|
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message news:boKdnTIVAocFDLTRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlink. com... ap. Fear of malpractice adds to health costs. http://www.physorg.com/news190398335.html A small study, and it doesn't give a cost. It's been reported nationally for a long time that it adds a few percentage points to the cost. More right-wing bs to suggest it's a huge factor. Insurance is $100k a year or higher. That is part of the cost too. Huh? Not sure what you're trying to say... The cost of insurance is part of the cost of insurance? :) |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:05:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message news:boKdnTIVAocFDLTRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlin k.com... ap. Fear of malpractice adds to health costs. http://www.physorg.com/news190398335.html A small study, and it doesn't give a cost. It's been reported nationally for a long time that it adds a few percentage points to the cost. More right-wing bs to suggest it's a huge factor. Insurance is $100k a year or higher. That is part of the cost too. Huh? Not sure what you're trying to say... The cost of insurance is part of the cost of insurance? :) I didn't mean it that way but you are right. Malpractice insurance IS part of the cost of Health insurance. Basically about the same portion as the doctor's take home pay. (both about $100,000) It varies wildly between practices. Some docs don't carry it; others, like OBGYNs have a huge amount. Again, it's a small portion of the cost of health insurance nationally. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:05:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message news:boKdnTIVAocFDLTRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthlin k.com... ap. Fear of malpractice adds to health costs. http://www.physorg.com/news190398335.html A small study, and it doesn't give a cost. It's been reported nationally for a long time that it adds a few percentage points to the cost. More right-wing bs to suggest it's a huge factor. Insurance is $100k a year or higher. That is part of the cost too. Huh? Not sure what you're trying to say... The cost of insurance is part of the cost of insurance? :) I didn't mean it that way but you are right. Malpractice insurance IS part of the cost of Health insurance. Basically about the same portion as the doctor's take home pay. (both about $100,000) Ok. Now I'm curious... how did you mean it? :) |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:29:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:05:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message news:boKdnTIVAocFDLTRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@earthl ink.com... ap. Fear of malpractice adds to health costs. http://www.physorg.com/news190398335.html A small study, and it doesn't give a cost. It's been reported nationally for a long time that it adds a few percentage points to the cost. More right-wing bs to suggest it's a huge factor. Insurance is $100k a year or higher. That is part of the cost too. Huh? Not sure what you're trying to say... The cost of insurance is part of the cost of insurance? :) I didn't mean it that way but you are right. Malpractice insurance IS part of the cost of Health insurance. Basically about the same portion as the doctor's take home pay. (both about $100,000) Ok. Now I'm curious... how did you mean it? :) I mean $100,000 in malpractice insurance per doctor, god only knows how much for a hospital, a medical equipment company or a drug company and you can't say it is an insignificant part of medical cost. Actually, I can... "But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending." http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0 |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:39:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I mean $100,000 in malpractice insurance per doctor, god only knows how much for a hospital, a medical equipment company or a drug company and you can't say it is an insignificant part of medical cost. Actually, I can... "But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending." http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0 That is a 8 year old chart with a trend going almost straight up. Do you have one from this decade? Bear in mind "congress" is mostly lawyers so I am skeptical about how they slice these numbers. I can find you a lot of articles from the medical side that say torts are a huge problem. 2004 - http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html 2006 - http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7...alpractice.pdf 2008 - http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54574 2010 (June) - http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall04/w10709.html Feel free to dispute these at your leisure.. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:56:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:39:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I mean $100,000 in malpractice insurance per doctor, god only knows how much for a hospital, a medical equipment company or a drug company and you can't say it is an insignificant part of medical cost. Actually, I can... "But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending." http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0 That is a 8 year old chart with a trend going almost straight up. Do you have one from this decade? Bear in mind "congress" is mostly lawyers so I am skeptical about how they slice these numbers. I can find you a lot of articles from the medical side that say torts are a huge problem. 2004 - http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html 2006 - http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7...alpractice.pdf 2008 - http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54574 2010 (June) - http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall04/w10709.html Feel free to dispute these at your leisure.. These guys will give you plenty of arguments http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/ http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/20...law1-0706.html http://www.webmd.com/news/20020626/a...ractice-crisis http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/39/14/20.full These organizations' pages only seem to peripherally argue about the costs. None cite actual numbers. