How hospitals & doctors inflate their bills
Brian
http://community.meridianstar.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5701049671/m/2501028681
"Profit-hungry hospitals are overcharging consumers an estimated $10 billion
a year. Some deliberately work to keep bills indecipherable.
American hospitals are fleecing patients out of billions of dollars
annually. That's because hospital bills are next to impossible for
consumers to understand, which means hospitals can hide improper charges
behind mysterious medical terminology and baffling codes."
You' won't get bills just from the hospital. A multitude of billing or
physician groups will send separate bills. It's often hard to tell which is
which--For example, you might get bills from "Apogee Medical Group" sent
from Michigan for a hospital stay in New jersey, or "Internal Medicine and
Geriatric", which doesn't even list the doctor's name. It's as if they are
deliberately trying to confuse patients and make it difficult for them to
understand or contest the bills.
http://www.hsacoalition.org/2008/01/18/two-simple-steps-to-immediately-end-hospital-overcharging/
"A new study designed to uncover the key to understanding hospital prices
confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing number of
hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held accountable.
Of course there is wrongdoing by hospitals in their prices. When you have
markups about "five times that of others," by some hospitals - and those
markups cannot be explained by "by charity and indigent care or by teaching
status," then the only explanation can be that these hospitals are using
their system of hiding their prices through incomprehensible bills,
overcharges, and their anti-trust exemption to profiteer and price-gouge
people and employers whose health and lives as they now know them are at
stake. These hospitals prey on the weak, the sick and the dying - forcing
massive insurance premiums on employers and the public in general, causing
more Americans to be uninsured because they cannot afford insurance"
"Hospital stays are expensive enough as it is. But when erroneous charges
are added to the bill, the cost can be unbearable. Nobody likes to think
that a hospital may overcharge or make an error, but it does happen. And
unpaid hospital bills can damage your credit rating and may even lead to
lawsuits.
There are steps you can take to correct these overcharges, though. After
all, you are not required to pay for services you don't actually receive.
Also, don't rely on your insurance to find errors. Only you know what has
been done and what has not. Even if you have generous insurance benefits and
pay little of the total costs out of pocket, one way or another you will end
up paying for billing errors. Following these pointers can help you avoid
the headaches caused by billing errors.
1. Review every single form. At some point in your stay, you'll be asked to
sign a stack of documents. This could happen when you sign in, when you get
discharged or maybe even some time in-between. Carefully go over every form
you sign. At the very least, make sure that:
* Your name is spelled correctly on every document
* Your Social Security number is correct
* Your address and date of birth are accurate
* Any listed treatments and procedures are also correct
Reviewing these forms in advance is critical for accurate billing. Make sure
all mistakes are corrected before you sign any document. Otherwise, you
could be accidentally billed for someone else's care.
2. Keep track of every expense. Hospitals have lots of ways of padding your
bill. Not only will you be charged for the medical services you receive,
you'll also be billed for:
* Medications
* Meals
* Use of equipment and machinery
* Use of the telephone
* Use of the television
That's why it helps to keep a log of every expense you incur. That way you
can check it against the bill when it arrives. If you aren't able to keep
track because of pain or medications, ask a responsible loved-one to do it
for you.
You might also want to jot down some of the services you don't use. If there
are days you pass up watching television or using the phone, make a note of
it. It will make it easier to spot the billing errors.
3. Ask for an itemized bill. You might get a summarized bill that doesn't
really explain what you're paying for. If that's the case, you may want to
hold off paying it. Instead, contact the hospital's billing department and
ask for an itemized statement. By law, a hospital is required to provide it.
Take your time and review it thoroughly. You may find charges that shouldn't
be there. If so, contact the billing department and politely explain the
discrepancy. In most cases, that should solve the problem. If not, ask how
the hospital's grievance process works. You might also take the matter up
with your state's attorney general's office.
4. Talk to your insurer. Shortly after leaving the hospital, you should
receive an explanation of benefits (EOB) letter from your insurance company.
An EOB gives you a complete breakdown of all the charges you incurred during
your stay. It also shows you what's covered and what isn't.
Review this form for accuracy, too. Anything that's incorrect should be
reported right away. You don't want your insurer being overcharged either.
There's usually a cap on how much coverage you can get. If hospital billing
errors eat into your benefits, they may not be there if you need them later
on.
5. Get help. If efforts to correct your bill prove frustrating, try asking
for some assistance. A medical billing advocate is a professional who knows
how to interpret and negotiate hospital bills. There is usually a modest fee
for these services. But the cost may be worth it if you end up saving
thousands of dollars.
Another option is to contact the office of your state's attorney general.
Part of their role is to protect consumers from overcharges of any type. The
state office will work directly with the hospital to get the issue resolved.
But hopefully it will never come to that. With any luck, you'll never be
overbilled for a hospital stay. But on the off-chance you are, you'll know
how to handle it."
Also see the article by Kenneth D Christman, MD, former president of the
American Association of Physicians and Surgeons
www.jpands.org/vol11no2/christman.pdf
Happy Oyster
>American hospitals are fleecing patients out of billions of dollars
>annually.
Smells like en envious naturopathic mafia PR...
--
POLICE - POLIZEI - POLITIE - POLICIA
Rod Speed
Didnt even pay for the TV, just for the newspapers.
Corse that wasnt in the completely fucked US system.
The Real Bev
> http://community.meridianstar.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5701049671/m/2501028681
>
> You' won't get bills just from the hospital. A multitude of billing or
> physician groups will send separate bills. It's often hard to tell which is
> which--For example, you might get bills from "Apogee Medical Group" sent
> from Michigan for a hospital stay in New jersey, or "Internal Medicine and
> Geriatric", which doesn't even list the doctor's name. It's as if they are
> deliberately trying to confuse patients and make it difficult for them to
> understand or contest the bills.
If you're on Medicare you NEVER see a bill, just a "we paid X $Y" notice from
the medicare processing company and another from the Blue Cross 'Advantage'
provider. Sometimes several from each. Medicare whacks off a huge chunk and
then pays 80% of the remainder, which is good; then Blue Cross pays the rest.
I'd be happy to go over hospital bills line by line (I actually used to do
that back in the old days when HR had to approve bills before they were sent to
the insurance company), but I never get to see them.
The hospital that killed my mom had the gall to send a bill several months
later saying "The insurance company didn't pay us $275, so YOU have to pay us."
No explanation, so I refused. They eventually turned it over to a collection
agency. I told them they'd just bought a bad debt and the only way they'd
collect was if a judge ordered it and I'd be EAGER to explain to him what kind
of care she got and how no explanation for the charge was ever given. Never
heard from them again.
If you have a choice, NEVER go to a local hospital; get to the biggest
teaching hospital around if you can do it without bleeding to death on the way.
--
Cheers, Bev
============================================================
"To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a
violation of the Voting Rights Act." -- Ann Coulter
Old Pif
.
>
> "A new study designed to uncover the key to understanding hospital prices
> confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing number of
> hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held accountable.
>
What does it mean "overcharge" applied to private AND monopolist
enterprise?
They charge you as much as they please. They harvest money. That is
what they do. Medical service is secondary.
Gordon Burditt
>> confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing number of
>> hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held accountable.
>>
>
>What does it mean "overcharge" applied to private AND monopolist
>enterprise?
Charging higher than the published ripoff rates.
Charging more than once for the same service at the same date and time
to the same person.
Charging for services never rendered.
Charging for services impossible to render (e.g. an abortion or
child delivery for a male patient. They will probably say they
forgot the charges for a sex change operation.).
Charges for services rendered after the death of the patient.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
stiffed by an insurance company or a hit-and-run patient who never pays
at least once.
jigo
message news:4ab57c6e$0$2017$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Trust me, for every time a doctor or hospital stiffs a patient, they get
> stiffed by an insurance company or a hit-and-run patient who never pays at
> least once.
Why should we trust your unsupported assertion? I'll trust the many reports
and investigations that have all shown how hospitals and doctors routinely
rip off patients:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P74840.asp
http://www.health.com/health/money-article/0,,20221597,00.html
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/insurance/20040206a1.asp
http://community.meridianstar.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5701049671/m/2501028681
http://www.hsacoalition.org/2008/01/18/two-simple-steps-to-immediately-end-hospital-overcharging/
www.jpands.org/vol11no2/christman.pdf
"Profit-hungry hospitals are overcharging consumers an estimated $10 billion
a year. Some deliberately work to keep bills indecipherable.
American hospitals are fleecing patients out of billions of dollars
annually. That's because hospital bills are next to impossible for
consumers to understand, which means hospitals can hide improper charges
behind mysterious medical terminology and baffling codes."
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> "Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply" <sam...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
> message news:4ab57c6e$0$2017$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> Trust me, for every time a doctor or hospital stiffs a patient, they get
>> stiffed by an insurance company or a hit-and-run patient who never pays at
>> least once.
>
> Why should we trust your unsupported assertion? I'll trust the many reports
> and investigations that have all shown how hospitals and doctors routinely
> rip off patients:
I work in a doctor's office, and I am not saying that no doctors or
hospitals rip off people, I am just saying that it goes both ways. And
I think the fact that the doctors get ripped off also is just not
terribly popular right now.
If you submit a Medicare bill that is not 100% accurate (and medical
coding for billing is a fine art) or cosmetically perfect (read: their
OCR machine cannot read it) they permanently reject the claim, and you
cannot correct it and re-submit. I call that the government stiffing
the doctor, and I hope you do, too.
We don't have the staff to verify every patient's insurance before every
visit (7 staff members to support a doctor and a PA), and lots of
patients come in with expired insurance, workers' comp claims that have
settled, injuries that they claim were not work injuries but their
insurance company claims is a work injury and won't pay but their
employer claims is not a work injury, and guess who gets stiffed? The
doctor.
Patients settle their workers' comp claims and don't tell us, come back
for another visit or two before we find out that they are no longer
insured.
Our biller argues with insurance companies every day about submitting
claims that the insurance company claims they never received and wants
us to re-fax to them, and we have a fax confirmation proving that they
received it, and they stall for 3 or 4 months and then tell us that they
did not get the bill in time, despite the fact that we have abundant
proof that we submitted it in a timely manner, and they refuse to pay
it. I don't know what you call that, but I call it the insurance
company stiffing the doctor. Same for the insurance companies who will
approve payment a procedure before it's done but then after the fact
they will refuse to pay for it.
We have an HMO contract where the HMO took it upon themselves to
mis-process most of our claims and then penalize us because we were not
following the contract, when the truth was that they were too lazy to
process our claims directly.
I don't think that charging different fees to different people should be
considered ripping off patients. I don't think that charging a higher
fee to a patient who is not paying in advance is ripping off the patient
-- our doctor will give cash-pay patients who pay in advance a
discounted rate, because it means that the front-office staff are not
going to have to argue with the insurance company ahead of time to get
the procedure authorized and the biller is not going to have to argue
with anybody after the fact to get the insurance company who agreed to
pay for the procedure to pay for it.
Me
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Old Pif wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2:46 pm, "Brian" <Br...@erewhon.com> wrote:
> .
>>
>> "A new study designed to uncover the key to understanding hospital prices
>> confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing number of
>> hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held accountable.
>>
>
> What does it mean "overcharge" applied to private AND monopolist
> enterprise?
The overcharge is like "full list price" and the "allowed charge" is what
the insurance industry pays for the service (is is usually a big discount,
too).
> They charge you as much as they please. They harvest money. That is
> what they do. Medical service is secondary.
If you do not have insurance OR if you get service not covered by
insurance, then they can charge you prices up in the stratosphere.
And, they can take your house away, too.
I know people this happened to.
Then, as you know, inflation for health care has been out of control for
decades.
krw
>
>
>On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Old Pif wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 2:46�pm, "Brian" <Br...@erewhon.com> wrote:
>> .
>>>
>>> �"A new study designed to uncover the key to understanding hospital prices
>>> confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing number of
>>> hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held accountable.
>>>
>>
>> What does it mean "overcharge" applied to private AND monopolist
>> enterprise?
>
>The overcharge is like "full list price" and the "allowed charge" is what
>the insurance industry pays for the service (is is usually a big discount,
>too).
>
>> They charge you as much as they please. They harvest money. That is
>> what they do. Medical service is secondary.
>
>If you do not have insurance OR if you get service not covered by
>insurance, then they can charge you prices up in the stratosphere.
Insurance contracts usually cover (thus "discounts" are valid)
procedures they don't cover too.
>And, they can take your house away, too.
Depends on the state.
>I know people this happened to.
anecdote <> evidence
>Then, as you know, inflation for health care has been out of control for
>decades.
As has the government. Notice a coincidence?
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> If you do not have insurance OR if you get service not covered by
> insurance, then they can charge you prices up in the stratosphere.
*sigh*
The discount for insurance-covered services is due to the fact that (a)
the insurance company drives business to the facility by being on their
list and (b) it is easier to get money out of an insurance company than
it is to get it out of, say, a patient who fled from California to
Massachusetts with their workers' comp settlement in order to avoid
paying the part of their workers' comp charges that they owed since,
unbeknownst to the doctor, their case had settled and they had gotten a
settlement.
maxw...@my-deja.com
>
> "Profit-hungry hospitals are overcharging consumers an estimated $10 billion
> a year. Some deliberately work to keep bills indecipherable.
>
> American hospitals are fleecing patients out of billions of dollars
> annually. That's because hospital bills are next to impossible for
> consumers to understand, which means hospitals can hide improper charges
> behind mysterious medical terminology and baffling codes."
>
> You' won't get bills just from the hospital. A multitude of billing or
> physician groups will send separate bills. It's often hard to tell which is
> which--For example, you might get bills from "Apogee Medical Group" sent
> from Michigan for a hospital stay in New jersey, or "Internal Medicine and
> Geriatric", which doesn't even list the doctor's name. It's as if they are
> deliberately trying to confuse patients and make it difficult for them to
> understand or contest the bills.
>
>
> "A new study designed to uncover the key to understanding hospital prices
> confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing number of
> hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held accountable.
>
> Of course there is wrongdoing by hospitals in their prices. When you have
> markups about "five times that of others," by some hospitals - and those
> markups cannot be explained by "by charity and indigent care or by teaching
> status," then the only explanation can be that these hospitals are using
> their system of hiding their prices through incomprehensible bills,
> overcharges, and their anti-trust exemption to profiteer and price-gouge
> people and employers whose health and lives as they now know them are at
> stake. These hospitals prey on the weak, the sick and the dying - forcing
> massive insurance premiums on employers and the public in general, causing
> more Americans to be uninsured because they cannot afford insurance"
>
LOL. You apparently have little or know experience with any of this.
