Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. #1
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default Food for Thought

    Received this in a chain email. I don't usually pay much attention but this one spells it out perfectly.


    To the Congress:
    • The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.
    • Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
    • Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.
    • The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.
    • Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.
    • Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
    • Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new pimp: the American taxpayer.
    • "Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.

    So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?

    20% of our entire economy?

    With all due respect,

    Are you crazy?

    And let us not forget he failure of the SEC during the past two administrations as well. Madoff’s Influence At The SEC
    In a 17-page chapter that doesn’t begin until page 373 of the 477-page report, the SEC’s inspector general addresses the “ancillary role” that Madoff’s influence as a rich and powerful Wall Street player might have had on SEC staff. This portion of the report wasn’t even mentioned in its executive summary, Barlyn notes, but may be important to understanding the bungling of six SEC investigations.

    It relates a host of instances when Madoff and the SEC did connect. In fact, it identified 27 records of correspondence by Madoff or his family members to the SEC chairman and other officials between 1994 and 2005. Many addressed business issues, but others, such as a 1995 letter to then-Chairman Arthur Levitt, complimenting him on a speech, and a handwritten congratulatory letter from Madoff to SEC Commissioner Elisse Walter upon her appointment in June 2008, smack of trying to exert influence at the very top.
    Last edited by ScareCrow57; 09-09-2009 at 10:28 AM.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    idiotboy continues to prove why he's our resident idiotboy.

    Most of the failures you list are the result of private business engaging in activity that caused those ruinations and would have demolished both the US and global economies. To do nothing would more than likely have been equally disastrous. It's why people like you aren't in charge of anything.

    Do you really believe left to its own devices the health care industry will solve the problems of runaway costs? Since 1992 costs have gone from 14% of GDP to almost 20%. What makes you think that number is going to get smaller?

    Better yet, what makes you think?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #3
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    idiotboy continues to prove why he's our resident idiotboy.

    Most of the failures you list are the result of private business engaging in activity that caused those ruinations and would have demolished both the US and global economies. To do nothing would more than likely have been equally disastrous. It's why people like you aren't in charge of anything.

    Do you really believe left to its own devices the health care industry will solve the problems of runaway costs? Since 1992 costs have gone from 14% of GDP to almost 20%. What makes you think that number is going to get smaller?

    Better yet, what makes you think?
    Yes, UPS and FEDEX have ruined the USPS monopoly by running more efficiently, providing better service, at a lower price and still making a profit.

    So tell me ole tinhat - What private business destroyed Social Security?

    And please...Private banks would not fund risky loans while Freddie and Fannie did causing the housing industry to collapse which started the avalanche into this recession.

    And since 1992 we have had huge advances in technology and health care. These advances aren't free. And since the early 1980s we have gotten millions of new AIDS cases, the treatment of that disease alone is causing more spending.

    Since the early 80s we now have In vitro fertilisation at a cost of $25,000 a pop. People get their tubes tied and now we can reverse the procedure, it isn't cheap. We have better cancer treatments that aren't cheap. We now have treatments for everything under the sun including erectile dysfunction. And question this. How many people watch a commercial for a drug and so "I've got that!!!" Next thing you know, instead of dealing with it they run to the doctor to get treatment.

    And hell, 50 years ago you had an unruly kid who wouldn't sit still you spanked his butt and made him behave. Today, he gets seen but half a dozen doctors and then fed a bunch of Ritalin. The cost of the care isn't going up as much as the amount of care. Heck, the best way to reduce the amount of GDP spent on health care is to reduce the amount of health care given.

    Compare apples to apples. In the early 90s it cost me $50 for a doctors office visit. My son went just today and it cost him $55.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    idiotboy continues to prove why he's our resident idiotboy.

    Most of the failures you list are the result of private business engaging in activity that caused those ruinations and would have demolished both the US and global economies. To do nothing would more than likely have been equally disastrous. It's why people like you aren't in charge of anything.

    Do you really believe left to its own devices the health care industry will solve the problems of runaway costs? Since 1992 costs have gone from 14% of GDP to almost 20%. What makes you think that number is going to get smaller?

    Better yet, what makes you think?
    Any discussion of reducing the cost of healthcare MUST begin with tort reform.

