Healthcare Trade-Off

[dayman]

And fairly ignorant, I suspect.

 

 

 

The simplification of set of facts, and the subsequent vilification of an award (many of which are reduced) gets quite a bit of press. And it's not by accident btw, that people know of these stories. God forbid the truth of some of the most famous cases be known (when a gag order expires or can somehow be avoided), or the human costs of caps have light shed on them (both noneconomic and for God's sake the poor people in states with caps on all damages). You need to understand the powerful lobbying effort that works towards aggressive tort reform.

Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[dayman]

The hard truth is it's Karl Rove finding the perfect wedge issue that further marries the Chamber of Commerce to Republican candidates and can be spun to sell to the people as if giving up their rights is in the public interest. He's been buying elections for supreme court justices since the '80s, the Chamber has been misrepresenting the facts of individual cases to turn the American people against their own civil justice system (as well as slandering supreme court justices), and so on...

 

And by the way...if you cannot basically prove that there is unbelievable benefit for tort reform that is measurable then you've lost b/c the costs are very real...people rant and rave about our general "freedom" and our "rights" on a number of issues...our access to courts and interest in jury trials are one such case where the issue is real....and to people who get jury verdicts reduced by these arbitrary caps set by state congressional officials who have no idea about their case it's even more real.

 

 

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Reimbursements-per-enrollee-500x383.jpg

 

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf

 

Supporters of limiting health providers’ liability have touted Texas’ medical malpractice

experiment as the solution for improving national health care. For example, Minnesota Rep.

Michele Bachmann held up Texas as a successful liability “pilot program” in an address in

September, stating, “The state of Texas did a wonderful job of lawsuit reform and actually saw

medical costs come down. We know it works.”1

 

Others have echoed Bachmann’s claim. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and 11 other members of

the House of Representatives cited Texas in a recent report that claimed positive effects of

limiting liability.2 Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) struck a similar theme in the “findings” of a proposed

amendment to Senate health insurance legislation that he filed this month.3

 

But most of the claims touting positive effects of the Texas law – which took effect in September

2003 and included a $250,000 per defendant liability cap – are flatly contradicted by the data.

By the measures commonly used to evaluate health care – such as cost, the uninsured rate, and

access to care – Texas has regressed since its liability law took effect. Collectively, these

measures show that Texas has one of the worst health care systems in the United States.

Moreover, since 2003 Texas has either failed to improve or grown even worse compared to other

states on almost every measure.

 

Since the liability laws took effect:

• The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has

increased at nearly double the national average;

• spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare

reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average;

• the state’s uninsured rate has increased, remaining the highest in the country;

• the cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;

• growth in the number of doctors per capita has slowed; and

• the number of doctors per capita in underserved rural areas has declined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Malpractice insurance costs in Texas have gone down. Medical costs have not. Health insurance costs have not. More people are not insured. on and on...but this is a success....we should ALL be like Texas.

 

 

In 2010, the average premium for family coverage in Texas was $14,526. That’s $655 higher than the U.S. average. Those numbers seem to indicate that doctors have not passed on their own insurance savings to their patients and that they are not practicing medicine any less defensively than before tort reform was enacted.

 

http://wendellpotter.com/2011/09/the-mythical-benefits-of-tort-reform-in-texas/

Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[dayman]

And the hot coffee case itself was one of the prime examples of tort reform lobbying at it's best.

 

Old lady orders coffee..pulls into a parked spot to put in sugar, spills it on herself (she was held 20% liable for that)...the coffee is unGodly hot it causes 3rd degree burns within seconds all over her legs and crotch and the back of her legs...over $10K in damage to repair it. They write a letter asking McDonald's to cover teh costs...nope...they offered $800. So she sues. Turns out the policy of all McDonalds was to have all coffee that hot "to hot to drink" according to their manuals" b/c that's the way people like it...to hot to drink right away. They had badly burned many people before her...done nothing to change. She sues and wins 5ish Million and it's later reduced to 400kis along with a gag order so she can't talk. Then magically she's the new story everywhere! (by magically I mean...Chamber of Commerce magically) ...she's the new evil face of tort reform! The punitive damages in the first place were 2 days worth of coffee sales...and she didn't get that anyway...

 

This is what she got:

 

 

 

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvImvUQoqGWyNskdwuvROw71HetcGWK1q_6090CkprmYRYK7qp

 

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCFVWg_Sdev0cyTMawTlsmSfSNpX4GK3a-Lgtun_ND9M-dxcCYBw

 

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-MsJYKEC-cY2ojdu3dvd0Q9pKcznhjRz-Q_MdxCu2Y7zLTtxG

 

 

 

 

 

....but this story...this became the story of tort reform. The story of all things evil about the civil justice system. A story so bad we need to give up our rights to court and cap damages!

Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

The hard truth is it's Karl Rove finding the perfect wedge issue that further marries the Chamber of Commerce to Republican candidates and can be spun to sell to the people as if giving up their rights is in the public interest. He's been buying elections for supreme court justices since the '80s, the Chamber has been misrepresenting the facts of individual cases to turn the American people against their own civil justice system (as well as slandering supreme court justices), and so on...

 

And by the way...if you cannot basically prove that there is unbelievable benefit for tort reform that is measurable then you've lost b/c the costs are very real...people rant and rave about our general "freedom" and our "rights" on a number of issues...our access to courts and interest in jury trials are one such case where the issue is real....and to people who get jury verdicts reduced by these arbitrary caps set by state congressional officials who have no idea about their case it's even more real.

 

 

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Reimbursements-per-enrollee-500x383.jpg

 

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf

 

Supporters of limiting health providers’ liability have touted Texas’ medical malpractice

experiment as the solution for improving national health care. For example, Minnesota Rep.

Michele Bachmann held up Texas as a successful liability “pilot program” in an address in

September, stating, “The state of Texas did a wonderful job of lawsuit reform and actually saw

medical costs come down. We know it works.”1

 

Others have echoed Bachmann’s claim. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and 11 other members of

the House of Representatives cited Texas in a recent report that claimed positive effects of

limiting liability.2 Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) struck a similar theme in the “findings” of a proposed

amendment to Senate health insurance legislation that he filed this month.3

 

But most of the claims touting positive effects of the Texas law – which took effect in September

2003 and included a $250,000 per defendant liability cap – are flatly contradicted by the data.

By the measures commonly used to evaluate health care – such as cost, the uninsured rate, and

access to care – Texas has regressed since its liability law took effect. Collectively, these

measures show that Texas has one of the worst health care systems in the United States.

Moreover, since 2003 Texas has either failed to improve or grown even worse compared to other

states on almost every measure.

 

Since the liability laws took effect:

• The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has

increased at nearly double the national average;

• spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare

reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average;

• the state’s uninsured rate has increased, remaining the highest in the country;

• the cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;

• growth in the number of doctors per capita has slowed; and

• the number of doctors per capita in underserved rural areas has declined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Malpractice insurance costs in Texas have gone down. Medical costs have not. Health insurance costs have not. More people are not insured. on and on...but this is a success....we should ALL be like Texas.

 

 

In 2010, the average premium for family coverage in Texas was $14,526. That’s $655 higher than the U.S. average. Those numbers seem to indicate that doctors have not passed on their own insurance savings to their patients and that they are not practicing medicine any less defensively than before tort reform was enacted.

 

http://wendellpotter.com/2011/09/the-mythical-benefits-of-tort-reform-in-texas/

 

 

The bolded part above proves your (lack of) credibility. When did we start electing Supreme Court Justices? You're just another MDP. Pathetic and not worth any more response.

[jjamie12]

The bolded part above proves your (lack of) credibility. When did we start electing Supreme Court Justices? You're just another MDP.

You've GOT to be kidding, right?

[3rdnlng]

You've GOT to be kidding, right?

 

About electing Supreme Court Justices or him being another MDP?

[Doc]

Barry himself said that tort reform would save "just" $54B, so it wasn't worth pursuing. Told me all I needed to know about him.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Barry himself said that tort reform would save "just" $54B, so it wasn't worth pursuing. Told me all I needed to know about him.

 

Why do people call Barack "Barry" and I catch flak for using the name "Teabagger." Did Obama actually go by the name Barry at one time too? Are they both used in a derogatory way?

 

I never really got the association? Is Barry an Anglicsized name for Barack?

Edited June 13, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois

[VABills]

Why do people call Barack "Barry" and I catch flak for using the name "Teabagger." Did Obama actually go by the name Barry at one time too? Are they both used in a derogatory way?

 

I never really got the association? Is Barry an Anglicsized name for Barack?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/22/when-barry-became-barack.html

[ExiledInIllinois]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/22/when-barry-became-barack.html

Thanks... Never seen that. I guess Barry and the baggers got something in common... Take names they eventually don't like.

[dayman]

The bolded part above proves your (lack of) credibility. When did we start electing Supreme Court Justices? You're just another MDP. Pathetic and not worth any more response.

 

 

About electing Supreme Court Justices or him being another MDP?

 

 

LOL don't be mad that you apparently don't realize that...yes 3rdling we do in many states. Take care of your precious credibility.

Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

LOL don't be mad that you apparently don't realize that...yes 3rdling we do in many states. Take care of your precious credibility.

 

 

I'd like to see your opinion on how we elect Supreme Court Justices. The only voting I'm aware of is the confirmation process.

[dayman]

I'd like to see your opinion on how we elect Supreme Court Justices. The only voting I'm aware of is the confirmation process.

