Reply With Quote
Not just Texas, anti-consumer tort reform as THE way to reduce health care costs has been conservative/libertarian holy writ for years.
Of course when it fails to produce what they've promised, it's because of other factors.
If there were no other substantial changes, what is there to report?
AFAIK, tort reform in Texas was indeed the measure par-excelence to attack the raising costs in healthcare on the state.
If you're telling me there were other factors (B or C) that offset whatever savings, then that would still point at tort reform really not making a dent, and thus really not being the holy grail some make it out to be ( o Cobra).
Not just Texas, anti-consumer tort reform as THE way to reduce health care costs has been conservative/libertarian holy writ for years.
Of course when it fails to produce what they've promised, it's because of other factors.
Have you read the report?
Umm....I'm not the droid you're looking for. I didnt float the unsupported OP. I have no burden of proof. *facepalm*
I do agree with the notion that tort reform is fairly insignificant in the overall scheme. Unfortunately, there's entirely too much crappy analysis being thrown around by either side of the issue. This piece appears to be no different.
To distill the article: Healthcare costs increased in Tx. ZOMG...must be due to tort reform.
Health care cost will continue to increase because health care just gets better and better. I'm currently dealing with an ankle issue (ruptured tendon on the inside of my ankle causing my arch to gradually collapse and my foot to roll out from under my leg) that really sucks. First step was an appointment to see the Doctors PA. The PA diagnoses and then sends me for an MRI. Then back to the doctor where we sit in front of a computer and look at my foot/ankle from a thousand different views/slices as he points out ed up tendons, ligaments, fluid, etc. They can measure exactly how far out of normal my foot is in three dimensions and design a orthopedic support for my leg/ankle that goes inside my shoes (new, thin, computer designed high tech plastics) to hopefully give the the burst tendons time to heal and pull my foot ankle back together. If that doesn't work I can still have surgery and do a tendon replacement (with a 9 month recovery time) Just 25 years ago they would have told me sorry, you're ed Festus, and sent me home with a walking cane.
tort reform is a conservative/Repug red herring, a total distraction from the real causes of care costs which are greedy docs, hospitals, insurers.
Conservatives are after tort reform as way attack trial/liability lawyers who are a real pain in the ass for the conservatives' UCA.
Bingo. Tort reform supporters oversold the benefits that would be realized and now tort reform opponents are trying to oversell the negative effects of having done it.
I agree. Don't forget: with supporters overselling the benefits realized as well, the AMA piece being a pretty explicit example of that.
Nope, I read your simplified premise.
One report vs all the forces supporting tort reform amounts to overselling?
The report offers some very pointed rebuttals to the claims of tort reformers.
Essentially the proponents insist on "other factors" when pressed on why their scheme isn't working as sold.
No mention of course of those other factors when they were selling the benefits of their magic bullet solution.
That's what happens when the industry gets to craft their own legislation. Consumers get screwed again.
The one report is most definitely overselling.
What the report doesn't offer is anything to back up the claim that tort reform increased healthcare costs.The report offers some very pointed rebuttals to the claims of tort reformers.
And now the authors of this report are not mentioning any other factors now that they're trying to sell the horrors of tort reform. Same coin, different side, neither side having much in the way of credibility.Essentially the proponents insist on "other factors" when pressed on why their scheme isn't working as sold.
No mention of course of those other factors when they were selling the benefits of their magic bullet solution.
So say you, but here's a link the actual report:
Health Care in Texas Has Worsened in Key Respects Since State Ins uted Liability Caps in 2003
The report makes an argument based on their interpretation/analysis of the data presented from numerous sources. It all appears to me to be properly cited and footnoted. You may disagree with their conclusions, but to try represent the report as having not done "anything" to back up their claims is absurd and childishly argumentative.
You haven't produced anything to back up these other factors that you claim to be so vital. The article which discusses the report does get to some responses by tort reform lobbyists. Based on the article, there appears to be a discussion underway, which is rather the way I suppose our system is supposed to work. Challenging the claims of government is a worthwhile effort I rather think.