    Of course, that is also the reason why the cost of health will never be brought under control with this administration.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Any discussion of reducing the cost of healthcare MUST begin with tort reform.

    Of course, that is also the reason why the cost of health will never be brought under control with this administration.
    Yup. Private companies ruined all of those public agencies and finances. It is all those greedy people's fault.

    And scfire86 does nto believe in tort reform - he wants to fleece all of those greedy doctors who he thinks are making too much money.

    He insults other people and is unable to discuss any points without resorting to acting like a 13 year old girl.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Most of the failures you list are the result of private business engaging in activity that caused those ruinations and would have demolished both the US and global economies. To do nothing would more than likely have been equally disastrous. It's why people like you aren't in charge of anything.
    Really? How did the USPS get ruined by a private company? Must be all of those greedy companies using e-mail instead of the mail.

    How did the "war on poverty" get destroyed by a private company? It is the Federal government giving money to the states to be dispersed. Must be all those pesky private people working for the government.

    You make a statement without using any facts. Nothing that I would not expect from someone who (using his own words) claims to not be educated and not be smart.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Do you really believe left to its own devices the health care industry will solve the problems of runaway costs? Since 1992 costs have gone from 14% of GDP to almost 20%. What makes you think that number is going to get smaller?
    Maybe, maybe not. But what makes you think that the government can do it right. Even the CBO has shown the major health care "reform" plans to be as expensive as the private plans - and will add to our debt and deficit annually. Yet you can decry one administration spending into debt, but is OK for another to do it becuase you support their reasons for doing so. Hypocrite.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Better yet, what makes you think?
    The same could be asked of an uneducated and not "smart" person who claims to have barely passed Junior College. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  7. #7
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Do you really believe left to its own devices the health care industry will solve the problems of runaway costs? Since 1992 costs have gone from 14% of GDP to almost 20%. What makes you think that number is going to get smaller
    I have thought about this a little more. Do you realize that medicaid will pay for sex change operations. WTF!!!!! You continue to ignore the fact that we have advanced health care 100 times from what it was 20 years ago. We have better technology, better treatments, and better diagnoses. Of course it will cost more.

    Also realize there is a difference between health care and insurance. Insurance is a means for one to manage the cost and risk of their own health care. Health care is what you get when you go to the doctor, hospital, or drug store.

    The insurance companies are in competition and it is in their best interest to control cost. They reduce administration and limit some treatments, just like the government systems. The difference is private companies are far more aggressive at reducing cost. Government entities are not so aggressive and actually tolerate poor performance from their employees.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Yes, UPS and FEDEX have ruined the USPS monopoly by running more efficiently, providing better service, at a lower price and still making a profit.

    So tell me ole tinhat - What private business destroyed Social Security?

    And please...Private banks would not fund risky loans while Freddie and Fannie did causing the housing industry to collapse which started the avalanche into this recession.

    And since 1992 we have had huge advances in technology and health care. These advances aren't free. And since the early 1980s we have gotten millions of new AIDS cases, the treatment of that disease alone is causing more spending.

    Since the early 80s we now have In vitro fertilisation at a cost of $25,000 a pop. People get their tubes tied and now we can reverse the procedure, it isn't cheap. We have better cancer treatments that aren't cheap. We now have treatments for everything under the sun including erectile dysfunction. And question this. How many people watch a commercial for a drug and so "I've got that!!!" Next thing you know, instead of dealing with it they run to the doctor to get treatment.

    And hell, 50 years ago you had an unruly kid who wouldn't sit still you spanked his butt and made him behave. Today, he gets seen but half a dozen doctors and then fed a bunch of Ritalin. The cost of the care isn't going up as much as the amount of care. Heck, the best way to reduce the amount of GDP spent on health care is to reduce the amount of health care given.

    Compare apples to apples. In the early 90s it cost me $50 for a doctors office visit. My son went just today and it cost him $55.

