Perry: Tort reform must be part of health care reform

[SnakeBoy]

Well according to their own data, the number of litigations and disciplinary actions has increased quite a bit.

So has their staff and so has the population. Like I said, easy to spin the numbers.

It's not defensive medicine anymore with tort reform, yet it is still being done. Testing is a cash cow.

First part doesn't even make sense in response to what I've said. Second part is not true. Most of the testing is not done in house and the docs aren't making a dime on it so there isn't any financial reason for them to do it. No physicians that I know of are doing PSA tests in house, they aren't making money on them, and it's a completely unreliable test. So why do they do them? To cover their ass.

[ChumpDumper]

So has their staff and so has the population. Like I said, easy to spin the numbers.

Is it a 1:1 ratio?

First part doesn't even make sense in response to what I've said. Second part is not true. Most of the testing is not done in house and the docs aren't making a dime on it so there isn't any financial reason for them to do it. No physicians that I know of are doing PSA tests in house, they aren't making money on them, and it's a completely unreliable test. So why do they do them? To cover their ass.

But there is no reason to ass cover anymore. And don't think there is absolutely no possible financial motive for doctors. That's simply naive.

[DarrinS]

But there is no reason to ass cover anymore. And don't think there is absolutely no possible financial motive for doctors. That's simply naive.

Doctors are greedy a-holes.

[ChumpDumper]

Doctors are greedy a-holes.

Some most certainly are. Others are not.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did insurance become more affordable in Texas after tort reform was passed? That's the question.

[SpurNation]

Did insurance become more affordable in Texas after tort reform was passed? That's the question.

Good question.

[ChumpDumper]

Did insurance become more affordable in Texas after tort reform was passed? That's the question.

Texas families saw their health insurance premiums soar 40 percent in five years — 10 times faster than their incomes increased, according to a report being released today by a national foundation that promotes health care improvement.

Nationally, Texas ranked third — behind Oklahoma and Idaho — in premium increases from 2001 to 2005, according to the report on employer-offered insurance by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, N.J.

At the same time, Texas ranked No. 1 in the percentage of residents without insurance. In 2005-06, that figure was 27 percent. The state had 5.5 million of the nation's 47 million uninsured people.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/shared/...urance_FN.html

I'm going to say no.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Texas families saw their health insurance premiums soar 40 percent in five years — 10 times faster than their incomes increased, according to a report being released today by a national foundation that promotes health care improvement.

Nationally, Texas ranked third — behind Oklahoma and Idaho — in premium increases from 2001 to 2005, according to the report on employer-offered insurance by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, N.J.

At the same time, Texas ranked No. 1 in the percentage of residents without insurance. In 2005-06, that figure was 27 percent. The state had 5.5 million of the nation's 47 million uninsured people.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/shared/...urance_FN.html

I'm going to say no.

We're #1! We're #1

[George Gervin's Afro]

Didn't Wild Cobra mention he could connect the dots?

[boutons_deux]

A disadvantage is the with state court rewards capped at $250K, lawyers' slice is too low for them to risk their time.

And trying to get into federal court is even more expensive.

So many have the court room door slammed in their faces.

"Everybody gets their day in court" .... if you can afford it. Like anything else in USA, the legal system is for sale.

[SonOfAGun]

Are you saying a welfare check will not be enough for me to enjoy this country's legal system?

I guess I better find work.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

plainly put, it is physics applied to medicine, especially in the areas of medical imaging and radiotherapy. you will see mp's working is dosimetry or in programming algorithms for PET (positron emission topography) scans, MRIs and CTs. they can also train radiology techs, they monitor radiation exposure for health care providers as well as patients and may work with radiologists, oncologists and radiation therapists. i myself work with radiology picture, archiving and collection (PAC) systems. i did my graduate work at UT health science center and got certified in imaging informatics at the veterbi school of engineering at USC (it is an oline program by the way and is under the school of biomedical engineering). you probably have taken at least up to quantum physics and diff eq as well as some c++ classes so you can easily qualify for admission into a program.

sounds very cool. everything but the quantum mechanics. ive read some oppenheimer and feynman but never anything formal. QED just looks like a big pain in the ass.

regardless thanks for the response.

[Nbadan]

...big surprise Perry doing the bidding of his corporate overlords, what a joke...i'm no fan of Hutch but Perrys got to go...

[rjv]

I can likely guess which hospitals...

yes sir. we will just keep mum on that one as it should be obvious to most.

