How Bad Is American Health Care...Really?

Quote:

Originally posted by FamilyGuy

I cannot stay on the sidelines any longer... here is my rant on tort reform. Don't let anyone's rehtoric hide the facts...

In the most unambiguous terms, tort reform hurts the American people by taking away their legal rights to file a claim and receive fair compensation when they have been injured at the hands of another. ......

That's as far as I read, I don't need to read any farther to realize that you and I will never agree on tort reform because you and I have vastly different definitions of "fair compensation"

Quote:

Originally posted by americanbulldog64

...

I agree with you 100%, and why should i pay for health care for people who refuse to work? ; and also deliberately pump out babies for extra money? !all you lazy worthless fucks in the throat.

yeah that's obviously a big issue, surely you can make a fair health system come first and weed out the scabs later

Things that would help healthcare lawsuits more than hard limits:

Initiate Loser Pays

You sue and lose, you pay for everyones lawyers. You get sued and lose, you pay for everyones lawyers. It basically forces the BS lawsuits out of court because no lawyer is going to go on a fishing expedition with the chance that they won't win. Lawsuits with a real chance of winning would still be taken because the lawyers would stand a good chance of getting their money back.

Block Contingency Lawsuits

Lawyers should also not be able to do the "you don't win you don't pay" contingency crap. The lawyers should only get fees, not a percentage of the winnings.

Professional Juries for Malpractice (and other technical) Suits.

We all love the whole "jury of your peers" thing, but let's face it, there are issues. Who really wants a jury of people whose only qualification is that he once took an aspirin deciding the scientific merits of a medical procedure? Most malpractice lawsuits succeed or fail based solely on how much the jury believes someone "should have done something", not the scientific information involved. Bare minimum is that the expert witnesses should actually be experts based on some independent criteria.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

Things that would help healthcare lawsuits more than hard limits:

Initiate Loser Pays

You sue and lose, you pay for everyones lawyers. You get sued and lose, you pay for everyones lawyers. It basically forces the BS lawsuits out of court because no lawyer is going to go on a fishing expedition with the chance that they won't win. Lawsuits with a real chance of winning would still be taken because the lawyers would stand a good chance of getting their money back.

Block Contingency Lawsuits

Lawyers should also not be able to do the "you don't win you don't pay" contingency crap. The lawyers should only get fees, not a percentage of the winnings.

Professional Juries for Malpractice (and other technical) Suits.

which party/or who has the ability to changes these things?

had about 500 rums and found this thread interesting, thx (beer)

FamilyGuy ...

Person X grows and sells oranges, and employs 4 people.

Person Z grows and sells apples, and employs 4 people. Person Z also has to have Apple-too-hard-might-hurt-teeth-need-to-sue insurance, that costs $1500 a month.

Which item's price will need to be marked up higher in order to cover extra expenses?

If you can somehow reason that the orange will be marked up higher than the apple, maybe I'll buy your argument that medical malpractice insurance does not raise the cost of overall healthcare.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

FamilyGuy ...

Person X grows and sells oranges, and employs 4 people.

Person Z grows and sells apples, and employs 4 people. Person Z also has to have Apple-too-hard-might-hurt-teeth-need-to-sue insurance, that costs $1500 a month.

Which item's price will need to be marked up higher in order to cover extra expenses?

If you can somehow reason that the orange will be marked up higher than the apple, maybe I'll buy your argument that medical malpractice insurance does not raise the cost of overall healthcare.

That is not my argument at all. I agree that medical malpractice insurance does raise the cost of overall healthcare. The problem is that it is a complete fiction that the actual lawsuits (including every settlement and verdict) are causing some run on the insurance companies bottom line.

Based upon the overall surge in malpractice premiums with no corresponding surge in claim payments during the last five years, the leading malpractice insurers have increased their net surplus by more than one third overall in only 3 years! Now they are charging MUCH more for malpractice insurance than either their actual payments in malpractice cases or their best estimate of future payments in malpractice cases could ever justify.

The problem is that the same insurance company that decides that the apple-too-hard-might-hurt-teeth-need-to-sue insurance costs $1,500 a month, in reality only pays out 3 claims all year for $3,000 total. But they collect the $1,500 from 1,000 apple sellers sellers for a total of $1,500,000. That leaves $1,497,000 in profit. Meanwhile they complain that trial lawyers and the threat of some jury-run-wild verdict is to blame for the high cost of the insurance...

