Does insurance make health care more expensive?

[ElNono]

Also, let's not forget that trial lawyers have a honest and legitimate business too.

Why do you want to take their business away?
Why are you an authoritarian, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

Unless malpractice insurance can be shown to negatively impact the quality of care, why exactly is a putative "conservative" concerned about its cost?

I assume you mean me...

LOL... I actually had to look up putative. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary.

I would like to see the costs go down. I am no expert at what makes the health care system work, but I do know it is far costlier than it should be. I am not opposed to the profits the people make. If someone wished to form nonprofit clinics and hospitals, I say, more power to them. I simply do not like the way our system of justice has been twisted, and we need some serious tort reform. We have an overreaching government, that often with good intent, makes things worse. I simply want to see a more relaxed system, and litigation only when there is just cause for it. I honestly believe that these two things are the first things that must be done to keep a free market health care system, and reduce costs substantially.

Think about this. If the government turns around and effectively runs health care, will you be able to sue at all? Part of the reason single payer systems work, is because you cannot sue the government for health care. They remove those costs on the system.

[Wild Cobra]

Also, let's not forget that trial lawyers have a honest and legitimate business too.

Why do you want to take their business away?
Why are you an authoritarian, WC?

Wow...

Trivial for tat...

I draw the line on some activities. Some trial lawyers are good decent hard working people, and champion honorable causes. Most are s bags, not much better than pedophiles.

I have no respect for most trial lawyers. They are vultures looking for a kill.

[Marcus Bryant]

That's irrelevant to the discussion regarding insurance's role. Prices would likely fall, but still be in the zone where insurance was originally designed to function...as...ummm...insurance against catastrophic cir stances.

Yes. The primary problem is that health insurance is used to cover routine medical expenditures instead of the big ticket items.

Further, there are plenty of distortions in the health care industry wrought by governments in these United States, such as limits on the number of hospitals (which, of course, existing hospitals influence through the political process) and the exclusion of employer provided health care benefits form the income tax.

Naturally, the health care "reform" plan in the works today would simply double down on the existing flaws.

And naturally the major solutions before us are to increase the power of the state (and insurers) or the power of the insurers and providers.

I never thought I'd see alleged liberal Democrats push through a law which would mandate that working class and middle class families have to hand over a chunk of their income annually to Fortune 100 companies. But they are no longer the party's true cons uency. Just like the small business owner and professional class are no longer the true cons uency of the GOP.

[Marcus Bryant]

I assume you mean me...

LOL... I actually had to look up putative. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary.

I would like to see the costs go down. I am no expert at what makes the health care system work, but I do know it is far costlier than it should be. I am not opposed to the profits the people make. If someone wished to form nonprofit clinics and hospitals, I say, more power to them. I simply do not like the way our system of justice has been twisted, and we need some serious tort reform. We have an overreaching government, that often with good intent, makes things worse. I simply want to see a more relaxed system, and litigation only when there is just cause for it. I honestly believe that these two things are the first things that must be done to keep a free market health care system, and reduce costs substantially.

Think about this. If the government turns around and effectively runs health care, will you be able to sue at all? Part of the reason single payer systems work, is because you cannot sue the government for health care. They remove those costs on the system.

So instead of one flavor of fascism, you'd replace it with another.

[ElNono]

Yes. The primary problem is that health insurance is used to cover routine medical expenditures instead of the big ticket items.

Further, there are plenty of distortions in the health care industry wrought by governments in these United States, such as limits on the number of hospitals (which, of course, existing hospitals influence through the political process) and the exclusion of employer provided health care benefits form the income tax.

Naturally, the health care "reform" plan in the works today would simply double down on the existing flaws.

And naturally the major solutions before us are to increase the power of the state (and insurers) or the power of the insurers and providers.

I never thought I'd see alleged liberal Democrats push through a law which would mandate that working class and middle class families have to hand over a chunk of their income annually to Fortune 100 companies. But that is no longer the party's true cons uency. Just like the small business owner and professional class is no longer the true cons uency of the GOP.

Bingo

[ElNono]

Wow...

Trivial for tat...

I draw the line on some activities. Some trial lawyers are good decent hard working people, and champion honorable causes. Most are s bags, not much better than pedophiles.