They are going to cite some privacy act or give you some other
excuse for not detailing your invoice. And then that would be if
you actually get to talk to someone.
What will happen is you will spend hours and days and weeks
trying to get answers and then you will continue to get the same
bill with an "overdue" listed on it. It will all be as if your letter
writing and phone calling were for nothing. After a few months
you get a letter from a collection agency.
>
> Take your time and review it thoroughly. You may find charges that shouldn't
> be there. If so, contact the billing department and politely explain the
> discrepancy. In most cases, that should solve the problem. If not, ask how
> the hospital's grievance process works. You might also take the matter up
> with your state's attorney general's office.
Yeah good luck with that.
> 4. Talk to your insurer. Shortly after leaving the hospital, you should
> receive an explanation of benefits (EOB) letter from your insurance company.
> An EOB gives you a complete breakdown of all the charges you incurred during
> your stay. It also shows you what's covered and what isn't.
The insurance company is going to tell you they paid for
what was submitted based on how it was coded. That is
if you can find someone at the insurance company that
actually knows something about how things are done.
One time I spoke to 3 different people over the course of a
week and they gave 3 different reasons why the insurance
did not pay.
>
> Review this form for accuracy, too. Anything that's incorrect should be
> reported right away. You don't want your insurer being overcharged either.
> There's usually a cap on how much coverage you can get. If hospital billing
> errors eat into your benefits, they may not be there if you need them later
> on.
>
> 5. Get help. If efforts to correct your bill prove frustrating, try asking
> for some assistance. A medical billing advocate is a professional who knows
> how to interpret and negotiate hospital bills. There is usually a modest fee
> for these services. But the cost may be worth it if you end up saving
> thousands of dollars.
Well I will say that may be worth it. They can spend hours and days
trying to get to the bottom of things that are wrong. But even with
them much of the time they hit a brick wall too.
>
> Another option is to contact the office of your state's attorney general.
> Part of their role is to protect consumers from overcharges of any type. The
> state office will work directly with the hospital to get the issue resolved.
>
> But hopefully it will never come to that. With any luck, you'll never be
> overbilled for a hospital stay. But on the off-chance you are, you'll know
> how to handle it."
This is the biggest bunch of crap I have read all week.
Whoever wrote this nonsense has no idea of what goes on.
The only thing that will happen is you will continue to get bills
from the provider until they turn it over to a collection agency and
then you will get bills from them. When you have to go back to
the provider they are going to tell you that you have an unpaid
balance that must be paid.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> Brian wrote:
> >http://community.meridianstar.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5701049671/m/250...
>
> > You' won't get bills just from the hospital. A multitude of billing or
> > physician groups will send separate bills. It's often hard to tell which is
> > which--For example, you might get bills from "Apogee Medical Group" sent
> > from Michigan for a hospital stay in New jersey, or "Internal Medicine and
> > Geriatric", which doesn't even list the doctor's name. It's as if they are
> > deliberately trying to confuse patients and make it difficult for them to
> > understand or contest the bills.
>
> If you're on Medicare you NEVER see a bill, just a "we paid X $Y" notice from
> the medicare processing company and another from the Blue Cross 'Advantage'
> provider. Sometimes several from each. Medicare whacks off a huge chunk and
> then pays 80% of the remainder, which is good; then Blue Cross pays the rest.
> I'd be happy to go over hospital bills line by line (I actually used to do
> that back in the old days when HR had to approve bills before they were sent to
> the insurance company), but I never get to see them.
>
> The hospital that killed my mom had the gall to send a bill several months
> later saying "The insurance company didn't pay us $275, so YOU have to pay us."
> No explanation, so I refused. They eventually turned it over to a collection
> agency. I told them they'd just bought a bad debt and the only way they'd
> collect was if a judge ordered it and I'd be EAGER to explain to him what kind
> of care she got and how no explanation for the charge was ever given. Never
> heard from them again.
We had a couple of similar experiences where a parent was fully
covered
by Medicare and a supplement. These providers did not do their claims
until late or just didn't do them and then tried to bill our parent.
We verified that when they were admitted to the hospital that all
insurance information was provided, we had proof. The other providers
there got what they were supposed to get except this one that billed
4 months later. We told them that was their fault not ours or anyone
elses. They continued to bill even after we sent copies of documents
showing that the insurance info had been provided. Then it went to a
collection agent. We copied their tactics and just sent the same
copies
back to them over and over and then we just put their bills in the
trash.
They eventually stopped.
There should be a law that they can't do things like this. If they
don't
do their billing within a certain amount of time or if they don't use
the information that was provided to them then it should be breaking
a law to try to bill the patient that has done nothing wrong here.
Old Pif
>
> Charging for services impossible to render (e.g. an abortion or
> child delivery for a male patient.
>
Are not they smart?
Even smarter ... a simple way to keep the health cost down is not
paying the bills.
Mrs Irish Mike
> "Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply" <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
> messagenews:4ab57c6e$0$2017$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > Trust me, for every time a doctor or hospital stiffs a patient, they get
> > stiffed by an insurance company or a hit-and-run patient who never pays at
> > least once.
>
> Why should we trust your unsupported assertion? I'll trust the many reports
> and investigations that have all shown how hospitals and doctors routinely
>
They really aren't ripping off patients; they're getting their money
from whomever can pay. If someone saves your life or brings your child
into the world, who can put a price tag on it? These things are
priceless and the hospitals know it. They merely charge enough money
to keep the doors open, and many are'nt able to do even that.
Few of us pay hospital bills. The insurance companies pay the bill
and we just pay the deductable. If the hospital charges for two boxes
of tissues at $100 each, and I know I only used one, I will save
nothing if I complain; only the insurance company will reap the
savings and I have other things to worry about getting better.
No sense kicking the doors to the hospital, it isn't to blame. The
people to blame are the doctors who must make payments on their three
mansions and yacht, the drug manufactures who put a sugar coating on a
hundred year old drug and charge as if it is a newly invented wonder
drug, and the shareholders who demand large rewards for parking their
money.
Awhile back I went to the dentist with a toothache. Because I was
unemployed and had little money, the only affordable option was to
have the tooth yanked. I seetled into the chair and saw pictures of
the dentist in Africa where he did volunteer work for some charity
group. Soon I was relived of the pain and shaken by the drugs used on
me as I handed the receptionist/cashier my credit card. When I got
home I figured out the dentist had charged me the highest rate that
was usual for the procedure. See, my unemployed self had just paid for
those children in Africa to get dental care. Circle of life and all
that.
Often times a sickness will get better after proper treatment for
three days and large bills to the insurance company. Other times the
same illness will take 72 hours to resolve without medical
intervention. How can the average sick person know the differnce?
Don't worry, the for profit expert will tell you. 9 times out of 10,
it will depend on the type of insurance you have.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> There should be a law that they can't do things like this. If they
> don't
> do their billing within a certain amount of time or if they don't use
> the information that was provided to them then it should be breaking
> a law to try to bill the patient that has done nothing wrong here.
Actually, the patient is the one who is ultimately responsible for the
bill, and if the insurance company is playing games with the doctor and
not allowing the doctor to file the claim, it's a shame that the doctor
has to be punished when the insurance company is to blame, knows it, and
knows they are holding all the cards so they get off scot-free.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Even smarter ... a simple way to keep the health cost down is not
> paying the bills.
Better idea: Outlaw insurance.
Rod Speed
Mindlessly silly. Hardly anyone can afford the most expensive medical services.
maxw...@my-deja.com
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
I don't think you find anyone that will agree that the
patient should be punished because either
1.) The provider didn't do their part like other
providers are able to do. or 2.) The insurance
company is playing games, as you put it.
It isn't the patients fault that other people
can't do their jobs.
These things seem to happen more often than
not for some reason.
maxw...@my-deja.com
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Me wrote:
>
> > If you do not have insurance OR if you get service not covered by
> > insurance, then they can charge you prices up in the stratosphere.
>
> *sigh*
>
> The discount for insurance-covered services is due to the fact that (a)
> the insurance company drives business to the facility by being on their
> list and (b) it is easier to get money out of an insurance company than
> it is to get it out of, say, a patient who fled from California to
Yet in your others posts you blame insurance companies
as being a problem and say they should be outlawed.
> Massachusetts with their workers' comp settlement in order to avoid
> paying the part of their workers' comp charges that they owed since,
> unbeknownst to the doctor, their case had settled and they had gotten a
> settlement.
Everyone knows that the the number of people ditching their
payments is small. Most if they can't pay the obscene total
right away will make payments.
In fact I know someone that has negotiated a much lower
cost by agreeing to pay half up front and the rest after the
procedure.
pbj
Every time health care reform has come up in the past, doctors have
combined their considerable resources with the insurance industry to
keep the system from being fixed without regard for the tens of
thousands of Americans who die every year under this barbaric system.
They made their bed, now let them suffer the consequences.
Tristan
> On Sep 20, 10:27 am, "jigo" <nos...@all.com> wrote:
>> "Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply" <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:4ab57c6e$0$2017$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>
>>> Trust me, for every time a doctor or hospital stiffs a patient, they get
>>> stiffed by an insurance company or a hit-and-run patient who never pays at
>>> least once.
>> Why should we trust your unsupported assertion? I'll trust the many reports
>> and investigations that have all shown how hospitals and doctors routinely
>> rip off patients...
>>
>
> They really aren't ripping off patients; they're getting their money
> from whomever can pay. If someone saves your life or brings your child
> into the world, who can put a price tag on it? These things are
> priceless and the hospitals know it. They merely charge enough money
> to keep the doors open, and many are'nt able to do even that.
No one is objecting to legitimate charges for actual services. But
making fraudulent Medicare charges or making charging for procedures
that were never done or double billing or were for unnecessary
procedures is wrong any way you look at it. It drives up the cost of
healthcare for everyone, which is why it's a major national problem.
> Few of us pay hospital bills. The insurance companies pay the bill
> and we just pay the deductable. If the hospital charges for two boxes
> of tissues at $100 each, and I know I only used one, I will save
> nothing if I complain; only the insurance company will reap the
> savings and I have other things to worry about getting better.
But a large number of people do not have insurance. And they are the
ones who are hurt most. It's one of the major reasons ordinary
middle-class families face financial ruin. Read those articles to see
how hospitals vastly overcharge the uninsured.
Even if a bill is paid by insurance, it drives up the cost of insurance
and affects us all if it's inflated or falsified.
>
> No sense kicking the doors to the hospital, it isn't to blame.
Yes it is in many cases. The hospital executives get huge bonuses for
increasing their bottom line. And investigations have shown that fraud
in medical bills is common; e.g.
* Charges will be added for things that were never done. Nora Johnson
found when her 56-year-old husband, Bill, underwent hip-replacement
surgery in 1999. The cost of the operation was $25,000. When she asked
for and got an itemized bill, it included things "Like the charge for
newborn blood tests and a crib mobile. That stopped me in my tracks,"
recalls Johnson. "As far as I know, my husband never had a baby."
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P74840.asp
* Inflating charges for common items. "I've seen $90 charged for a
70-cent I.V. How about $129 for a mucous recovery system? That's a box
of Kleenex," Johnson adds. She's also seen charges for ordinary
supplies, such as towels and sheets, that should be included in the room
charges. How about $5.50 for "analgesic medication"; that turned out to
be 2 Tylenol.
* Changing the code used on a bill to one for a diagnosis that has a
higher price.
Note that these are not isolated incidents or accidents. Studies by
independent auditors, consumer reports, and other groups have found that
it has become routine for hospitals and doctors to inflate their bills.
"A new study designed to uncover the key to understanding hospital
prices confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing
number of hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held
accountable.
If you've ever spent time in a hospital, you've almost certainly been
overcharged. "There is no way to avoid being overbilled. It is going to
happen. In the last several years of looking at hundreds of bills, I've
run across only one hospital bill with no errors," says Edward Waxman of
Edward R. Waxman & Associates, an independent hospital bill auditor with
10 years of experience helping consumers sort through their medical bills."
http://www.hsacoalition.org/2008/01/18/two-simple-steps-to-immediately-end-hospital-overcharging/
http://www.consumersunion.org/health/unisuredfctwc.htm
http://www.businessreporter.org/hospitals-overchage-uninsured-patients.htm
Brian
> <maxw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9a1dda0d-ef5c-4712...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > http://community.meridianstar.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5701049671/m/250...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.hsacoalition.org/2008/01/18/two-simple-steps-to-immediatel...
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.myoptumhealth.com/portal/Information/item/Prevent+Hospital...
> >
> > lawsuits.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > * Medications
> >
> > * Meals
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > for you.
> >
> >
>
>
See the following FAQ by an attorney:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0599.htm
Do Patients Have Access to Their Medical Records?
Yes. The law requires a health care provider, except in limited
circumstances, to supply a patient, upon request, complete and current
information the provider has about the patient's diagnosis, treatment, and
prognosis. The provider must also notify a patient of any test results in
his possession or requested by the provider for purposes of diagnosis,
treatment, or prognosis. (CGS � 20-7c(b)).
A patient may obtain copies of his or her medical records by asking the
provider in writing. The patient's attorney or authorized representative can
also make such a request from a health care provider. Such records include
bills, x-rays, copies of lab report results, prescriptions, contact lens
specifications under certain conditions, and other technical information
used to assess the patient's health condition. (CGS � 20-7c(c)).
The provider must supply the health record within 30 days of the request.
(CGS � 20-7c(c)).
> >
>
>
>
> did not pay.
> >
> > on.
> >
> > thousands of dollars.
>
> >
> >
> > how to handle it."
>
If the company you contract with finds illegal or inappropriate charges (as
they usually do), the hospital *must* reduce the bill accordingly.
If they don't find anything, it costs you nothing. But in the vast majority
of cases, these companies find ways to reduce the bill, for which they get a
fair percentage. How would they stay in business otherwise?
krw
Every time health care reform has come up in the past, trial lawyers
have combined their considerable resources with the politicians to
keep the system from being fixed, without regard for anyone else.
>They made their bed, now let them suffer the consequences.
They made our bed, and you want them to take the bed too.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> > <maxwel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Well that is nice to know that there is a law for this, although
I don't know how many states have laws like Connecticut
I guess when you say "company" you are referring to a health
care advocate. They can help a lot and it is nice they can
spend the hours and days prodding for information.
