"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc
wrote:

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes. Open the system similar to the auto insurance industry (and
other insurance industries) nationwide and let the market settle it.
Establish a minimum requirement, like catastrophic care (similar to
collision and liability) and go from there - you want more coverage,
add it on.

Second, reform tort laws sufficiently that outrageous settlements for
hangnails aren't available to ambulance chasing lawyers.

It's funny you should bring this up. I had my regular three month
specialists appointments today - the bone doc and the rheumatologist
and when asked what they thought of this recently passed system, they
went ballistic.

At best, it will cost them money per patient if the proposed measures
go through. And their insurances will go up. And thats assuming they
stay in the system at all because it is going to be difficult to
maintain acceptable standards and practices in a constantly evolving
regulatory environment where anything and everything can change at the
whim of a beaurucrat.

One made the case that Obamacare is going to create more legal issues
which will increase third party insurance costs both for the patients
and for the doctors.


Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem. Same
goes with the "maintain acceptable standards" bs. Nothing evolves that
quickly. It's all about legislation and underlying statuary laws. Those take
time. Your docs should stick to doctoring or get a law degree.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

On 4/16/10 8:37 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
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.


That's been Tom's M.O. here.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
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.

And thats about right on average for most doctors who specialize in
oncology and OB/GYN.

They wish it was 3/4% of their costs.


You can tell us... how's that? You have some proof of this? Doubtful, since
the proof is that it's as stated... 3 or 4%.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:36:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"W1TEF" wrote in message
. ..
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.

And thats about right on average for most doctors who specialize in
oncology and OB/GYN.

They wish it was 3/4% of their costs.


You can tell us... how's that? You have some proof of this? Doubtful,
since
the proof is that it's as stated... 3 or 4%.

He is telling you what it costs his daughters, presumably doctors. You
can either believe it is say he is lying.
My ex is in the medical biz, currently at the DC Medical Society and
she says something similar. That is hundreds of doctors
.


Which has little to do with the argument that tort reform is going to save
the healthcare system.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:50:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:29:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Which has little to do with the argument that tort reform is going to save
the healthcare system.

Tort reform would save the whole economic system. The lawyers tax is a
drag on the whole economy, producing absolutely nothing.

if only it were that simple

in addition, lawsuits are sometimes the only recouse people have in
that absence of legislation. in the name of 'free market' economics,
the right has crippled protection for middle class people. sometimes
a lawsuit is the only choice they have

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:50:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:29:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Which has little to do with the argument that tort reform is going to
save
the healthcare system.

Tort reform would save the whole economic system. The lawyers tax is a
drag on the whole economy, producing absolutely nothing.

if only it were that simple

in addition, lawsuits are sometimes the only recouse people have in
that absence of legislation. in the name of 'free market' economics,
the right has crippled protection for middle class people. sometimes
a lawsuit is the only choice they have

Yup. Like teenagers, most likely beer or some other alcoholic beverage, and
a boat backing over a guy who jumps in the water behind the boat as it backs
up. Million plus award. Plus the boat companies attorneys, the appeal
costs, the mostly unneeded changes to a product, sort of like the tests
ordered to cover malpractice. Cost the nation as whole, maybe 10-20x the
judgment costs. Company moves overseas. folds a subsidiary here if they
get sued for the product. How much did that bad sheetrock cost China?