OT: Medical increases for the year

[Arraya]

That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia] I would rather pay out of pocket and have an affordable catastrophic plan. My family does not go to the doctor very much at all. I would like to see some reform, but I am not happy with the 1800+ pages that will take lawyers years to figure out. I understand the insurance companies started raising rates in anticipation of having to pay for people with pre-existing conditions. Maybe they jumped the gun? It is another instance of corporate greed and largesse to themselves.[/quote]

I agree.

Real reform will not happen until the health care system collapses just like the financial system did.

All the crap with mental health, christian healing, alternative medicine, etc… is superfluous.

We need basic government provided health care coverage with generic drugs only for everybody, capped to a certain amount. If the patient chooses an expensive doctor then the allowance will be used up faster.

Anything above the allowance needs to be paid out of pocket. And catastrophic costs would be paid by catastrophic insurance.

I’m not too happy with the Obama plan because it’s another giveaway to the health insurance and medical industrial complex in the sense that more money will flow into the system. We need to spend less of GDP on health, not more.

But if Obama can get everyone covered, then reallocate health care dollars later, it’s better than the old system.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia] I would rather pay out of pocket and have an affordable catastrophic plan. My family does not go to the doctor very much at all. I would like to see some reform, but I am not happy with the 1800+ pages that will take lawyers years to figure out. I understand the insurance companies started raising rates in anticipation of having to pay for people with pre-existing conditions. Maybe they jumped the gun? It is another instance of corporate greed and largesse to themselves.[/quote]

I agree.

Real reform will not happen until the health care system collapses just like the financial system did.

All the crap with mental health, christian healing, alternative medicine, etc… is superfluous.

We need basic government provided health care coverage with generic drugs only for everybody, capped to a certain amount. If the patient chooses an expensive doctor then the allowance will be used up faster.

Anything above the allowance needs to be paid out of pocket. And catastrophic costs would be paid by catastrophic insurance.

I’m not too happy with the Obama plan because it’s another giveaway to the health insurance and medical industrial complex in the sense that more money will flow into the system. We need to spend less of GDP on health, not more.

But if Obama can get everyone covered, then reallocate health care dollars later, it’s better than the old system.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia] I would rather pay out of pocket and have an affordable catastrophic plan. My family does not go to the doctor very much at all. I would like to see some reform, but I am not happy with the 1800+ pages that will take lawyers years to figure out. I understand the insurance companies started raising rates in anticipation of having to pay for people with pre-existing conditions. Maybe they jumped the gun? It is another instance of corporate greed and largesse to themselves.[/quote]

I agree.

Real reform will not happen until the health care system collapses just like the financial system did.

All the crap with mental health, christian healing, alternative medicine, etc… is superfluous.

We need basic government provided health care coverage with generic drugs only for everybody, capped to a certain amount. If the patient chooses an expensive doctor then the allowance will be used up faster.

Anything above the allowance needs to be paid out of pocket. And catastrophic costs would be paid by catastrophic insurance.

I’m not too happy with the Obama plan because it’s another giveaway to the health insurance and medical industrial complex in the sense that more money will flow into the system. We need to spend less of GDP on health, not more.

But if Obama can get everyone covered, then reallocate health care dollars later, it’s better than the old system.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia] I would rather pay out of pocket and have an affordable catastrophic plan. My family does not go to the doctor very much at all. I would like to see some reform, but I am not happy with the 1800+ pages that will take lawyers years to figure out. I understand the insurance companies started raising rates in anticipation of having to pay for people with pre-existing conditions. Maybe they jumped the gun? It is another instance of corporate greed and largesse to themselves.[/quote]

I agree.

Real reform will not happen until the health care system collapses just like the financial system did.

All the crap with mental health, christian healing, alternative medicine, etc… is superfluous.

We need basic government provided health care coverage with generic drugs only for everybody, capped to a certain amount. If the patient chooses an expensive doctor then the allowance will be used up faster.

Anything above the allowance needs to be paid out of pocket. And catastrophic costs would be paid by catastrophic insurance.

I’m not too happy with the Obama plan because it’s another giveaway to the health insurance and medical industrial complex in the sense that more money will flow into the system. We need to spend less of GDP on health, not more.

But if Obama can get everyone covered, then reallocate health care dollars later, it’s better than the old system.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia] I would rather pay out of pocket and have an affordable catastrophic plan. My family does not go to the doctor very much at all. I would like to see some reform, but I am not happy with the 1800+ pages that will take lawyers years to figure out. I understand the insurance companies started raising rates in anticipation of having to pay for people with pre-existing conditions. Maybe they jumped the gun? It is another instance of corporate greed and largesse to themselves.[/quote]

I agree.

Real reform will not happen until the health care system collapses just like the financial system did.

All the crap with mental health, christian healing, alternative medicine, etc… is superfluous.

We need basic government provided health care coverage with generic drugs only for everybody, capped to a certain amount. If the patient chooses an expensive doctor then the allowance will be used up faster.

Anything above the allowance needs to be paid out of pocket. And catastrophic costs would be paid by catastrophic insurance.

I’m not too happy with the Obama plan because it’s another giveaway to the health insurance and medical industrial complex in the sense that more money will flow into the system. We need to spend less of GDP on health, not more.

But if Obama can get everyone covered, then reallocate health care dollars later, it’s better than the old system.

[Arraya]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.[/quote]

yeah, that makes sense. People are lawsuit happy, these days.

[Arraya]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.[/quote]

yeah, that makes sense. People are lawsuit happy, these days.

[Arraya]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.[/quote]

yeah, that makes sense. People are lawsuit happy, these days.

[Arraya]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=Arraya]http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.[/quote]

the issue here is the FEAR of litigation. All it takes it one lawsuit to bring a doctor’s world upside down for years, regardless of how valid the lawsuit is. So here’s a question: is it easier for a doctor to just order the chest x-ray or take the risk that he/she might miss something and end up with a lawsuit on his/her hand.[/quote]

yeah, that makes sense. People are lawsuit happy, these days.

[Author]

Posts