Senate Report: Hillary's State Dept Could Have Been Prevented Benghazi Attack

An unfactored cost of lawsuits is the time it takes to settle. When a patient has a lawsuit pending, every practitioner they see will be in CYA mode and order even more unnecessary tests. It's a game played by both sides. It was always amazing to me to treat somebody for 3 years and them not get any better but as soon as the suit is settled, I would never see them again. This happens more often than not.

I would like to see medical courts like we have juvy, traffic, marriage, etc. Not only would it decrease medical costs, but it would help identify dangerous practitioners much more quickly and weed them out.

I actually don't want to see medical lawsuits curtailed because that's our best defense against shoddy practice.
 
beenthere said:
Sorry canndo, you just don't get it.
That's like saying your car insurance is setting the cost of repairs to your damaged vehicle.
Never mind the rising costs of parts and labor, sheesh!
Click to expand...

That is not what we are talking about, we are talking about who pays the hospitals, the government (in this case) does not pay through the aca.
 
canndo said:
you are so close to my agreeing with you.... but rising malpractice lawsuits are not a significant factor - rising premiums for doctors may be, but those premiums dont have much to do with what amount to relatively minor payouts.
Click to expand...

Well according to my notes, malpractice insurance has steadily risen since the mid 80's by more than 200%. Those costs are directly passed down to the patient. I would consider that significant.

Note an excerpt:

  • [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]from 1996 to 2000, the cost of medical malpractice premiums rose over 15% per year and is expected to continue to rise at a rate at which premiums will double every five years.[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
beenthere said:
And I disagree.
Doctors and hospitals have to raise their costs to offset the low reimbursement rate created by Obamacare.
Look it up.
Click to expand...

see4 said:
I would say that two of the largest contributing factors to rising healthcare costs in the past, oh I dont know, 30 years, has been the incorporation of hospitals as well as rising malpractice lawsuits. It is disingenuous to say that Obamacare is a major contributing factor to rising healthcare costs, it's simply not true, and you are ignoring the real issues.
Click to expand...

canndo said:
No, you look it up - the Insurance companies are the ones subsidized and THEY are the ones paying the hospitals. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

beenthere said:
Sorry canndo, you just don't get it.
That's like saying your car insurance is setting the cost of repairs to your damaged vehicle.
Never mind the rising costs of parts and labor, sheesh!
Click to expand...

canndo said:
That is not what we are talking about, we are talking about who pays the hospitals, the government (in this case) does not pay through the aca.
Click to expand...

canndo, we're talking about rising healthcare costs, damn, you must be loosing your frikin mind dude.
 
ginwilly said:
An unfactored cost of lawsuits is the time it takes to settle. When a patient has a lawsuit pending, every practitioner they see will be in CYA mode and order even more unnecessary tests. It's a game played by both sides. It was always amazing to me to treat somebody for 3 years and them not get any better but as soon as the suit is settled, I would never see them again. This happens more often than not.

I would like to see medical courts like we have juvy, traffic, marriage, etc. Not only would it decrease medical costs, but it would help identify dangerous practitioners much more quickly and weed them out.

I actually don't want to see medical lawsuits curtailed because that's our best defense against shoddy practice.
Click to expand...


While a portion of what you say may well be true, what is claimed is that because malpractice premiums go up, practitioners and hospital costs must rise as well. The presumption is that extraordinary payouts force the malpractice insurance companies to raise their rates. This is not so.

how would you have torts.... reformed? While I may agree that the mass tort system is rigged so that those who are harmed get little and those who mount massive legal attacks upon drug and medical device companies get the bulk of the proceeds, even that has a chilling effect on neglegence in those fields.

In other cases, for example California, where tort reform has been in practice, doctors are now free to fuck people up, knowing that they won't or can't be sued.

And how would legaly defensive medicine be reduced enough to save anyone any money? Given this tort reform, doctors would be free to do the opposite, NOT cover their own, and in so doing, their patient's asses.

I fail to see how in what is purported to be a free economy, anyone would be willing to favor doctors over lawyers, limiting lawyers income but not limiting doctors malpractice and even increasing their income.

So no one wants government interference in their working lives, except of course for lawyers, right?

There are very few counterbalances against malpractice of any form any longer, given the dwindling power and extent of state or federal regulation, the weakening of those agencies ability to ride herd on malpractice and incompetence in any number of ways, what is left to protect the consumer is the threat of serious lawsuit.
 
Of course malpractice insurance and lawsuits make costs go up, it's nonsensical to think otherwise. I don't think tort reform is the answer though. I'm not on that side of the argument, though many of my colleagues are.

