Healthcare reform

[mr_genius]

Obama knows Doctors will have to take a pay cut for universal health care to work. At least he's being realistic.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/con...+temp_top+story

 

On Monday, June 15, Obama went to Chicago to speak at a meeting of the American Medical Assn., the nation's largest physician organization. It was the first time in 26 years that a President has addressed the group. Obama's message: Any health-care reform bill will have to change the way doctors are reimbursed. That is, they could end up making less money.

 

And honestly I think he is right. I know this is going to piss off some people, but I think some doctors are extremely overpaid. I honestly don't think most work doctors do should command a $400,000 a year salary.

Edited June 16, 2009 by mr_genius

[Y2HH]

Obama knows Doctors will have to take a pay cut for universal health care to work. At least he's being realistic.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/con...+temp_top+story

 

 

 

And honestly I think he is right. I know this is going to piss off some peoiple, but I think some Doctors are extremely overpaid. I honestly don't think most work doctors do should command a $400,000 a year salary.

 

They wouldn't if they weren't having to spend 150k per year in malpractice insurance, which they do because of the multitude of frivolous "only in America" lawsuits they get tossed at them every year.

 

In addition to changing the laws to help protect doctors against this, as Balta pointed out, it won't save us any money because these doctors won't suddenly agree to a pay cut to make up the difference in the money they're no longer sending to the malpractice insurance companies, they'll merely pocket it -- what we need is additional legislation on cost cutting measures...but now we get into very dicey territory, as I don't want the government involved in saying what people can and cannot make. I think we tread into dangerous territory when we start letting the government decide what people can make/charge, or otherwise.

 

I like living here, the way it is...I don't want socialism, I don't want communism.

 

Now this isn't directed at anybody here in particular, but it is directed at a lot of people I've spoken with as of late...

 

Seems like a lot of people today have had it so good and their lives have been so blessed that they have time to dwell on these types of issues, nitpicks, or otherwise, but as long as they get that updated iPOD, what do they care, right? It's not like they're the ones paying.

 

This sounds like a lot of spoiled kids talking out of their asses is what it sounds like, repeating the same s*** they heard on Fox news or CNN or whatever other biased f***ing station you watch before regurgitating the information they want you to spread for them.

[mr_genius]

They wouldn't if they weren't having to spend 150k per year in malpractice insurance, which they do because of the multitude of frivolous "only in America" lawsuits they get tossed at them every year.

 

In addition to changing the laws to help protect doctors against this, as Balta pointed out, it won't save us any money because these doctors won't suddenly agree to a pay cut to make up the difference in the money they're no longer sending to the malpractice insurance companies, they'll merely pocket it -- what we need is additional legislation on cost cutting measures...but now we get into very dicey territory, as I don't want the government involved in saying what people can and cannot make. I think we tread into dangerous territory when we start letting the government decide what people can make/charge, or otherwise.

 

I like living here, the way it is...I don't want socialism, I don't want communism.

 

Now this isn't directed at anybody here in particular, but it is directed at a lot of people I've spoken with as of late...

 

Seems like a lot of people today have had it so good and their lives have been so blessed that they have time to dwell on these types of issues, nitpicks, or otherwise, but as long as they get that updated iPOD, what do they care, right? It's not like they're the ones paying.

 

This sounds like a lot of spoiled kids talking out of their asses is what it sounds like, repeating the same s*** they heard on Fox news or CNN or whatever other biased f***ing station you watch before regurgitating the information they want you to spread for them.

 

There is probably going to be health care reform and if I, as a long time tax payer, end up paying some douche bag doctor to charge $5000 an hour to give out prescriptions I will start wrecking iPODS. at will.

 

now if that makes me a socialist, then the definition of socialism has been greatly expanded.

Edited June 16, 2009 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

So the people it is going too -- just lay them all off, too? And don't tell me it's just going to the insurance companies and other gluttonous properties, either. That's probably a few hundred thousand jobs we're talking about now. Bottom line is, no matter what happens, that lost money won't suddenly appear in the average Americans pocket...the government simply wants it for themselves, after all, they're gonna need a multitude of ways to pay for this.

 

The government hasn't found a way to purchase simple items like computers for schools without blowing millions upon millions per school -- hell, forget computers, they can't buy anything without massive waste/overhead, but I'm sure they'll know how to make health care affordable!

