WTF!!! I have read a good porton of this, and what I do not get, is the Amendment that Boehner proposed should have been approved:

An amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in Part D of House Report 111-330 to create Universal Access Programs that expand and reform high-risk pools and reinsurance programs to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care while lowering costs for all Americans. It prevents insurers from unjustly canceling a policy or instituting annual or lifetime spending caps. The amendment would put in place medical liability reforms and gives small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices. In addition, the legislation would provide incentive payments to states that reduce premiums and the number of uninsured. The bill would allow Americans living in one state to shop for coverage and purchase insurance in another. The legislation would prohibit all Federal funds, whether they are authorized funds or appropriated funds, from being used to pay for abortion. The amendment would create new incentives to save for future and long-term care needs by allowing qualified participants to use HSAs to pay premiums.

Again WTF!!!

um- you don't realize how washington works unfortunately.

see many of these d'bags we elected are lawyers and the lawyer lobby is NOT a big fan of medical liability reforms.

see, why should we ONLY be allowed to get 1 million dollars for driving with a hot cup of coffee in between our legs when the lawyer might be able to get us 500 million (which the company will appeal and we'll settle for 40 million out of court).

thanks lobbyists!!!!

The lawyer lobby has a hard time understanding why a doctor who leaves a clamp in during surgery gets to cap your damages, while the doctor who runs you down driving his Mercedes does not. The lawyer lobby also wonders how you cut down on frivolous lawsuits by capping damage awards, but only for the most severely injured. The answer: "reform" is all about saving money for liability carriers who lost money in the stock market.

Yes because harping about this subject, or actually writing it into a bill, or giving unlimited malpractice lawsuits will save so much money in the entire health care scheme.

:rolleyes

Savings result in 1% - 2%

I of course agree with tort reform, but isn't this technically a state issue anyway?

The disconnect that many people seem to have here is that they don't understand that saving money for liability carriers = decreasing the ultimate cost to the consumer. We have to decrease costs in the system somehow.

And who is in favor of capping damage awards only for the most severely injured? Most malpractice tort reform ideas I've seen have absolutely NO cap on ACTUAL damages suffered by the patient. Instead, they place caps on punitive damages (which aren't really damages at all, but court-imposed penalties on the doctors) and "pain and suffering" or other speculative damages. The only idea I've seen that would affect actual damages are the "malpractice commission" ideas, where malpractice lawsuits would be treated like Workers' Comp cases instead of regular lawsuits.

I guess people only read what they want to believe.

Again, as I posted above it's time wasted to beeeatch and moan about tort reform this and tort reform that if you're interested in SAVING MONEY in the health care industry.

I'll try this again.

Tort reform saving on health care estimated to be around 2%

Thanks for posting. I wouldn't have guessed this little of an impact. In the interest of sharing info on this, here is another article I came across...describes the situation in Missouri.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/torts-tor...12779859-1.html

I'd be curious to see if anyone can refute these numbers? I ask not to be a jerk, but in the interest of seeing what kind of impact tort reform really would have on costs.

I have to say I'd still be in favor of tort reform, but I also have to admit I thought it would amount to a higher cost savings than 2-3%.

And thanks for posting that.

The in depth KC Star reports the exact same findings.

Tort reform won't do diddly squat to reducing our overall insurance costs, maybe by 2% or even 5% at most, hardly anything when you compare it to the annual rate increase of insurance every year.

I can't refute those numbers, but I would bet that someone else could do a "study" and come up with a vastly different figure. Regardless, even if malpractice reform would only reduce the overall cost to the system by 2-5%, that's still between $50-125 BILLION dollars every year. No one with any sense is saying that malpractice reform is going to cure all the ills of the system. But there is no one proposal that is going to reduce costs sufficiently all by itself, and if we want to really reduce costs, we will have to attack it on several different fronts.

Take a look at the different sides of the debate here. The ones who are pushing against tort reform are the trial lawyers, who clearly benefit from the largest possible jury awards. The doctors, by and large, are pushing for tort reform. Yes, they benefit from lower malpractice insurance costs, but they also get PAID for all the additional defensive medicine they practice. Yet they still want tort reform. And further, when we're talking about health care reform, whose opinions should we give more weight to, the doctors or the lawyers? Which ones should we try to keep happy? I'll give you a hint: the health care system only requires one of the two groups to work properly. We're already starting to see the best and the brightest college grads perceiving a career as a malpractice lawyer who sues doctors to be preferable to a career as a doctor. When that happens, I think we've failed.

This is simply not true. Estimates that say that tort reform will only save 1-2% cannot accurately account for changes in behaviors by doctors as a result of not having to worry about lawsuits left and right. Furthermore, given the estimates of how much the health care bill will cost, can you really trust anything, yes ANYTHING, told by governments/special interests at this point?

I think not. I subscribe to the "question everything" model.

I didn't know this was such a "special interest" group.

