First, the problem: According to the conservatives on this board, or at least those who are parroting Bush's recent talking points, this is because of litigation. Other causes include litigation, litigation, illegal immigration, and litigation. Want to know what is really responsible? This is from the New England Journal of Medicine (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/16/1591). The article does mention costs associated with litigation, but that passage only merits a couple of sentences. As I mentioned in another thread, litigation is responsible for something like 1% of the increase in health care spending.
No one has said that litigation and treatment of illegal immigrants are the only things that increase the cost of health care. However, those are 2 factors that go into the equation that presents the final result. Talk about "talking points," Kerry's "talking point" that litigation is only 1% of of health care costs demands that the listener have absolutely no knowledge of business and economics whatsoever. True, the DIRECT cost of litigation is something like 1% but the EFFECT of the huge awards has changed the entire pricing structure. Even John Edwards has admitted this has had an impact and he, of all people should know. He has made over $30 million dollars as a trial lawyer, much of which was in medical actions. There ARE other costs, many of them are more expensive, and very effective. MRI technology has been a tremendous boon to improved health care, and it is very expensive. Would you rather we go back to just wrapping up an injured joint and waiting for it to heal. I had a shoulder injury in 1970 that would be an easy fix in today's world instead of a constant bother as it is. I would gladly have paid the difference. Things cost more today, lots of things. It is called progresss. You don't get progress without paying for it. AND if you want to keep prices in line, you must look at ALL the factors that affect the price.
Yes, but when you look at the devastation caused by, say, a nuclear weapon and a mortar shell, you wouldn't spend most of your time discussing the pothole, would you? For example? I keep hearing this, but have seen absolutely no evidence of it. Arguing for the large effect of lawsuits is nothing more than believing something that should make sense, but just doesn't. The truth is that tort reform will do almost nothing to alleviate the crisis. LOL. $30 million dollars. What a pittance. Not to mention that much of this money came off product liability rather than medmal.
Liability premiums are raising at a higher rate in states WITH malpractice caps than states WITHOUT malpractice caps.
There is a problem with medical malpractice torts in this country, but it has nothing to do with the size of the awards. The problem, in fact, is that medical malpractice cases, taken as a whole, have almost nothing to do with good or bad performance by health care providers. In the early 90s, I worked for a non-profit that looked at legal, political and ethical issues relating to health care. One of our board members was a principle author on the so-called Harvard Malpractice Study that came out then. In simplest terms, a team of experts made a close analysis of the care and treatment of every patient in a group of New York (state not city) hospitals during 1989 and compared their conclusions with the actual litigation history of the same group of patients. What they found was that the incidence of errors was quite high, but that many of those errors never resulted in malpractice suits. Conversely, many of the suits that were filed were from events where the researchers found no compelling evidence of error. In short, the threat and reality of malpractice suits does not appear to reduce the rate of medical errors. As I remember it, the feelings of the patient and family about the caregivers was a better predictor of law suits than whether or not an error was made.
We're a bunch of fat bastards that eat garbage, drink poison and breathe awful air. We don't exercise and we don't participate in any preventitive medicine. We are drug addicted and depressed for no good reason. That's why.
The $30 million (actually I believe I read he has actually made $47 million) was just his % of the overall settlement. So if you do the math, he has won judgements in excess of $100 million. But how much Edwards has won is not the issue. The issue is that even HE admits it is a factor and change is needed. Both of the Johns have admitted change is needed. That is as close to admitting that is IS a significant factor in the overall cost as you will get in an election year. Do you really think that if the added cost was really only 1% of the total cost they would give any lip service at all to tort reform??????? If you believe that you need to be looking at real estate in Florida.
In law school, I learned med mal from a professor conducting a similar clinic who was a disciple of that study. I think it is absolutely true and I'm glad you mentioned it. Unfortunately, it is so true that it blasts every single one of the vested interests out of the water and mandates the creation of a brand new med mal system. Politically, I don't think it can happen.
At the risk of pointing out the cynicism of politics, of course they would. Tort reform is a popular issue because most people have not been severely injured but do pay insurance premiums. Plus, it's always pitched at reining in evil lawyers, which is always popular. It would cost too many votes to be against it entirely. Notably, the reforms Kerry and Edwards have proposed already exist in many states.
You are certainly correct about the cynicism of politics and tort reform. We might have actually had some reform except for the power of the ABA lobby, but that too, is part of politics. As to the reforms proposed by the Johns, they have talked about it but in all cases, they either voted against reform, or been absent when the vote was taken. In neither case have they sponsored any reforms while members of Congress. It makes one question their committment to it.
Yes, most of that was on product liability, not medmal. Then why did you bring it up? First, I'd like to see a link. Second, he's pandering. Most people, you included, have followed the logic that certainly, lawsuits are a major cause of this problem. Unfortunately, like the obviously logical position that heavier objects fall faster, it is untrue. Yes. As the Simpsons have taught us, Look at how much politicians rail about welfare. This despite the fact that welfare itself is a miniscule part of our budget. What? Politicians paying far more attention to obscure issues that are treated like red meat by the voters than real issues? I don't know - but because we've had so much publicity over the Ten Commandments being put in school, clearly its an important issue to the country, right? I'm sure it'll cause crime to go down. As for whether or not I believe its only 1%, yes I do. Go look at some Insurance Company 10-Ks and see how much they allocate for losses to litigation. Tiny, tiny amounts. The hits they take in the markets by pursuing risky investments are far, far worse. A friend of mine is buying a place there now, but she says its kind of pricey. Your argument seems to be that "Look! The politicians say the sky is falling! How can you not see the sky is falling!" To which I reply "but the sky is not falling". We're stuck at that point. Back up your assertions with more than political pandering. Hell, the CBO has found torts to be mostly irrelevant in this. Its just not a significant part of the problem.
See, what makes this conversation difficult to have is that you are simply advocating the talking points of some other interest group. You're blaming the ABA for the costs of health care? Go back and read up about the Harvard study NER_MCFC cited then come back with some points that make sense.