FAIL!

Your argument is that a room full of Ambulance Chasers earnestly state in a very earnest way that Ambulance Chasing has virtually nothing to do with healthcare costs. They are so earnest in fact, that even someone 'skeptical' as you might otherwise be swayed by such sincere earnestness.
Great!

You (and they) tend to quote studies offered by lawyers, and legal friendly organizations as supportive of minimal impact of tort. Yet while you're happy to criticize US Healthcare costs as >2-fold other countries like Britain, you ignore the fact that per capita direct costs of US HC Tort exceeds Britain's 60-fold. Average UK settlement is 1/10th that of the US, and Brits are 6X less likely to sue. So while 2X is terrible, you'd have it that 60X is not. And as eye opening as the 60-fold difference is, it ignores ignore the much, MUCH LARGER dynamic costs of tort.

Not clear as to WTF dynamic costs of tort references?

Let's consider some examples:

Take a wild guess why the US is the only country in the world in which CAT Scans are routinely obtained prior to appendectomy.

Take a guess as to why US C-Section rates are 300% - 600% higher than international recs.

The costs of just those two medical examples (even without incorporating any direct medical lawsuit costs) outstrip the entire all-encompassing tort impact claimed by virtually any legally funded/research/study/propaganda out there.

Of course, those examples are but a scratch of the service.
As we are talking about the same US medical tort industry which falsely sued the US silicon breast implant manufactures into insolvency, would you like to address the impact of tort on cost of other implants . . . like the hip implant prosthetics you earlier alluded to? Or on medical equipment? Or on pharmaceuticals?

Little impact, if at all, correct?
At least that's what your room full of personal injury lawyers would claim.

This post was edited on 4/5/14 at 6:48 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by RCDfan1950

United States

Member since Feb 2007

35181 posts

Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:41 am to NC_Tigah

quote:
quote:I am not a tort lawyerduckquote:i've already said that medmal isn't that big an issue to medodgequote:I recognize the reality that (while it's a factor)weavequote:it's not the main driver for the rising healthcare costs in this countrystumblequote:So I'm not dodging anything herefallquote:I'm happy conceding smaller issues to youFAIL! Your argument is that a room full of Ambulance Chasers earnestly state in a very earnest way that Ambulance Chasing has virtually nothing to do with healthcare costs. They are so earnest in fact, that even someone 'skeptical' as you might otherwise be swayed by such sincere earnestness. Great! You (and they) tend to quote studies offered by lawyers, and legal friendly organizations as supportive of minimal impact of tort. Yet while you're happy to criticize US Healthcare costs as >2-fold other countries like Britain, you ignore the fact that per capita direct costs of US HC Tort exceeds Britain's 60-fold. Average UK settlement is 1/10th that of the US, and Brits are 6X less likely to sue. So while 2X is terrible, you'd have it that 60X is not. And as eye opening as the 60-fold difference is, it ignores ignore the much, MUCH LARGER dynamic costs of tort. Not clear as to WTF dynamic costs of tort references? Let's consider some examples: Take a wild guess why the US is the only country in the world in which CAT Scans are routinely obtained prior to appendectomy. Take a guess as to why US C-Section rates are 300% - 600% higher than international recs. The costs of just those two medical examples (even without incorporating any direct medical lawsuit costs) outstrip the entire all-encompassing tort impact claimed by virtually any legally funded/research/study/propaganda out there. Of course, those examples are but a scratch of the service. As we are talking about the same US medical tort industry which falsely sued the US silicon breast implant manufactures into insolvency, would you like to address the impact of tort on cost of other implants . . . like the hip implant prosthetics you earlier alluded to? Or on medical equipment? Or on pharmaceuticals? Little impact, if at all, correct? At least that's what your room full of personal injury lawyers would claim.

Triangle choke = TAPOUT!