 

I don't mean to sound like a jag when I talk about this, but there is a lot more too it than they're letting on. If they want to seriously make heath care more affordable without messing up the current system even more, put massive legislation and changes the laws when it comes to the COUNTLESS frivolous lawsuits brought up against doctors/surgeons on a daily basis, also, crack down on insurance fraud from people collecting benefits when they aren't really hurt/sick, as this is a RAMPANT problem in the insurance industry, yet the laws the government put fourth does almost nothing but helps these types. I heard a few things earlier today about making the lawsuits harder -- and the fact that they realize this is/has been going on yet have done nothing about it should show you how interested the government is in saving you money on free healthcare.

The bolded part is an empty talking point. Amusingly, Obama asked Congressional GOP leaders a few weeks back what they'd offer in return for him adding this into a hypothetical bill and they got quiet.

[Y2HH]

Here is the last thing I'll say, because these types of politically charged arguments often lead nowhere.

 

Something most defiantly needs to be done about healthcare reform -- across the board, from insurance companies, to drug companies to doctors/hospitals, etc.

 

But I personally feel that the answer is not in handing control over to the government. Now I'm not saying I have the answer, but I know damn well that the government isn't the best entity to put in charge of something that's trying to cut costs/save money, they've shown they can't do that, across the board from local to state to federal government -- saving is not in their natures, after all, it's not their money they're spending anyway, it's ours. Such a system would merely hand them the keys to another storage shed full of our money -- and believe me -- they'll find every way to spend through it and then some...costing us even more in the long run.

 

Just look at our deficits and debt on the local and national level and ask yourself if these are the people you want in charge of making fiscally sound decisions with the goal in mind to save money, not spend even more. Now, if you didn't just laugh at that thought, you're a sheep, and that's all there is too it.

[lostfan]

The arguments lead nowhere when one person tends to be condescending to others and insist they're all sheep for not immediately agreeing with what they have to say.

[Y2HH]

The bolded part is an empty talking point. Amusingly, Obama asked Congressional GOP leaders a few weeks back what they'd offer in return for him adding this into a hypothetical bill and they got quiet.

 

It's empty because they won't do anything about it. Again, I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but anyone with half a brain can see the problems with frivolous lawsuits in this country, especially those medically related.

 

And this isn't a republican nor a democrat problem, it's an everyone problem, so let's not go there.

[mr_genius]

They wouldn't if they weren't having to spend 150k per year in malpractice insurance, which they do because of the multitude of frivolous "only in America" lawsuits they get tossed at them every year.

 

I agree. That is another area costs can be lowered.

[Y2HH]

The arguments lead nowhere when one person tends to be condescending to others and insist they're all sheep for not immediately agreeing with what they have to say.

 

You're only a sheep if you think what I said. I can care less if you agree with me or not on the actual issue at hand, but if you honestly think the government will find a way to SAVE money after looking at the deficits and debt on local, state and federal levels, then yes, you are in fact a sheep.

 

Anyone that thinks an entity like that, which spends like it does, which over hires, over pays, and over does everything they do which has proven time and time again they have absolutely NO fiscal responsibility can run this system and save money while doing it is insane. And this isn't about the current administration, either, as the previous one liked to spend like drunken sailors, too...so don't try to make this a democrat/republican thing, because as far as I'm concerned, both parties can die.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

It's empty because they won't do anything about it. Again, I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but anyone with half a brain can see the problems with frivolous lawsuits in this country, especially those medically related.

 

And this isn't a republican nor a democrat problem, it's an everyone problem, so let's not go there.

I'm not sure who "they" is (and it's not Democrats or Republicans, but Republicans tend to be the one to push this specific point), but if "they" is the current administration, they've said they're willing to put limits on malpractice lawsuits into the reform package. Frankly it's a non-issue and I don't see why someone who'd want to overhaul healthcare would be deadset on not going ahead with it.

Edited June 16, 2009 by lostfan

[Y2HH]

I'm not sure who "they" is (and it's not Democrats or Republicans, but Republicans tend to be the one to push this specific point), but if "they" is the current administration, they've said they're willing to put limits on malpractice lawsuits into the reform package. Frankly it's a non-issue and I don't see why someone who'd want to overhaul healthcare would be deadset on not going ahead with it.

 

They is all of them -- all of them in charge, from the party holding office to the individuals in congress and the senate...that's they. I'm not a party guy, at all, and THEY all need to do things together, I'm so sick and tired of this split system of pokes and prods trying to slyly get at each other without looking like the bad guys...it's insane we have to put up with this type of thing.

 

Furthermore, it's the judges accepting the cases, the lawyers involved in carrying out the cases and the type of people it takes to knowingly sue someone for nothing.