I am sorry I am so cynical but I have dealt with these
problems over and over and over again. I am a
very responsible person but I reached a point to
where I began to treat provider invoices like junk
mail. That is out of character for me. I hope any
health care reform has provision to straighten some
of this out. While all most health professionals I have
dealt with seem very professional and proficient,
most office people seem to always be inept or
unknowing.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
program that guarantees that an employer will be liable for injuries
that happen to their employees are a result of their employment, and it
has no bearing on private medical insurance.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Every time health care reform has come up in the past, doctors have
> combined their considerable resources with the insurance industry to
> keep the system from being fixed without regard for the tens of
> thousands of Americans who die every year under this barbaric system.
From my perspective, unless you have a plan like Kaiser Permanente, the
doctors do not have the power any more; the insurance companies do.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> No one is objecting to legitimate charges for actual services. But
> making fraudulent Medicare charges or making charging for procedures
> that were never done or double billing or were for unnecessary
> procedures is wrong any way you look at it. It drives up the cost of
> healthcare for everyone, which is why it's a major national problem.
I am fully in agreement that fraudulent charges are wrong. What I am
saying is that (a) different doctors and facilities are going to charge
different prices in the same way that different stores are going to
charge different prices for the same item and bulk buyers (e.g.
insurance companies) are going to get volume discounts over the people
who purchase lower volumes at a time (e.g. uninsured patients). And for
those people who still have a Walmart mentality when it comes to health
care, all I have to say is that poor quality is not exactly what you
want when it comes to health care, and you will hardly ever get
good-quality health care at a bargain-basement price.
And if you haven't heard of capitation, you should study it. In one
sense it makes sense; in another sense it rewards doctors for denying
care to patients.
> But a large number of people do not have insurance. And they are the
> ones who are hurt most. It's one of the major reasons ordinary
> middle-class families face financial ruin. Read those articles to see
> how hospitals vastly overcharge the uninsured.
An uninsured and broke person can walk into an emergency room of
practically any hospital in the US, and the hospital is required to
treat them for their emergency regardless of whether they can pay the
bill or not until they are stable enough to leave.
> If you've ever spent time in a hospital, you've almost certainly been
> overcharged. "There is no way to avoid being overbilled. It is going to
> happen. In the last several years of looking at hundreds of bills, I've
> run across only one hospital bill with no errors," says Edward Waxman of
> Edward R. Waxman & Associates, an independent hospital bill auditor with
> 10 years of experience helping consumers sort through their medical bills."
Medical coding is an unnecessarily complex and trouble-ridden system. I
am not saying that overbilling and billing fraudulently is right; I am
saying that properly coding a patient's doctor's visit or hospital stay
can be incredibly difficult to do accurately at times, and if you don't
do it accurately, the insurer will not pay.
maxw...@my-deja.com
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Worker's Compensation insurance, if you are not in the US, is the
> program that guarantees that an employer will be liable for injuries
> that happen to their employees are a result of their employment, and it
> has no bearing on private medical insurance.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make, I never
claimed otherwise. Did you mistype? because I am sure
we have Worker's Compensation in the US that works this
same way,
maxw...@my-deja.com
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Worker's Compensation insurance, if you are not in the US, is the
> program that guarantees that an employer will be liable for injuries
> that happen to their employees are a result of their employment, and it
> has no bearing on private medical insurance.
Ok, sorry, I guess you may have thought I may not
be in the US and you were explaining it to me.
But I still don't get your point.
John Graeme
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Tristan wrote:
>
> > No one is objecting to legitimate charges for actual services. But
> > making fraudulent Medicare charges or making charging for procedures
> > that were never done or double billing or were for unnecessary
> > procedures is wrong any way you look at it. It drives up the cost of
> > healthcare for everyone, which is why it's a major national problem.
>
> I am fully in agreement that fraudulent charges are wrong. What I am
> saying is that (a) different doctors and facilities are going to charge
> different prices in the same way that different stores are going to
> charge different prices for the same item and bulk buyers (e.g.
> insurance companies) are going to get volume discounts over the people
> who purchase lower volumes at a time (e.g. uninsured patients). And for
> those people who still have a Walmart mentality when it comes to health
> care, all I have to say is that poor quality is not exactly what you
> want when it comes to health care, and you will hardly ever get
> good-quality health care at a bargain-basement price.
>
> And if you haven't heard of capitation, you should study it. In one
> sense it makes sense; in another sense it rewards doctors for denying
> care to patients.
Read what Kenneth Chistman, president of the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, has to say about capitation as it applies to
healthcare:
www.jpands.org/vol11no2/christman.pdf
> > But a large number of people do not have insurance. And they are the
> > ones who are hurt most. It's one of the major reasons ordinary
> > middle-class families face financial ruin. Read those articles to see
> > howhospitalsvastly overcharge the uninsured.
>
> An uninsured and broke person can walk into an emergency room of
> practically any hospital in the US, and the hospital is required to
> treat them for their emergency regardless of whether they can pay the
> bill or not until they are stable enough to leave.
Yes, if you're broke you can get charity care for free. But you have
to be practically destitute or they will charge you (and charge you
exhorbitatantly because you don't have insurance.). In New Jersey,
for example, your TOTAL assets must be less than $7500 to qualify for
charity care. What about the poor guy who's lost his job and health
insurance (a common occurence nowadays) and has a health crisis in his
family. His savings get wiped out. His family faces financial ruin
or bankrupcy.
>
> > If you've ever spent time in a hospital, you've almost certainly been
> > overcharged. "There is no way to avoid being overbilled. It is going to
> > happen. In the last several years of looking at hundreds of bills, I've
> > run across only one hospital bill with no errors," says Edward Waxman of
> > Edward R. Waxman & Associates, an independent hospital bill auditor with
> > 10 years of experience helping consumers sort through their medical bills."
>
> Medical coding is an unnecessarily complex and trouble-ridden system. I
> am not saying that overbilling and billing fraudulently is right; I am
> saying that properly coding a patient's doctor's visit or hospital stay
> can be incredibly difficult to do accurately at times, and if you don't
> do it accurately, the insurer will not pay.
Agreed. But that's not the issue.
The Real Bev
> Tristan wrote:
>>
>> No one is objecting to legitimate charges for actual services. But
>> making fraudulent Medicare charges or making charging for procedures
>> that were never done or double billing or were for unnecessary
>> procedures is wrong any way you look at it. It drives up the cost of
>> healthcare for everyone, which is why it's a major national problem.
>
> I am fully in agreement that fraudulent charges are wrong. What I am
> saying is that (a) different doctors and facilities are going to charge
> different prices in the same way that different stores are going to
> charge different prices for the same item
Sure, just like gas stations on the same corner have different prices -- but at
least you know the price in advance so you can choose which station to buy gas at.
> and bulk buyers (e.g.
> insurance companies) are going to get volume discounts over the people
> who purchase lower volumes at a time (e.g. uninsured patients). And for
> those people who still have a Walmart mentality when it comes to health
> care, all I have to say is that poor quality is not exactly what you
> want when it comes to health care, and you will hardly ever get
> good-quality health care at a bargain-basement price.
But paying top dollar won't necessarily get you good-quality health care
either. I got stories...
> And if you haven't heard of capitation, you should study it. In one
> sense it makes sense; in another sense it rewards doctors for denying
> care to patients.
Preventive care is a sham. Exercise, don't smoke, don't eat too much. That's
preventive care. I just gave it to you for free. HMOs are ALWAYS rewarded for
not giving care -- they just need you to stay sufficiently alive to keep on
paying the premiums.
>> But a large number of people do not have insurance. And they are the
>> ones who are hurt most. It's one of the major reasons ordinary
>> middle-class families face financial ruin. Read those articles to see
>> how hospitals vastly overcharge the uninsured.
Who mostly don't actually NEED to pay. Remember the blood-turnip thing.
> An uninsured and broke person can walk into an emergency room of
> practically any hospital in the US, and the hospital is required to
> treat them for their emergency regardless of whether they can pay the
> bill or not until they are stable enough to leave.
See?
>> If you've ever spent time in a hospital, you've almost certainly been
>> overcharged. "There is no way to avoid being overbilled. It is going to
>> happen. In the last several years of looking at hundreds of bills, I've
>> run across only one hospital bill with no errors," says Edward Waxman of
>> Edward R. Waxman & Associates, an independent hospital bill auditor with
>> 10 years of experience helping consumers sort through their medical bills."
>
> Medical coding is an unnecessarily complex and trouble-ridden system. I
> am not saying that overbilling and billing fraudulently is right; I am
> saying that properly coding a patient's doctor's visit or hospital stay
> can be incredibly difficult to do accurately at times, and if you don't
> do it accurately, the insurer will not pay.
Then the doctors should hire people who actually CAN figure out how to do it
right. Given the multiplicity of corrections made to Medicare/Blue Cross
transactions, I'd say that right now NOBODY knows how to do it right.
--
Cheers, Bev
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
You know how dumb the average person is?
Well, by definition, half are *even dumber*!
The Real Bev
He was just explaining, for the benefit of non-USAians, what Worker's Comp
insurance is. Companies generally buy WC insurance policies, the premiums for
which are largely determined by the previous injury/illness experience of the
company's employees.
Rod Speed
> Samatha Hill wrote
>> Tristan wrote
Nope, most obviously with vaccination and screening.
> Exercise, don't smoke, don't eat too much. That's preventive care.
Modern preventative medicine is about a hell of a lot more than just that.
> I just gave it to you for free.
And that is all yours is worth.
> HMOs are ALWAYS rewarded for not giving care -- they just need you to stay sufficiently alive to keep on paying the
> premiums.
Mindlessly superficial.
>>> But a large number of people do not have insurance. And they are the ones who are hurt most. It's one of the major
>>> reasons ordinary middle-class families face financial ruin. Read those articles to see how hospitals vastly
>>> overcharge the uninsured.
> Who mostly don't actually NEED to pay. Remember the blood-turnip thing.
>> An uninsured and broke person can walk into an emergency room of practically any hospital in the US, and the hospital
>> is required to
>> treat them for their emergency regardless of whether they can pay the bill or not until they are stable enough to
>> leave.
> See?
They also get charged outrageously when they do that.
>>> If you've ever spent time in a hospital, you've almost certainly
>>> been overcharged. "There is no way to avoid being overbilled. It is going to happen. In the last several years of
>>> looking at hundreds of bills, I've run across only one hospital bill with no errors,"
>>> says Edward Waxman of Edward R. Waxman & Associates, an independent hospital bill auditor with 10 years of
>>> experience helping consumers sort through their medical bills."
>> Medical coding is an unnecessarily complex and trouble-ridden
>> system. I am not saying that overbilling and billing fraudulently
>> is right; I am saying that properly coding a patient's doctor's
>> visit or hospital stay can be incredibly difficult to do accurately
>> at times, and if you don't do it accurately, the insurer will not pay.
> Then the doctors should hire people who actually CAN figure out how to do it right. Given the multiplicity of
> corrections made to Medicare/Blue Cross transactions, I'd say that right now NOBODY knows how to do it right.
Some can.
pbj
Many states, including my own, have already enacted tort reform without
seeing the big savings promised by the medical industry. The
Congressional Budget Office included the possibility of tort reform in
its recent evaluation of HR3200 and concluded that if added it would
decrease medical costs by 2% at best. That's piddling compared to the
30% the insurance companies are raking off the top while contributing
not one thing to actual medical care.
krw
<postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
Which state?
> The
>Congressional Budget Office included the possibility of tort reform in
>its recent evaluation of HR3200 and concluded that if added it would
>decrease medical costs by 2% at best. That's piddling compared to the
>30% the insurance companies are raking off the top while contributing
>not one thing to actual medical care.
Nonsense. The cost of defensive medicine alone is far higher than
that.
krw
From my perspective, you're an idiot.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Then the doctors should hire people who actually CAN figure out how to
> do it right. Given the multiplicity of corrections made to Medicare/Blue
> Cross transactions, I'd say that right now NOBODY knows how to do it right.
I would prefer that they make the system less complex so that the coders
have a decent shot at doing it right the first time and making it
understandable.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
My focus was, "if you are not in the US, you may not know this, but..."
Sorry if my juxtaposition of prepositional phrases caused confusion.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
The point is that workers' compensation insurance is a different critter
than private insurance -- this was because someone was referring to a
worker's comp situation as part of the problem with medical insurance.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> decrease medical costs by 2% at best. That's piddling compared to the
> 30% the insurance companies are raking off the top while contributing
> not one thing to actual medical care.
Can I count that as one vote added to mine in the "medical insurance is
one of the major players in keeping the cost of medical care up"?
Beam Me Up Scotty
NOT if the Government is Guaranteeing your health care, they are taking
100% of the coverage, in a car or at work or any where you get hurt or sick.
pbj
Texas. The medical industry is of course claiming all kinds of miracles
here as a result of tort reform so as to convince other states to pass
similar laws. For a good refutation of their claims, visit
http://www.tortdeform.com and dig around in the "Debate with Tort
Reformers" section. The link is the bottom of the home page.
>>The Congressional Budget Office included the possibility of tort
>>reform in its recent evaluation of HR3200 and concluded that if added
>>it would decrease medical costs by 2% at best. That's piddling
>>compared to the 30% the insurance companies are raking off the top
>>while contributing not one thing to actual medical care.
>
> Nonsense. The cost of defensive medicine alone is far higher than that.
All of the studies I've seen that make such claims are either ultimately
based on data collected from doctors - the very people behind tort
reform - or were conducted by tort reform organizations to advance their
agenda.
pbj
Yep. They take 30% and give us nothing in return but grief.
krw
<postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote:
Texas has a huge influx of doctors, escaping liability insurance
elsewhere.
>>>The Congressional Budget Office included the possibility of tort
>>>reform in its recent evaluation of HR3200 and concluded that if added
>>>it would decrease medical costs by 2% at best. That's piddling
>>>compared to the 30% the insurance companies are raking off the top
>>>while contributing not one thing to actual medical care.
>>
>> Nonsense. The cost of defensive medicine alone is far higher than that.
>
>All of the studies I've seen that make such claims are either ultimately
>based on data collected from doctors - the very people behind tort
>reform - or were conducted by tort reform organizations to advance their
>agenda.
You only see what you want to see.
Beam Me Up Scotty
And the reason they can is because you have a $4000.00 Big screen TV and
two $26,000 cars in the drive way, if that money were in a savings
account and you needed the ER you could pay for it without having
insurance.
