Posted on 10/07/2004 8:43:24 AM PDT by thepace
John Edwards said the other night, regarding Bush and Cheney's proposed medical liability reform:
There are a lot of ways that he could represent this so that it was technically true, but the thrust of this statement -- that huge malpractice payouts do not affect what you pay for health insurance -- is patently untrue. I don't necessarily think that Bush's health care plan will solve all of our problems, but medical liability represents one of the most solvable of our healthcare problems, and we have to fix it.Because, in context, everything they're proposing, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, amounts to about half of 1 percent of health-care costs in this country -- half of one percent.
First of all, YOU and I pay for these large payouts in court. If a jury awards a woman $20 million in pain and suffering, the doctor's insurance company may write the $20 million check, but it is you and I who ultimately pay for it.
The insurance company has to raise premiums to offset their risk and to protect their profit margins...they pass these increased costs on to the doctors. The doctors, in order to continue to run their businesses, raise their costs, which you pay directly or your insurer pays. If your insurer pays, they ultimately have to raise premiums. If your employer pays your premiums, they ultimately have to pay you less money in order to do so. YOU PAY FOR IT, AND YOU PAY A LOT.
Take for example, a doctor in Illinois, a state which has no pain and grief caps on malpractice
(Excerpt) Read more at spacetownusa.com ...
One dramatic example: in the current price of a stepladder, 75% is liability insurance.
Any docs out there?
I can't say about docs, but, as I referenced in an old post, my Shih Tzu spent a night at the hospital with six paid staff and a Vet, had a 16 hour IV, painkillers, x-rays and ultrasound, and it only cost $734 dollars. A few years back, I banged my head, had to go to the emergency room, was there for four hours with no IV and no overnight stay, and no ambulance, and it cost $6,000.
Where is that difference coming from?
Inefficiency of 3rd parting paying and liability. Plus, the pet market wouldn't tolerate such ridiculous costs.
You will be happy to know that my dog now has comprehensive health insurance, which costs $11.42 / month. I would happily spend the night in a stainless steel cage with a bed of blankets if I could reduce my health care costs by 90%, and I bet most people would do the same...
My cat spent a week at the vet last November. Had an IV, catheture, daily blood work,medication, full time attention...and it only cost $350 (including the medicine to take home and a $25 bag of cat food).
Had one blood work myself that cost over $1,000......Think I'll start going to my vet for myself.
The increased insurance premiums and Dr.'s fees are only a part of the picture. The much larger, hidden costs are the defensive measures doctors and hospitals take in order to avoid lawsuits. This includes large batteries of largely unnecessary tests, referrals to specialists whether required or not.... Doctors need to CYA just in case somebody files a lawsuit down the road.
It is the lawyers and their impractical, arrogant, exhorbitant fees that are costing us, in medicine, and in business in general, not to mention in gov't and politics.
Gross negligence should certainly be actionable (surgeon comes in drunk, for example), but we have to acknowledge the fact that doctors are humans who make mistakes. Until we accept a certain rate of error, malpractice costs will continue to be make healthcare unaffordable for more and more people.
And these days, the diagnostic tools available are more expensive than they were 10-15 years ago -- MRI instead of CT scan, CT instead of x-ray, etc.
It's not just a matter of doctors being human or making errors, but the fact that many outcomes are an "Act of G-d." Despite the best medical care, the most brilliant and competent doctors, patients sometimes die anyway.
Thank you, John Edwards.
That's true as well. Another thing we have trouble accepting is the fact that we are mortal.
"I've always wondered about the following scenario. If I go to the doctor and tell him I will pay straight cash (no insurance forms to deal with) and waive my right to sue, how much cheaper would the visit be?"
The "right to sue" cannot be waived. Such an agreement would be invalid, though I believe an agreement can be made that arbitration must be tried before a lawsuit is filed. Any attorneys out there willing to comment?
A successful strategy many docs are using is to "go bare"- no malpractice insurance, thus no "target-rich environment". However, some states and many hospitals require a minimum level of malpractice insurance. I heard of one doc that thought he was smart by doubling the level of his coverage over the required minimum. His seasoned collegues cautioned him, but he did it anyway. Guess who became "lawsuit bait"?
You're right, and I don't think it'll ever happen (people accepting a certain rate of error).
A large segment of our populace is spoiled and expects painless, deathless, instant results with a zero rate of error (in health care AND in war). And they want it to be free, too -- or at least heavily government-subsidized.
My family was in a position a few years ago to sue the pants off some M.D.s. There was a bad outcome following a medical procedure. Like most malpractice cases, it wasn't gross negligence like a drunken surgeon, but simply a difficult decision to do 'A' instead of 'B.' If 'B' had been done, the result might have been just as bad or worse; but I'm sure a slick lawyer like Edwards could've conjured up a case that 'B' should've been done and everything would've been hunky-dory. And a jury would've been sympathetic. But we didn't second guess, didn't sue. Didn't want to get on the shyster gravy train.
Aren't they putting their personal assets at risk? I would think lawyers would then go after the doctor's savings account, his house, his car, or whatever.
Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the US.
A woman I was in a Bible study with had lumps on the back of her head, went to her doctor and was told, without any tests, that the lumps meant nothing. Over the period of a year, she felt increasingly ill, lost weight and energy while her doctor continued to assure her that nothing was wrong. The last time she went to her doctor, she didn't even have the energy to get dressed, the doctor yelled (literally) that she was crazy and to get out of her office, the woman refused to move until the doctor DID something. Six weeks later, the woman was dead. The lumps were cancer. She left behind a husband and two small children. Spoiled indeed!
Not when assests are placed in some one else's name.
What you've described would be obvious gross negligence, if true. (And I must say I find it incredible.) There's no doctor in his right mind who wouldn't test those "lumps." If he didn't, and she lost weight, got extremely weak, etc. as you describe, why on earth didn't she go to another doctor?
And don't tell me she didn't see another doctor because her insurance wouldn't pay for it. If you have something that obviously serious threatening your life, you'll pay out of pocket if you have to, and demand your insurance company reimburse you when it's demonstrated you were seriously ill.
I worked with a guy who had diverticulitis...as it turns out, what the doc prescribed for him was the same stuff the guy's dog took for whatever.
My co-worker called the M.D. and asked him if he could take the dog's meds, since the price through the vet was miniscule.....he got the green light, with a laugh from the doctor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.