The Extremeskins health care town hall.

[The 12th Commandment]

maybe that "help" should be reserved for those who actually need it?

Agreed, I thought I said as much. My point was, however long it takes the administrator of the plan, or another agency if it's their obligation, to figure out who specifically is "stealing" these services, the person who does have a legitimate (who are far more numerous) claim must wait until that happens to get service.

That's about as awkward a sentence as I think I ever came up with!

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Another question:

What is a "ridiculous" award for medical malpractice? What factors do you take into account in coming to a determination as to what should be awarded?

[The 12th Commandment]

I looked into malpractice and standard of proof of the lawyers I talked to was very, very high. They didn't want to have to do any work at all. If it wasn't on a golden platter they weren't interested.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I looked into malpractice and standard of proof of the lawyers I talked to was very, very high. They didn't want to have to do any work at all. If it wasn't on a golden platter they weren't interested.

Because 1) they are expensive; and 2) like this forum, 90% of people are predisposed to think they are frivolous... which makes a jury a tough forum for plaintiffs.

[panel]

Another question:

What is a "ridiculous" award for medical malpractice? What factors do you take into account in coming to a determination as to what should be awarded?

Well, when the total cost to lawsuits adds up to $200 Billion to the system, I would say that is "ridiculous".

But it is not just the costs, if a drug is under litigation, a doctor may avoid prescribing it if if he/she thinks it would be beneficial. I think the attitude needs to change, there needs to be some responsibility on the patient to find doctors that they trust to do good work.

If I buy a cheap ladder, and it breaks while I am cleaning my gutters, I shouldn't think, "I'll sue that ladder company" I should think, "I should have made sure that the ladder I was buying was a quality ladder and should have been better prepared for the risks of using a ladder".

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, when the total cost to lawsuits adds up to $200 Billion to the system, I would say that is "ridiculous".

But it is not just the costs, if a drug is under litigation, a doctor may avoid prescribing it if if he/she thinks it would be beneficial. I think the attitude needs to change, there needs to be some responsibility on the patient to find doctors that they trust to do good work.

If I buy a cheap ladder, and it breaks while I am cleaning my gutters, I shouldn't think, "I'll sue that ladder company" I should think, "I should have made sure that the ladder I was buying was a quality ladder and should have been better prepared for the risks of using a ladder".

Where are you getting 200 billion? I have a hard time believing that reflects medical malpractice payouts in any shape or form. But that doesn't get to the point... what is ridiculous on a case by case basis?

If a drug is under litigation, it has nothing to do with malpratice costs. That has asbolutely nothing to do with health insurance cost, which is what people say is affected by malpractice claims. As a side note, if a drug is under litigation because its injuring people, its probably a good thing doctors don't prescribe it.

As an aside, check this out:

"A federal judge in Arkansas granted public access today to evidence that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals "ghostwrote" medical articles regarding its hormone therapy drug Prempro, which a national study has shown increase a woman's risk of stroke, heart attack, blood clots, cardiovascular disease, and cancer."

http://www.tlpj.org/Newsroom/News/federal-judge-unseals.aspx

If you read the article, pharmaceutical companies were paying "experts" to write articles saying their product was not dangerous, so that they could then offer those articles as evidence of their innocence.

[panel]

Where are you getting 200 billion? I have a hard time believing that reflects medical malpractice payouts in any shape or form

http://headaches.about.com/cs/advocacy/a/lamus_cala.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=4152

I doesn't represent just payouts, but any costs that were thought to be associated with dealing with lawsuits.

If a drug is under litigation, it has nothing to do with malpractice costs. That has absolutely nothing to do with health insurance cost, which is what people say is affected by malpractice claims.

It could, if a doctor prescribes a drug under litigation, he/she opens themselves up to trouble if the patient gets sick and blames the doctor for prescribing a drug that they knew was under litigation. Even if it is unrelated, a lawyer could bring up the fact that they prescribed a drug that was under litigation to make the doctor appear incompetent to the court.

[Prosperity]

two words:

death panels

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It could, if a doctor prescribes a drug under litigation, he/she opens themselves up to trouble if the patient gets sick and blames the doctor for prescribing a drug that they knew was under litigation. Even if it is unrelated, a lawyer could bring up the fact that they prescribed a drug that was under litigation to make the doctor appear incompetent to the court.

That's absolutely ridiculous and I've never even heard of a lawsuit like that.

[Major Harris]

[Major Harris]

[Toe Jam]

Politicians need to get together on this and stop with all the partisan nonsense. Democrats need to stop saying "we're the majority, we'll put whatever we want in this bill" and Republicans need to stop yelling "no". Health insurance companies are really mucking this thing up with their fabricated masses at these town hall meetings. Yeah, I said it. This is getting too far out of hand. It's making me sick to the stomach.