Oklegend's Special Interest Group

So you think if insurance companies lower doctor's malpractice premiums we'll have cheaper rates????

Because the insurance companies have been so fair to patients over the past 30 years...

:rolleyes

The 2-5% captures only the cost savings associated with savings in malpractice premiums. I can only imagine how many unnecessary tests are performed as cya measures by docs. My guess is the cost associated with these far exceeds the cost savings from malpractice premiums.

Even if that were it, wouldn't 2-5% be better than nothing?

Also, you are going under the mistaken notion that insurance companies are swimming in profits. If you have an opportunity, compare their margins vs. that of other publicly traded companies. Further, a large chunk of private insurance is provided by non-profits such as BC/BS.

Are you a trial lawyer by any chance?

Exactly. Everyone should please stop with the "evil insurance companies" thing. Do you expect them to not make a profit? Everyone operates with a bottom line, even the non-profit corporations (which somehow still are "evil"). Except maybe the government, but that's apparently going to be tested by this administration.

No, I expect a health insurance company to act in my best health interests first, then make a profit. I assert that nearly, if not all insurance companies, act on the principle profit at all costs.

Pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage after you get a procedure, denied coverage because you've been pregnant before, calling first to see if a procedure is covered but they explicitly tell you it should be covered but they can't guarantee it until afterwords, certain tests that aren't covered (in my case such as an mri) that would give you a diffinitive answer for what ails you... the list goes on and on.

I've shared numerous anecdotes with others about just my medical horror stories only to hear worse. So yes, a lot of insurance companies are evil.

It's over a year later I'm still paying doctor bills because I was reassured by not only the doctor, the office billing ladies, and my own conversations with the insurance company, that I would be covered for a minor outpatient surgery only to be told AFTER the procedure I wouldn't be covered. If that's not evil I don't know what else is.

However, I do not disagree with the notion that anything to drive down health insurance costs should be disavowed. I wholeheartedly disagree with those that say tort reform will do wonders to drive down costs. That is a fact by many different independent studies that has been disproved time and time again.

I'll stand by it. I don't know who commissioned the study at Kellogg. I don't know how they reached the conclusions. I'm going to be consistent and question all assumptions presented on the health care debate, regardless of which side presents them, because I don't believe any of it. It's one massive lie.

As for your second point, yes, I do believe it because OB-GYN's in IL won't have to pay $100k for malpractice insurance. And your second sentence is a joke. Insurance companies are FAR better than ANY governmental agency because we know how fairly the government treats us when it comes to basic services.



GMAFB!

You are woofully wrong on your assumptions about health insurance companies and completely ignorant about the basic facts of insurance.

First, carriers like BCBS are not profit driven in that they aren't even public companies. Their surplus profits go to reducing premiums for their members. Second, do car insurance companies get to deny coverage if a motorist has too many accidents? A DUI? If it is insurance, then pre-existing conditions should be taken into account. Otherwise, the healthy people will end up paying SIGNIFICANTLY more for coverage.

The reality is you can throw out anecdote this and anecdote that, but the current system works for the LARGE majority of the American public. Sure, there are issues, but that is the case with every industry. If you hate the current system, give up your coverage and go on medicare/medicaid. You can still get treated at hospitals like Stroger in Chicago.

Finally, if you are a proponent of the public option, how could you NOT embrace tort reform. Remember that it will be you and everyone else paying the price when the trial lawyers extort billions from the government in the name of "damages" against doctors.

maybe you'd like to be informed via a quick google search, or maybe you'd just rather be ignorant, or maybe you're just lazy.



The Impact of Tort Reform on Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Premiums

Ignorance is bliss.

Dude, sorry to say break it to you, but this will NEVER, EVER IN A MILLION YEARS HAPPEN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Even if the Democrats get their public option passed, the customer will not be PelosiCo's primary concern either. Even if a company doesn't care about profits (which, by definition, nonprofit corporations don't), they still have a bottom line. There is only so much money they can spend, and if they're not taking in enough money, they are going to have to screw some people or go out of business.


It sucks that you've had some problems, but you need to realize that making a "good vs. evil" debate out of it is just pointless. We need to have policies that allow and encourage insurance companies to not do these things, but the fact is, right now they need to do these things to hit the bottom line. That won't change unless the costs of health care decrease.


Even if you believe that these studies are correct, we should still enact tort reform. Even if tort reform doesn't decrease insurance premiums one cent, they still decrease costs within the system. Insurance premiums aren't the be all and end all of the discussion. The overall cost of health care needs to decrease, and there is no credible way to dispute the fact that tort reform would save at least tens or hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

Wait a second, I think you all are reading it completely wrong.

Looks to me as though they are saying it costs 2-3% in lawsuits.

No mention of preventative medicine.

Payouts to settle lawsuit.

Malpractice insurance by hospitals and doctors.

lawyer fees

Incidental costs of additional paperwork and records in excess of the actual need to medically treat people etc.