At $425,000, the median award in medical malpractice trials was almost 16 times greater than the overall median award in all tort trials ($27,000).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, "Medical Malpractice Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001," April 2004, p. 1

In 1996, 34% of all jury awards for medical liability exceeded $1 million. By 2000 this figure increased to 52%, and the average jury award was approximately $3.5 million.
Source: Alliance for Specialty Medicine, "ASM Before the House Judiciary Committee on the Subject of H.R. 5," March 2003, p. 2

In 2002-03, 54% of medical malpractice verdicts were $1 million or more in the United States, compared to 40% between 1997-99.
Insurance Information Institute, "Tort Excess 2005: The Necessity for Reform from a Policy, Legal and Risk Management Perspective," p. 2

Only 22 cents of a dollar moving through the U.S. tort system compensates a plaintiff for economic loss (and 54% of that dollar never even reaches the victim):
24 cents goes for non-economic loss;
21 cents goes to administrative costs;
19 cents goes to the plaintiff's attorney fees; and
14 cents goes to defense costs.
Source: Tillinghast Towers Perrin, "U.S. Tort Costs, 2003 Update," December 2003, p. 17

The average claim payment in 1986 was $95,000, and in 2003 it was $328,757.
The rate of claims has remained constant (although costs are rising). Approximately 15 claims are filed per 100 doctors--30% of which result in insurance payouts.
Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice," January 8, 2004; Physician Insurers Association of America, "PIAA: Protecting Healthcare," 2004

Between 1996 and 1999, the average jury award in medical malpractice liability cases rose 76%. In the last 15 years, there has been a 600% rise in the number of mega-verdicts.
Source: Health Coalition on Liability and Access, "The Facts: The Crisis" (citing statistics from the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Physician Insurers Association of America)

Quote:

Originally posted by FamilyGuy

I cannot stay on the sidelines any longer... here is my rant on tort reform. Don't let anyone's rehtoric hide the facts...

No it's not.

It's a bunch of talking factually specious talking points and half-truths that can be found on the web.

Like, for instance, here: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/tort_reform/myths-and-facts.html ,

Quote:

Originally posted by FamilyGuy

The problem is that the same insurance company that decides that the apple-too-hard-might-hurt-teeth-need-to-sue insurance costs $1,500 a month, in reality only pays out 3 claims all year for $3,000 total. But they collect the $1,500 from 1,000 apple sellers sellers for a total of $1,500,000. That leaves $1,497,000 in profit. Meanwhile they complain that trial lawyers and the threat of some jury-run-wild verdict is to blame for the high cost of the insurance...

This is the whole problem with over-reliance on insurance companies.

The goal of an insurer, in any field, is to collect as much money as possible in premiums, and pay out as little as possible to claimants.

So the industry is predicated on taking in as much money as possible then denying as many claims as possible. Think about how that's going to work when there is a mandate that ALL US CITIZENS BUY INSURANCE FROM PRIVATE COMPANIES.

Additionally, while the insurance company in your example may only pay out three claims a year, one of those claims may cost them 1.4M because they had a lawyer who was able to convince a particularly sensitive jury that little Suzy's broken tooth is due to negligence on the part of the farmer, and must compensate her for her pain and suffering, for the surgical procedure to fix the broken tooth, for time her parents had to take off to get her to the dentist, and for the years of therapy to fix her new aversion to apples and apple-shaped objects.

Except, suzie doesn't really get that, she only gets 2/3rds of it, because the lawyer takes the other third.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

This is the whole problem with over-reliance on insurance companies.

The goal of an insurer, in any field, is to collect as much money as possible in premiums, and pay out as little as possible to claimants.

So the industry is predicated on taking in as much money as possible then denying as many claims as possible. Think about how that's going to work when there is a mandate that ALL US CITIZENS BUY INSURANCE FROM PRIVATE COMPANIES.

Additionally, while the insurance company in your example may only pay out three claims a year, one of those claims may cost them 1.4M because they had a lawyer who was able to convince a particularly sensitive jury that little Suzy's broken tooth is due to negligence on the part of the farmer, and must compensate her for her pain and suffering, for the surgical procedure to fix the broken tooth, for time her parents had to take off to get her to the dentist, and for the years of therapy to fix her new aversion to apples and apple-shaped objects.

Except, suzie doesn't really get that, she only gets 2/3rds of it, because the lawyer takes the other third.

Little Suzie doesn't even get 2/3 because good old uncle Sam is standing there with his hand out for 1/3.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

At $425,000, the median award in medical malpractice trials was almost 16 times greater than the overall median award in all tort trials ($27,000).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, "Medical Malpractice Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001," April 2004, p. 1

In 1996, 34% of all jury awards for medical liability exceeded $1 million. By 2000 this figure increased to 52%, and the average jury award was approximately $3.5 million.
Source: Alliance for Specialty Medicine, "ASM Before the House Judiciary Committee on the Subject of H.R. 5," March 2003, p. 2

In 2002-03, 54% of medical malpractice verdicts were $1 million or more in the United States, compared to 40% between 1997-99.
Insurance Information Institute, "Tort Excess 2005: The Necessity for Reform from a Policy, Legal and Risk Management Perspective," p. 2

Only 22 cents of a dollar moving through the U.S. tort system compensates a plaintiff for economic loss (and 54% of that dollar never even reaches the victim):
24 cents goes for non-economic loss;
21 cents goes to administrative costs;
19 cents goes to the plaintiff's attorney fees; and
14 cents goes to defense costs.
Source: Tillinghast Towers Perrin, "U.S. Tort Costs, 2003 Update," December 2003, p. 17