I have no respect for most trial lawyers. They are vultures looking for a kill.

It's not trivial at all. You want to force a legitimate business practice to be legislated away, even when you say there's a portion of those people that are 'good decent hard working people, and champion honorable causes'.

Now, I don't like trial lawyers any more than you do. And I spoke about meaningful tort reform as part of a complete overhaul. In that aspect, I've been completely consistent.

But when you call somebody an authoritarian, the first thing you need to do is look at yourself in the mirror.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes. The primary problem is that health insurance is used to cover routine medical expenditures instead of the big ticket items.

Further, there are plenty of distortions in the health care industry wrought by governments in these United States, such as limits on the number of hospitals (which, of course, existing hospitals influence through the political process) and the exclusion of employer provided health care benefits form the income tax.

Naturally, the health care "reform" plan in the works today would simply double down on the existing flaws.

And naturally the major solutions before us are to increase the power of the state (and insurers) or the power of the insurers and providers.

I never thought I'd see alleged liberal Democrats push through a law which would mandate that working class and middle class families have to hand over a chunk of their income annually to Fortune 100 companies. But that is no longer the party's true cons uency. Just like the small business owner and professional class is no longer the true cons uency of the GOP.

Bingo

Well, here is something we agree on.

I have stressed at times that the out of pocket costs once you have insurance is too cheap. this makes people repeately abuse the system for a runny nose, or cramps, etc. at times just to get an excuse not to show up for work. When a docor's vist=it only costs a $10 to $25 co-pay... How many people even think twice before making a visit that the doctor bills the insurance company $1000+ for?

[Marcus Bryant]

I know I'd want to be able to hire a s bag trial lawyer to go after an incompetent surgeon who ed up the life of myself or a loved one and would prefer that a bunch of re s didn't vote in some limits on the legal liability of incompetent surgeons and their insurers.

[ElNono]

I know I'd want to be able to hire a s bag trial lawyer to go after an incompetent surgeon who ed up the life of myself or a loved one and would prefer that a bunch of re s didn't vote in some limits on the legal liability of incompetent surgeons and their insurers.

I also would like you to be the beneficiary of most, if not all of the proceeds from said trial. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily the case these days.

[ElNono]

Well, here is something we agree on.

I have stressed at times that the out of pocket costs once you have insurance is too cheap. this makes people repeately abuse the system for a runny nose, or cramps, etc. at times just to get an excuse not to show up for work. When a docor's vist=it only costs a $10 to $25 co-pay... How many people even think twice before making a visit that the doctor bills the insurance company $1000+ for?

It's not people that abuse the system. When a doctor bills $1000 to the insurance company, then it's the doctor that's abusing the system. And the insurance is complicit in paying back 'just' $500 for something that costs $100 tops (doctor saw the patient for 5 mins and wrote a prescription for a antibiotic).

[Wild Cobra]

It's not people that abuse the system. When a doctor bills $1000 to the insurance company, then it's the doctor that's abusing the system. And the insurance is complicit in paying back 'just' $500 for something that costs $100 tops (doctor saw the patient for 5 mins and wrote a prescription for a antibiotic).

Well, if the doctor is one that has to pay the $300,000 annual insurance, then that 5 minute visit already starts at $30 bux or more just to pay the insurance. Now that 5 minute visit probaly takes at least 15 minutes of the doctors time for prepping, reviewing records, writing records, prescription... Now we are up to at least $90 just for the doctor's insurance payment. Then there is paying the staff, rent, utilities, wages to self, etc as well.

How do you expect to change any of these billing practices just by getting the government more involved?

[Wild Cobra]

I know I'd want to be able to hire a s bag trial lawyer to go after an incompetent surgeon who ed up the life of myself or a loved one and would prefer that a bunch of re s didn't vote in some limits on the legal liability of incompetent surgeons and their insurers.

well, that's where I disagree with the tort reform that Texas has. I have said this before, have your forgotten?

I am against frivolous lawsuits.

Any medical procedure can have risk, not the fault or the doctor or hospital involved. I would say that most things people sue for should have no merit.

When there is real malpractice, I say the sky is the limit for compensation!

[Marcus Bryant]

What makes a lawsuit "frivolous"?

