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.