[rjv]

QED is really overstated in a lot of curriculum. QED often took years if not decades to produce for a lot of Quantum physics, which course often make you replicate in a few minutes. Most people just memorize the proof algorithms, which I highly recommend. Quantum physics is statistical without certainty (even though it attempts to quantize solutions), an analogy I like to use is: quantum physics is as to precise physics as therapy is as to a cure. Essentially, what it is is just a way to get things going and make money. I wouldn't take it as point of stoppage.

not literally, of course, but i've always joked that quantum mechanics is the point at which physics becomes mystical (or at least downright philosophical). it's a lot like hollinger's NBA analysis.

[TeyshaBlue]

not literally, of course, but i've always joked that quantum mechanics is the point at which physics becomes mystical (or at least downright philosophical). it's a lot like hollinger's NBA analysis.

Hollinger wishes.
At least the study of quantum mechanics makes some sense.

[rjv]

Hollinger wishes.
At least the study of quantum mechanics makes some sense.

touche'.

[FromWayDowntown]

A disadvantage is the with state court rewards capped at $250K, lawyers' slice is too low for them to risk their time.

Someone asked a few pages ago about the disadvantages of tort reform in the medical context, and I think this is probably the biggest one. A significant majority of those who would be plaintiffs in medical malpractice claims lack the money needed to fund that litigation. So, if they're going to sue, they depend on lawyers who take those cases on a contingency fee basis and foot the bill for the expenses of litigation -- which are substantial in a med mal context, if only because med mal requires expert witnesses, who are necessarily doctors, who don't offer expert opinions on the cheap.

Economically, no sane attorney is going to take on the representation in a med mal case unless relatively likely to get back the funds put into undertaking the representation (that concern is certainly not unique to lawyers; most professionals don't just work for free). That means that people with real claims, but not real big claims, are obligated to either fund very expensive litigation or simply let even valid claims go. Certainly, the tort reform net weeds out some frivolous claims -- though I know that it doesn't completely accomplish that result -- but it absolutely weeds out the legitimate claims that have small dollar values.

[LnGrrrR]

Someone asked a few pages ago about the disadvantages of tort reform in the medical context, and I think this is probably the biggest one. A significant majority of those who would be plaintiffs in medical malpractice claims lack the money needed to fund that litigation. So, if they're going to sue, they depend on lawyers who take those cases on a contingency fee basis and foot the bill for the expenses of litigation -- which are substantial in a med mal context, if only because med mal requires expert witnesses, who are necessarily doctors, who don't offer expert opinions on the cheap.

Economically, no sane attorney is going to take on the representation in a med mal case unless relatively likely to get back the funds put into undertaking the representation (that concern is certainly not unique to lawyers; most professionals don't just work for free). That means that people with real claims, but not real big claims, are obligated to either fund very expensive litigation or simply let even valid claims go. Certainly, the tort reform net weeds out some frivolous claims -- though I know that it doesn't completely accomplish that result -- but it absolutely weeds out the legitimate claims that have small dollar values.

So, if I'm reading you right, are you positing that if claims go down, it is most liekly not due to the efficacy of the reform in eliminating, but merely that poorer people were unable to attain lawyers to sue? Do you believe that the frivolous claims eliminated aren't worth the weight of the people who can't afford to sue but have a non-frivolous claim?

[jman3000]

I think that certain limits need to be set in certain situations... perhaps an investigative unit designed to check the validity of lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits aren't as major as people would have you believe, although they are large enough to the point that something should be done.

If some stupid sues a doctor for 5 million for giving her a pill she didn't know she was allergic to and she breaks out in hives for a week... that should be thrown out or perhaps give her 500 bucks or something meager along those lines.

On the other hand, if a doctor leaves his Rolex in some dudes stomach and causes him to get an infection and nearly lose his life... that asshole should get ass raped financially.

Maybe something along the lines of misdemeanors and felonys. Depending on the amount of damage/pain caused there should be certain guidelines that limit the amount of compensation somebody gets. Since pain is such a relative term it could run into problems, but it.

I don't think blanket caps on everything is smart or fair.

[FromWayDowntown]

So, if I'm reading you right, are you positing that if claims go down, it is most liekly not due to the efficacy of the reform in eliminating, but merely that poorer people were unable to attain lawyers to sue? Do you believe that the frivolous claims eliminated aren't worth the weight of the people who can't afford to sue but have a non-frivolous claim?

I'm saying that the effort to eliminate frivolous claims also has a strong tendency to insulate the medical profession from smaller suits that have been rendered economically disadvantageous for people who are actually injured.

I'm also saying that the effort to eradicate frivolous claims has succeeded, but only to an extent. There are still frivolous med mal suits being filed in Texas, even as the overall number of med mal suits in this state has fallen.