Is it their fault middle class America won't save any money or pay their
own bills?
Mason C
>Texas has a huge influx of doctors, escaping liability insurance
>elsewhere.
Oh, man, I'd sure not want to need a doctor in Texas ! !
Don Klipstein
>Texas. The medical industry is of course claiming all kinds of miracles
>here as a result of tort reform so as to convince other states to pass
>similar laws. For a good refutation of their claims, visit
>http://www.tortdeform.com and dig around in the "Debate with Tort
>Reformers" section. The link is the bottom of the home page.
I took a look - found the link,
(http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/debates_with_tort_reformers/)
and:
I saw many subject lines with many comment5s apiece.
The most interesting one I saw in there so far is:
http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/05/health_care_tort_reform_argume.html
That one claims in part:
"based on data from the American Medical Association that reveals that
states without damage caps have more physicians per 100,000 than those
that do have damage caps."
This one, despite having a nearby related link, appeared to me to not
have itself or the nearby link supporting this claim without having to
follow further links such as:
http://www.renalandurologynews.com/Lawyers-AMA-Stats-Refute
-Doctors-Flee-Myth/article/136377/
This does a few things that I have a beef with:
1. Argues against malpractice caps while stating that the four states
with slowest physician/population growth trend are ones that have these
caps.
2. It claims greater concentration of physicians in states without caps
than in states with them. But it does so without consideration of other
factors - such as tax structure and statewide regulations and legislated
laws in a notoriously highly taxing, regulating and legislating USA state
that is the most populous of all 50 and which is one that has a cap.
And how about Pennsylvania (no cap) - where some fair share of doctors,
especially obstetricians (more-sued), like to practice outside of a
single county infamous for "generous juries" and litigiousness?
Since all of these links are coming from places strongly supporting
trial lawyers, I suspect they are likely to report "only the news they
see fit to print" in favor of trial lawyers.
I am aware that few medical malpractice suits get into the dozens of
megabucks - but they and the many more of a few megabucks get to be
significant. So does the money spent on court costs and legal defense,
including costs of successful defense.
This gets me into a mood to favor an editorial that I saw several years
ago in the Philadelphia Daily News, a newspaper with a fairly
populist-liberal editorial stance: Proposing a cap on noneconomic damages
for medical malpractice, with the cap being equal to that of California
($250K), adjusted for inflation since the time California's cap became
their law. I am guesstimating this to be $1.4 million as of late 2009.
How about some more neutral links, such as one for state-by-state
breakdown of all 50 of them for relevant state laws and ratio of
physicians to population?
Until then, I would like to see some barrier to making more money from
"pain and suffering" than from working a job of pain-and-suffering, such
as being a unionized construction worker who works on the 40th or 50th
floor of a skyscraper in Chicago in wintertime outside of (or with lack
of) windows, walls, etc. (Plaintiff must provide proof of hurting more
than working in the wind 500 feet up in Chicago in February, or as a
bicycle messenger in Chicago in February.)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>> The point is that workers' compensation insurance is a different critter
>> than private insurance -- this was because someone was referring to a
>> worker's comp situation as part of the problem with medical insurance.
>
> NOT if the Government is Guaranteeing your health care, they are taking
> 100% of the coverage, in a car or at work or any where you get hurt or sick.
Well, someone will still have to pay for it.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
they are too materialistic. And if they have the mistaken notion that
"the government is going to pay for my health care" and don't realize
that this means that someone is going to have to pay for it eventually,
do you think that is going to make them change their spending habits?
Hmm, another great reason to outlaw insurance (except for insurance to
make sure that you can afford to cover other people's injuries that you
are responsible for, e.g., workers' comp and auto insurance that covers
medical bills for things that are your fault)
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
maxw...@my-deja.com
dog.com> wrote:
> pbj wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:22:35 -0700, Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to
> > reply wrote:
>
> >> pbj wrote:
>
> >>> decrease medical costs by 2% at best. That's piddling compared to the
> >>> 30% the insurance companies are raking off the top while contributing
> >>> not one thing to actual medical care.
> >> Can I count that as one vote added to mine in the "medical insurance is
> >> one of the major players in keeping the cost of medical care up"?
>
> > Yep. They take 30% and give us nothing in return but grief.
>
> And the reason they can is because you have a $4000.00 Big screen TV and
> two $26,000 cars in the drive way, if that money were in a savings
> account and you needed the ER you could pay for it without having
> insurance.
And you know that is true for everyone right? Thanks for clearing
that up. I didn't know that everyone had those things and had them
paid off.
maxw...@my-deja.com
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Middle-class America won't save money or pay their own bills because
> they are too materialistic. And if they have the mistaken notion that
> "the government is going to pay for my health care" and don't realize
> that this means that someone is going to have to pay for it eventually,
> do you think that is going to make them change their spending habits?
The only people with this mistaken notion seem to be those opposed
to reform. Premiums must still be paid one way or another.
Reform should have been done in incremental steps. The fact that
almost nothing has been done on this front has allowed it
to get to a critical state where now the changes seem so big
that it seems too much to fast for some people.
Beam Me Up Scotty
The government pays.
We need not waste money for secondary insurance if Obama is taking over
the health care because we would be paying twice for the medical care if
we then got hurt on the job or in a car.
Rod Speed
> they are too materialistic. And if they have the mistaken notion that
> "the government is going to pay for my health care" and don't realize
> that this means that someone is going to have to pay for it
> eventually, do you think that is going to make them change their
> spending habits? Hmm, another great reason to outlaw insurance
> (except for insurance to make sure that you can afford to cover other
> people's injuries that you are responsible for, e.g., workers' comp and auto insurance that covers medical bills for
> things that are your fault)
Presumably you actually are that stupid and why you are just a paper shuffler.
jigo
message news:4abddd21$0$1984$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Of course. The issue is which is the fairest and most efficient way to
provide health coverage. As the original post pointed out, there is an
enormous amount of waste, inefficiency, and fraud in the current system.
Hospitals and doctors routinely inflate their bills . As that study pointed
out:
http://community.meridianstar.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5701049671/m/2501028681
"Profit-hungry hospitals are overcharging consumers an estimated $10 billion
a year. Some deliberately work to keep bills indecipherable.
American hospitals are fleecing patients out of billions of dollars
annually. That's because hospital bills are next to impossible for
consumers to understand, which means hospitals can hide improper charges
behind mysterious medical terminology and baffling codes."
http://www.hsacoalition.org/2008/01/18/two-simple-steps-to-immediately-end-hospital-overcharging/
"A new study designed to uncover the key to understanding hospital prices
confirms what large purchasers have long suspected: a disturbing number of
hospitals appear to be grossly overcharging and not being held accountable."
I'm generally distrustful of government and all for libertarian values and
the free market. But even the most die-hard libertarian recognizes that
fraud is wrong. It's not only ethically wrong in itself, but it creates the
wasteful, inefficient, unjust healthcare system that we have today. The
issue is how to fix it. I would point out that if the government did not
waste so much of the country's money and resources on things like foreign
involvements like the Iraq war and the "war on drugs" we would have a lot
more to devote to healthcare. It's also hard to see how they can spend
trillions of dollars to fund the recent bailout and not afford a decent
healthcare system.
krw
You'd rather have none?
krw
Look at the stats.
>paid off.
They don't. Look at the credit card stats. Grow up.
krw
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> The point is that workers' compensation insurance is a different critter
>>>> than private insurance -- this was because someone was referring to a
>>>> worker's comp situation as part of the problem with medical insurance.
>>>
>>> NOT if the Government is Guaranteeing your health care, they are taking
>>> 100% of the coverage, in a car or at work or any where you get hurt or
>>> sick.
>>
>> Well, someone will still have to pay for it.
>
>The government pays.
And who do you suppose that is?
>We need not waste money for secondary insurance if Obama is taking over
>the health care because we would be paying twice for the medical care if
>we then got hurt on the job or in a car.
...and that would be bad (for the government) how?
Rod Speed
> On Sep 26, 5:26 am, Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
>> Middle-class America won't save money or pay their own bills because
>> they are too materialistic. And if they have the mistaken notion that
>> "the government is going to pay for my health care" and don't realize
>> that this means that someone is going to have to pay for it
>> eventually, do you think that is going to make them change their
>> spending habits?
> The only people with this mistaken notion seem to be those opposed to reform.
> Premiums must still be paid one way or another.
Wrong. Every other modern first world country gets its health care
for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does and they ALL
get better results on longevity and years in good health too.
> Reform should have been done in incremental steps.
It was, most obviously with medicare and medicaid.
> The fact that almost nothing has been done on this front has
> allowed it to get to a critical state where now the changes
> seem so big that it seems too much to fast for some people.
That happened with every other modern first world country too.
Its essentially the nature of the beast.
pbj
You've swallowed one of the tort reformers' favorite lies. While trying
to get tort reform passed in Texas they cited the number of doctors
leaving the state while ignoring the more-or-less equal number moving
in. What they thus cast as a mass exodus due to malpractice suits was
actually just the normal turnover as doctors move around the country.
Now, having gotten tort reform passed, they need to make the case that
it's bringing doctors into the state so as to get other states to adopt
tort reform. So they reverse the scheme and cite the doctors coming into
the state as part of normal turnover, while ignoring the balancing
number coming in.
You'd have known that if you had bothered to read both sides of the
debate at the link I gave you.
>>>>The Congressional Budget Office included the possibility of tort
>>>>reform in its recent evaluation of HR3200 and concluded that if added
>>>>it would decrease medical costs by 2% at best. That's piddling
>>>>compared to the 30% the insurance companies are raking off the top
>>>>while contributing not one thing to actual medical care.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. The cost of defensive medicine alone is far higher than
>>> that.
>>
>>All of the studies I've seen that make such claims are either ultimately
>>based on data collected from doctors - the very people behind tort
>>reform - or were conducted by tort reform organizations to advance their
>>agenda.
>
> You only see what you want to see.
I'm not the one letting others tell me what to think.
pbj
With the possible exception of a few major cities, Texas has some of the
worst doctors and almost the lowest quality of medical care in the
country. Now thanks to tort "reform" it's even harder to hold them
accountable.
John Galt
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:09:48 -0700, Mason C wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:27:11 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Texas has a huge influx of doctors, escaping liability insurance
>>> elsewhere.
>> Oh, man, I'd sure not want to need a doctor in Texas ! !
>
> With the possible exception of a few major cities,
Yes, considering that Houston has the largest medical center in the
**world** with some of the undebatably best hospitals, particularly in
cancer (MD Anderson) and cardiac care (pioneering work in heart surgery
was done there),
I'd say the term "possible exception" is a gross understatement from a
person who doesn't care to admit the obvious.
Texas has some of the
> worst doctors and almost the lowest quality of medical care in the
> country. Now thanks to tort "reform" it's even harder to hold them
> accountable.
Hm. The European systems, which all good American lefties lust after,
don't use the court system for accountability. How's that work?
If you want a Euro-style system here, you take the entire enchilada.
That means no more using the courts as the accountability mechanism.
JG
jigo
news:h9g5sl$8gn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>>>
>>> No one is objecting to legitimate charges for actual services. But
>>> making fraudulent Medicare charges or making charging for procedures
>>> that were never done or double billing or were for unnecessary
>>> procedures is wrong any way you look at it. It drives up the cost of
>>> healthcare for everyone, which is why it's a major national problem.
>>
<snip>
>>> But a large number of people do not have insurance. And they are the
>>> ones who are hurt most. It's one of the major reasons ordinary
>>> middle-class families face financial ruin. Read those articles to see
>>> how hospitals vastly overcharge the uninsured.
>
> Who mostly don't actually NEED to pay. Remember the blood-turnip thing.
It's not clear what you're asserting. If a person has assets that
disqualify him from free care, he has to pay, and the hospital WILL bill him
and try to collect the bill.
If he does not pay, the hospital can and will seize those assets.
>> An uninsured and broke person can walk into an emergency room of
>> practically any hospital in the US, and the hospital is required to treat
>> them for their emergency regardless of whether they can pay the bill or
>> not until they are stable enough to leave.
>
> See?
See what? Yes, if a person is uninsured and broke, he will get free care.
(Actually, hospitals are mostly reimbursed by the government for such
charity cases.)
As was pointed out, if an uninsured person has some assets, the hospital
will charge him (in fact more than an insured patient) and will take what
assets he has. Hospital stays are extremely expensive. The person can
easily lose his life savings and home.
Rod Speed
> pbj wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:09:48 -0700, Mason C wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:27:11 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Texas has a huge influx of doctors, escaping liability insurance
>>>> elsewhere.
>>> Oh, man, I'd sure not want to need a doctor in Texas ! !
>>
>> With the possible exception of a few major cities,
>
> Yes, considering that Houston has the largest medical center in the
> **world** with some of the undebatably best hospitals, particularly in
> cancer (MD Anderson) and cardiac care (pioneering work in heart
> surgery was done there),
>
> I'd say the term "possible exception" is a gross understatement from a
> person who doesn't care to admit the obvious.
>
> Texas has some of the
>> worst doctors and almost the lowest quality of medical care in the
>> country. Now thanks to tort "reform" it's even harder to hold them
>> accountable.
> Hm. The European systems, which all good American lefties lust after, don't use the court system for accountability.
That is just plain wrong.
> How's that work?
Very well.
> If you want a Euro-style system here, you take the entire enchilada.
Wrong. There is no entire enchilada.
> That means no more using the courts as the accountability mechanism.
Wrong.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:08:24 -0700 (PDT), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >On Sep 25, 10:34 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> >dog.com> wrote:
> >> pbj wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:22:35 -0700, Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to
> >> > reply wrote:
>
> >> >> pbj wrote:
>
> >> >>> decrease medical costs by 2% at best. That's piddling compared to the
> >> >>> 30% the insurance companies are raking off the top while contributing
> >> >>> not one thing to actual medical care.
> >> >> Can I count that as one vote added to mine in the "medical insurance is
> >> >> one of the major players in keeping the cost of medical care up"?
>
> >> > Yep. They take 30% and give us nothing in return but grief.
>
> >> And the reason they can is because you have a $4000.00 Big screen TV and
> >> two $26,000 cars in the drive way, if that money were in a savings
> >> account and you needed the ER you could pay for it without having
> >> insurance.
>
> >And you know that is true for everyone right? Thanks for clearing
> >that up. I didn't know that everyone had those things and had them
>
> Look at the stats.