[SnyderShrugged]

Politicians need to get together on this and stop with all the partisan nonsense. Democrats need to stop saying "we're the majority, we'll put whatever we want in this bill" and Republicans need to stop yelling "no". Health insurance companies are really mucking this thing up with their fabricated masses at these town hall meetings. Yeah, I said it. This is getting too far out of hand. It's making me sick to the stomach.

:doh:There are no Health insurance sponsored fabricated masses at these town halls.

I've asked others many times to prove it, but strangeky, no one ever can.

Stop listening to those who have made up that nonsense, its simply not true.

[IHOPSkins]

It is an easy deflection for those who want to stifle debate. People hate the government, but they hate insurance companies more...........

Wrong (if Hate = Fear)

When it comes to health care decisions, 51% of the nation’s voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% hold the opposite view and fear the insurance companies more

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/on_health_care_51_fear_government_more_than_insurance_companies

[IHOPSkins]

Some facts:.....

Here are some more from another thread

Over the years, Wheeler has watched every one of the female' physicians she started with at Millcreek Women's Center quit delivering babies. Their reasons, of course, varied, but were widely attributed to long hours, rising overhead costs and the ever-present threat of being sued.

http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-utah/171510-1.html

Confronting the New Health Care Crisis:

Improving Health Care Quality and Lowering Costs By Fixing Our Medical Liability System

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

July 25, 2002

Americans spend proportionately far more per person on the costs of litigation than any other country in the world. The excesses of the litigation system are an important contributor to "defensive medicine"--the costly use of medical treatments by a doctor for the purpose of avoiding litigation.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/litrefm.htm

An October 2005 report from the Manhattan Institute shows the efforts of trial lawyers to target health care providers for profit are raising U.S. health care costs.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/18270/Litigation_Raising_Health_Care_Costs_Study_Says.html

Ron Paul...

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors – especially obstetricians – out of business.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

New England Journal of Medicine.......

There are at least three reasons why government champions of health care reform might consider bundling medical liability reform in the same package. First, one piece of conventional wisdom that is shared by those on both sides of the political aisle is that "defensive medicine" spurred by concern about malpractice liability is a substantial driver of the escalation of health care costs. These costs are notoriously difficult to estimate, and analysts disagree about the magnitude of their contribution to overall health expenditures.2 But trimming even 1% of total health care spending would save around $22 billion per year — not a trivial amount, particularly in lean times.

Second, health care reformers understand that they will have to garner physician support for an omnibus bill that will no doubt create a more stringent financial environment for health care providers. Expansions of public insurance programs, including models generating stiffer market competition between public and private health plans, will entail changes in the payer mix that are unfavorable for providers and exert continued downward pressure on reimbursement rates. What can reformers offer physicians as a quid pro quo? The answer is malpractice reform. Most physicians find the litigation system unfair, financially and psychologically burdensome, and unhelpful in promoting safety and quality. They would welcome relief of some sort.

Third, bundling tort and health care reform may help to attract support from congressional Republicans for a health care reform package. Many key Republicans agree with physicians about the problems with the tort system and have worked hard in the past to develop proposals for medical liability reform. A bundling strategy would offer them the chance to advance their agenda in exchange for helping the President achieve his vision of bipartisan health care reform legislation.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0903765

Notice the Term DEFENSIVE MEDICINE

It means that tests and medications are given JUST TO AVOID LITIGATION

This doesn't show up as Malpractice.....It shows up as INCREASED MEDICAL COSTS

If the Dems want to be taken seriously...they should talk about some sort of tort reform

[AsburySkinsFan]

:doh:There are no Health insurance sponsored fabricated masses at these town halls.

I've asked others many times to prove it, but strangeky, no one ever can.

Stop listening to those who have made up that nonsense, its simply not true.

Maybe not health insurance sponsored but most certainly special interest sponsored. Heck the people at the Florida one that got out of control said as much. Plus someone yesterday posted a flyer that had instructions on where to sit and what to do; including being disruptive early and often, and shouting down the Congressperson and rattling them early in the meeting, and not engaging in actual debate. Honestly that crap makes me sick, if people are against it then think of better ideas, we do not operate on "he who is the loudest is the rightest."

[SnyderShrugged]

Maybe not health insurance sponsored but most certainly special interest sponsored. Heck the people at the Florida one that got out of control said as much. Plus someone yesterday posted a flyer that had instructions on where to sit and what to do; including being disruptive early and often, and shouting down the Congressperson and rattling them early in the meeting, and not engaging in actual debate. Honestly that crap makes me sick, if people are against it then think of better ideas, we do not operate on "he who is the loudest is the rightest."

