IHELTH INSHURENCE BS

[Dave_Schuldt]

This wound up in my in box.

 

Those questionaires are really starting to torque me off. It as if we are

not even allowed to take responsibility for our own actions any more.

"Accidents" are just not allowed anymore. We are supposed to put our lives

on hold and live swaddled on a couch so the "health insurance" companies

don't have to pay out a cent for anything, ignoring the fact that if we all

became stressed out fat couch potatoes, they would be forking out REALLY big

bucks for associated health problems.

 

I tore up my knee HIKING on an USFS designated trail a few months ago and

got one of those forms after coming out of surgery. I went ballistic and

let them know how I felt in no uncertain terms ON the form. Basically they

were implying if something happens to you ANYWHERE, someone is going to be

sued, which means EVERYTHING WILL BE BANNED eventually. This is just

sick..and I don't mean in a good way.

 

>When I tore the tendons in my lower back this past January and took a

>painful ride to Overlake by Ambulance. My Insurance Company sent me a

>questioner that I had to complete before they would pay the bill.

>

>It asked questions such as; was I injured on private property, who was the

>owner of the property, did I have a lawyer, etc.

>

>The injury happened on my own property, so not much more they could do then

>just pay the bill.

>

>With all the broken collar bones I have heard about this year, has anyones

>insurance company given them a hard time or requested this type of info

>when submitting the claim.

[ChrisT]

When my son was bit by a neighbor's dog (on the ear - the dog almost ripped his ear off) Kaiser held this family liable for medical expenses and I believe it was covered by their homeowner's insurance. It's called third party liability. I did not sue the people - didn't even think about it - but their dog (a samoyed(sp?)) was eventually put down.

[scott_harpell]

How did I know the threadwas started by Dave before ever opening it?

[fredrogers]

Was it the type-o in the subject line?

[glassgowkiss]

healthcare is in state of total crisis. i know- i work in healthcare. insurance companies can thank only themselves for being in financial trouble. killing preventetive approach in medicine has the end result in the form of 70% of people overweight or obese. bin laden is not a threat to the US- the shape an average joe IS.

anything that has to do with accident on a property or in a car is not covered by health insurance.

[jon]

You can thank attorney's like Senator John Edwards.

[cj001f]

You can thank attorney's like Senator John Edwards.

That's only a part of the problem - the increase in malpractice insurance premiums also correlates nicely to the shape of the insurance industry as a whole.

[glassgowkiss]

that has bnothing to do with insurance premium increase, since it's less then 1% of the cost. it has to do with inurance structure (insurance companies make the most money of the stock market investments with your premiums). it has also to do with insurance processing claims, something like 120-150 days on average. that is the biggest cause if rate increase among health care providers. that and payment refusal for services- yet a lot of clinics get stuck with unpaid bills. insurance company refuses to pay and a person doesn't have to resources to cover it either. no- more like thatnks to Bush and his administration for not dealing with the problem. madical savings accounts are not the answer, the reform of a stupid system is.

a lot of clinics and practitioners do not accept any insurance anymore. they'll provide you with "walk-out receipt" or "superbill", you pay at the time of service and try to get your money back from the insurance.

[graupel]

You can thank attorney's like Senator John Edwards.

 

Way too simplistic of an explanation, and as several articles attest, untrue.

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm

 

Des Moines Register

 

The malpractice myth

 

By Register Editorial Board

 

07/11/2003

 

President Bush said in his State of the Union address this year that the threat of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals was one of the "prime causes" of rising health-care costs. Bush's words suggest a correlation between health-care costs and the premiums physicians and hospitals pay to protect themselves in lawsuits.

 

Yet between 1988 and 1998, U.S. health-care costs increased 74.4 percent while malpractice premiums increased 5.7 percent. The total premiums paid in 2000 added up to 0.56 of the nation's total health-care bill.

 

Bush asked Congress to "pass medical-liability reform" that would limit malpractice awards. The House passed it. Senate Democrats thwarted the bill this week. Bush wants Americans to believe that if insurance companies have to pay smaller damages to injured patients, physicians will have lower premiums and health-care costs could actually be held down.

