Tort reform has not done a thing to control health care costs. Mississippi’s premiums have increased 101.9%. Well above average in the country.

Of course, I have to yet again point out that I am asking for evidence that tort reform brings down HEALTH CARE costs, not MALPRACTICE INSURANCE costs. So what do you do? Cite an article that does not discuss health care costs savings one bit. Amazing.

Also apparently have to point out that I already specifically discussed Mississippi above.

Explain this:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Heres-your-demonstration-project-Mr-President—-its-called-Mississippi-59990137.html

Conservatives don’t need “mommy” candidates, we need strong conservative voices in office.

I’m thinking that we might actually need libertarians in office, so when they inevitably compromise we’ll end up with conservative policies.

he claims to be a lawyer, but refuses to argue “on the merits” curious, eh?

I did not bring up tort reform on this thread. I merely responded to someone else who did because it pains me to see this thrown around when there is zero evidence of it working to bring down health care costs.

As for tort reform being ONLY 1 to 2 % of health care costs, in a system that involves hundreds of billions of dollars each year, that adds up.

Tort reform does NOT equal 1 or 2% savings. 1 to 2% represents the TOTAL cost of malpractice insurance. You cannot totally get rid of that, not even close. You can only eliminate a percentage of it. In Texas, that amounted to a 15% reduction. So we are talking about potentially eliminating a fraction of that 1 to 2%. Of course, I have said this several times. I don’t know why it would sink in this time. And again, tie after time, even when tort reform was instituted, insurance companies did not voluntarily lower their malpractice rates. The legislatures had to step in AGAIN to force them to.

And of course chap fails to deal with the “things unseen”, which are the consequences and expenses of practicing CYA defensive medicine so as not to risk suit. Care to give us a stat measuring those, chap?

Um…how hard is it to figure out that if so called “defensive medicine” costs were tied to risk of malpractice, that you would have actual data showing lower health care costs in states with such reform? Do you see that? No. I have given you example upon example. You have given me nothing to substantiate YOUR claim. Which leads to this gem.

What makes the Texas experience “proof” of anything, except one state’s attempt to deal with the problem? You seem to be arguing that ssince Texas didn’t achieve the desired results, No one can.

You people seem to think that tort reform is this radical idea that is untested. About 30 states right now impose caps on non-economic damages in tort cases. Som, like California have had them for decades. Yet health care costs continue to skyrocket across every single state. How much more freaking proof is needed that tort reform does not work to reduce health care costs? Why has not one person here linked to a study showing that?

But he does not want to embrace the one positive thing about the way Europeans do health care.

How many times on this very thread have I said I DO NOT oppose health care reform. Go back and count them. I have only said that it is an ineffective means to reduce health care costs.

The European court systems have trained judges who can interview their own independent medical experts to make a rational decision of whether the doctor’s treatment was below a reasonable standard of care.

I have argued many times on this board that the average lay person is not intelligent enough to identify true malpractice and have argued for just such a panel. Try again.

In Europe none of this is allowed and you can get a rational judicial ruling.

You sure do claim to know a lot about how the judicial system is run yet curiously ignore the fact that it is not “homer” judges that render verdicts in tort cases. It’s a jury.

This is what happened during the last presidential election cycle…GOP bosses selected their candidate to run against the liberal. We found out what happens when the party runs a “less liberal” candidate than that of the Doomocrats. The most liberal gets elected.

Apparently, the GOP honchos didn’t learn their lesson very well, as they once again try to shove a liberal (R) down the throats of the NY Republicans, for numbers sake. I think “the party” has enough Collins’ and Snowe’s gumming up the works. Conservatives don’t need “mommy” candidates, we need strong conservative voices in office.

The party may only be successful if the real conservatives, like Hoffman, run separately (should they not get the national support from the GOP that they need.) Once enough conservatives get elected, a complete redressing of the party bosses can be undertaken, so the liberals and moderates esconched there can get exhorcised, and sent packing. Once that happens, conservatives can help bring the GOP back to the right where it belongs.

“They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage.”

People with health insurance die, too.

And aren’t there gub’mint programs already in place (medicare, medicaid, sChip, etc) that cover the indigent / under insured?

But this isn’t about health care reform - it’s about MORE POWER!

.

There’s a big chunk of insurance money just waiting out there. Trial lawyers like John Edwards think that it belongs to them and that the trial is just an annoying formality to get it. The insurance companies cannot be expected to fight very hard to defend the doctor when they can just keep raising premiums.

Though I like the European jury model where a jury of your peers can be more like the original concept of what ‘peer’ really means… the thing that really bugs me about US juries is the cherry picking. Who came up with all of that? Even preemptive challenge for example, why? (I get tossed out every time for being an engineer. Next time maybe I’ll beat them to it and wear a choo-choo charlie hat walking into the court room!)

Remember the OJ trial jury selection? That has to be the biggest embarrassment to American justice system of all time. WHO in their right mind actually WANTS to be on jury duty for a trial that could take months? If I was answering that OJ jury questionaire there are several tempting questions where it would have been easy to lie just to be excluded – how many in the pool did that? .. thus leaving a panel who either were extremely honest and met the criteria, (1 or 2 maybe?), too stupid to realize it could get them rejected or those who really wanted to be on the jury because “HEY, I’M GONNA BE FAMOUS!”.

Um. Are we debating health care reform or are we debating “what it costs the individual doctor?”

Um….did anyone notice that chap had NOT ONE WORD TO SAY about the topic of this thread, the bogus 44,000 statistic?

Nor will he say anything about government involvement in healthcare, and the results thus far. What about those unfunded Medicare liabilities, chap?

he claims to be a lawyer, but refuses to argue “on the merits” curious, eh?

As for tort reform being ONLY 1 to 2 % of health care costs, in a system that involves hundreds of billions of dollars each year, that adds up.

If I ran a million dollar business, and I found a way to cut my expenses by “only” 1 or 2%, would I pass it up?
Chap obviously works for the government or a non-profit, if he thinks numbers like that are inconsequential.

And of course chap fails to deal with the “things unseen”, which are the consequences and expenses of practicing CYA defensive medicine so as not to risk suit. Care to give us a stat measuring those, chap?

btw, chap: where does that % stat come from? Is it from a lawyer-funded group? You keep citing Texas. What makes the Texas experience “proof” of anything, except one state’s attempt to deal with the problem? You seem to be arguing that ssince Texas didn’t achieve the desired results, No one can.

BZZZTT!!