[ElNono]

Well, if the doctor is one that has to pay the $300,000 annual insurance, then that 5 minute visit already starts at $30 bux or more just to pay the insurance. Now that 5 minute visit probaly takes at least 15 minutes of the doctors time for prepping, reviewing records, writing records, prescription... Now we are up to at least $90 just for the doctor's insurance payment. Then there is paying the staff, rent, utilities, wages to self, etc as well.

How do you expect to change any of these billing practices just by getting the government more involved?

Have you read the links I provided? Because you keep on spewing the same bull it doesn't make it true. It would be a good start if we dispell the myths you keep on resorting to and we can actually move to meaningful conversation.

I'm also going to ask you where did you get that $300,000 annual insurance price, and how do you break it down to a per-patient cost. Links please.

[boutons_deux]

"Once the OS was selected by IBM, game over"

, I knew you'd have it wrong. end of sub-thread

[Wild Cobra]

What makes a lawsuit "frivolous"?

I'm not going to attempt to define that here. It would be complicated.

[Duff McCartney]

As much as I would love to have universal health coverage, I don't even think you need to have that in order to drastically change the health care in this country.

Simply putting caps on the price of drugs and making it illegal for insurance companies to make a profit on basic care would be enough. It would lower the price of healthcare and insurance costs drastically!

http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending.

From a book by a law professor at UCONN.

Also, the United States should make preventative care a top priority. Helping prevent many of the illnesses would also drastically reduce the frequency of emergency room visits.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm not going to attempt to define that here. It would be complicated.

Surely it can't be that difficult.

[Wild Cobra]

Surely it can't be that difficult.

I spend too much time here as it is. I simply am not willing to take the time required. I have better uses for my time. I have made some simple outlines in the past, I will leave it as that. Even if I took the time to explain, reference, etc. Would you accept it? I see continuing such an endeavor a simple waste of time. please accept that.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you've laid it out in the past, surely a brief description would be at your command and fit within your cir scribed time allotted for participation in this forum.

[ElNono]

If you've laid it out in the past, surely a brief description would be at your command and fit within your cir scribed time allotted for participation in this forum.

He'll be more than glad to explain to you all that is wrong with global warming. You just have to ask...

[Duff McCartney]

I spend too much time here as it is. I simply am not willing to take the time required. I have better uses for my time. I have made some simple outlines in the past, I will leave it as that. Even if I took the time to explain, reference, etc. Would you accept it? I see continuing such an endeavor a simple waste of time. please accept that.

From the same article I linked to.

"But a new study, released in May, demolishes that possibility. Dr. David Studdert led a team of eight researchers from Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Harvard Risk Management Foundation* who examined 1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits. They found that more than 90 percent of the claims showed evidence of medical injury, which means they weren't frivolous. In 60 percent of these cases, the injury resulted from physician wrongdoing. In a quarter of the claims, the patient died.

When baseless medical malpractice suits were brought, the study further found, the courts efficiently threw them out. Only six of the cases in which the researchers couldn't detect injury received even token compensation. Of those in which an injury resulted from treatment, but evidence of error was uncertain, 145 out of 515 received compensation. Indeed, a bigger problem was that 236* cases were thrown out of court despite evidence of injury and error to patients by physicians."

[Winehole23]

If you've laid it out in the past, surely a brief description would be at your command and fit within your cir scribed time allotted for participation in this forum.

Pleaded exigency, but his complaint was lengthy.

[LnGrrrR]

It's really a Catch-22. Doctors are afraid of getting sued, so they run lots of expensive tests that aren't necessary. This drives up the price.

If they DON'T order all these tests, and something comes up, they face the possibility of being sued.

So then, the person only pays a small co-pay for a large amount of expensive tests, which get billed to the insurance co. They in turn raise rates... etc etc, until insurance is ridiculously expensive.

As bad as it sounds, I only see two ways of getting around the issue:

1) Making consumers face the real cost, and choose how much they wish to be tested - This seems a bit inhumane, as poor people might get screwed

2) Putting people on the government dole, but setting strict cost limits, or as idiots would call them, "death panels" - Extra cost for the taxpayer, but increases the chances that poor people could be given adequate tests to determine sickness