>
> >paid off.
>
> They don't. Look at the credit card stats. Grow up.
No shit Sherlock, but thanks for helping make my
point to Scotty, that people don't have the money
that they could have instead put in a savings
account so they could pay their medical expenses
without insurance. Get a brain.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 5:26 am, Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> > <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> >> Middle-class America won't save money or pay their own bills because
> >> they are too materialistic. And if they have the mistaken notion that
> >> "the government is going to pay for my health care" and don't realize
> >> that this means that someone is going to have to pay for it
> >> eventually, do you think that is going to make them change their
> >> spending habits?
> > The only people with this mistaken notion seem to be those opposed to reform.
> > Premiums must still be paid one way or another.
>
> Wrong. Every other modern first world country gets its health care
> for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US does and they ALL
> get better results on longevity and years in good health too.
LOL and I agree. But the only people I hear talking
about the notion of free health care are the people
opposed to it. Everyone should know that there is
going to be an expense and instead of paying
private health insurance premiums then
there will be premiums paid to a system like
Medicare. Like Medicare no one gets it for
free, at some point they will be paying into it.
I am all for the public option.
> > Reform should have been done in incremental steps.
>
> It was, most obviously with medicare and medicaid.
Obviously, but nothing much has happened since then.
Under Clinton at least they got the common sense
law that if you have continuous health coverage then
insurance has to cover you not matter that you
had changed jobs and insurance. That was only fair.
Dumbya and the republicans weren't interested in
doing anything other than expanding liabilities of the
taxpayer by creating Medicare Part D and Medicare
Advantage, both of which have been cited as wasting
tax payer money.
For one you would think that both parties could agree
on some patient rights laws where the patient doesn't
get stiffed because either the provider or the insurance
company doesn't do what they are supposed to do.
pbj
> pbj wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:09:48 -0700, Mason C wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:27:11 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Texas has a huge influx of doctors, escaping liability insurance
>>>> elsewhere.
>>> Oh, man, I'd sure not want to need a doctor in Texas ! !
>>
>> With the possible exception of a few major cities,
>
> Yes, considering that Houston
Houston is just one city in a damn big state.
> has the largest medical center in the **world** with some of the
> undebatably best hospitals, particularly in cancer (MD Anderson) and
> cardiac care (pioneering work in heart surgery was done there),
>
> I'd say the term "possible exception" is a gross understatement from a
> person who doesn't care to admit the obvious.
I'd say you failed grade-school reading comprehension.
>> Texas has some of the
>> worst doctors and almost the lowest quality of medical care in the
>> country. Now thanks to tort "reform" it's even harder to hold them
>> accountable.
>
> Hm. The European systems, which all good American lefties lust after,
> don't use the court system for accountability. How's that work?
Please name all the European countries where injured patients can not
file civil suits against doctors or hospitals.
> If you want a Euro-style system here, you take the entire enchilada.
> That means no more using the courts as the accountability mechanism.
Your side lost. You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
basis. It's basically overhauling the US health care system, and that
has been a nightmare for public schooling (several hundred years ago),
airlines, trucking, phone companies, etc. I am sort of resigned to it,
but I am not of a socialist mindset and I do not agree that the
government should provide everything to everybody. If there could be a
cafeteria-type plan, I would be less opposed to it. I don't think that
the analogy I have seen made to auto insurance is a valid one, though.
Nobody is forced to buy auto insurance unless they CHOOSE to drive, but
people are free to choose not to drive and therefore will not need to
buy auto insurance. And I only purchase the minimum auto insurance
require by law because I hardly drive anywhere and am a safe driver, and
I would be very upset if I was forced to purchase a comprehensive policy
that would cover everything on a 20-year-old car that is not worth much
when I only drive like 5000 miles a year.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
would not have either of these things anyway, so no, not everybody has
them.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
If the government pays for it, where is the government going to get the
money to pay for it?
And people send their children to private school, companies pay for
private security services, etc., all the time, which has not managed to
destroy the public education industry or governmental police departments
in their respective processes, so if the government is going to get into
the health care business, I truly hope they just provide a minimum
standard of adequate care for everybody.
Personally I would be in favor of treating it like they treat child
care, with tax credits, rather than getting into the health care business.
Disclaimer: I have had Kaiser Permanente health insurance for decades
and have learned how to use the system and love it.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Hm. The European systems, which all good American lefties lust after,
> don't use the court system for accountability. How's that work?
>
> If you want a Euro-style system here, you take the entire enchilada.
> That means no more using the courts as the accountability mechanism.
I would be in favor of requiring that as part of any health care reform.
John Galt
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:55:49 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>
>> pbj wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:09:48 -0700, Mason C wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:27:11 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Texas has a huge influx of doctors, escaping liability insurance
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>> Oh, man, I'd sure not want to need a doctor in Texas ! !
>>> With the possible exception of a few major cities,
>> Yes, considering that Houston
>
> Houston is just one city in a damn big state.
It nonethless refutes the "possible exception" statement.
>
>> has the largest medical center in the **world** with some of the
>> undebatably best hospitals, particularly in cancer (MD Anderson) and
>> cardiac care (pioneering work in heart surgery was done there),
>>
>> I'd say the term "possible exception" is a gross understatement from a
>> person who doesn't care to admit the obvious.
>
> I'd say you failed grade-school reading comprehension.
Not as far as I can tell. Perhaps you think that "possible" means the
same as "clear".
>
>>> Texas has some of the
>>> worst doctors and almost the lowest quality of medical care in the
>>> country. Now thanks to tort "reform" it's even harder to hold them
>>> accountable.
>> Hm. The European systems, which all good American lefties lust after,
>> don't use the court system for accountability. How's that work?
>
> Please name all the European countries where injured patients can not
> file civil suits against doctors or hospitals.
I have no interest in doing your homework for you. Name one where the
court system is the primary means of medical accountability, and/or
where the lawyers make anywhere near what they can make here in tort.
>
>> If you want a Euro-style system here, you take the entire enchilada.
>> That means no more using the courts as the accountability mechanism.
>
> Your side lost.
Point? You've read the Constitution? This is the USA, not North Korea.
Every citizen still has a voice and a vote, regardless of which party is
renting the White House for the moment. Winning an election does not
gift the victor with four years to run the nation unopposed.
You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
> enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
Neither do the Democrats, apparently, since the Democratic party seems
to have quite a few people on my "side", who also dislike euro-style
"public options", and see the need for reforms in the area of tort.
JG
Rod Speed
>>>> NOT if the Government is Guaranteeing your health care, they are
>>>> taking 100% of the coverage, in a car or at work or any where you
>>>> get hurt or sick.
>>> Well, someone will still have to pay for it.
>>
>> The government pays.
>>
>> We need not waste money for secondary insurance if Obama is taking
>> over the health care because we would be paying twice for the
>> medical care if we then got hurt on the job or in a car.
> If the government pays for it, where is the government going to get
> the money to pay for it?
From the saving it gets from the decimation of the insurance industry, stupid.
> And people send their children to private school, companies pay for private security services, etc., all the time,
Those dont cost anything like what a serious medical problem can cost you.
> which has not managed to destroy the public education industry or governmental police departments in their respective
> processes, so if the government is going to get into the health care business, I truly hope they just provide a
> minimum standard of adequate care for everybody.
Have fun defining a minimum standard of health care.
> Personally I would be in favor of treating it like they treat child care, with tax credits, rather than getting into
> the health care business.
More fool you. It just isnt feasible with health care, essentially because the
costs can be bankrupting when you end up with a serious medical problem.
> Disclaimer: I have had Kaiser Permanente health insurance for
> decades and have learned how to use the system and love it.
And havent got a serious medical problem.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>> NOT if the Government is Guaranteeing your health care, they are
>>>>> taking 100% of the coverage, in a car or at work or any where you
>>>>> get hurt or sick.
>>>> Well, someone will still have to pay for it.
>>> The government pays.
>>>
>>> We need not waste money for secondary insurance if Obama is taking
>>> over the health care because we would be paying twice for the
>>> medical care if we then got hurt on the job or in a car.
>
>> If the government pays for it, where is the government going to get
>> the money to pay for it?
>
> From the saving it gets from the decimation of the insurance industry, stupid.
>
>> And people send their children to private school, companies pay for private security services, etc., all the time,
>
> Those dont cost anything like what a serious medical problem can cost you.
>
>> which has not managed to destroy the public education industry or governmental police departments in their respective
Only because you take people money 50% of it in taxes, what do they have
left to pay for an education?
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
A communist is just a socialist with a gun.
pbj
> pbj wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:55:49 -0500, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> pbj wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:09:48 -0700, Mason C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:27:11 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Texas has a huge influx of doctors, escaping liability insurance
>>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>> Oh, man, I'd sure not want to need a doctor in Texas ! !
>>>> With the possible exception of a few major cities,
>>> Yes, considering that Houston
>>
>> Houston is just one city in a damn big state.
>
> It nonethless refutes the "possible exception" statement.
No it doesnt. The qualification allows for the possibility that there
may be exceptions.
>>
>>> has the largest medical center in the **world** with some of the
>>> undebatably best hospitals, particularly in cancer (MD Anderson) and
>>> cardiac care (pioneering work in heart surgery was done there),
>>>
>>> I'd say the term "possible exception" is a gross understatement from a
>>> person who doesn't care to admit the obvious.
>>
>> I'd say you failed grade-school reading comprehension.
>
> Not as far as I can tell. Perhaps you think that "possible" means the
> same as "clear".
Perhaps you think "possible exception" means the same as "without
exception"?
>>
>>>> Texas has some of the
>>>> worst doctors and almost the lowest quality of medical care in the
>>>> country. Now thanks to tort "reform" it's even harder to hold them
>>>> accountable.
>>> Hm. The European systems, which all good American lefties lust after,
>>> don't use the court system for accountability. How's that work?
>>
>> Please name all the European countries where injured patients can not
>> file civil suits against doctors or hospitals.
>
> I have no interest in doing your homework for you. Name one where the
> court system is the primary means of medical accountability, and/or
> where the lawyers make anywhere near what they can make here in tort.
>>
>>> If you want a Euro-style system here, you take the entire enchilada.
>>> That means no more using the courts as the accountability mechanism.
>>
>> Your side lost.
>
> Point? You've read the Constitution? This is the USA, not North Korea.
> Every citizen still has a voice and a vote, regardless of which party is
> renting the White House for the moment. Winning an election does not
> gift the victor with four years to run the nation unopposed.
The right has a voice, just not much say. :-)
>
> You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
>> enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
>
> Neither do the Democrats, apparently, since the Democratic party seems
> to have quite a few people on my "side", who also dislike euro-style
> "public options", and see the need for reforms in the area of tort.
So now that it suits your convenience, the Democrat party is suddenly
filled with people who oppose socialized medicine and favor letting
businesses run roughshod over consumers?
pbj
Tort reform is a big can of worms in its own right. One reason the
Republicans are trying to introduce it into the bill is that it will
sidetrack Congress and delay health care legislation for yet more months
while the details are hashed out. I have no objection if Congress wants
to take up tort reform the very second health care reform is passed and
signed into law, but now is not the time.
Beam Me Up Scotty
For one, they would be allowing an insurance company to take some of our
money and we know the government wants all that money for themselves.
Don Klipstein
>http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/05/health_care_tort_reform_argume.html
>
> That one claims in part:
>
>"based on data from the American Medical Association that reveals that
>states without damage caps have more physicians per 100,000 than those
>that do have damage caps."
>
> This one, despite having a nearby related link, appeared to me to not
>have itself or the nearby link supporting this claim without having to
>follow further links such as:
>
>http://www.renalandurologynews.com/Lawyers-AMA-Stats-Refute
>-Doctors-Flee-Myth/article/136377/
>
> This does a few things that I have a beef with:
>
>1. Argues against malpractice caps while stating that the four states
>with slowest physician/population growth trend are ones that have these
>caps.
I did get myself a bit confused here for a moment - it makes sense for
them to argue this.
The article did not mention what these four states are, but I suspect
one of these four states is California, where I suspect loonier
legislation impact and a bazillion illegal aliens make things more
difficult. Possibly state income tax structures motivate choice of
residence by those with higher incomes.
As for the other 3 states - are they ones with disproportionately rural
or low income population?
Meanwhile, I remembered an example of why a state without a damage cap
can be increasing its favor with doctors:
Several years ago, Pennsylvania did not allow judges to reduce
"excessive" awards; only "eggregious" ones. But they changed the law to
increase ability to reduce excessive awards. Once the court cases being
fought under the older rule have mostly been settled and done with,
doctors were hit less with excessive awards. Pennsylvania does not have a
cap, but has improved its favorability to doctors in this area.
======================================================================
There is another side to the story, however: Doctors committing
malpractice face comparatively little disciplinary reaction as a result,
and are punished for malpractice mainly by lawsuits. An improved
disciplinary proceedure can reduce the need for expensive and inefficient
lawsuits.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Old Pif
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Old Pif wrote:
>
> > Even smarter ... a simple way to keep the health cost down is not
> > paying the bills.
>
> Better idea: Outlaw insurance.
Excellent idea.
In Europe, by the way, most if not all medical coverages (wrongly
called insurance because administered by insurance companies) are not
for profit. Insurance companies simply believe that for they got from
them some indirect benefits. For that amount of energy (money) that
society spends on squabbles between physicians and insurances (as you
described earlier) everybody might be treated many times inside out.
John Galt
Perhaps we oughtn't waste time with semantics.
>
>>>
>>>>> Texas has some of the
>>>>> worst doctors and almost the lowest quality of medical care in the
>>>>> country. Now thanks to tort "reform" it's even harder to hold them
>>>>> accountable.
>>>> Hm. The European systems, which all good American lefties lust after,
>>>> don't use the court system for accountability. How's that work?
>>> Please name all the European countries where injured patients can not
>>> file civil suits against doctors or hospitals.
>> I have no interest in doing your homework for you. Name one where the
>> court system is the primary means of medical accountability, and/or
>> where the lawyers make anywhere near what they can make here in tort.
>>>> If you want a Euro-style system here, you take the entire enchilada.
>>>> That means no more using the courts as the accountability mechanism.
>>> Your side lost.
>> Point? You've read the Constitution? This is the USA, not North Korea.
>> Every citizen still has a voice and a vote, regardless of which party is
>> renting the White House for the moment. Winning an election does not
>> gift the victor with four years to run the nation unopposed.