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:27:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Bear in mind "congress" is mostly lawyers so I am skeptical about how they slice these numbers. I can find you a lot of articles from the medical side that say torts are a huge problem. 2004 - http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html 2006 - http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7...alpractice.pdf 2008 - http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...entID=2 54574 2010 (June) - http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall04/w10709.html Feel free to dispute these at your leisure.. These guys will give you plenty of arguments http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/ http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/20...law1-0706.html http://www.webmd.com/news/20020626/a...ractice-crisis http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/39/14/20.full These organizations' pages only seem to peripherally argue about the costs. None cite actual numbers. The "numbers" the lawyers cite do not encompass the real costs. they talk about things like awards in torts without including the lawyers fees and nobody really knows what the real cost of defensive medicine is but simply the number of procedures and tests in a US treatment for a particular condition compared to what the rest of the western world would have points to something strange going on. Typically lawyers don't charge upfront for negligence cases. They're paid at the end.. 30-40%. If know one knows the "real" costs, then you can't claim they're significant to the over all health cost. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:33:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The "numbers" the lawyers cite do not encompass the real costs. they talk about things like awards in torts without including the lawyers fees and nobody really knows what the real cost of defensive medicine is but simply the number of procedures and tests in a US treatment for a particular condition compared to what the rest of the western world would have points to something strange going on. Typically lawyers don't charge upfront for negligence cases. They're paid at the end.. 30-40%. If know one knows the "real" costs, then you can't claim they're significant to the over all health cost. That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. The plaintiff's lawyer is on his own dime until he wins but the DEFENDANT'S lawyer charges from day one. (before day one if he is on retainer) That is where the cost to the doctor is and you want ignore that. The defendant loses even if he wins and you would call that zero cost. That is why they are so quick to settle, even before the case is formally filed, again not showing up in your bogus "number". If all you want is to get the doctor to tear up his bill, all you need is the threat of a suit and anything close to a case. That just gets tacked on to the next patient's bill. I cited numbers. You didn't. All the numbers have been accounted for in any meaningful way. The cost of tort issues are 5% or so of the over all costs of health care. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. While not insignificant, they are not going to make a huge difference. Do you really think a small reduction in payouts is going to reduce the cost of defendant's law costs??? Come on. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 10:25:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:33:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The "numbers" the lawyers cite do not encompass the real costs. they talk about things like awards in torts without including the lawyers fees and nobody really knows what the real cost of defensive medicine is but simply the number of procedures and tests in a US treatment for a particular condition compared to what the rest of the western world would have points to something strange going on. Typically lawyers don't charge upfront for negligence cases. They're paid at the end.. 30-40%. If know one knows the "real" costs, then you can't claim they're significant to the over all health cost. That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. The plaintiff's lawyer is on his own dime until he wins but the DEFENDANT'S lawyer charges from day one. (before day one if he is on retainer) That is where the cost to the doctor is and you want ignore that. The defendant loses even if he wins and you would call that zero cost. That is why they are so quick to settle, even before the case is formally filed, again not showing up in your bogus "number". If all you want is to get the doctor to tear up his bill, all you need is the threat of a suit and anything close to a case. That just gets tacked on to the next patient's bill. I cited numbers. You didn't. All the numbers have been accounted for in any meaningful way. The cost of tort issues are 5% or so of the over all costs of health care. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. While not insignificant, they are not going to make a huge difference. Do you really think a small reduction in payouts is going to reduce the cost of defendant's law costs??? Come on. You cited numbers for judgements, not defenses that succeeded or torts that were settled before they were filed. I am sure I can find numbers too but it wouldn't convince you. Why bother. I don't care anymore, Well, perhaps they would. Just about every study of the numbers I've read suggests a percentage as I indicated. If you have some other numbers, trot them out. I don't think you "don't care" anymore. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:25:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. The plaintiff's lawyer is on his own dime until he wins but the DEFENDANT'S lawyer charges from day one. (before day one if he is on retainer) That is where the cost to the doctor is and you want ignore that. The defendant loses even if he wins and you would call that zero cost. That is why they are so quick to settle, even before the case is formally filed, again not showing up in your bogus "number". If all you want is to get the doctor to tear up his bill, all you need is the threat of a suit and anything close to a case. That just gets tacked on to the next patient's bill. I cited numbers. You didn't. All the numbers have been accounted for in any meaningful way. The cost of tort issues are 5% or so of the over all costs of health care. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. While not insignificant, they are not going to make a huge difference. Do you really think a small reduction in payouts is going to reduce the cost of defendant's law costs??? Come on. You cited numbers for judgements, not defenses that succeeded or torts that were settled before they were filed. I am sure I can find numbers too but it wouldn't convince you. Why bother. I don't care anymore, Well, perhaps they would. Just about every study of the numbers I've read suggests a percentage as I indicated. If you have some other numbers, trot them out. I don't think you "don't care" anymore. OK you win,I do have something else. I will just ask you one more question. I said this was a "tort" problem and you want to slice that down to malpractice. How much money do you think the "slip and fall" lawyer, the "workmans comp" lawyer and the "don't call the insurance company until you call me" traffic accident lawyer add to overall medical costs? BTW those guys are not even affected by the caps in states like California because "medical cost" is exempted from the quarter million dollar cap ... but the lawyer still gets his percentage. I was reminded of this today when I saw a fender bender and a woman was talking to a lawyer on her cell and rubbing her neck. The ads on TV are no help and should be outlawed but as long as politicians are lawyers, they will protect lawyers. I don't know. I do know that despite the lawyers that practice "ambulance chasing" (and I think that's really overblown - I know many personal injury lawyers myself and they're pretty decent people), most lawyers are not like this. The typical case involves actual damages plus 3x pain and suffering. That's the award. The lawyer's cut at settlement or decision is 30-40%, which includes payment for their time and court costs, both of which can be significant. You rail on personal injury lawyers and workers comp lawyers, as though they're all corrupt. And, that's not even close to true. I'm certain that 99% or higher percentage of honest and hardworking. Yes, they get paid good money. So do MBAs (I have one of those also), so do doctors, dentists, and most other professionals (notable exception - teachers - must be those terribly strong unions). I suspect you don't know what happened with the "woman" on her cell or how much pain she incurred. Are you psychic? Sure, frivolous suits should cost the lawyers and clients. No argument. Sure, TV ads for lawyers should not be allowed (is that a free speech issue - perhaps the FCC needs to get involved, since they clearly censor some speech on public airwaves?). Politicians have been lawyers since the beginning of both professions.. certainly a high percentage of the signers of the Declaration were both. As to the "don't call the insurance company" first thing... the insurance companies want to settle for the minimum, but they want to settle. It costs them money to go to court, to prove someone's faking. You can just as easily blame them, but I don't see you doing that. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 23:56:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You rail on personal injury lawyers and workers comp lawyers, as though they're all corrupt. And, that's not even close to true. I'm certain that 99% or higher percentage of honest and hardworking. I only go on their sleazy ads and the number of unsolicited mailings my wife got after a very minor accident report at work (no cost incurred at all) Are you advocating banning mail advertising also? I'm not sure how you expect the system to work. I suspect you don't know what happened with the "woman" on her cell or how much pain she incurred. Are you psychic? I was standing next to her when she pulled the "Morgan and Morgan" (one of our TV lawyers) card out of her purse and asked HER LAWYER if she should refuse medical care. I walked away, knowing nobody was hurt here, except maybe anyone who buys medical or auto insurance next year. Well, I it sounds like she thought that was an option. People refuse medical help all the time. Sometimes that right, sometimes wrong. Again, how did you know she wasn't actually hurt? If I were her attorney (I don't practice that sort of law), I would tell her to get treated. Perhaps instead of walking away, you should have asked her if she was ok? Sometimes injuries aren't obvious. Again, rail all you want, but the typical sort of response some make is... just wait, you'll see. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
wrote in message ... On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:25:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 23:56:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You rail on personal injury lawyers and workers comp lawyers, as though they're all corrupt. And, that's not even close to true. I'm certain that 99% or higher percentage of honest and hardworking. I only go on their sleazy ads and the number of unsolicited mailings my wife got after a very minor accident report at work (no cost incurred at all) Are you advocating banning mail advertising also? I'm not sure how you expect the system to work. How did the system work for the 200 years before they had TV ads, 50 of that after we had TV? You're going to claim we should go back to a 3 mph society to solve our current problems? I would imagine that 200 years ago, there was perhaps one or two lawyers in the general area. I suspect you don't know what happened with the "woman" on her cell or how much pain she incurred. Are you psychic? I was standing next to her when she pulled the "Morgan and Morgan" (one of our TV lawyers) card out of her purse and asked HER LAWYER if she should refuse medical care. I walked away, knowing nobody was hurt here, except maybe anyone who buys medical or auto insurance next year. Well, I it sounds like she thought that was an option. People refuse medical help all the time. Sometimes that right, sometimes wrong. Again, how did you know she wasn't actually hurt? If I were her attorney (I don't practice that sort of law), I would tell her to get treated. Perhaps instead of walking away, you should have asked her if she was ok? Sometimes injuries aren't obvious. Again, rail all you want, but the typical sort of response some make is... just wait, you'll see. She was not interested in talking to anyone but Morgan and Morgan, just like she was told on TV. There were plenty of people there. The paramedics were rolling up and I did not feel I had any more to contribute. So, someone called the paramedics. They are trained to evaluate a person's condition. Typically, if they have any doubt they recommend a hospital visit via ambulance. |
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com