BoatBanter.com - U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/116020-u-s-scores-dead-last-again-healthcare-study.html)

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 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.