The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
There are several explanations that do not involve the necessity of "tort reform" and which may actually be exacerbated by "tort reform."

The medical community imposes very daunting and unnecessarily stressful conditions on many of its doctors. There is simply no reason for the length of shifts doctors are expected to work. Fatigue increases errors, but the machisimo of the profession prevents reform.

Physicians (like lawyers) are remarkablely reluctant to discipline their own until way, way too late. Most claims come from a small minority of doctors. Medicine needs to recognize problems with practicioners sooner, intervene sooner, and yank licenses sooner.

Physicians are simply not paying enough attention. 25 years ago, anesthesiologists had some of the highest malprace insurance rates; now they have some of the lowest. The difference: anestesiologists collectively undertook to study why and how errors were being made and took steps to prevent them as a profession. Why haven't other doctors done the same? Because its easier to bitch about lawyers than to actually fix what's wrong and stop killing people.

According the article RT cited, Tort reform has worked wonders in California and is needed in the rest of the country. Did you not read the article: http://www.sfms.org/sfm/sfm603h.htm

And even though things are much better in California I still think medical malpratice isurance rates are still really high. They are just insane in states that don't have some Tort reform.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
And even though things are much better in California I still think medical malpratice isurance rates are still really high. They are just insane in states that don't have some Tort reform.

So, if you can't blame lack of tort reform in CA, what are you arguing now?

Doctors are, overall, whiny, cheating bastards. Just like lawyers. Always, ALWAYS getting involved in tax scams. It's fucking ridiculous.

[Spanky]

Tort Reform! Post #2680


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
I know that medical insurance rates in California are still really high. Generally much more that the physicians salaries. How could the tort system not be out of hand if the physicians are paying more for insurance than they are earning in salary? Why are insurance rates so high?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said -

This is not true: That "this is not true" was a link to article you seem to imply contradicted the above statement.

However, that article merely pointed out that insurance rates have not increased in California as much as they have across the country since MICRA. But it stated that insurance rates in California have increased. In addition, it did not contradict my asserttion that many doctors medical malpractice insurance rates exceed their own salaries. I am aboslutely sure that is true of obstraticians in California.

So again, I ask why are insurance rates in California so high?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So, if you can't blame lack of tort reform in CA, what are you arguing now?

No. This is actually very simple. California faced a medical malpratice crisis in the 1970s and so MICRA was passed. As a result, medical malpractice rates steep climb was reduced. Rates still were high and still went up, but because of MICRA the rates in California did not increase as much as other states without MICRA.

What does this show: that Tort reform worked to reduce the growth rate. If a little Tort reform reduced the growth rate then more tort reform could stop the growth rate completely or even reverse it.

If some medicine slows the rate of growth of an infection that does not mean it does not work. It means you need more medicine to stop the infection or reverse it.

California needs more of the medicine, and some states need to start using the medicine because California has shown that the medicine works.

California shows that Tort reform works and we need much more of it. Despite the misinformation the Trial Lawyers are spreading.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
No. This is actually very simple. California faced a medical malpratice crisis in the 1970s and so MICRA was passed. As a result, medical malpractice rates steep climb was reduced. Rates still were high and still went up, but because of MICRA the rates in California did not increase as much as other states without MICRA.

What does this show: that Tort reform worked to reduce the growth rate. If a little Tort reform reduced the growth rate then more tort reform could stop the growth rate completely or even reverse it.

If some medicine slows the rate of growth of an infection that does not mean it does not work. It means you need more medicine to stop the infection or reverse it.

California needs more of the medicine, and some states need to start using the medicine because California has shown that the medicine works.

California shows that Tort reform works and we need much more of it. Despite the misinformation the Trial Lawyers are spreading.

OK, so, um, non-economic damages are capped. What further would you do?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK, so, um, non-economic damages are capped. What further would you do?

First - kill all the lawyers (at least nine out of ten medical malpratice attorneys).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
First - kill all the lawyers (at least nine out of ten medical malpratice attorneys).

but you have enough liquid $$ to retain one when you get the wrong organ removed.

Where's pony or whatever?

ETA that is such a total copout bullshit answer. Give it up, tort-reform-boy. Maybe doctors are just fuckups? Maybe insurers are just money-hungry and non-competitive?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Tort Reform! Post #2680


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
I know that medical insurance rates in California are still really high. Generally much more that the physicians salaries. How could the tort system not be out of hand if the physicians are paying more for insurance than they are earning in salary? Why are insurance rates so high?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said -

This is not true: That "this is not true" was a link to article you seem to imply contradicted the above statement.

However, that article merely pointed out that insurance rates have not increased in California as much as they have across the country since MICRA. But it stated that insurance rates in California have increased. In addition, it did not contradict my asserttion that many doctors medical malpractice insurance rates exceed their own salaries. I am aboslutely sure that is true of obstraticians in California.

So again, I ask why are insurance rates in California so high?

Um, maybe because tort reform isn't the silver bullet that it's advocates seem to think it is. Which is the point of all of the other articles that i've cited today.

And why weren't you watching one of the best college football games ever played?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
but you have enough liquid $$ to retain one when you get the wrong organ removed.

Where's pony or whatever?