 

All of the above are they "they" I speak of.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

They is all of them -- all of them in charge, from the party holding office to the individuals in congress and the senate...that's they. I'm not a party guy, at all, and THEY all need to do things together, I'm so sick and tired of this split system of pokes and prods trying to slyly get at each other without looking like the bad guys...it's insane we have to put up with this type of thing.

 

Furthermore, it's the judges accepting the cases, the lawyers involved in carrying out the cases and the type of people it takes to knowingly sue someone for nothing.

 

All of the above are they "they" I speak of.

It's not of course the fault of the people actually making errors.

[lostfan]

They is all of them -- all of them in charge, from the party holding office to the individuals in congress and the senate...that's they. I'm not a party guy, at all, and THEY all need to do things together, I'm so sick and tired of this split system of pokes and prods trying to slyly get at each other without looking like the bad guys...it's insane we have to put up with this type of thing.

 

Furthermore, it's the judges accepting the cases, the lawyers involved in carrying out the cases and the type of people it takes to knowingly sue someone for nothing.

 

All of the above are they "they" I speak of.

If a reform bill passes, this will be included. It's a bipartisan thing now. Book it.

Edited June 16, 2009 by lostfan

[Y2HH]

It's not of course the fault of the people actually making errors.

 

I'm not talking about actual real malpractice claims...I'm talking about frivolous claims. I think there is a BIG difference between the two, to pretend otherwise is just meh, I have no other words for it.

[Balta1701]

I'm not talking about actual real malpractice claims...I'm talking about frivolous claims. I think there is a BIG difference between the two, to pretend otherwise is just meh, I have no other words for it.

In that case, I'm going to respond with some briefly googled data, and I want to see your counter-evidence stating that they're common and a huge problem.

The study,“ Claims, Errors, and Compensation Payments in Medical Malpractice Litigation,” was conducted by a prestigious group from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Harvard Risk Management Foundation and was published in the May 11, 2006 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Physicians trained in reviewing malpractice claims were assigned malpractice files randomly selected from 1452 closed medical malpractice files provided to the group by five malpractice insurance companies in four regions in the U.S. The goal of the study was to determine if so-called tort-reformers are correct when they claim that frivolous malpractice claims are common and costly and are a substantial source of waste in the health care and legal system. The study supports what lawyers involved in malpractice litigation have been stating for years: the vast majority of malpractice cases brought are valid and the claimants are rightfully entitled compensation.

 

In the study, meritorious cases outnumbered non-meritorious case by 2 to 1. Presumably, in many of the cases deemed by the reviewers to be “non-error,” issues of credibility were resolved in the medical providers favor without the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify and be cross examined in order to make a fair appraisal as to which party is telling the truth. Of the claims that these reviewers opined were not caused by medical error, the vast majority received no recovery at all. Eighty percent of the claims examined involved injuries deemed to have caused significant or major disability or death. In only 3 percent of the claims, no adverse outcome from medical care was evident. Of the 37 claims which were deemed to involve no injury, only a handful of these claimants received any monetary award.

 

 

The authors of the study also found, “[T]he malpractice system performs reasonably well in its function of separating claims without merit from those with merit and compensating the latter.” As further proof of how well the system works, most meritorious cases were settled without the need for a jury verdict. Malpractice insurers and hospital risk managers are well trained to recognize valid claims and often choose to resolve those claims by settlement, thereby reducing defense costs and the risk of larger damage awards from a jury. For these reasons, settlements were reached in 85% of all the malpractice claims evaluated. Of the remaining 15% of cases which went to verdict, plaintiffs rarely won. According to the study, 79% of the verdicts of the cases reviewed which went to trial resulted in no award for the plaintiff, including a significant number of meritorious claims which resulted in verdicts for the defendant-medical provider. While the study found that non-error claims were more likely to reach trial than error claims, 27% of claims in which the claimants suffered injuries resulting from medical errors received no compensation. In other words, if there is an injustice in the system, it’s more likely that the victims of malpractice suffer the inequitable result rather than medical providers Perhaps we should label this injustice a successful “frivolous defense.”

[Y2HH]

In that case, I'm going to respond with some briefly googled data, and I want to see your counter-evidence stating that they're common and a huge problem.

 

While I won't bother pasting 50 links, nor 50 stories, if you take the same search you performed but search for frivolous medical malpractice lawsuit facts, you'll get just as many stories saying how real it is.

 

I work in the Health Insurance industry, my father works in the medical industry (pharmacy), my fathers friends all work in the same industry, two of my friends mothers are nurses at Mercy -- and they say this situation is very real. A friend of mine was a PI for two years working for a third party that specialized in insurance fraud on medical conditions which prevented these people from working, while collecting insurance for their injuries, and (by his words) 99% of the people he followed were cheating over that span.