I'm not as lustful against lawyers, but frivolous lawsuits are most definitely a problem.
 
canndo said:
While a portion of what you say may well be true, what is claimed is that because malpractice premiums go up, practitioners and hospital costs must rise as well. The presumption is that extraordinary payouts force the malpractice insurance companies to raise their rates. This is not so.

how would you have torts.... reformed? While I may agree that the mass tort system is rigged so that those who are harmed get little and those who mount massive legal attacks upon drug and medical device companies get the bulk of the proceeds, even that has a chilling effect on neglegence in those fields.

In other cases, for example California, where tort reform has been in practice, doctors are now free to fuck people up, knowing that they won't or can't be sued.

And how would legaly defensive medicine be reduced enough to save anyone any money? Given this tort reform, doctors would be free to do the opposite, NOT cover their own, and in so doing, their patient's asses.

I fail to see how in what is purported to be a free economy, anyone would be willing to favor doctors over lawyers, limiting lawyers income but not limiting doctors malpractice and even increasing their income.

So no one wants government interference in their working lives, except of course for lawyers, right?

There are very few counterbalances against malpractice of any form any longer, given the dwindling power and extent of state or federal regulation, the weakening of those agencies ability to ride herd on malpractice and incompetence in any number of ways, what is left to protect the consumer is the threat of serious lawsuit.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Total bullshit.

Your opinion does not constitute facts or sourcing.
 
beenthere said:
canndo, we're talking about rising healthcare costs, damn, you must be loosing your frikin mind dude.
Click to expand...


Firstly, this is supposed to be about Hillary and Bengazi, but I was responding to this:
"And I disagree.
Doctors and hospitals have to raise their costs to offset the low reimbursement rate created by Obamacare.
Look it up."


Wha the discussion WAS about was the fact that insurance companes, not Obamacare, is paying the doctors and hosptals, therefore, if they are raising their rates it has to do with what the insurance companies are paying - and as I have looked, and still am looking, insurance companies have actually raised their rates across the board, from individual policies outside of the exchange to those within the exchange - AND reduced their benefits a well.

So what are you talking about?
 
ginwilly said:
Of course malpractice insurance and lawsuits make costs go up, it's nonsensical to think otherwise. I don't think tort reform is the answer though. I'm not on that side of the argument, though many of my colleagues are.

I'm not as lustful against lawyers, but frivolous lawsuits are most definitely a problem.
Click to expand...


Frivolous lawsuits don't pay out huge rewards. Malpractice insurance companies are finding that their investments are not paying well so, they are rasining their rates, which they can do as they please. Their plea that their raised rates are a result of large awards just does not hold up to inspection. Of course they are definitely for tort reform, now do you suppose that they will lower their rates should that reform come to fruitiion for them? I do not. It took a government mandate to force health insurance companies to refund their ratepayers at least some of their enormous profits, They wouldn't do it on their own, nor will malpractice companies.
 
canndo said:
Firstly, this is supposed to be about Hillary and Bengazi, but I was responding to this:
"And I disagree.
Doctors and hospitals have to raise their costs to offset the low reimbursement rate created by Obamacare.
Look it up."


Wha the discussion WAS about was the fact that insurance companes, not Obamacare, is paying the doctors and hosptals, therefore, if they are raising their rates it has to do with what the insurance companies are paying - and as I have looked, and still am looking, insurance companies have actually raised their rates across the board, from individual policies outside of the exchange to those within the exchange - AND reduced their benefits a well.

So what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Impossible!! Obamacare would never let them get away with that!!

BTW, the private healthcare that Walmart offers it's employees is far and away better than Obamacare. Those damn evil corporations!!! LOL!
 
NLXSK1 said:
LOL!!! Total bullshit.

Your opinion does not constitute facts or sourcing.
Click to expand...


No, it does not. I am not here to footnote my every phrase. I read a lot, I research current issues, I remember fairly well. I may make mistakes but I do not lie and only rarely fall to the bent of man to make shit up that seems reasonable. If you want references, specify which ones you dispute and I will do my best (if they are on line), to accomodate. Some of the other things I post are questions - most of which you seem unable to answer, others are simply based upon reason.

Your saying I am "full of shit" is about as precise as what you are claiming I am doing, now isn't it.
 
NLXSK1 said:
Impossible!! Obamacare would never let them get away with that!!

BTW, the private healthcare that Walmart offers it's employees is far and away better than Obamacare. Those damn evil corporations!!! LOL!
Click to expand...


Where are your facts? So far it is simply your claim thhat Walmart (which is still offered to the select few of their employees), is "better" than Obamacare.

Tell me, have you actually gone to the exchange and compared Walmart's offerings to the Bronze, Silver or Gold plans? Have you visited the exchange in earnest? Have you examined your own plan and compared it with others?

I have. I read the original proposed bill, I have been purchasing my own private policies for years now, sometimes at 6 month intervals, and I have examined at some length, the offerings of the exchange. Have you?

Now, how about showing us the price and offerings of that great Walmart group health insurance policy.
 