ETA that is such a total copout bullshit answer. Give it up, tort-reform-boy. Maybe doctors are just fuckups? Maybe insurers are just money-hungry and non-competitive?

I would have to study it more. I do know that insurance rates are too high, and it is not because of the insurance companys for reason I have explained and no one has contradicted - insurance companies leaving the business instead of flooding in to take advantage of high profits etc). The only logical explanation is runaway litigation problems.

Listening to anything trial lawyers have to say about Tort reform is like taking Pat Robertsons advice about how to protect the integrity of science in the class room.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Um, maybe because tort reform isn't the silver bullet that it's advocates seem to think it is. Which is the point of all of the other articles that i've cited today.

And why weren't you watching one of the best college football games ever played?

All those other articles were ridiculous.

If the Trojans are on TV (on any channel) I simply can not have the TV on for fear of an infection spreading throughout the house.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky

Listening to anything trial lawyers have to say about Tort reform is like taking Pat Robertsons advice about how to protect the integrity of science in the class room.

OK, but the same goes for listening to anything doctors have to say about insurance premiums.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
All those other articles were ridiculous.

If the Trojans are on TV (on any channel) I simply can not have the TV on for fear of an infection spreading throughout the house.

The Texas study was ridiculous? Why? Looking at the actual claims data, especially in light of the 1999 IOM report, seems much more responsible than throwing out the entire system because your physician buddies in the Republican club don't like lawyers.

See this also for an analysis of Connecticut vs. California in 2003 and suggestions as to how to make changes in the system.

ETA: Public Citizen fact sheet using data from the NPDB on OBGYN payouts.

I'm going to bed and dream burnt orane dreams.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK, but the same goes for listening to anything doctors have to say about insurance premiums.

Not if their medical malpratice premiums exceed their take home pay. That is just absurd. Completely ridiculous. Indefensible. They should be screaming bloody murder.

And since they have the highest interest getting them reduced, I can't think of anyone better to trust in determining the best way to reduce them. And I would especially trust them much more than people who benefit from the high rates to determine how to reduce them.

If you are shaking a tree which is causing coconuts to fall on someones head and every time they get hit on the head with a coconut you get ten dollars then their assertions that you are the cauce of the coconuts falling are much more reliable than your assertion that it is solely the trees fault.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The Texas study was ridiculous? Why? Looking at the actual claims data, especially in light of the 1999 IOM report, seems much more responsible than throwing out the entire system because your physician buddies in the Republican club don't like lawyers.

That study is absurd:

1) Because the rates are really high. This article does not say that Tort claims and litigation costs are not really expensive, just that they have not climbed signifcantly in the past twelve years (adjusting for inflation and population growth). In other words they have grown, but not much faster than the population growth rate and inflation. Despite the fact that I have no idea how they have adjusted for population and inflation, insurance rates were absurd before the study was conducted. Just because they have remained consistently ridiculous is not much of a defense. And in addition, my experience with statistic has taught me that when you "adjust for inflation and population growth" there is a lot of room for subjectivity.

2) The article does not explain why insurance rates have gone up so much. If such activity was benefitting the insurance companys then the divisions of insurance companys that provide medical insurance profits would be climbing significantly and other insurance companys would be rushing in to take advantage of the profit situation. Since insurance companys are not rushing in to provide medical insurance, it is much more likely that the economist article and the one you cited are accurate and the one you cited just adjusted too much for inflation and population growth. The economist and San Francisco articles explain the growth in insurance rates, this study does not.

3)These stats directly contradicted the article you quoted by the doctor and the economist article. The Texas study was done by attorneys. It is like reading a study about the health of tobacco paid for by the Tobacco companys. So am I going to trust a study by some guys that have a vested interest in the outcome, or by the economist that has no vested interest? The other article you cited was by a doctor who has a vested interest in the truth coming out. If they go after the attorneys and the insurance companys are really at fault, then they are still screwed. So how could it possibly be in their interest to point their fingers at the lawyers if the insurance companys are really at fault? An article by an insurance company would be highly suspect (as one put out by lawyers), but not from a doctor. Doctors only benefit if the true cause of the problem is discovered and dealt with. If the insurance companys were the cause the doctors would have no problem in pointing to the insurance companys. Therefore, I will be suspicious of an article from the two suspects, insurance companys and lawyers, and will have more faith in articles produced by non-biased organizations (the economist) or from a group who will benefit the most if the true problem is fixed (the doctors).

The other two articles you cited: One by a lawyers group and the other by Ralph Nader. When it comes to Ralph Nader, he is about as reliable on economics as Pamela Anderson is on astro-physics. Next you are going to cite an article by Noam Chomskey. Can't you cite any articles not put out by attorneys or far left organizations? If you are going to go that far why not be like Ty and cite some crazy left wing blogs why you are at it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Todays debt will not have to be paid back and the interest on todays debt will be insignificant forty years from now.

Just so we're clear: You're not saying that we're not taxing future generations, you're saying it's not a problem because they'll be able to afford it.

That is why the comment of we are saddling future generations with debt is political hyperboly....

I don't believe I ever used the word "saddling" in this context.

... We screw future generations not by saddling them with debt, but by not maximising growth.

What Burger et al. said about this. They have my proxy.