>
> The right has a voice, just not much say. :-)
Looks to me like we have plenty of say. If we didn't, the Proletariat
would have passed 3200 by their first first deadline. But, the Blue Dogs
and the Dem Senators from McCain states have decided they want to keep
their jobs, which means they do what their constituents say, which
doesn't bode well for social engineering preferred by the the urban
Bolsheviks.
>
>> You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
>>> enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
>> Neither do the Democrats, apparently, since the Democratic party seems
>> to have quite a few people on my "side", who also dislike euro-style
>> "public options", and see the need for reforms in the area of tort.
>
> So now that it suits your convenience, the Democrat party is suddenly
> filled with people who oppose socialized medicine and favor letting
> businesses run roughshod over consumers?
Apparently, or you'd have a bill passed by now.
(Ignoring the "businesses run roughshod...." straw man argument).
JG
Rod Speed
>> Samatha Hill wrote
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>>>>> NOT if the Government is Guaranteeing your health care, they are
>>>>>> taking 100% of the coverage, in a car or at work or any where you
>>>>>> get hurt or sick.
>>>>> Well, someone will still have to pay for it.
>>>> The government pays.
>>>> We need not waste money for secondary insurance if Obama
>>>> is taking over the health care because we would be paying twice
>>>> for the medical care if we then got hurt on the job or in a car.
>>> If the government pays for it, where is the government going to get the money to pay for it?
>> From the saving it gets from the decimation of the insurance industry, stupid.
>>> And people send their children to private school, companies
>>> pay for private security services, etc., all the time,
>> Those dont cost anything like what a serious medical problem can cost you.
>>> which has not managed to destroy the public education industry
>>> or governmental police departments in their respective
> Only because you take people money 50% of it in taxes,
> what do they have left to pay for an education?
They clearly have enough left to pay for an education. In spades with a college education.
Rod Speed
> krw wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:31:16 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>>>> The point is that workers' compensation insurance is a different
>>>>>> critter than private insurance -- this was because someone was
>>>>>> referring to a worker's comp situation as part of the problem
>>>>>> with medical insurance.
>>>>> NOT if the Government is Guaranteeing your health care, they are
>>>>> taking 100% of the coverage, in a car or at work or any where you
>>>>> get hurt or sick.
>>>> Well, someone will still have to pay for it.
>>> The government pays.
>>
>> And who do you suppose that is?
>>
>>> We need not waste money for secondary insurance if Obama is taking
>>> over the health care because we would be paying twice for the
>>> medical care if we then got hurt on the job or in a car.
>>
>> ...and that would be bad (for the government) how?
>
> For one, they would be allowing an insurance company to take some of
> our money and we know the government wants all that money for themselves.
Another lie. If the govt did want all the money for itself, it would be going for the same
sort of tax funded health care system thats close to universal right thruout the rest of
the modern first world, instead of proposing an extension of the insurance system.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> them some indirect benefits. For that amount of energy (money) that
> society spends on squabbles between physicians and insurances (as you
> described earlier) everybody might be treated many times inside out.
No kidding.
pbj
You're the one who started the semantic games.
IMHO Obama didn't really WANT the vote to come up before the recess. He
suckered Republican leaders into starting their anti-health-reform
propaganda campaign too early, then the recess took pressure off
Congress while allowing ample time for Republican lies to be publicly
discussed and exposed. Now as we approach the real vote, the Republican
propaganda machine has been de-fanged on health care reform and
Republicans have been further discredited among the swing voters in
preparation for the 2010 election.
>>> You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
>>>> enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
>>> Neither do the Democrats, apparently, since the Democratic party seems
>>> to have quite a few people on my "side", who also dislike euro-style
>>> "public options", and see the need for reforms in the area of tort.
>>
>> So now that it suits your convenience, the Democrat party is suddenly
>> filled with people who oppose socialized medicine and favor letting
>> businesses run roughshod over consumers?
>
> Apparently, or you'd have a bill passed by now.
Obama promised one by the end of the year. It isn't the end of the year
yet.
>
> (Ignoring the "businesses run roughshod...." straw man argument).
You don't want to deal with it because Republicans ARE anti-consumer (and
anti-worker, too).
Oh, and just to rub salt in an earlier wound:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm
BW> Look at Texas, which enacted some of the most extensive
BW> malpractice reforms in the nation in 2003. The number of
BW> lawsuits in the state has fallen by half since then, and
BW> malpractice premiums are down 30%. But health-care costs in
BW> Texas are still among the highest in the nation and are growing
BW> at a faster rate than in most other states. "I think tort reform
BW> is a good idea as a carrot to get doctors to go along with more
BW> significant health-care reforms," says law professor Charles M.
BW> Silver of the University of Texas at Austin. "But as we've
BW> proved, it isn't the answer on its own."
John Galt
Very clever. So clever that support for reform has now hit his lowest
point ever.
Interesting strategy, to convince the public to hate it while you try to
get it passed, while shoring up support for your opposition, especially
in the largest and most reliable voting bloc, the elderly.
>
>>>> You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
>>>>> enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
>>>> Neither do the Democrats, apparently, since the Democratic party seems
>>>> to have quite a few people on my "side", who also dislike euro-style
>>>> "public options", and see the need for reforms in the area of tort.
>>> So now that it suits your convenience, the Democrat party is suddenly
>>> filled with people who oppose socialized medicine and favor letting
>>> businesses run roughshod over consumers?
>> Apparently, or you'd have a bill passed by now.
>
> Obama promised one by the end of the year. It isn't the end of the year
> yet.
Was that his third final deadline, or fourth final deadline? I lose track.
At any rate, I'm sure it will be his last final deadline until the next
one.
He gave the Iranians a "final deadline" too:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/29/sarkozys_contempt_for_obama.html
"Iran has been put on notice before. At the G8 meeting in Italy in July,
Mr. Obama and other leaders set a "firm deadline" of Sep. 10 for the
Iranians to make a serious offer to negotiate about their nuclear
program. When the mullahs blew him off, Mr. Obama quietly extended the
deadline until December."
Boy, that really scared the shit out of them, huh? And when he said "I'm
serious, I REALLY am" last week, they responded by testing the same type
of missles that he said weren't a threat anymore to Europe:
"The extent of President Obama's naivete - or duplicity - was on display
Friday at the G20 summit when the president, flanked by Mr. Sarkozy and
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, revealed to the American public
that Iran had a second nuclear weapons site on a military base near the
holy city of Qom. News reports indicated Mr. Obama had been briefed on
the site before his inauguration. But he's been conducting his foreign
policy as if the mullahs could be trusted."
"Iran has been put on notice," President Obama said in Pittsburgh. Iran
responded to being "put on notice" by testing Monday two ballistic
missiles that could carry a nuclear warhead 1,200 miles.""
>
>> (Ignoring the "businesses run roughshod...." straw man argument).
>
> You don't want to deal with it because Republicans ARE anti-consumer (and
> anti-worker, too).
Capitalism does indeed create winners and losers, no question.
>
>
> Oh, and just to rub salt in an earlier wound:
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm
>
> BW> Look at Texas, which enacted some of the most extensive
> BW> malpractice reforms in the nation in 2003. The number of
> BW> lawsuits in the state has fallen by half since then, and
> BW> malpractice premiums are down 30%. But health-care costs in
> BW> Texas are still among the highest in the nation and are growing
> BW> at a faster rate than in most other states.
There is no open wound, Bubba. "Health care costs" has a lot of moving
parts, so move the goalposts all you like -- nobody ever said that tort
reform was the only thing that needed fixing. The rate of increase
*slowed* after tort reform.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/
"The most significant change is a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages
per defendant, such as pain and suffering and loss of companionship.
“Before the caps, the average award was $1.21 million; it’s been
$880,000 since,” the Dallas Morning News reported last year.
Malpractice suits have plummeted. In 2003, before the caps took effect,
there were 1,108 medical liability suits filed in Dallas County, the
Morning News reported. Only 142 cases were filed in 2004. Last year
there were 184."
-resulting-
"In the last three years, 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas. So many
doctors want to practice there that the state has had trouble keeping up
with the requests for licenses."
JG
pbj
Only rigged right-wing studies have the public "hating" health care
reform. Rigged left-wing sources show around 80% support for reform and
unbiased middle-of-the-road studies pin it at around 60%, giving the
issue majority support among voters.
>>>>> You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
>>>>>> enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
>>>>> Neither do the Democrats, apparently, since the Democratic party
>>>>> seems to have quite a few people on my "side", who also dislike
>>>>> euro-style "public options", and see the need for reforms in the
>>>>> area of tort.
>>>> So now that it suits your convenience, the Democrat party is suddenly
>>>> filled with people who oppose socialized medicine and favor letting
>>>> businesses run roughshod over consumers?
>>> Apparently, or you'd have a bill passed by now.
>>
>> Obama promised one by the end of the year. It isn't the end of the year
>> yet.
>
> Was that his third final deadline, or fourth final deadline? I lose
> track.
You lose track because there are no others. Getting a bill out before
the recess was only a hope of his and he was quite clear that Congress
might not make it in time.
> At any rate, I'm sure it will be his last final deadline until the next
> one.
>
> He gave the Iranians a "final deadline" too:
No, he goaded them into doing something rash while all the economic
leaders happened to be together during G20, thus gathering further
support for isolating Iran.
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/29/sarkozys_contempt_for_obama.html
>
>
> "Iran has been put on notice before. At the G8 meeting in Italy in July,
> Mr. Obama and other leaders set a "firm deadline" of Sep. 10 for the
> Iranians to make a serious offer to negotiate about their nuclear
> program. When the mullahs blew him off, Mr. Obama quietly extended the
> deadline until December."
>
> Boy, that really scared the shit out of them, huh? And when he said "I'm
> serious, I REALLY am" last week, they responded by testing the same type
> of missles
Korea did the same thing to Bush in 2006 when it spited him by
performing a nuclear test. Where was all this right-wing outrage then?
> that he said weren't a threat anymore to Europe:
Where did Obama make such a claim? What were his specific words?
> "The extent of President Obama's naivete - or duplicity - was on display
> Friday at the G20 summit when the president, flanked by Mr. Sarkozy and
> British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, revealed to the American public
Don't look now, but this smear-piece's extreme right-wing bias is showing.
> that Iran had a second nuclear weapons site on a military base near
> the holy city of Qom. News reports indicated Mr. Obama had been
> briefed on the site before his inauguration.
A site that won't be operational for at least another year, possibly
two, and even then it will take the facility another year to refine
military-grade Uranium - if Iraq even has enough of the raw stuff to
work with. There's nothing here requiring an immediate, panicked
response.
> But he's been conducting his foreign policy as if the mullahs could be
> trusted." "Iran has been put on notice," President Obama said in
> Pittsburgh.
I can find no speech in Pittsburgh where Obama said, "Iran has been put
on notice". However, that phrase frequently appears, unquoted, as a
paraphrase of his speech before the G20.
> Iran responded to being "put on notice" by testing Monday
> two ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear warhead 1,200
> miles."
The closest Obama comes to "Iran has been put on notice" in his G20
speech is:
"It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the
confidence of the international community by fulfilling its
international obligations. We remain committed to serious,
meaningful engagement with Iran to address the nuclear issue
through the P5-plus-1 negotiations. Through this dialogue, we
are committed to demonstrating that international law is not
an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that
treaties will be enforced."
And:
"To put it simply: Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council
resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its
responsibilities as a member of the community of nations. We
have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international
integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer
stands. But the Iranian government must now demonstrate
through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable
to international standards and international law."
This a long ways from the immediate ultimatum portrayed by the article.
>>> (Ignoring the "businesses run roughshod...." straw man argument).
>>
>> You don't want to deal with it because Republicans ARE anti-consumer
>> (and anti-worker, too).
>
> Capitalism does indeed create winners and losers, no question.
Workers and consumers are losers? That'll go over real good in 2010.
>>
>> Oh, and just to rub salt in an earlier wound:
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm
>>
>> BW> Look at Texas, which enacted some of the most extensive BW>
>> malpractice reforms in the nation in 2003. The number of BW> lawsuits
>> in the state has fallen by half since then, and BW> malpractice
>> premiums are down 30%. But health-care costs in BW> Texas are still
>> among the highest in the nation and are growing BW> at a faster rate
>> than in most other states.
>
> There is no open wound, Bubba. "Health care costs" has a lot of moving
> parts, so move the goalposts all you like --
Is the CBO "moving goalposts", too?
> nobody ever said that reform was the only thing that needed fixing.
I never said it was, "Bubba".
> The rate of increase *slowed* after tort reform.
Only if you use the biased statistics so noisily trumpeted by the tort
"reformers" and ignore less biased sources, the testimony of people in
states that have enacted tort reform, and the conclusions of the
Congressional Budget Office.
> http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/
> "The most significant change is a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages
> per defendant, such as pain and suffering and loss of companionship.
> “Before the caps, the average award was $1.21 million; it’s been
> $880,000 since,” the Dallas Morning News reported last year.
How much money would you take to live in terrible pain for the rest of
your life just because some doctor was drinking on the job or withheld
treatment to improve his insurance-company bonus? Would you rather have
a jury decide the amount or have the government tell you how much you're
allowed?
> Malpractice suits have plummeted. In 2003, before the caps took effect,
> there were 1,108 medical liability suits filed in Dallas County, the
> Morning News reported. Only 142 cases were filed in 2004. Last year
> there were 184."
First, they cherry-picked an extreme case. Results are much less
dramatic on a statewide scale.
Second, you're having rather a hard time comprehending that a)
Non-elective medical care is, by definition, not a choice and therefore
not a competitive market; and b) without competition to force prices
down, producers keep any savings to themselves rather than passing them
on to consumers.
> -resulting-
>
> "In the last three years, 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas.
I just finished telling you how the tort reform crowd likes to tout the
incoming portion of normal turnover as due to tort reform while totally
ignoring the equal number of doctors leaving the state, and yet you went
right ahead and posted this propaganda piece without even bothering to
check their numbers.
Compiled from statistics at the Texas Department of State Health
Services at: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/hprc/PHYS-lnk.shtm
Year Doctors Growth
---- ------- ------
1999 43934 5.8%
2000 46037 4.8%
2001 46718 1.5%
2002 47973 2.7%
2003 49710 3.6%
2004 50264 1.1%
2005 51529 2.5%
2006 52345 1.6%
2007 53297 1.8%
2008 54915 3.0%
This demonstrates three things:
* The total number of doctors in Texas was increasing year-to-year even
before tort "reform".