    That isn't what has ruined the USPS!!! Look who are working for them!
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    The insurance companies are in competition and it is in their best interest to control cost. They reduce administration and limit some treatments, just like the government systems. The difference is private companies are far more aggressive at reducing cost. Government entities are not so aggressive and actually tolerate poor performance from their employees.
    While your last sentence may very well be true, one of the problems regarding the private insurance industry is that them being "aggressive at reducing cost", has pretty much nothing to do with actually saving money in order to be able to pay for treatment for more people. It has pretty much everything to do with increasing profits, dividends, bonuses, etc. and in too many cases denying coverage for things that could/would benefit patients in order to do so.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    It is patently unfair to place the blame for the increase in health care costs solely at the feet of the insurance industry. The main blame for the vast majority of the cost increase is owned by the legal system. Period.

    For example...

    I go to the ED with abdominal pain. I happen to get a physician with good diagnostic skills and he correctly diagnoses me with a stomach virus. All is good, I go home, right? Wrong.

    Because that physician is afraid of being sued and of either losing or paying a massive increase in his malpractice insurance, he subjects me to a long, uncomfortable, time consuming and VERY costly battery of tests; ECG, CT scan, ultrasound, blood work, urine screen, etc. The result, I have a stomach virus.

    The physician is FORCED to do this, because I might sue him for not doing it and a jury may award me $30 million for my pain and suffering. There will probably be a financial award offered by the malpractice insurance co. even if the physician did nothing wrong. After all, it is probably cheaper than a trial.

    There will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be a meaningful reduction in health care costs until there is sweeping tort reform. There should be no push to limit or remove a patient's right to recover damages, but there can be very real reform in the area of limiting jury awards, having a plaintiff prove that a physician was "grossly negligent", etc. Tort reform will do more to lower the cost of health care than anything else.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    I'm just going to touch on a couple of things from your list.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Received this in a chain email. I don't usually pay much attention but this one spells it out perfectly.


    To the Congress:
    • The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.
    • I don't know if I'd categorize it as broke. I still seem to get mail everyday and it all appears to arrive in a timely manor.

      I'd venture to guess that the heart of the Postal Service's problems is the advent of e-mail and the internet. How many people and businesses now communicate, pay bills, etc electronically instead of using the regular mail? That's a lot of revenue they've lost, so I'm sure it's had a huge impact on the operation.

      You mentioned UPS and FEDEX. At this point, both have "super stores" offering more than just shipping services, like copy & printing, PO Boxes, supplies. Aside from bigger cities, they tend to not have a location in every town. They also have some places in which you can access their shipping services through a third party. All of these undoubtably help their bottom line.

      The Postal Service on the other hand, is pretty much just in the mail/shipping business. They also really don't have third party locations and they still, in many cases have branch offices in many small communities. They're trying to close some of these, but that greatly upsets the citizens and they end up giving in an keeping them open.


    • Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
    • Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.
    Undoubtably, all of these have issues. Some of the reasons they are broke is because of the Baby Boomer generation. There's a switch going on from a large group paying into these systems to that group now drawing out from the system. Additionally, costs are going up a lot! It doesn't take a whiz at math to figure out there's going to be some money problems.



  12. "Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.
The program didn't exactly "go broke" as you claim. The program exhausted it's allocated funding. Even though we went thru the funding faster than expected, that doesn't sound like a failed program. That sounds more like a successful program without sufficient funding to meet the actual interest.

Could the program have run better in terms of helping the american car manufacturers? Sure, but at the same time, a lot of the foreign cars - particularly the one's that qualified for the program (on the purchase end) - are now made in the US with US workers. So it still helped to keep some of our citizens in their jobs, even if it did make money for the Japanese or whomever.

  • #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    It is patently unfair to place the blame for the increase in health care costs solely at the feet of the insurance industry. The main blame for the vast majority of the cost increase is owned by the legal system. Period.

    For example...

    I go to the ED with abdominal pain. I happen to get a physician with good diagnostic skills and he correctly diagnoses me with a stomach virus. All is good, I go home, right? Wrong.

    Because that physician is afraid of being sued and of either losing or paying a massive increase in his malpractice insurance, he subjects me to a long, uncomfortable, time consuming and VERY costly battery of tests; ECG, CT scan, ultrasound, blood work, urine screen, etc. The result, I have a stomach virus.

    The physician is FORCED to do this, because I might sue him for not doing it and a jury may award me $30 million for my pain and suffering. There will probably be a financial award offered by the malpractice insurance co. even if the physician did nothing wrong. After all, it is probably cheaper than a trial.