The average claim payment in 1986 was $95,000, and in 2003 it was $328,757.
The rate of claims has remained constant (although costs are rising). Approximately 15 claims are filed per 100 doctors--30% of which result in insurance payouts.
Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice," January 8, 2004; Physician Insurers Association of America, "PIAA: Protecting Healthcare," 2004

Between 1996 and 1999, the average jury award in medical malpractice liability cases rose 76%. In the last 15 years, there has been a 600% rise in the number of mega-verdicts.
Source: Health Coalition on Liability and Access, "The Facts: The Crisis" (citing statistics from the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Physician Insurers Association of America)

Statistics are like bikinis... what they reveal is usually very interesting, but what they conseal are the vital parts.

You obviously cut and pasted this from some tort reform website. Almost all of the alleged "sources" are industry funded groups: Alliance for Specialty Medicine, Insurance Information Institute, Physician Insurers Association of America, and the Physician Insurers Association of America. WTF do you expect those self interested bastards to say?

By way of example, your allegation that, "At $425,000, the median award in medical malpractice trials was almost 16 times greater than the overall median award in all tort trials ($27,000).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, "Medical Malpractice Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001," April 2004, p. 1"

First, the Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps stats on criminal procedure costs so I am not sure why they would be tracking these costs unless it was related to what was paid on med mal claims for prisoners. I couldn't find your cited doc. But I did find this study on their website entitled, "Medical Malpractice Insurance Claims in Seven States," 2000-2004 The tag line for the report says "Majority of medical malpractice claims in seven states closed without compensation payments" 3/25/2007. So, I am not sure from what tort reform website you got this, but it is wrong.

Even assuming it were accurate look at the wording... At $425,000, the "MEDIAN AWARD" in medical malpractice trials was almost 16 times greater than the "OVERALL MEDIAN AWARD" in "ALL TORT" trials ($27,000). Did you catch that??? They are not comparing apples with apples.

Quote:

Originally posted by FamilyGuy

...
That is not my argument at all. I agree that medical malpractice insurance does raise the cost of overall healthcare. The problem is that it is a complete fiction that the actual lawsuits (including every settlement and verdict) are causing some run on the insurance companies bottom line.

Great, I don't give a damn about the insurance companies bottom lines. I care about the cost of health insurance. If little Suzie's claims are making the product/service that I am paying for more expensive ... well, that's the bottom line I am care about.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

No it's not.

It's a bunch of talking factually specious talking points and half-truths that can be found on the web.

Like, for instance, here:[ Link ] ,

Yep. I started to type out a response and then I did grip that in order to save time. Obviously, I agree with it.

lol

Basically our health care in the states is really good. People complain about not being able to afford health insurence one way or another. It all comes down to the amount of effort you want to put into your life. The problem with passing a health care reform is that it punishes everyone who can afford their own insurance by raising their premiums to pay for people who can't afford it. So basically the people that get punished are the people who do not have debt and live responsible lives. I wish health care was cheaper but its not. Finding away to help everyone would be awesome but its not going to happen. Also, trying to pass a health care bill now is probably the worst idea ever since the government has trillions of dollars of debt. So yeah, pretty much.

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

Only 22 cents of a dollar moving through the U.S. tort system compensates a plaintiff for economic loss (and 54% of that dollar never even reaches the victim):
24 cents goes for non-economic loss;
21 cents goes to administrative costs;
19 cents goes to the plaintiff's attorney fees; and
14 cents goes to defense costs.
Source: Tillinghast Towers Perrin, "U.S. Tort Costs, 2003 Update," December 2003, p. 17

It should be clear, but this is an anlysis of every dollar spent by companies in defense of claims. If they would agree voluntarily to pay more than 46% to the actually injured plaintiffs, then they could avoid a lot a wasted costs.

I've been to Canada and Australia. Canada sales tax around 7% Gifts and Services tax...can't remember but over 10% closer to !7%. So where does this money go...maybe to healthcare subsidies?

If you like the U.S. Postal Service, you will love the heathcare you receive and pay for if the current bill passes!

toledoguy ... no, Canada has free healthcare, they don't pay for it.

Almost everything costs more in Canada from their government taxing it.

If I go fishing in Canada, you can't bring more than one case of beer across the border ( because of the cost, Canadians who live close to the border would constantly be buying large quantities in the U.S.)

Gas is usually a dollar more per gallon (C$0.30 per liter for you Canadians)

Oh well, the more entitlements you have, the more tax that's needed, plain and simple.

Quote:

Originally posted by FamilyGuy

Statistics are like bikinis... what they reveal is usually very interesting, but what they conseal are the vital parts.

You obviously cut and pasted this from some tort reform website.

That's funny that you'd complain of such, since that's exactly what you did in post #196, by cutting and pasting ~120 lines from a website for Lawyers.

"WTF do you expect those self interested bastards to say"