- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:01 pm to VOR
quote:But you won't admit that the "unnecessary part" is because of risk aversion due to the fear of being sued.
I don't disagree. I would also point out the unnecessary part.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:01 pm to Zach
quote:
But you said in the other thread it was no cost because it couldn't reduce the gap
I said no such thing. You're getting old Zach.
It's that the cost is almost negligible when you look at the overall costs.
quote:
So, by that logic anything we did do reduce HC costs by 20% would be meaningless if we were still behind 'the rest of the world'.
No of course not. If we can save 20% on health care costs we should do it. I'm saying that we should stop pretending that less than a 3% cost reduction would get our costs down to what other countries are paying. It's silly to suggest such a thing. This is simple math. If product A costs 50% more than product B, it will still cost substantially more than product B if you reduce the cost by 2.5%
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:01 pm to Powerman
Didn't they do tort reform in TX and it didn't change much?
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:02 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
I'm going to be sick.
Disgusting, isn't it?
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:03 pm to Zach
quote:
So, the first sentence is against Tort reform and the second sentence is for Tort reform.
Not sure how you draw that conclusion. They both seem to be pro tort reform. Or at worst one is neutral and one is pro tort reform. Neither is against tort reform.
They're just numbers.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:03 pm to VOR
quote:
Disgusting, isn't it?
not as disgusting as doubling down on the flawed system by implementing the ACA
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:03 pm to VOR
quote:
What is all but impossible to calculate is the cost of providers ordering unnecessary tests, admitting patients unnecessarily, and doing other defensive medicine techniques to avoid the malpractice lawsuits. NC listed some references and cites to show it. Deny it all you want but it is significant - huge in fact!
I don't disagree. I would also point out the unnecessary part.
Which is due to fear of lawsuits. Not to mention the high cost of malpractice insurance, due to lawsuits. Which adds to the amount powerman used in his OP in a more significant way.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:04 pm to Bayou Sam
quote:
Didn't they do tort reform in TX and it didn't change much?
Correct
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:06 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
But you won't admit that the "unnecessary part" is because of risk aversion due to the fear of being sued.
In part yes, but perhaps that fear is overblown. We already have limitations on malpractice suits in most jurisdictions. In Louisiana, you have to first go through the medical review panel and, if you go to court, there is a pretty low cap on awards. Many if not most personal injury lawyers won't touch a med mal case.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:08 pm to VOR
quote:You are correct. The bigger problem is defensive medicine.
I don't have a problem with reasonable tort reform when it comes to medical malpractice, but the lawsuits aren't the big problem in healthcare costs that some people suggest.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:08 pm to Powerman
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:09 pm to Powerman
This thread is tossing up such a red herring.
I'd conservatively estimate that a third to a half of every dollar spent in hospitals is purely for arse covering purposes. No link because obviously there is no way to prove this. I just know it because I live it.
I'm not saying "tort reform" would fix it either. Several generations of physicians have been trained this way so it would take several more generations to be any different.
I'd conservatively estimate that a third to a half of every dollar spent in hospitals is purely for arse covering purposes. No link because obviously there is no way to prove this. I just know it because I live it.
I'm not saying "tort reform" would fix it either. Several generations of physicians have been trained this way so it would take several more generations to be any different.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:11 pm to Powerman
Good post, Powerman.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:17 pm to TigerRad
quote:I would agree with this. If "defensive medicine" becomes the standard of practice at a particular hospital or community, it takes years to change that mindset, regardless of how well tort reform laws are written. But, just because it takes years to change it is not good reason not to do it. It's like instituting a wellness or preventive medicine component to insurance plans. You might see some immediate benefit just in fewer lost work days, stopping smoking, improving eating habits, etc., but the real payoffs are years down the road. Again, benefits are way off but not a good reason not to do it.
I'm not saying "tort reform" would fix it either. Several generations of physicians have been trained this way so it would take several more generations to be any different.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:17 pm to VOR
quote:
We already have limitations on malpractice suits in most jurisdictions. In Louisiana, you have to first go through the medical review panel and, if you go to court, there is a pretty low cap on awards.
Irrelevant.
I guarantee you >half of all physicians don't even know the caps or limits in their state. It really doesn't matter. They will do EVERYTHING they can to cover the arse. Regardless. It's built in to the thought process of diagnosing disease and planning treatments. Automatic. (Especially the diagnosis part.)
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:20 pm to Diamondawg
Good post
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:22 pm to Powerman
quote:
But I've seen nothing to substantiate the claim that tort reform would "close the gap" a claim that you agreed with in the other thread.
Your OP admits that it closes the gap. I did not agree in the other thread that it would not close the gap. I said the exact opposite.
Apparently the word you meant to say was "eliminate" the gap. Tort reform would certainly 'close' the gap.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:24 pm to Powerman
quote:
Not sure how you draw that conclusion.
Because I can read. The first quote is bold faced with the low percentage. That's anti tort reform. The second is obviously for tort reform in an OP in which you oppose tort reform. You're getting very random.
Posted on 2/2/14 at 12:28 pm to TigerRad
quote:
I'd conservatively estimate that a third to a half of every dollar spent in hospitals is purely for arse covering purposes. No link because obviously there is no way to prove this. I just know it because I live it.
Well, that's anecdotal but it's true. Not in terms of your dollar percentage because we don't know. But I posted here before about my recent minor surgery and I had to be interviewed and tested by a dozen specialists.
I asked my wife about it. She said "Redundancy. We have to protect ourselves against lawsuits."
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News