 

 

LOL well that's not my fault 3rd. Look it up. Why the hell would I say we elect justices in many states if we don't? It varies from State to State obviously there are a number of different processes. In Texas, needless to say, they elect them. And Karl Rove did a lot of work w/ that. If you don't even know this...then you probably have some reading up to do about the civil justice system generally and tort reform as a whole. Maybe even just what it is...

 

And to his credit Rove is good at what he does he and the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests he flipped that court hard since the late '80s.

Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[LeviF]

LOL well that's not my fault 3rd. Look it up. Why the hell would I say we elect justices in many states if we don't? It varies from State to State obviously there are a number of different processes. In Texas, needless to say, they elect them. And Karl Rove did a lot of work w/ that. If you don't even know this...then you probably have some reading up to do about the civil justice system generally and tort reform as a whole. Maybe even just what it is...

 

And to his credit Rove is good at what he does he and the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests he flipped that court hard.

I can't believe you two haven't realized this yet...

 

You and 3rd are talking about two different things.

[dayman]

I can't believe you two haven't realized this yet...

 

You and 3rd are talking about two different things.

 

 

LOL are you saying he thought I was talking about SCOTUS? If that's the case...then LOL I mean there isn't much I can say about that we're talking tort reform here...lol...and "I've lost credibility"...

[Doc]

Thanks... Never seen that. I guess Barry and the baggers got something in common... Take names they eventually don't like.

Except they don't call themselves "teabaggers," and it's not the "Tea Bag movement."

[3rdnlng]

LOL well that's not my fault 3rd. Look it up. Why the hell would I say we elect justices in many states if we don't? It varies from State to State obviously there are a number of different processes. In Texas, needless to say, they elect them. And Karl Rove did a lot of work w/ that. If you don't even know this...then you probably have some reading up to do about the civil justice system generally and tort reform as a whole. Maybe even just what it is...

 

And to his credit Rove is good at what he does he and the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests he flipped that court hard since the late '80s.

 

 

Your original post didn't say anything about "states". It only morphed into that later on in another post after you showed your usual brand of obtuseness. Of course I assumed you meant SCOTUS.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Except they don't call themselves "teabaggers," and it's not the "Tea Bag movement."

I suppose if I say: "Link please." They have that covered already...

 

As much as you want to deny it, it is no different... They embraced the nickname until the dolts figured out what it meant. Any other group would have kept it and shrugged it off... And this is a knock on Barry too. Except w/this band of right-wing, up-tight nut cases they fight it. Even Barry shrugs it off. Some of them were actually wearing teabags... They probably still do at the rallies for the well off, but cry alots of society.

 

Anyway... Thanks, I have a greater appreciation for beloved Barry now and the use of the name.

[Juror#8]

Re: Tort Reform

 

Caps on non-economic damages should be about as far as it is allowed to go - though I'd imagine that the AMA lobby would disagree.

 

The McDonalds coffee case is the perfect example of how people will sensationalize a rather pedestrian legal fact pattern, demonize a woman who was only seeking status quo ante, and exonerate (for all intents and purposes) a company that made a calculated business decision that was contrary to the well being of its patrons.

 

Caps on punitives should even be within reason. For all the hullabaloo about exorbitant jury awards - they at least represent a deterrent for companies and individuals that introduce negligence into the marketpace.

 

And it does happen (negligence in the marketplace). Indeed, if it weren't for exoribitant jury awards, you'd have more placenta accreta, no seatbelts, and more Bendectin generational casulties.

 

Those jury awards have inspired many an evolution in industry standard and course of dealing.

 

I may be biased, but tort reform is not as per se necessary as some would have you think.

[dayman]

Re: Tort Reform

 

Caps on non-economic damages should be about as far as it is allowed to go - though I'd imagine that the AMA lobby would disagree.

 

The McDonalds coffee case is the perfect example of how people will sensationalize a rather pedestrian legal fact pattern, demonize a woman who was only seeking status quo ante, and exonerate (for all intents and purposes) a company that made a calculated business decision that was contrary to the well being of its patrons.

 

Caps on punitives should even be within reason. For all the hullabaloo about exorbitant jury awards - they at least represent a deterrent for companies and individuals that introduce negligence into the marketpace.

 

And it does happen (negligence in the marketplace). Indeed, if it weren't for exoribitant jury awards, you'd have more placenta accreta, no seatbelts, and more Bendectin generational casulties.

 

Those jury awards have inspired many an evolution in industry standard and course of dealing.

 

I may be biased, but tort reform is not as per se necessary as some would have you think.

 

 

Why would you cap noneconomic damages before punitive damages?

 

Some of the worst things that can possibly happen to you are noneconomic in nature. $250K would make me whole if some gross negligence on the part of a manufacturer causes me to lose my eye sight for the rest of my life? That's justice b/c we need to "stop excessive jury awards" from hurting the manufacturing industry? Maybe Texas justice...but not my idea of justice.

Edited June 13, 2012 by TheNewBills