I fully support their right, as a group who feels shut out of the discussion, to voice their concerns.

I have no doubt that groups are organizing, but these are groups of real grassroots people who are fed up with what they see happenning.

Those groups are not sponsored by health insurance companies.

[Titaw]

There is no point to get into a discussion on anything political, especially health care on a message board. No one will ever change their mind, thus it is pointless.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Here are some more from another thread

Notice the Term DEFENSIVE MEDICINE

It means that tests and medications are given JUST TO AVOID LITIGATION

This doesn't show up as Malpractice.....It shows up as INCREASED MEDICAL COSTS

If the Dems want to be taken seriously...they should talk about some sort of tort reform

I know exactly what defensive medicine is. No one can put a number on it though because its basically an amorphous idea. What about all the times people order a test "defensively" or "just to be sure they don't get sued," and then they find something they didn't see at first?

No one has been able to quantify the cost of defensive medicine. Its another red herring.

Many of you are ready to give up your right to be heard by a jury of your peers because of the fear mongering of big pharm and big medicine. These are boogie men. We've had tort reform for 25 years already. Costs continue to rise. Tort reform is not the answer to lowering health care costs in this country.

Also, most of those "facts" that you cited were not facts at all but anecdotal stories.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I fully support their right, as a group who feels shut out of the discussion, to voice their concerns and shouting down the voices of those who agree with the Health Care Reform.

Fixed it for you.

This is what's going on, I fully affirm their right to voice their opposition, but not in the way they are doing so.

[The Sisko]

I wonder if anyone can tell me what "jackpot awards" have been given out lately.

I don't mean to be snarky about this. As a medical malpractice attorney who actually works in this field everyday, I know that tort reform is seen as a cure-all for the health insurance industry. I know what types of awards are given out by juries (which are comprised of all of you citizens, including the 90% of you or so that think medical malpractice awards are outrageous). But, I think people are largely misinformed on this issue. And I'm curious if anyone can tell me what types of awards are being given out for medical malpractice claims.

Agreed. Tort reform is one of the usual distractors that the special interest that oppose reform throw out there. In fact, Atul Gawande pretty much exploded that myth in his artcle about why healthcare costs are soaring.

Gawande discusses many of the reasons costs/quality vary so much in different areas. And the highest cost area he uses as an example? It's in Texas which passed tort reform many years ago.

Sadly, I can't believe anyone ever fell for this ruse. It's fairly obvious that malpractice insurance companies would raise premiums if they incur higher costs due to more/higher malpractice awards. However, who actually thought they'd then lower premiums if/when those costs went away rather than just pocketing the excess $$$ as profit? Duh.

[JMS]

:doh:There are no Health insurance sponsored fabricated masses at these town halls.

I've asked others many times to prove it, but strangeky, no one ever can.

Stop listening to those who have made up that nonsense, its simply not true.

You mean you ignore it when ever it's pointed out to you. The healthcare companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat Hillary back in the 90's. You think they're above fuzing up some protestors?

Even if they aren't hiring some these folks outright, they certainly are recruiting them, giving them talking points, strategies to rattle the congressmen, and publisizing the actions...

The insurance companeis are actively spreading FUD and scaring folks about healthcare reform.

[SnyderShrugged]

You mean you ignore it when ever it's pointed out to you. The healthcare companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat Hillary back in the 90's. You think they're above fuzing up some protestors?

Even if they aren't hiring some these folks outright, they certainly are recruiting them, giving them talking points, strategies to rattle the congressmen, and publisizing the actions...

The insurance companeis are actively spreading FUD and scaring folks about healthcare reform.

again, please provide the evidence that the folks at the town halls are somehow sponsored by the helath insurance companies.

If its so obvious a fact, I shouldnt have had to ask this many times.

Put up or shut up.

[Peeping Wizard]

Tort reform was first implemented in the 1980's. As a result, medical malpractice premiums and payments to injured victims has declined severely. However, health insurance costs have continued to sky rocket.

Tort reform is done at the state level. The states who have passed tort reform have lower insurance premiums. While tort reform is not the sole answer to the problem, it is/can be a major contributor. Our society is litigious to the point of insanity.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Tort reform is done at the state level. The states who have passed tort reform have lower insurance premiums. While tort reform is not the sole answer to the problem, it is/can be a major contributor. Our society is litigious to the point of insanity.

How many states have passed it? Has health care costs in those states declined?

"Litigious to the point of insanity." Really?