* Contrary to the tort reformers' scare campaign, there was no sudden
"mass exodus" of doctors prior to tort reform.
* Enactment of tort reform did not result in any noticeable surge in
the total number of doctors.
The table is also in line with the CBO study predicting at best a 2% cost
reduction due to tort "reform".
> So many doctors want to practice there that the state has had trouble
> keeping up with the requests for licenses."
That there's what they call a "lie by omission". The longer wait is the
result of increased scrutiny by the medical licensing board and is not,
as is so strongly implied, "proof" of the supposed surge in doctors.
John Galt
Depends what you mean by "reform." I think most everyone probably wants
some kind of "reform", because of cost. It's when you say WHAT KIND of
reform you want to do, and/or HOW MUCH IT COSTS, that the numbers start
to vary.
Rigged left-wing sources show around 80% support for reform and
> unbiased middle-of-the-road studies pin it at around 60%, giving the
> issue majority support among voters.
>
>>>>>> You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
>>>>>>> enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
>>>>>> Neither do the Democrats, apparently, since the Democratic party
>>>>>> seems to have quite a few people on my "side", who also dislike
>>>>>> euro-style "public options", and see the need for reforms in the
>>>>>> area of tort.
>>>>> So now that it suits your convenience, the Democrat party is suddenly
>>>>> filled with people who oppose socialized medicine and favor letting
>>>>> businesses run roughshod over consumers?
>>>> Apparently, or you'd have a bill passed by now.
>>> Obama promised one by the end of the year. It isn't the end of the year
>>> yet.
>> Was that his third final deadline, or fourth final deadline? I lose
>> track.
>
> You lose track because there are no others.
Oh, but there were. :-)
Getting a bill out before
> the recess was only a hope of his and he was quite clear that Congress
> might not make it in time.
>
>> At any rate, I'm sure it will be his last final deadline until the next
>> one.
>>
>> He gave the Iranians a "final deadline" too:
>
> No, he goaded them into doing something rash while all the economic
> leaders happened to be together during G20, thus gathering further
> support for isolating Iran.
>
>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/29/sarkozys_contempt_for_obama.html
The article is unrefuted.
>>
>>
>> "Iran has been put on notice before. At the G8 meeting in Italy in July,
>> Mr. Obama and other leaders set a "firm deadline" of Sep. 10 for the
>> Iranians to make a serious offer to negotiate about their nuclear
>> program. When the mullahs blew him off, Mr. Obama quietly extended the
>> deadline until December."
>>
>> Boy, that really scared the shit out of them, huh? And when he said "I'm
>> serious, I REALLY am" last week, they responded by testing the same type
>> of missles
>
> Korea did the same thing to Bush in 2006 when it spited him by
> performing a nuclear test. Where was all this right-wing outrage then?
Myopic much? Bush took all sorts of shit from the right for wimping on
N. Korea. His final approval rating was 30%, where 65% of the electorate
identifies as conservative or moderate. Quite obviously, there was all
sorts of discontent with Bush from the right, or his approvals never
would have dropped below the mid-40's.
>
>> that he said weren't a threat anymore to Europe:
>
> Where did Obama make such a claim? What were his specific words?
Are you serious?
"In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, administration
officials insisted the decision to change plans was based on
intelligence that showed Iran's short- and medium-range missile
technology was developing much more quickly than previously thought
while development of its long-range technology -- which the Eastern
Europe shield was meant to combat -- has slowed."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/01/pentagon-officials-say-missile-defense-change-russia/
>
>> "The extent of President Obama's naivete - or duplicity - was on display
>> Friday at the G20 summit when the president, flanked by Mr. Sarkozy and
>> British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, revealed to the American public
>
> Don't look now, but this smear-piece's extreme right-wing bias is showing.
‘President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front
of us two countries are doing the exact opposite," ***Mr. Sarkozy
said.*** (Emphasis mine.)
>
>> that Iran had a second nuclear weapons site on a military base near
>> the holy city of Qom. News reports indicated Mr. Obama had been
>> briefed on the site before his inauguration.
>
> A site that won't be operational for at least another year, possibly
> two, and even then it will take the facility another year to refine
> military-grade Uranium - if Iraq even has enough of the raw stuff to
> work with. There's nothing here requiring an immediate, panicked
> response.
Besides the point. He knew Iran was noncompliant for months and sat on it.
>
>> But he's been conducting his foreign policy as if the mullahs could be
>> trusted." "Iran has been put on notice," President Obama said in
>> Pittsburgh.
>
> I can find no speech in Pittsburgh where Obama said, "Iran has been put
> on notice". However, that phrase frequently appears, unquoted, as a
> paraphrase of his speech before the G20.
So, either the reporters are lying, or you just can't find it.
Pft. The stats are from State of Texas court filings and decisions.
so noisily trumpeted by the tort
> "reformers" and ignore less biased sources, the testimony of people in
> states that have enacted tort reform, and the conclusions of the
> Congressional Budget Office.
>
>> http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/
>
>> "The most significant change is a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages
>> per defendant, such as pain and suffering and loss of companionship.
>> “Before the caps, the average award was $1.21 million; it’s been
>> $880,000 since,” the Dallas Morning News reported last year.
>
> How much money would you take to live in terrible pain for the rest of
> your life just because some doctor was drinking on the job or withheld
> treatment to improve his insurance-company bonus? Would you rather have
> a jury decide the amount or have the government tell you how much you're
> allowed?
I would rather have a fiscally sustainable health care system for all
Americans. It is little-minded to personalize the matter. Do you really
think that the systems in Canada, UK, France, wherever, are so perfect
that you can't find an individual who has been wronged by them?
>
>> Malpractice suits have plummeted. In 2003, before the caps took effect,
>> there were 1,108 medical liability suits filed in Dallas County, the
>> Morning News reported. Only 142 cases were filed in 2004. Last year
>> there were 184."
>
> First, they cherry-picked an extreme case. Results are much less
> dramatic on a statewide scale.
This is a very large country that spends 15T on health care every year.
Savings of 1% is 15 billion dollars. At our scale, you don't need a
large percentage increase to save serious dollars.
>
> Second, you're having rather a hard time comprehending that a)
> Non-elective medical care is, by definition, not a choice and therefore
> not a competitive market;
I "comprehend" it just fine. The issue is not "non-elective", since most
non-elective care is not "emergency", which is what you're getting at.
"Emergency" care needs to be rended immediately, without being subject
to a competitive market, granted. Now, what percentage of the times in
your life that you've sought medical care has it been "emergency"? Half
of one percent, maybe?
and b) without competition to force prices
> down, producers keep any savings to themselves rather than passing them
> on to consumers.
So we agree that the government should not restrict competition. Good.
>
>> -resulting-
>>
>> "In the last three years, 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas.
>
> I just finished telling you how the tort reform crowd likes to tout the
> incoming portion of normal turnover as due to tort reform while totally
> ignoring the equal number of doctors leaving the state, and yet you went
> right ahead and posted this propaganda piece without even bothering to
> check their numbers.
You do realize that that's all growth, right? And that "doctors leaving"
also would include "retirements" and those "leaving the profession",
wiht "retirements" being the largest group?
>
> Compiled from statistics at the Texas Department of State Health
> Services at: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/hprc/PHYS-lnk.shtm
>
> Year Doctors Growth
> ---- ------- ------
>
> 1999 43934 5.8%
> 2000 46037 4.8%
> 2001 46718 1.5%
> 2002 47973 2.7%
> 2003 49710 3.6%
> 2004 50264 1.1%
> 2005 51529 2.5%
> 2006 52345 1.6%
> 2007 53297 1.8%
> 2008 54915 3.0%
>
> This demonstrates three things:
>
> * The total number of doctors in Texas was increasing year-to-year even
> before tort "reform".
So was the population of Texas. Did you normalize?
>
> * Contrary to the tort reformers' scare campaign, there was no sudden
> "mass exodus" of doctors prior to tort reform.
Gross numbers never show that. The "7,000" quoted is significant only
because the state licencing agency saw an unusual increase.
>
> * Enactment of tort reform did not result in any noticeable surge in
> the total number of doctors.
No. It's a big state.
>
> The table is also in line with the CBO study predicting at best a 2% cost
> reduction due to tort "reform".
2% would be great. See above.
>
>> So many doctors want to practice there that the state has had trouble
>> keeping up with the requests for licenses."
>
> That there's what they call a "lie by omission". The longer wait is the
> result of increased scrutiny by the medical licensing board and is not,
> as is so strongly implied, "proof" of the supposed surge in doctors.
No, that was shown elsewhere.
JG
The Real Bev
> pbj wrote:
>>
>> Only rigged right-wing studies have the public "hating" health care
>> reform.
>
> Depends what you mean by "reform." I think most everyone probably wants
> some kind of "reform", because of cost. It's when you say WHAT KIND of
> reform you want to do, and/or HOW MUCH IT COSTS, that the numbers start
> to vary.
Anyone who knows what it is and how much it will cost is lying. If <something>
can be paid for by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare, why didn't
they eliminate the fraud, waste and abuse already? And exactly what IS FW&A?
I have yet to read anything approaching a discussion of exactly what "reform"
will be. Given that Medicare is supposed to be broke within my lifetime, how
can government fixing do anything else to the entire medical/insurance setup?
--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The language of victimization is infinitely extensible." -- Me
Deadrat
news:hajjn2$fna$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> John Galt wrote:
>
>> pbj wrote:
>>>
>>> Only rigged right-wing studies have the public "hating" health care
>>> reform.
>>
>> Depends what you mean by "reform." I think most everyone probably
>> wants some kind of "reform", because of cost. It's when you say WHAT
>> KIND of reform you want to do, and/or HOW MUCH IT COSTS, that the
>> numbers start to vary.
>
> Anyone who knows what it is and how much it will cost is lying. If
> <something> can be paid for by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse in
> Medicare, why didn't they eliminate the fraud, waste and abuse
> already? And exactly what IS FW&A?
NPR reported a couple of years ago that of 1600 companies that billed
Medicare regularly, the US Attorney in Miami found that nearly a third
didn't exist. That do it for ya?
>
> I have yet to read anything approaching a discussion of exactly what
> "reform" will be. Given that Medicare is supposed to be broke within
> my lifetime, how can government fixing do anything else to the entire
> medical/insurance setup?
Well, suppose the government eliminated the age requirement for Medicare.
Right off the bat you'd eliminate the 30% of your insurance premium that
insurance companies spend to delay and deny paying claims.
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>
>> pbj wrote:
>>>
>>> Only rigged right-wing studies have the public "hating" health care
>>> reform.
>>
>> Depends what you mean by "reform." I think most everyone probably
>> wants some kind of "reform", because of cost. It's when you say WHAT
>> KIND of reform you want to do, and/or HOW MUCH IT COSTS, that the
>> numbers start to vary.
>
> Anyone who knows what it is and how much it will cost is lying.
These estimates certainly do have many moving parts, each of which is
subject to variables over time.
If
> <something> can be paid for by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse in
> Medicare, why didn't they eliminate the fraud, waste and abuse already?
> And exactly what IS FW&A?
>
> I have yet to read anything approaching a discussion of exactly what
> "reform" will be. Given that Medicare is supposed to be broke within my
> lifetime, how can government fixing do anything else to the entire
> medical/insurance setup?
Well, this is the larger question. We've known since the Rivlin
estimates of 1994 that Medicare imbalances would swamp the economy in
the future, and that the sooner we acted to correct them, the less
painful it would be.
Now, we're 15 years ex post facto and nothing has been done. That's a
failure to govern on the part of both parties.
JG
>
Rod Speed
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>
>>> pbj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Only rigged right-wing studies have the public "hating" health care
>>>> reform.
>>>
>>> Depends what you mean by "reform." I think most everyone probably
>>> wants some kind of "reform", because of cost. It's when you say WHAT
>>> KIND of reform you want to do, and/or HOW MUCH IT COSTS, that the
>>> numbers start to vary.
>>
>> Anyone who knows what it is and how much it will cost is lying.
>
> subject to variables over time.
>
>> <something> can be paid for by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse in
>> Medicare, why didn't they eliminate the fraud, waste and abuse
>> already? And exactly what IS FW&A?
>>
>> I have yet to read anything approaching a discussion of exactly what
>> "reform" will be. Given that Medicare is supposed to be broke
>> within my lifetime, how can government fixing do anything else to
>> the entire medical/insurance setup?
> Well, this is the larger question. We've known since the Rivlin estimates of 1994 that Medicare imbalances would swamp
> the economy in the future,
Just because someone claims something, doesnt make it gospel.
That hasnt happened with even a single other modern first world country.
> and that the sooner we acted to correct them, the less painful it would be.
Just because someone claims something, doesnt make it gospel.
> Now, we're 15 years ex post facto and nothing has been done.
Another lie.
> That's a failure to govern on the part of both parties.
Nope, just another lie.
Australia Mining Pioneer & Founder of the True Geology
LET'S PRAY NOW !
( 17 th Century Holy Scottish Druid of Inverness 's prayer )
HAIL TO THE CELTS !!!!
Our Celtic God and Loving Father
Who art the very nature of all things in Heaven and Earth
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy kingdom come! -
Thy will be done by us the Celts as it is on Earth and Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread of beauty, intelligence and
understanding.
Do not forgive us our trespasses but let's pay for our erring ways
Punish dearly those who trespass against us according to Eternal
Celtic
Justice
Lead us into the knowledge of Thy Cosmic Laws
But deliver us from the Evil of the Semite Sects godly swines, such as
that
1° Adonaï / Yahweh / Jehovah Murdering Team,
2° That Allah Ackbar Slaves-Driver Poofter Djinn, with his debased
paedophile/sexual deviant/rapist/drug addict Jew Prophet Mahom-Mad, a
false Prophet indeed.
3° As well as that Haethen Jesus Christ Spook, Resurrection Liar &
Fraud !
For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory
For thy sons and daughters of the Chosen Celtic Race
For Eternity !
Teach us to love our friends as best as we can with honour,
and hate our enemies and pursue them with our revenge until they pay
or ask
for mercy !
Please curse them just as we do, and support our just anger !
Give us strength to uphold at all time the Blessed Celtic Sword of
Justice,
and never falter in the Respect of our Duty & Obedience to the Sacred
Cosmic Laws !!!!
MAY THY ENEMIES AND ENEMIES OF NATURE BE REDUCED TO DUST !!!
Nature Laws are clear, straight forward and do not suffer exception.
