Now you may have a totally different take on why we find ourselves where we are today. If so, I encourage you to outline what you see as the problem and what is your interpretation as to why the system is breaking down.

Jan 26, 2011 - 05:19pm PT
Norton Said:

Tort reform....


I have coffee most mornings with a doctor friend of mine at Starbucks.

His medical malpractice insurance runs about 35K a year.

I asked him if the Federal government passed legislation that limited the amount that could be awarded, resulting in theory with his annual premium actually going down,
would he pass that savings along to this patients or would he just accept the reduction
as additional profit for himself.


He looked at me like I was nuts. OF COURSE, he said, he would just pocket the additional profit.

NO way "tort reform" results in "lowered healthcare costs" for the patients.


Are we all finally now clear on this fantasy?
---------------------------------------


Guys, guys. You are misunderstanding the issue.

Ask your coffee friend this: If there was no risk of lawsuit, how many medically unneeded tests would he be able to avoid ordering?

THIS is where the savings comes. This practice, of ordering tests to protect you in case of a suit, is known as "defensive medicine". Ask your friend how common that is, and post the result tomorrow.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10136689

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125193312967181349.html

"The study quoted most often is by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. To really understand actual costs, Kessler and McClellan analyzed the effects of malpractice liability reforms using data on Medicare beneficiaries who were treated for serious heart disease. They found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.

If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine."

Reduced sentences for drug crimes. More job training and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent offenders. Expanded alternatives to doing hard time.

In the not-too-distant past, conservatives might have derided those concepts as mushy-headed liberalism — the essence of "soft on crime."

Nowadays, these same ideas are central to a strategy being packaged as "conservative criminal justice reform," and have rolled out in right-leaning states around the country in an effort to rein in budget-busting corrections costs.

Encouraged by the recent success of reform efforts in Republican-dominated Texas — where prison population growth has slowed and crime is down —conservative leaders elsewhere have embraced their own versions of the strategy.

highlights from the documents, obtained pursuant to a FOIA request filed on September 10, 2010:

* Pelosi used the Air Force aircraft for a total of 43 trips, covering 90,155 miles, from January 1 through October 1, 2010. The Air Force documented in-flight expenses for 22 of these flights totaling $1,821.33. The Air Force did not provide expense information for the remaining 21 flights.
* Former Speaker Pelosi received chocolate covered strawberries as a birthday surprise on a March 26, 2010 flight. According to one internal Air Force email sent on March 25, 2010: “The speaker’s office is requesting egg salad sandwiches on wheat toast with fruit (watermelon, etc) for desert [sic]. It’s the speaker’s B-Day tomorrow so we’re also asking for something like chocolate covered strawberries (dark chocolate preferred)…” The immediate response to the email from another member of the Air Force staff: “Copy all. We’ll plan something for the birthday and take care of the meal.”

According to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the former Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over one two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008, included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Baileys Irish Cream, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniel’s whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.

Judicial Watch also previously uncovered internal Department of Defense (DOD) email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s last minute cancellations and changes. For example, in response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one DOD official wrote, "Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?...[T]here's no need to block every weekend 'just in case'..." The email also notes that Pelosi's office had, "a history of canceling many of their past requests."

Ken,

You have missed one important point. Maybe the doctor you quoted would charge the same rates and pocket the 35K ................BUT

The doctor down the street would charge LOWER rates because he did not have to pay the 35K thus build that into his pricing schedule........


SO then patients say why should I pay Dr X who charges me abc dollars per visit when instead I can see Dr.Y who does the very same thing bu he only charges me def dollars per visit. I'd rather pay def dollars which is less. Competition will force the doctor not to pocket the savings. Someone willing to charge less by passing the savings to the patients will get a good chunk of his business if not the vast majority of it.

If I am sure it is a migraine, then I don't order the cat scan. If there is some doubt in my mind that it could be an AVM based on my findings on clinical evaluation, then I do. Ken, I think we are leading the public into thinking that we order this stuff left and right because we are afraid of lawyers. What I think we are really afraid of is missing something and then living with the realization that we destroyed someone's life because we did not do what we might have done.

I do not think, however, that one is so "innocent" simply because he does not directly kill but rather pays for products which are the byproduct of murder and mayhem. Closing ones eyes to it and ignoring that which preceded the sale, does not mean it didn't happen

I have no direct control over national policy and actions. The people legitimately in charge of these matters make said decisions. My own views and preferences are completely irrelevant with respect to their actions.

By contrast, the person using drugs has direct control over whether he does or does not use any drugs. He has direct control over whether he patronizes the drug dealer who supplies him and who in turn supports the violent drug lords. Your analogy, then, is invalid. Whether I approve or disapprove of what the persons with legitimate authority over such matters implement, once elected, is totally irrelevant.