The evidence is overwhelming to most sane people, that our Healthcare system is in dire need of reform. In fact, it needs to be blown up and started anew. Insurance premiums are insane, the quality of care we receive is adequate at best and there is very little or any price controls built within our system. The attached article illustrates perfectly why we need to continue to work this issue. Healthcare costs are a serious drag on our economy and international competitiveness. The HCA is an imperfect attempt to put us down the right path, but it is a step in the right direction
They should deep sic Obamacare and go back to the drawing board.
Kill single payer.
Massive Tort Reform.
His risk policies subsidized so those who have pre-existing conditions can get insurance.
What you suggest is the status quo with even less incentive for insurance and medical providers, and I'm not meaning doctors, to reform the system. If tort reform was the silver bullet, it would have been done long ago.
Really? Obamcare and it's 20,000 pages (and counting) of rules and regs are a step in the right direction?
health care and health insurance costs and still preserve an injured patient's right to receive fair compensation for medical malpractice.
And neither can anybody else which is why there is no national tort reform. There is tort reform in almost every state but it has not worked, has it?
So if it has not worked on the state level why installthe same ineffective system nationally?
The same can be said for gun control not working , in cities with most gun control .
Borrowing a few of your words , if it isn't working in Chicago why install the same ineffective system nationally ?
And neither can anybody else which is why there is no national tort reform. There is tort reform in almost every state but it has not worked, has it?
So if it has not worked on the state level why installthe same ineffective system nationally?
on gun sales without background checks does in work in part now and would work even better if we closed the gun show loophole. And if we could reinstate the assault weapon ban that would improve things big time. As to Chicago their best state and local gun control measures were struck by the courts, so it is misleading to say they aren't working. And of course all gun control measures are subject to second amendment challenge. There is no comparable limitation on tort reform except for the vapid access to the courts provision in many state constitutions which is why damage caps sometimes get struck"
So while your point seems reasonable on the surface, AP, it does not withstand analysis.
Tort reform, or the real motivator, is lower liability/malpractice insurance premiums for providers. Even if rates were reduced 10%-25%-50%, it's not going to generally impact the cost of private or public healthcare.
The biggest driver is the consumer is not driving the cost. In every other industry, the consumer has access to prices, but not in healthcare. Why can't I get a price when I want it? And why is it that the negotiated rate by the insurance company is maybe 20-25% of what a provider bills? Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?
The article, as well as the Time piece, were spot on. And it's not just hospitals, but doctors, labs, and clinics. And it appears there is absolutely no incentive on the private sector side to change it. Give credit to Medicare for negotiating the best rates.
You might argue it's insurance. Consumers don't care as long as someone else is paying for it. Well, with a cost burden shift to consumers due to co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses, the need for transparency on prices is necessary. If the providers and insurance companies don't want to share, then why not just opt for a single payer system like Medicare for all? They negotiate better rates. They seem to never question a claim.
The system is broken. Obamacare isn't a fix. It just makes it worse. Shit, willy is going to drop his bong when he reads this.
-- Modified on 5/10/2013 9:15:58 PM
I was joking with you bro , waiting for your scolding rebuttal ..
The only arms I have are the two I was born with , not counting my big brother .
He's there if I need him .
If one of my arms becomes infected and gangrene , my drugged out surgeon removes the wrong limb , I wouldn't be looking for pennies on tort reform .
So while your point seems reasonable on the surface, AP, it does not withstand analysis.
Do you research on the state level. They are all being challenged in court in one fashion or another. Therefore, it is not really settled law yet, so that explains why you are not seeing benefits at that level yet.
The Congressional Budget Office in 2004 concluded that it found "no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts." Five years later, the CBO revised this finding and said that a package of tort reforms including caps would
reduce total national health care spending by about -- gasp- one-half of 1 percent.
There are plenty of other studies that say the CBO revision is pure speculation, largely bc it is impossible to measure the cost of defensive medicine.
But all you really need to do is look at the 30 states with caps - there is no significant difference in insurance premiums or health care costs in those states. And the constitutionality of caps in most of those states has already been settled.
And of course you completely failed to address the second part of the issue - the effect of the caps on a patient's right to fair compensation. So the savings are very small and the impact on patients unmeasured. If tort reform really worked, don't you think Obama would have included it in the Affordable Care Act instead of putting the strong arm on insurers?
Nice indignation, Snowman, but you don't have the facts on this one.
Backed up with facts and did not call me a name once.
A good post on your part....
OK, if I concede the point of malpractice (although I still believe it helps and could find materials to back it), it is not a cure all.
So what do we do? Single payer systems will cover everyone and costs will go down. OF course, no one talks about the other affects. Treatments not available after you reach a certain age. And what about when you get REALLY sick. Rich people in other countries with socialized medicine come here for treatment. I am sorry, but money motivates period. That is why we have so many good doctors and advancements in medicine. Take that away, you will lose your best doctors and medical innovation will dry up.
It's like every other thing in this world, you swap cost for quality. You had best prepare yourself to go see a doctor who got is degree at a medical school in Guatemala and hope you don't get real sick. That my friend, is socialized medicine