Those who infringe them, pay for it ! ... and this is good !
... and some of us Celt, Franc & German , can see the consequences of
the Ignorance or
Contempt for Cosmic Laws taking their toll !!!
... and this is very refreshing
since proving indeed there's NO exception to Divine & Eternal Laws !
NO Immunity !
NO Impunity !
NO Forgiveness !
NO Forgetting !
These are the Divine Laws of our ALMIGHTY ETERNAL GOD , THE UNIQUE,
THE
UNNAMED, THE BLESSED ONE and
HOLY CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE !
HONOUR TO OUR LOVING CELTIC GOD !
LET IT BE !.
§§§
Brought to you courtesy of Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Greatest Mining Pioneer of All Times
buffalo_ho
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 2:14 am, Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> > <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> >>Worker'sCompensationinsurance, if you are not in the US, is the
> >> program that guarantees that an employer will be liable for injuries
> >> that happen to their employees are a result of their employment, and it
> >> has no bearing on private medical insurance.
>
> > I am not sure what point you are trying to make, I never
> > claimed otherwise. Did you mistype? because I am sure
> > we haveWorker'sCompensationin the US that works this
> > same way,
>
> My focus was, "if you are not in the US, you may not know this, but..."
> Sorry if my juxtaposition of prepositional phrases caused confusion.
Wow, this stuff is crazy
pbj
There's naturally going to be some disagreement of the optimal solution,
but I've seen no reputable study showing that great numbers of supporters
would rather do nothing if the implementation isn't exactly what they
want.
> Rigged left-wing sources show around 80% support for reform and >>
> unbiased middle-of-the-road studies pin it at around 60%, giving the
> >> issue majority support among voters.
>>
>>>>>>> You don't get to decide whether we take the "whole
>>>>>>>> enchilada" or choose just the parts we want.
>>>>>>> Neither do the Democrats, apparently, since the Democratic party
>>>>>>> seems to have quite a few people on my "side", who also dislike
>>>>>>> euro-style "public options", and see the need for reforms in the
>>>>>>> area of tort.
>>>>>> So now that it suits your convenience, the Democrat party is
>>>>>> suddenly filled with people who oppose socialized medicine and
>>>>>> favor letting businesses run roughshod over consumers?
>>>>> Apparently, or you'd have a bill passed by now.
>>>> Obama promised one by the end of the year. It isn't the end of the
>>>> year yet.
>>> Was that his third final deadline, or fourth final deadline? I lose
>>> track.
>>
>> You lose track because there are no others.
>
> Oh, but there were. :-)
Then you won't have any trouble providing links to these other health care
deadlines you claim he made.
> Getting a bill out before
>> the recess was only a hope of his and he was quite clear that Congress
>> might not make it in time.
>>
>>> At any rate, I'm sure it will be his last final deadline until the
>>> next one.
>>>
>>> He gave the Iranians a "final deadline" too:
>>
>> No, he goaded them into doing something rash while all the economic
>> leaders happened to be together during G20, thus gathering further
>> support for isolating Iran.
>>
>>> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/29/
sarkozys_contempt_for_obama.html
>
> The article is unrefuted.
I don't have to refute anything, you have to prove that the smear piece
you quoted can be believed. Good luck with that.
>>>
>>> "Iran has been put on notice before. At the G8 meeting in Italy in
>>> July, Mr. Obama and other leaders set a "firm deadline" of Sep. 10 for
>>> the Iranians to make a serious offer to negotiate about their nuclear
>>> program. When the mullahs blew him off, Mr. Obama quietly extended the
>>> deadline until December."
>>>
>>> Boy, that really scared the shit out of them, huh? And when he said
>>> "I'm serious, I REALLY am" last week, they responded by testing the
>>> same type of missles
>>
>> Korea did the same thing to Bush in 2006 when it spited him by
>> performing a nuclear test. Where was all this right-wing outrage then?
>
> Myopic much? Bush took all sorts of shit from the right for wimping on
> N. Korea.
That's not what I saw in these newsgroups or in the news. Sure, there
was some criticism from the usual fanatics but I didn't see the kind of
smear campaign from the right that they've launched against Obama on this
very similar issue.
> His final approval rating was 30%, where 65% of the electorate
> identifies as conservative or moderate. Quite obviously, there was all
> sorts of discontent with Bush from the right, or his approvals never
> would have dropped below the mid-40's.
Bush's numbers didn't take their real dive until well after North
Korea's tests.
>>> that he said weren't a threat anymore to Europe:
>>
>> Where did Obama make such a claim? What were his specific words?
>
> Are you serious?
Yes I am serious and no your cite below doesn't prove that that *Obama*
ever said Iran's missiles were no longer a threat to Europe.
> "In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, administration
> officials insisted the decision to change plans was based on
> intelligence that showed Iran's short- and medium-range missile
> technology was developing much more quickly than previously thought
> while development of its long-range technology -- which the Eastern
> Europe shield was meant to combat -- has slowed."
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/01/pentagon-officials-say-
missile-defense-change-russia/>
"Administration officials" aren't Obama and nowhere in that article does
Obama utter the words attributed to him by the smear piece.
>>> "The extent of President Obama's naivete - or duplicity - was on
>>> display Friday at the G20 summit when the president, flanked by Mr.
>>> Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, revealed to the
>>> American public
>>
>> Don't look now, but this smear-piece's extreme right-wing bias is
>> showing.
>
> ‘President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...e," ***Mr. Sarkozy
> said.*** (Emphasis mine.)
Do you always care so much what the French think of the US?
Oh, and:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for
2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary
efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between
peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision
of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics.
Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on
the role that the United Nations and other international institutions
can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for
resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of
a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and
arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now
playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic
challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to
be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the
world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His
diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world
must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the
majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate
precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama
is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's
appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of
responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009
>>> that Iran had a second nuclear weapons site on a military base near
>>> the holy city of Qom. News reports indicated Mr. Obama had been
>>> briefed on the site before his inauguration.
>>
>> A site that won't be operational for at least another year, possibly
>> two, and even then it will take the facility another year to refine
>> military-grade Uranium - if Iraq even has enough of the raw stuff to
>> work with. There's nothing here requiring an immediate, panicked
>> response.
>
> Besides the point. He knew Iran was noncompliant for months and sat on
> it.
The smear piece implies repeatedly that this is some kind of crisis
requiring immediate (but conveniently unspecified!) action. It is not
"besides the point" to show that there is no immediate problem and that
the world has one and possibly two or three years to change Iran's
behavior.
>>> But he's been conducting his foreign policy as if the mullahs could be
>>> trusted." "Iran has been put on notice," President Obama said in
>>> Pittsburgh.
>>
>> I can find no speech in Pittsburgh where Obama said, "Iran has been put
>> on notice". However, that phrase frequently appears, unquoted, as a
>> paraphrase of his speech before the G20.
>
> So, either the reporters are lying, or you just can't find it.
You also don't seem able to find it so what's that leave?
Not relevant to my cite:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm
BW> Look at Texas, which enacted some of the most extensive
BW> malpractice reforms in the nation in 2003. The number of
BW> lawsuits in the state has fallen by half since then, and
BW> malpractice premiums are down 30%. But health-care costs
BW> in Texas are still among the highest in the nation and
BW> are growing at a faster rate than in most other states.
> so noisily trumpeted by the tort
>> "reformers" and ignore less biased sources, the testimony of people in
>> states that have enacted tort reform, and the conclusions of the
>> Congressional Budget Office.
>>
>>> http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/19/doctors-flock-to-texas-after-
tort-reform/
>>
>>> "The most significant change is a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages
>>> per defendant, such as pain and suffering and loss of companionship.
>>> “Before the caps, the average award was $1.21 million; it’s been
>>> $880,000 since,” the Dallas Morning News reported last year.
>>
>> How much money would you take to live in terrible pain for the rest of
>> your life just because some doctor was drinking on the job or withheld
>> treatment to improve his insurance-company bonus? Would you rather have
>> a jury decide the amount or have the government tell you how much
>> you're allowed?
>
> I would rather have a fiscally sustainable health care system for all
> Americans. It is little-minded to personalize the matter.
Evasion noted. Not that I'm surprised.
> Do you really think that the systems in Canada, UK, France, wherever,
> are so perfect that you can't find an individual who has been wronged by
> them?
Of course not, but by taking greed out of the system and more tightly
regulating their doctors and hospitals they've pretty much removed
the root causes of malpractice: greed and incompetence. Also, injured
patients don't need to sue for future or remedial medical care and they
automatically enjoy the cradle-to-grave protections of other social
safety nets without ever having to file a lawsuit.
>>> Malpractice suits have plummeted. In 2003, before the caps took
>>> effect, there were 1,108 medical liability suits filed in Dallas
>>> County, the Morning News reported. Only 142 cases were filed in 2004.
>>> Last year there were 184."
>>
>> First, they cherry-picked an extreme case. Results are much less
>> dramatic on a statewide scale.
>
> This is a very large country that spends 15T on health care every year.
Try $2.2 trillion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
"Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of
GDP, second only to East Timor (Timor-Leste) among all United Nations
member nations.[7] The health share of GDP is expected to continue its
historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.[31][32]
Of each dollar spent on health care in the United States 31% goes to
hospital care, 21% goes to physician services, 10% to pharmaceuticals,
8% to nursing homes, 7% to administrative costs, and 23% to all other
categories (diagnostic laboratory services, pharmacies, medical device
manufacturers, etc.[10]"
"The Office of the Actuary (OACT) of the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services publishes data on total health care spending in the
United States, including both historical levels and future
projections.[33] In 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care,
or $7,439 per person, up from $2.1 trillion, or $7,026 per capita, the
previous year.[34] Spending in 2006 represented 16% of GDP, an increase
of 6.7% over 2004 spending. Growth in spending is projected to average
6.7% annually over the period 2007 through 2017. Health insurance costs
are rising faster than wages or inflation, and medical causes were
cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in
2001.[35]"
> Savings of 1% is 15 billion dollars. At our scale, you don't need a
> large percentage increase to save serious dollars.
A few percent is not insignificant but it's dwarfed by the 30% the
insurance companies are burning up. Let's take care of the biggest
problem first.
>> Second, you're having rather a hard time comprehending that a)
>> Non-elective medical care is, by definition, not a choice and therefore
>> not a competitive market;
>
> I "comprehend" it just fine.
Then why are you quoting a reduction in lawsuits to make a point that
consumers are paying less?
> The issue is not "non-elective", since most non-elective care is not
> "emergency", which is what you're getting at. "Emergency" care needs to
> be rended immediately, without being subject to a competitive market,
> granted.
No, I meant non-elective care. It's not a free market when the consumer
has a gun to his head. Or a painful, ticking time-bomb in his colon, if
you prefer.
Other reasons non-elective care isn't a free market:
* The patient may well be too sick to think clearly and thus cannot
make informed decisions.
* Hospitals almost never tell a consumer what a procedure costs until
after it is performed.
* Though not an immediate emergency, the pain may be too great or the
need for action may be too urgent to spend sufficient time researching
sellers.
* Most patients lack the medical skills and experience to accurately
evaluate their need, compare providers, and know the actual
effectiveness (or lack thereof) of available services.
* Insurance companies often limit the "choice" of medical providers.
Employers in turn limit the consumer's "choice" of insurance companies.
* The AMA campaigns to limit the supply of doctors.
* Unless the patient resides in a large city (or maybe even if he does),
his choice of practitioners and hospitals is likely to be quite
limited.
> Now, what percentage of the times in your life that you've sought
> medical care has it been "emergency"? Half of one percent, maybe?
Like most people I don't go to doctors just for the hell of it. With the
exception of a few employer-mandated physicals and random drug tests,
100% of my visits to doctors have been for non-elective care.
> and b) without competition to force prices
>> down, producers keep any savings to themselves rather than passing them
>> on to consumers.
>
> So we agree that the government should not restrict competition. Good.
If the marketplace is producing the desired results and isn't creating
unacceptable side-effects, then of course the government should stay out
of the way. However, where health care is concerned, the marketplace has
consistently failed on both counts and the voters are leaving the
government no choice but to step in.
>>> -resulting-
>>>
>>> "In the last three years, 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas.
>>
>> I just finished telling you how the tort reform crowd likes to tout the
>> incoming portion of normal turnover as due to tort reform while totally
>> ignoring the equal number of doctors leaving the state, and yet you
>> went right ahead and posted this propaganda piece without even
>> bothering to check their numbers.
>
> You do realize that that's all growth, right? And that "doctors leaving"
> also would include "retirements" and those "leaving the profession",
> wiht "retirements" being the largest group?
It's easy to cook up excuses. Now let's see you prove them.
>> Compiled from statistics at the Texas Department of State Health
>> Services at: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/hprc/PHYS-lnk.shtm
>>
>> Year Doctors Growth
>>
>> 1999 43934 5.8%
>> 2000 46037 4.8%
>> 2001 46718 1.5%
>> 2002 47973 2.7%
>> 2003 49710 3.6%
>> 2004 50264 1.1%
>> 2005 51529 2.5%
>> 2006 52345 1.6%
>> 2007 53297 1.8%
>> 2008 54915 3.0%
>>
>> This demonstrates three things:
>>
>> * The total number of doctors in Texas was increasing year-to-year even
>> before tort "reform".
>
> So was the population of Texas. Did you normalize?
The tort reformers claimed an absolute number of 7,000. Normalization to
the population isn't necessary to disprove that claim.
>> * Contrary to the tort reformers' scare campaign, there was no sudden
>> "mass exodus" of doctors prior to tort reform.
>
> Gross numbers never show that. The "7,000" quoted is significant only
> because the state licencing agency saw an unusual increase.
The second column above is the total number of doctors licensed to
practice in Texas for each year. There was no "unusual increase".
>> * Enactment of tort reform did not result in any noticeable surge in
>> the total number of doctors.
>
> No. It's a big state.
See above.
>> The table is also in line with the CBO study predicting at best a 2%
>> cost reduction due to tort "reform".
>
> 2% would be great. See above.
Glad you finally see the light.
>>> So many doctors want to practice there that the state has had trouble
>>> keeping up with the requests for licenses."
>>
>> That there's what they call a "lie by omission". The longer wait is the
>> result of increased scrutiny by the medical licensing board and is not,
>> as is so strongly implied, "proof" of the supposed surge in doctors.
>
> No, that was shown elsewhere.
"Claimed" is not the same as "shown".
John Galt
Glad you did.
JG