NLXSK1 said:
You keep saying that like it is a fact while providing no evidence of it.

The Democrats are in the pockets of trial lawyers and will never allow it to happen so it has not been tried.
Click to expand...

Texas has tort reform. Nothing had changed in regards to cost. Actually heath care has diminished in the lone star state
 
MuyLocoNC said:
This is old news unless you have your MSM blinders on.

Here's a link to the article if you're really interested.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/surpr...-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670
Click to expand...

No blinders - all but the very last part of the article compares unsubsidized exchange plans with what is actually a blue cross blue shield policy.


"A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis from September showed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will face monthly premiums that are five to nine times higher than Walmart premiums.
JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple"


But they use a family of 4 with an income of 53k as their example, that family will be subsidized. Apples to oranges. The last part however is true, oop is far less with Walmart, and it is likely that their network is larger, but it is also likely that it is not a Walmart network but a Blue Cross Blue shield network.


I have yet to determine why health insurance companies have altered their networks based upon where they get what amounts to the exact same premium.


My question is the same however, have ANY of you actually taken a good look at your own, and the ACA plans, their networks, the benefits and their policies and prices? or are you all depending upon someone else to tell you, such as Beenthere, claiming that the Feds pay the hospitals directly for exchange services.
 
canndo said:
Frivolous lawsuits don't pay out huge rewards. Malpractice insurance companies are finding that their investments are not paying well so, they are rasining their rates, which they can do as they please. Their plea that their raised rates are a result of large awards just does not hold up to inspection. Of course they are definitely for tort reform, now do you suppose that they will lower their rates should that reform come to fruitiion for them? I do not. It took a government mandate to force health insurance companies to refund their ratepayers at least some of their enormous profits, They wouldn't do it on their own, nor will malpractice companies.
Click to expand...


You are preaching to the choir about how evil insurance companies are, wish we had done something about that. They have actuary specialists who determine how many denials will result in how many suits and are profitable compared to paying.
 
canndo said:
No blinders - all but the very last part of the article compares unsubsidized exchange plans with what is actually a blue cross blue shield policy.


"A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis from September showed that unsubsidized Obamacare enrollees will face monthly premiums that are five to nine times higher than Walmart premiums.
JAMA found the unsubsidized premium for a nonsmoking gouple age 60 can cost $1,365 per month versus the Walmart cost of about $134 for the same couple"


But they use a family of 4 with an income of 53k as their example, that family will be subsidized. Apples to oranges. The last part however is true, oop is far less with Walmart, and it is likely that their network is larger, but it is also likely that it is not a Walmart network but a Blue Cross Blue shield network.

I have compared our plan from State Farm (my wife's employer) and comparable plans on the exchange. In fact, Cheebs and I had a

I have yet to determine why health insurance companies have altered their networks based upon where they get what amounts to the exact same premium.


My question is the same however, have ANY of you actually taken a good look at your own, and the ACA plans, their networks, the benefits and their policies and prices? or are you all depending upon someone else to tell you, such as Beenthere, claiming that the Feds pay the hospitals directly for exchange services.
Click to expand...

I did compare our plan from State Farm (my wife's employer) and comparable plans on the exchange. In fact, Cheebs and I had an uncommonly civil exchange on the subject. The plans on the exchange fell far short on benefits, coverage, deductibles and premiums. So much so, it led me to comment that no one in their right fucking mind would actually pay for that coverage.

You made an interesting point about the comparison using subsidized premiums and how after being subsidized, they would be closer. I think that point might actually be counterproductive to your argument. The fact the Walmart plan doesn't need my taxes to be affordable is a BIG WIN from where I'm standing. We aren't going to penalize ourselves 1% of our earnings or force people to buy a service they don't want to prop the Walmart plan up. We aren't going to piss away hundreds of billions of dollars away (even that will skyrocket) building a huge government bureaucracy, bailing out the insurance companies and subsidizing the premiums on the Walmart plan. IMO the Walmart plan is far superior, except for the whole having to work at Walmart thing.
 
schuylaar said:
meh..are republicans still trying to spin this one?
Click to expand...

rush limbaugh told them all that if they yell loud enough and get angry enough, mitt romney will retroactively become president.

mitt-smirk.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
AP News: Trump campaign’s Russia contacts ‘grave’ threat, Senate says
Replies
7
Views
663
hanimmal
hanimmal
hanimmal
AP: Microsoft Exchange email hack was caused by China
Replies
10
Views
536
schuylaar
S
Jimdamick
Russia & China align
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
Friendly_Grower
Friendly_Grower
hanimmal
Biden's Cabinet and administration picks.
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
schuylaar
S
hanimmal
Senate Republicans hold hearings to help Trump's obstruction of the Russian investigation, which has shown he is a criminal.
Replies
13
Views
561
CunningCanuk
CunningCanuk
Back
Top