    There will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be a meaningful reduction in health care costs until there is sweeping tort reform. There should be no push to limit or remove a patient's right to recover damages, but there can be very real reform in the area of limiting jury awards, having a plaintiff prove that a physician was "grossly negligent", etc. Tort reform will do more to lower the cost of health care than anything else.
    I whole heartedly agree.

  • #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    The physician is FORCED to do this, because I might sue him for not doing it and a jury may award me $30 million for my pain and suffering. There will probably be a financial award offered by the malpractice insurance co. even if the physician did nothing wrong. After all, it is probably cheaper than a trial.

    There will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER be a meaningful reduction in health care costs until there is sweeping tort reform. There should be no push to limit or remove a patient's right to recover damages, but there can be very real reform in the area of limiting jury awards, having a plaintiff prove that a physician was "grossly negligent", etc. Tort reform will do more to lower the cost of health care than anything else.
    I agree that there has to be changes in the tort process, but I think tort reform should start with lawyer fees. Just look at the $$$ made by lawyers in the tobacco settlement. To place a blanket maximum on settlements isn't reform. You must believe some malpractice suits are legitimate. It wouldn't be fair to place a financial burden on the victim of incompetence, would it? Judges can also take the blame for not stopping frivilous suits from the onset.

    Who hasn't seen reports of uninsured drug addicts running up thousands and thousands of dollars in ER care only to return a week later with the same problems?

    We must look at the entire system. It is a multi-billion dollar business. I can't believe I'm saying this but a few hundred million for settlements isn't a significant impact.

    I wonder what the annual total in settlements is in the US??

  • #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    I agree that there has to be changes in the tort process, but I think tort reform should start with lawyer fees. Just look at the $$$ made by lawyers in the tobacco settlement. To place a blanket maximum on settlements isn't reform. You must believe some malpractice suits are legitimate. It wouldn't be fair to place a financial burden on the victim of incompetence, would it? Judges can also take the blame for not stopping frivilous suits from the onset.

    Who hasn't seen reports of uninsured drug addicts running up thousands and thousands of dollars in ER care only to return a week later with the same problems?

    We must look at the entire system. It is a multi-billion dollar business. I can't believe I'm saying this but a few hundred million for settlements isn't a significant impact.

    I wonder what the annual total in settlements is in the US??
    I think it would be very interesting to see what the total payout on medical liability is vs total cost of health care. I would think that administrative costs for 26 or more different insurance plans plus several different hospital systems would add substantially to the total cost.

  • #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    I agree that there has to be changes in the tort process, but I think tort reform should start with lawyer fees. Just look at the $$$ made by lawyers in the tobacco settlement. To place a blanket maximum on settlements isn't reform. You must believe some malpractice suits are legitimate. It wouldn't be fair to place a financial burden on the victim of incompetence, would it? Judges can also take the blame for not stopping frivilous suits from the onset.

    Who hasn't seen reports of uninsured drug addicts running up thousands and thousands of dollars in ER care only to return a week later with the same problems?

    We must look at the entire system. It is a multi-billion dollar business. I can't believe I'm saying this but a few hundred million for settlements isn't a significant impact.

    I wonder what the annual total in settlements is in the US??
    I have no idea what the total payout in settlements is. But you do not uinderstand insurance.

    The malpractie insurance companies do not insure outcomes. They insure risks. Their premiums are based on the risk. If you are a physician on OB GYN or anethesia, you are paying enormous premiums. Other specialties pay less, but still alot.

    Why? These are some great docs. The reason is the POTENTIAL RISK for a mistake and a huge settlement-even if the doc did nothing wrong. Kid is born with a birth defect and the parents sue the OB GYN, even though there was no way the doc either caused it or could predict it. That case ha the
    POTENTIAL RISK of a multi-million dollar payout from an out of control, sympathetic jury. And whehter people want to admit it or not, juries know the ins. cos. have huge pockets and are not shy about hitting them.

    If you limit the ability of a jury to award out fo control damages to a pt. with a medical issue that was not caused by a doctor's groiss negligence, they can stop ordering all the tests and unnecesary procedures and lower the total cost of health care. They will also not have to charge exhorbitant rates tocover their high overhead, that would mostly be ins. premiums.

