Health care has changed

[Nor_Cal_Angler]

Check out those numbers. A $27 million to $14 million advantage of Republican donations over Democrat donations since 2000.

Your use of the word "since" is inaccurate....sorry bud, but it is.

To have stated the Fact(s) correctly, you would have had to say..."IN" the year 2000, 27 million went to Repubs and 14 million went to Dems.

But your point, I assume was to be that "since" the year 2000, Repbulicans have had 54 million dollars more contrubuted to their party. (rounded off to the million)

And likewise to defend Hew equally...he, I would assume was refering to CURRENT contributions and there he is accurate that in the year 2009 Democrates have had the larger amount of contributions...

Typical, really it is...for the current pulse of the nation to want to look at the past...when it is more prudent to watch the HERE AND NOW!!!!!

NCA

[FoggMoore]

I am disappointed but not surprised of the effectiveness of the insurance and medical industries' campaign that tort reform is the panacea for increasing health care cost. For those of you who support that position, don't worry, in ten years it will probably be impractical to sue a health care provider.

In regard to medical malpractice cases, as of 2005, there were at least twenty-nine states that limited non-economic damages; numerous states that banned or limited punitive damages; numerous states that limited attorney fees; and numerous states that imposed significant procedural hurdles before a case can be filed. Since 2005, I imagine additional states have passed legislation limiting damages or imposing other procedural hurdles in malpractice cases. (I apologize, but after I counted the states limiting non-economic damages, I got tired.)

As a general rule med mal cases are very expensive to try and very difficult to win. Mal practice cases are very vigorously defended and health care providers enjoy a great advantage in this type of litigation. As a consequence and as a general rule, attorneys don't take med mal cases unless they think that the damages are substantial and that the deviation from the standard of care can be clearly proven. You generally can't get to trial in a malpractice case unless you first show by competent medical proof prior to trial that a deviation has occurred which has damaged your client.

Yes, I am certain that there are some "frivolous" cases filed, but probably not that many. They would be just too much trouble. However, there are many cases that are filed that are subsequently dismissed for numerous valid reasons. Suits are often filed to protect a statute of limitations. In a lot of states the statute of limitations is only a year. Suits are also filed to enable you to investigate your case. Since people won't talk to you without a subpoena, suits are filed so that depositions and other discovery can be taken to ascertain whether you have a case which merits investing a lot your own money in it. (People who have sustained serious damages very rarely can finance the expense of a malpractice suit.)

I find particularly interesting the claim that the practice of "defensive medicine" drives up health care costs. A recurring complaint of my doctor friends is having insurance clerks question the necessity of their orders for procedures or tests. I guess this just occurs in non-mal practice cases.

Insurance companies are who raise insurance premiums and they may do so for reasons that may entirely unrelated to mal practice costs or health care loss i.e. to diminish losses in other areas of coverage, to offset loss of investment income, etc.

For the proponents of tort refore, be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Lanier Fogg

[dnf777]

I am disappointed but not surprised of the effectiveness of the insurance and medical industries' campaign that tort reform is the panacea for increasing health care cost. For those of you who support that position, don't worry, in ten years it will probably be impractical to sue a health care provider.

In regard to medical malpractice cases, as of 2005, there were at least twenty-nine states that limited non-economic damages; numerous states that banned or limited punitive damages; numerous states that limited attorney fees; and numerous states that imposed significant procedural hurdles before a case can be filed. Since 2005, I imagine additional states have passed legislation limiting damages or imposing other procedural hurdles in malpractice cases. (I apologize, but after I counted the states limiting non-economic damages, I got tired.)

As a general rule med mal cases are very expensive to try and very difficult to win. Mal practice cases are very vigorously defended and health care providers enjoy a great advantage in this type of litigation. As a consequence and as a general rule, attorneys don't take med mal cases unless they think that the damages are substantial and that the deviation from the standard of care can be clearly proven. You generally can't get to trial in a malpractice case unless you first show by competent medical proof prior to trial that a deviation has occurred which has damaged your client.