Plus I guarantee that there is no accounting done on the excessive device costs for device/and pharmacy manufacturers.

I guarantee it runs a lot more than 2-3% of total costs.

There is no way that all the legal costs are included in the 2-3 %.

You're right.

I'm sure this study didn't take that into account.

The Impact of Tort Reform on Employer-Sponsered Health Insurance Premiums

And your proof is????

I get that you either didnt scan the study you pointed to , or dont understand how that study has little to no bearing on the arguments I provided.

as an example that study does nothing to look at the imbeded costs of liability throughout the supply chain. It reflects the cost of insurance premiums as paid by companies.

and tries to subdivide some for some of the proposed tort reforms, but the nature of our insurance across the country doesnt necessarily imply that savings in costs in a hospital get passed on to those to are paying the insurance premiums.

The study looked at the impact of various tort reforms on insurance premiums, it didnt look at overall change in costs.

As I said 2-3% is way underestimating the costs of litigation within our healthcare system. Its naive to think otherwise..

And your proof is?


hilarious.

Prove me wrong with facts!!!!

read your study and understand it first then we will talk.

Hell your citation starts out at 2-3%, without any look at the litigation costs in the entire supply chain. and without looking at the anti competitive market of state by state insurance regulation.

Never mind the fact that hospitals with heavy medicaid patients are higher in terms of litigation costs. (something that is not covered in your study.

I dont think you read/understood the study you are citing. You are pulling an Obama.

Cite any contrary facts to the article listed.

Anything.

Hell, it's a public board you can do better than that!

You tell me, with links and facts:

Tort reform will significantly reduce health care costs to the general public...

discuss...

Thunder, I hate to break it to you, but it is your responsibility to take care of your healthcare, not your insurance company's or the government's. Do you want to know the real reasons insurance premiums are so high? I'll give you the 2 biggest reasons, and neither has to do with excessive profits or tort lawyers.

1. Government mandated coverage. governments mandate that insurance companies must offer certain coverages. Therefore, you have limited opportunity to pick a plan that suits you best, for example, a high deductible, low premium plan that wouldn't break the bank if you are healthy, but that would prevent catastrophic loss if you get sick.

2. Goverment mandated lack of competition. Do you ever wonder why there are insurance oligopolies in each state when there are literally thousands of insurance companies out there? It's not because the private market doesn't work, it's because the government has erected artificial barriers to competition.

Note that both of these problems are driven by our government. Do you honestly expect further government involvement in this to make the situation better.

Here's a good article for you to read that may open your eyes to the costs imposed by government.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...lers_99099.html

So let me get this straight:

"It's my responsibility to take care of my healthcare."

I'm locked into the plan that my job requires me to buy, unless I'd like to spend oodles more to buy a great plan.

But then you say it's the governments fault that makes it this way, while others are screaming the government option will just make the whole system even worse.

Put away the shotgun, and pull out your rifle.

They say this public option (aka government takeover/socialism) will create competition. How so? How can a private company (who must make a profit) compete with an entity that is $10,000,000,000,000 in the hole yet still spends money uncontrollably?

It is just a big joke, and it is packed full of taxes, fines, fees, etc.


GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE!

OK, let me be more clear. My first point was addressed to your whining about how insurance companies don't have your best interests at heart. I hate to tell you this, but no company has your best interest at heart. Government doesn't either to be honest with you. There may be some nonprofits that do, but that's it. The beauty of capitalism is that the desire to make a profit drives companies to compete to provide customers with superior products and services, even if they don't give a damn about you otherwise.

My second point is that IMO your faith in government to manage our healthcare system effectively is horribly misplaced.

Not really. It is more about capitalistic marketing which persuades you to purchase a product which supposedly is better than the competition whether it really is or not. Many products (and services) simply are NOT superior and are also overpriced. If there were not any oversight by government agencies, American citizens would be taken even more than they already are by inferior products and services, witness price gouging by utility, cable, and insurance companies.

Wow, this is really far off. The price gouging by utilities, cable, and insurance companies is precisely because there is NO COMPETITION IN THESE AREAS. Capitalism doesn't work (and, in fact, is not "capitalism") when there is no competition. Using these examples as an excuse for government oversight and regulation is either disingenuous or ignorant.

Capitalism, much like democracy, forces companies to be responsive to what their customers want, because if they aren't, someone else will come in and take their customers. However capitalism, like democracy, doesn't work as well for people who lack knowledge. If people get taken in by marketing, that's their own failure, not a failure of capitalism. If they actually did some research to find out which product was better, they wouldn't be wasting their money (again, like democracy, where people would be better off to actually research which party better represents their interests instead of buying the cheap rhetoric that is presented to them). Government oversight will NEVER make companies care about consumers, it will only make them care about government regulations. The only way to get companies to care about consumers is the threat of competition by another company.