 

Now I'm sure some of these suits are real -- but separating the real from the fake is necessary to help curb these fees being passed along to the consumers. I know the nature of frivolous suits in the US...only in America can you become a millionaire by spilling coffee on yourself.

 

Just for the hell of it I'll post the search in a link to make it easy : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...mp;oq=&aqi=

 

As you can see, there are just as many stories/data that show the problem exists. As they say, where there is smoke there is fire, if this wasn't a problem, people probably wouldn't complain about it, and there wouldn't be 50,000,000 Google links to both sides of the argument. I'm sure the lawyers defend that it's a myth, while doctors defend that it's a fact, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

You gave nothing but anecdotes in response to presented data saying that 66% of lawsuits were judged to be meritorious and the others almost always failed. You say that separating the real from the fake is necessary, and yet the data that I posted suggests that very few frivolous cases are paid and even some of the meritorious cases are beaten in the courts. When there are tens of thousands of cases and examples of actual mistakes in this country, finding the anecdotes for the fraudulent ones are going to be absolutely simple if there is a motivated industry or interest group interested in publicisizing them.

 

I performed the same Google search you did. It's all anecdotes. The only data I'm seeing out there is the Harvard Study, a summary of which I linked.

 

And then you threw out the McDonalds scalding a person with their ridiculously hot coffee as an example.

 

I think my point is made.

[Y2HH]

You gave nothing but anecdotes in response to presented data saying that 66% of lawsuits were judged to be meritorious and the others almost always failed. You say that separating the real from the fake is necessary, and yet the data that I posted suggests that very few frivolous cases are paid and even some of the meritorious cases are beaten in the courts. When there are tens of thousands of cases and examples of actual mistakes in this country, finding the anecdotes for the fraudulent ones are going to be absolutely simple if there is a motivated industry or interest group interested in publicisizing them.

 

I performed the same Google search you did. It's all anecdotes. The only data I'm seeing out there is the Harvard Study, a summary of which I linked.

 

And then you threw out the McDonalds scalding a person with their ridiculously hot coffee as an example.

 

I think my point is made.

 

So let me get this right, all of your Google information is correct, but mine is nothing more than anecdotal? And the "study" you pointed too has no spin, at all? And this can be proven? Harvard is loaded with people all over with their own personal agendas, and this may be just another case of spin...regardless, one study on the matter doesn't make it 100% correct.

 

Don't tell me, you believe everything PETA writes, too, because they do the research and post papers so they must be true!

 

Give me a break.

 

Also, you conveniently ignore, if that study is 100% correct in every way, that 33% of the lawsuits ARE frivolous, and you find that acceptable. I find that funny.

 

You see, even if the other 33% of the suits fail -- they're still tying these doctors/lawyers/courts up in the system, and none of that time spent/lost comes for free, so please, stop acting like it does. Just because the patients are found, in that study, to lose these cases more often than they win them that the entire proceeding never happens, and all the time of all the people involved isn't wasted -- not to mention the money!

 

Your point is negated.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Y2HH

[mr_genius]

finding the anecdotes for the fraudulent ones are going to be absolutely simple if there is a motivated industry or interest group interested in publicisizing them.

 

Balta, in all fairness, you linked an article that was written by a medical malpractice attorney. He has an obvious economic interest here. You did not link the study, even though the article mentions where the study can be found. But still, it shows that there is advocacy based on profit from trial lawyers whom may be prone to cherry picking data, as well as the insurance industry.

Edited June 16, 2009 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

Efficiency = providing coverage for everyone. Think about this...how much time and money is spent in this country figuring out whether or not a person is covered at all or is covered for a specific treatment? Or how much is spent by insurance companies figuring out creative ways to not pay for treatments? Administrative costs, especially for private insurance, are through the roof, even compared to Medicare (Which is why a public system is such a necessity).

One of the biggest advantages to a public system, and to a universal system is; everyone is covered. There's no profit to be made spending large sums of money on finding ways to deny treatment. There's no profit to be made spending large sums of money trying to make sure that you don't cover anyone who is actually sick. There's no time wasted filling out forms to determine if a treatment is covered. There's no money spent on the thousands of people who's job it is to find reasons for you to deny coverage. There's only profit to be made by being more efficient overall than the next provider. There's only profit to be made by providing better care.

 

There is enough money being spent right now on finding administrative ways to deny coverage to people to pay for covering our entire population of uninsured.

You want to complain about how there's so much money being spent on ways to NOT treat people, yet you want to post that there are a bazillion tests on people that should never be done because they're running up bills. So which inefficiency do you want to talk about first? You can't have both arguements and then sit there and justify a government run health care. FIX Medicare first... they can't run that right and they want to take something that's a minimum of 10 times bigger and you think they will run that right? What is the government's motive to allow tests, etc? Oh wait, there isn't one. Their motive is to cut costs, which means deny care. Period. I would much rather have a market fix then the government denying me care because the bureaucrats haven't gotten their lobby money yet to allow XYZ treatment. You think that won't happen? It's already started.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Balta, in all fairness, you linked an article that was written by a medical malpractice attorney. He has an obvious economic interest here. You did not link the study, even though the article mentions where the study can be found. But still, it shows that there is advocacy based on profit from trial lawyers whom may be prone to cherry picking data, as well as the insurance industry.

 

If you wanna match anecdote for anecdote, explain why McAllen, Texas is among the most expensive cities in the country for healthcare - and yet Texas has the very same malpractice reform that people who whine about malpractice reform want?

[NorthSideSox72]

If you wanna match anecdote for anecdote, explain why McAllen, Texas is among the most expensive cities in the country for healthcare - and yet Texas has the very same malpractice reform that people who whine about malpractice reform want?

Because frivilous malpractice claims are actually only a small part of the problem in health care. It exists, its worth addressing, but by itself it isn't something where we fix it and all is well.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

A friend of mine was a PI for two years working for a third party that specialized in insurance fraud on medical conditions which prevented these people from working, while collecting insurance for their injuries, and (by his words) 99% of the people he followed were cheating over that span.

This is where the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics" comes from.

 

First, if a PI is following people, you are already dealing in the small percentage of claims that the insurance companies SUSPECT fraud to begin with, and are planning legal action. So even if the 99% number were accurate, its only 99% of 2%, or the like.

 

Second, I'm sorry to say, I find that 99% number to be not believeable. Even among the high-suspicion cases, you think they are essentially ALL faking it in a way obvious enough for a PI to see it? I think that is probably an exaggeration.

 

Even if its not, we're talking 1 or 2 percent here.

 

 

[lostfan]

Just for the hell of it I'll post the search in a link to make it easy : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...mp;oq=&aqi=

 

As you can see, there are just as many stories/data that show the problem exists. As they say, where there is smoke there is fire, if this wasn't a problem, people probably wouldn't complain about it, and there wouldn't be 50,000,000 Google links to both sides of the argument. I'm sure the lawyers defend that it's a myth, while doctors defend that it's a fact, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

The Google search link you provided: 24,700 results

Google search for "fraudulent malpractice cases" (a little better): 644,000 results

Google search for "ufo sightings" 1,050,000 results

 

Just saying

[Y2HH]

The Google search link you provided: 24,700 results

Google search for "fraudulent malpractice cases" (a little better): 644,000 results

Google search for "ufo sightings" 1,050,000 results

 

Just saying

 

Oh I know, which is why I'd prefer to keep Google searches out of this, because if you really want to find something that agrees with your side of an argument on Google, you probably will.

 

This is where the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics" comes from.

 

First, if a PI is following people, you are already dealing in the small percentage of claims that the insurance companies SUSPECT fraud to begin with, and are planning legal action. So even if the 99% number were accurate, its only 99% of 2%, or the like.

 

Second, I'm sorry to say, I find that 99% number to be not believeable. Even among the high-suspicion cases, you think they are essentially ALL faking it in a way obvious enough for a PI to see it? I think that is probably an exaggeration.

 

Even if its not, we're talking 1 or 2 percent here.

 

I agree, and I was only using it as an example that the problem exists, I wasn't trying to say that 99% of ALL cases brought to the insurance companies are fraud, everyone knows that's a damn lie. The fact that insurance companies have to bother hiring PI's (at the rate they do) says it all as far as I'm concerned. We shouldn't have to worry about this as much as we do, and of course someones going to pay for these PI's and fraudulent insurance collections and it's not the insurance companies, no, they simply transfer that fee onto you and I. All I'm trying to say is the problem exists and that it should be looked into -- as part of an overall reform bill. As someone above said, no, it's not the ONLY problem with the healthcare system, but it IS one of them, and all of it needs to be looked into, rather than the government cherry picking only certain things. Look, I'm of the mindset that if you are going to overhaul something and fix it, fix everything rather than applying bandaid after bandaid, and I'm skeptical that the government can successfully fix an already expensive system and make it cheaper -- I find this to be an absolute pipedream since nothing our government does becomes cheaper.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Y2HH