Yes, I am certain that there are some "frivolous" cases filed, but probably not that many. They would be just too much trouble. However, there are many cases that are filed that are subsequently dismissed for numerous valid reasons. Suits are often filed to protect a statute of limitations. In a lot of states the statute of limitations is only a year. Suits are also filed to enable you to investigate your case. Since people won't talk to you without a subpoena, suits are filed so that depositions and other discovery can be taken to ascertain whether you have a case which merits investing a lot your own money in it. (People who have sustained serious damages very rarely can finance the expense of a malpractice suit.)

I find particularly interesting the claim that the practice of "defensive medicine" drives up health care costs. A recurring complaint of my doctor friends is having insurance clerks question the necessity of their orders for procedures or tests. I guess this just occurs in non-mal practice cases.

Insurance companies are who raise insurance premiums and they may do so for reasons that may entirely unrelated to mal practice costs or health care loss i.e. to diminish losses in other areas of coverage, to offset loss of investment income, etc.

For the proponents of tort refore, be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Lanier Fogg

Good lawyers, like good doctors, realize when they've made a mistake. Good lawyers don't even take the "mistake" frivilous cases, only the ones where true damage occured. Let me point out, not all bad outcomes and damage are results of "malpractice". Our system has its own risk management, legal team, and when there is truly harm done, whether malpractice or not, our system offers settlements to patients that they actually get in their hands when they need it....not 10 years later after money-grubbing ambulance chasers leave them with only 28 cents on the dollar!

It is the all too numerous dime-a-dozen ambulance-chasers who clog our courts with junk cases, that cost $50,000 on average to defend. In Pennsylvania, over 90% of cases that go to a jury are found in favor of the Doctor! Tell me, would you continue to license and support a medical practice who was WRONG over 90% of the time???

Maybe we need a much smaller cadre of legitimate lawyers for when they are truly needed, and scrap the other 90% who do nothing but make false promises, and drive up health care costs for all Americans.

No, tort-reform is not a panacea, but it's one helluva big mess that needs fixed!

As for the cost of defensive medicine, see posts #6 and #16.

[Hew]

No, tort-reform is not a panacea, but it's one helluva big mess that needs fixed!

Exactamundo.

[Hew]

Check out those numbers. A $27 million to $14 million advantage of Republican donations over Democrat donations since 2000.

You can go back to 2006 or 1946 and it doesn't matter. Health care reform is being debated now. And in this election cycle the Dems are raking in more money than the GOP from lawyers, pharms and insurance companies.

[dnf777]

You can go back to 2006 or 1946 and it doesn't matter. Health care reform is being debated now. And in this election cycle the Dems are raking in more money than the GOP from lawyers, pharms and insurance companies.

Well of course. With dems controlling both houses of congress and the white house, it wouldn't make much sense to throw good money at a super-minority party. Who's gonna effect change?? It ain't the republicans right now.

The dollar comparisons are more valid when there's a balance of power. Then you can gauge who's most susceptible to lobbyist influence. (and that's just accounting for the dollars we actually see, not counting the rest)

[Hew]

Well of course. With dems controlling both houses of congress and the white house, it wouldn't make much sense to throw good money at a super-minority party. Who's gonna effect change?? It ain't the republicans right now.

Captain Obvious to the rescue! j/k

Yeah, I know all that. I was just pointing out that Yardley's moral equivilency from before (to paraphrase: "Yes, I know you're talking about tort reform at the moment but I can't help myself and must interject that the Republicans are more corrupt on a different issue so therefore it's jim dandy that the Democrats are in the trial lawyers' pockets.") was unfounded.

[road kill]

Every where that has gone to nationalized health care laments it's failure.

What makes all you progressive liberals think it will work here now??

It's a power grab!!

[Raymond Little]

Every where that has gone to nationalized health care laments it's failure.

What makes all you progressive liberals think it will work here now??

It's a power grab!!

Same reason they think a 787 BILLION $ STIMLAS PACKAGE WILL WORK!
Ya Think?

[road kill]

Same reason they think a 787 BILLION $ STIMLAS PACKAGE WILL WORK!
Ya Think?

Yeah, let's "spend our way out of debt!!"
Joe Biden addressing the AARP!!