about that.

Peter

wrote in message
...
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.


No I'm not. This is the total effective cost to the system. It's a tiny
percentage of the cost of healthcare. Every reason to address. No reason to
become hysterical about it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter


He addressed the problem and you come right back and state the same thing
numdenuts stated. Is exasperating to deal with lazyiness.