    The lawyers really do not have that much to do with the total cost. Plaintiff attorneys are getting, in most cases, a percentage of the settloement. Defense counsel is getting an hourly rate plus expenses. Those gross costs wouldn't (or shouldn't) change. There would just be less of a percentage or fewer hours. The attorney would then have more time to take more cases.

    Good attorneys get big money. The insurance cos. are paying that money out. You would not complain about the fees a good attorney was getting if he was the best abnd he was representing you to defend you in a baseless litigation that may mean you losing your livelihood.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  • #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    I think the blanket "Limit Payouts" calls for Tort Reform are tackling the issue from the wrong side.

    Some people make honest mistakes, some people are performing gross misconduct, and some people are simply looking for a quick payout.

    I do not agree with any "the max amount you can sue for is $X" legislation.

    But I am in favor of any process that states that you must prove that you actually have a case. Has this person sued 20 other doctors in the past? Have a panel of experts rule if a case has merit. Cut lawyers percentage of the cost.

    I also wonder how much money the malpractice insurance companies are actually paying out vs. taking in.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  • #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Here is the only info I could quickly find about Malpractice Insurance Fee's vs. Payouts

    It is a report from the American Center for Justice AKA the Trial Lawyers. I do realize that they have an agenda, so you can take that report with a grain of salt.

    Edited to add:

    I also found this report about malpractice coverage in Canada.

    Looks like Canada has a combination of caps in payouts, as well as non-for-profit malpractice insurance.

    According to that report Malpractice payouts account for only 1% of the cost in both the US and Canada.
    Last edited by MarcusKspn; 09-10-2009 at 05:08 PM.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  • #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    Here is the only info I could quickly find about Malpractice Insurance Fee's vs. Payouts

    It is a report from the American Center for Justice AKA the Trial Lawyers. I do realize that they have an agenda, so you can take that report with a grain of salt.

    Edited to add:

    I also found this report about malpractice coverage in Canada.

    Looks like Canada has a combination of caps in payouts, as well as non-for-profit malpractice insurance.

    According to that report Malpractice payouts account for only 1% of the cost in both the US and Canada.
    I'm taking it with a whole salt shaker. That is one biased report.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  • #19
    Savage / Hyneman 08'

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    I agree that there has to be changes in the tort process, but I think tort reform should start with lawyer fees. Just look at the $$$ made by lawyers in the tobacco settlement. To place a blanket maximum on settlements isn't reform. You must believe some malpractice suits are legitimate. It wouldn't be fair to place a financial burden on the victim of incompetence, would it? Judges can also take the blame for not stopping frivilous suits from the onset.

    Who hasn't seen reports of uninsured drug addicts running up thousands and thousands of dollars in ER care only to return a week later with the same problems?

    We must look at the entire system. It is a multi-billion dollar business. I can't believe I'm saying this but a few hundred million for settlements isn't a significant impact.

    I wonder what the annual total in settlements is in the US??
    I wouldn't want to regulate lawyer fees. If they want to charge that much and folks want to pay, then so be it. Let the free market decide what a lawyer is paid. People do shop around for lawyers. Keep the government out of our pay. I don't want the gov't making any limitations on what an individual can make for an honest living.

    Add my vote to tort reform, also ease the restrictions that hinder competition for health insurance. Once again, get the gov't out of the way.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  • #20
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I'm taking it with a whole salt shaker. That is one biased report.
    Not a heck of a lot out there, I realize that.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  • #21
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    I'll make a couple of points.

    1 - you will not see large scale, wide spread tort reform in this country by either party for one reason: the trial lawyers given millions collectively to ensure it, mostly to the Dems, but not all. They do this to ensure that they keep their monetary stream flowing. Yet you do not hear a lot of bitching about them when it comes to lobbying groups.

    2 - I will vouce for defensive medicine. You will be hard pressed to find a physician or practitioner that does not practice it.