The report offers a challenge from a consumer-advocacy perspective to the Government's central claim that tort reform will drive down costs. Holding the government accountable with a data-derived advocacy piece hardly seems to rate "selling the horrors of tort reform."
You haven't done anything to refute the report other than to misrepresent it and to cast aspersions on it's intentions.
Except he didn't. All he did was point out that the conclusion you jumped to is not supported by the linked source. That is true. All the paper shows is a correlation b/w tort reform and higher health care costs. Not causation.
CG cast aspersions on the fallacious conclusion expressed in your thread le, and justly.
"health care just gets better and better"
health care costs increase "BECAUSE THEY CAN RAISE THE PRICE" since they know most people will pay to get fixed. but ...
National Health Care Scorecard: United States Scores 64 out of 100
The U.S. health care system scored 64 out of 100 on key measures of performance, according to the third national scorecard report from the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System, released October 18. The scorecard finds that -- despite pockets of improvement -- the U.S as a whole failed to improve when compared to best performers in this country, and among other nations. The report also finds significant erosion in access to care and affordability of care, as health care costs rose far faster than family incomes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...cience+News%29
Obesity Drags on the Economy
“Full-time workers in the U.S. who are overweight or obese and have other chronic health conditions miss an estimated 450 million additional days of work each year compared with healthy workers — resulting in an estimated cost of more than $153 billion in lost productivity annually.”
The obesity epidemic raises health care costs, which get passed along to insurance companies and the families of the obese. The loss of productivity pressures corporate profit margins, which are already pressed by a weak economy. Obesity is one of the few things damaging the economy that could be changed.
The obese are not expected to carry their own weight in terms of what they pay for insurance. They cost the system more, so they should pay more into insurance pools.
http://247wallst.com/2011/10/17/obes...#ixzz1bEeTaUai
The thread le oversells the fallacy over every single post, yet you actually deigned to sit in judgment of the fairness and maturity of others.
Good show, profe!
nothing lacking for brazenness & disdainful hauteur
got some brass bits there
the key point is that tort reform won't solve national sick-care costs, as tort-reformed-TX's relentless rising sick-care bill proves beyond any doubt.
But proof and facts won't stop the conservative tort reform liars.
What a crock pot full of criminal if not extraordinarily unethical acts.
The only good Republican is a dead Republican.
Lol...nobody in this thread is claiming tort reform will solve the cost problem. Don Quixote and all that....
Switch to decaff, bro.
He's one of the few I still have on IGNORE.
Tort reform is a favorite, hyped Repug/conservative bogus issue, just like voter fraud. They claim tort reform is extremely important and keep it alive in health care politics. GFYLol...nobody in this thread is claiming tort reform will solve the cost problem. Don Quixote and all that....
Actually, the report makes an argument that tort reform has increased Health care costs, especially with regard to who benefits and who loses in the equation, and that is reflected in my le for this post. You may disagree with the conclusion of the report, but I have not misrepresented the gist of the report or come to any conclusions in the le of the post that the report does not argue.
In reference to the bolded passage above:Health care in Texas has become more expensive and less accessible since the state’s malpractice caps took effect.
The beneficiaries of the new system are the doctors who escape accountability for their errors and the liability insurance companies that reap a windfall of inflated premiums.
Regular Texans are the losers. They include not only the victims of medical malpractice who are deprived of the chance to recover damages but also the taxpayers who must foot the bill for the future medical costs of seriously injured patients. (And what's the cause of this cost burden being shifted onto taxpayers?)
The state’s largest provider of medical liability insurance advertises that doctors’ premiums (including rebates) were 50.5 percent lower in 2010 than in 2003. But the malpractice payments that insurance companies are required to make have fallen far faster. This suggests that insurance companies have reaped a windfall from the liability caps because the amount they pay out has decreased considerably more rapidly than the amount they take in.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions