A study published in 2005 by Tom Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, found that after all costs, including legal fees, insurance costs and payouts, the cost of medical malpractice suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending.
Oh, I see its just more rhetoric they use to oppose health care reform.
Your assessment is substantially correct.
However, there is more to it, and it becomes obvious when one reads their actual proposed legislation.
The idea is to recast the entire legal system into one where corporations, wealthy people, companies, and major institutions can sue working class, poor, and middle class people, but the REVERSE cannot be the case. In short, it’s another scam wherein the wealthy get even more money from everyone else. It’s another form of "redistributing wealth" all right, but that escalator goes UP only.
Read it, it’s exactly that simple, once the verbiage is cleaned up.
Because it will save the health insurance companies lots of money. FACT.
References :
to help americans
References :
the same reason liberals scream racist
References :
One study by one prefessor and it must be FACT, right?
LOL
References :
Tort reform and dropping liberal induced interstate insurance trade regulations would solve all of the healthcare problems your people whine about without a bunch of government BS.
Its just that easy. It doesnt matter what your liberal law professor says. Of course he would take that position. Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.
References :
Tort reform reduced the cost of medical care when enacted in Texas. I am afraid that Mr Baker’s "study" is not entirely correct, but you know that don’t you?
What I find interesting is that liberals ask these "questions" then don’t bother to come back. They seem to believe that their pearls of wisdom are not open to debate.
References :
You are not including the unintended consequences of malpractice law suits which cause hospitals and doctors to call for billions of dollars worth of tests and procedures to immunize themselves from liability.
References :
Their pockets are lined with the Insurance lobbyists money. Who wouldn’t try to block health reform (insurance reform)? They received 155.5 million dollars last year. You want some rhetoric? How about death panels, popping off grandma. You republicans should be ashamed of yourselves.
References :
Because you are only looking at the smallest portion of the savings.
If doctors don’t have to practice defensive medicine the savings will be enormous.
How many doctors are there in the US? All afraid of losing their MPI.
Use your head instead of listening to people who want to see socialism. Really, if the author did any investigation at all he knows he is only telling part of the story.
References :
Because unlike your guy’s plan…it actually IS reform…
For example, my former pediatrician was much beloved by his patients and in the community…he was the last true "private practice" doctor I had the privilege of seeing.
When he was in his sixties he wanted to take some time to be with his grandkids, but his true love remained his practice. He would have liked to work part time , but he basically had to work for three days just to cover the costs of his liability insurance. I suppose he could have raised his prices astronomically, but I’m sure you and your professor friend would have just classified him as "another greedy doctor."
He ended up retiring full time and spent another decade feeling depressed and without purpose.
Nice try comparing "costs" to "combined spending" but academics and politicians have been playing that game for centuries….Compare, for instance the "cost" of a $300,000 house vs. the amount spent after that 30-year mortgage is up… you get the skewed picture…
…and by the way…the actual malpractice suits are only a small fraction of the costs rung up by the current litigious society in which we live. My old pediatrician, for example, had NEVER been sued…so your statistics would show that he had $0 costs associated with malpractice suits….the cost of COVERAGE and associated procedures, are the issue…funny that a lawyer would miss that point.
References :
Your assessment is substantially correct.
However, there is more to it, and it becomes obvious when one reads their actual proposed legislation.
The idea is to recast the entire legal system into one where corporations, wealthy people, companies, and major institutions can sue working class, poor, and middle class people, but the REVERSE cannot be the case. In short, it’s another scam wherein the wealthy get even more money from everyone else. It’s another form of "redistributing wealth" all right, but that escalator goes UP only.
Read it, it’s exactly that simple, once the verbiage is cleaned up.
References :
Tort reform is just one way to save money.
You must be a Democrat and think giving the government control is the answer.
References :
And yet, it’s still a better alternative than the libs are proposing.
References :
One study = facts huh? Just a little bit ago it was "why do they want it now and not when they controlled Congress" Hey if 1/2 of 1% is true then it is better than nothing. And definitely better than a 1.5 trillion increase (and that is with their numbers and we all know how accurate they are, 2 trillion anyone?)
References :
Tom Baker, A LAW PROFESSOR… Let’s stop there…
Why is this not a medical study? I don’t trust anyone that has something to gain in the matter, especially a lawyer or a kooky professor that doesn’t understand defensive medicine.
References :
Tort reform? WTF is tort?
References :
No they want to eliminate the laws that protect average citizens and that put the wealthy on the hook for negligence.
References :
That’s all they can yell about. They know the truth about insurance companies, but they want to suggest tort reform. As if that is going to help the staggering stats of increased costs in health care.
References :
Hey Genius,
have you thought about how thinks trickle down. I am a nurse and to cover my a** from getting sued, I have to stay behind on a daily basis to make sure that I have documented every little thing I have done. I am not the only nurse who stays behind,trust me. Who do you think is paying for that? Oh and it was a LAW professor who did this study? You mean he isn’t influenced by the bar association? An association made up of mostly Tort lawyers?
References :
Tort reform is a STATE issue not a FEDERAL one. 95% of all malpractice cases are tried in STATE courts not federal. Texas has some good aspects in their reform but it has to be done at the STATE level as laws passed by congress would have NO impact on cases tried at the STATE level.
Here is an inteview with John Martin, who was very involved with passing the Texas state legislation…note that he says that Tort Reform is better done at the state level to be effective…as people answering this question have said that Texas WAS effective.
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=September&artYear=2009&EntryNo=10072
Here are the stats that show that almost all cases are filed in STATE courts:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4641&type=0&sequence=3
So unless you can figure out how Congress can pass laws for individual states…it won’t make any difference in the FEDERAL BILL
References :