    Let's take a 52 year old male that comes into the ED complaining of abdominal pain. Say it is a textbook case of appendicitis which is a clinical diagnosis - nothing more. As an EM practitioner I cannot even get a surgeon to come to the ED to see my patient without this blood test and that blood test, and a CT for imaging. A CT at my hospital bills out at $475 per scan. So I just added a big chunk of money to the health care costs that was unnecessary. Why is it not necessary? Because in all the years of us assessing abdominal pain, even with the advent of CT scan....about 10%-15% of all abdominal surgeries for appendicitis find normal appendices. One of the best clinical texts out there for assessing the abdomen was written almost 100 years ago - Cope's Acute Abdomen. Yet you will be hard pressed to find a new crop surgeon that has ever read it.

    This will not change, and Mr. Obama said that he wants tort reform last night, but when you look at the recent past, he told the AMA (which our friend scfire says controls the number of doctors out there) that he did not agree with tort reform. So which am I - as a medical practitioner - to believe when he gives conflicting statements 3 months apart?
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  • #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    But you do not uinderstand insurance.
    Never assume.

    My only question is to the total amount of malpractice settlements vs their impact on medical cost/ins.

    There isn't an insurance company in existance that bases their rates on anything other than the bottom line (the risk plus a little for the CEO). That's not rocket science nor is it wrong.

    As much as there are people expecting perfect births from their OB/GYN, there are the ambulance chasers who prey on the system. You simple cannot discount them. Just look at the ads on the tube: "slip and fall and we'll get you a settlement". I not arguing against what a lawyer charges for an hourly rate, they charge what they're worth (or feel they're worth), but their getting 30% to 40% of a settlement certainly gives the the incentive to "go big".

  • #23
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    Never assume.

    My only question is to the total amount of malpractice settlements vs their impact on medical cost/ins.

    There isn't an insurance company in existance that bases their rates on anything other than the bottom line (the risk plus a little for the CEO). That's not rocket science nor is it wrong.

    As much as there are people expecting perfect births from their OB/GYN, there are the ambulance chasers who prey on the system. You simple cannot discount them. Just look at the ads on the tube: "slip and fall and we'll get you a settlement". I not arguing against what a lawyer charges for an hourly rate, they charge what they're worth (or feel they're worth), but their getting 30% to 40% of a settlement certainly gives the the incentive to "go big".
    It is pretty apparent that I didn't assume anything.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  • #24
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvfd27 View Post
    As much as there are people expecting perfect births from their OB/GYN, there are the ambulance chasers who prey on the system. You simple cannot discount them.
    I'll use John "I like to cheat on my cencer-striken wife" as an example.

    He represented a families in North Carolina stating that Cerebral Palsy was caused during the delivery of the child - without a single shred of medical evidence. This is how they work, and why those of us in healthcare feel like we have targets painted on the back of our scrubs and labcoats - regardless of whether we treat patients "right" or "wrong."

    Hell, you can't watch a TV show here without seeing some scumbag, bottom-dwelling ambulance-chasing attorney trolling for mesothelioma, falls, medical "malpractice", or (as I saw this morning) women who developed DVTs or PEs while taking birth control pills - a known and widely published possibility of these medications.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  • #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    VT
    Posts
    360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    It is pretty apparent that I didn't assume anything.
    I pity you. It must be so very lonely being the only one who knows anything...

    I tried being civil, but you're a waste of time, George.

    DaSharkie, apparently you are also wrong and just don't get it. There isn't a single lawyer out there that screws the system for personal gain, it's those damn patients
    Last edited by pvfd27; 09-11-2009 at 06:12 PM.

  • Closed Thread
    Page 1 of 2 12 Last

    Thread Information

    Users Browsing this Thread

    There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Food For Thought?
      By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: 04-16-2009, 06:16 PM
    2. FDNY-Food for Thought
      By FLA1786 in forum Firefighters Forum
      Replies: 22
      Last Post: 03-15-2007, 04:14 PM
    3. Food For Thought? Lol
      By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
      Replies: 4
      Last Post: 10-06-2006, 11:12 AM
    4. Safety Food For Thought
      By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: 06-02-2006, 08:50 AM
    5. Food for Thought #1
      By Dalmatian90 in forum Firefighters Forum
      Replies: 15
      Last Post: 08-06-2002, 10:56 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts

    Log in

    Click here to log in or register