 

Wrong again.

 

New information in a national database that collects reports of every judgment and settlement paid in malpractice demonstrates just the opposite. An analysis of that data by a consumer-advocacy group reveals malpractice payouts decreased by 8.2 percent between 2001 and 2002. Meanwhile, doctors" premiums didn't go down.

 

Damage awards greater than $1 million decreased more than 10 percent between those years. Doctors" premiums weren't affected.

 

There's simply no correlation between lawsuits and insurance rates. Rather, insurance rates are tied to the climate of the stock and bond market, where insurance companies invest much of their money.

 

Granted, the way doctors practice medicine could be affected by the threat of lawsuits. They order tests as "defensive medicine" for fear that not doing so could land them in a heap of trouble. Limiting damage awards wouldn't assuage that fear. It would, however, unfairly hurt patients who deserve compensation.

 

Limiting damages to wronged Americans would have no impact on health-care costs. The president should stop perpetuating the myth that it would.

[jon]

The Des Moines Register, now that is one quality publication right there. I'm sure they have a brain trust there in Iowa analyzing the shit out of the problem.

 

If you think insurance premiums for doctors has only gone up 5.7 percent in the last 10 years you are absolutely fucking crazy. Next time you see you doctor ask him how much his insurance has gone up in 10 years, I bet it is over 10x. I have a friend who is a surgeon and it is amazing what he has to pay now. How about OB/Gyn insurance, that has gone through the roof, in fact they prefer to deliver by C-section because it is "safer". Maybe 5.7% for family practicioners, they can't fuck much up.

 

Another big problem is uninsured. They wait until they are deathly ill and then go to the emergency room and can't pay. There are people with no insurance who literally are in the emergency room 150 days a year. It is becoming such a big problem and expense for hospitals that they are now building seperate facilities to deal with the uninsured so they can get the insured in there to foot the bill.

[aggressivepedestrian]

Jeez, man, they're just doing due diligence. If they didn't make sure it's not some other party's responsibility, don't you think your insurance premiums would be a lot higher?

 

And for all you dumb shits ragging on Edwards and other "millionaire trial lawyers", think where we'd be without them: corporations would be running more roughshod over us peons than they already are.

[Dave_Schuldt]

My intent in posting this was to warn people about this lawsuit shit and how it would relate to climbing, however, this thread has devolved so it should be moved to spray.

[glassgowkiss]

 

Another big problem is uninsured. They wait until they are deathly ill and then go to the emergency room and can't pay. There are people with no insurance who literally are in the emergency room 150 days a year. It is becoming such a big problem and expense for hospitals that they are now building seperate facilities to deal with the uninsured so they can get the insured in there to foot the bill.

hello? ding-dong morning bells are ringing. so why do you think it is like that? do you think the majority of these people choose to be uninsured? i can give you quite a few names of people dropped by insurance company as soon as there was a serious health problem.

and the myth of going to the practitioner of your choice? yeah a myth as the person you want to see have to be on the providership list. well all i can say canadian system looks better and better every day.

oh btw can anyone tell me this. a friend of my had distal tib/fib fx a couple of years ago. he was in hospital in calgary for 3 days, had surgery. his total bill from the surgery and hospital was about 7400 can. when he had his hardware removed in boulder he was told the same surgery would have been over 20 000usd. can anybody tell me why such discrepency between the prices?

[Dru]

My intent in posting this was to warn people about this lawsuit shit and how it would relate to climbing, however, this thread has devolved so it should be moved to spray.

 

[graupel]

Okay Jon,

Since you would rather render your opinion than do research on your own, here is yet another source:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

Two Congressional agencies dispute findings that caps on damage awards produce big savings in medical costs.

 

January 29, 2004

 

 

Modified: January 29, 2004

 

Summary

 

The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for “pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.

 

But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings – if any – would be relatively small.

 

Analysis

 

In a speech in Little Rock, Arkansas on Jan. 26 the President said, “One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits.” He said rising malpractice insurance premiums and needless medical procedures ordered up out of fear of lawsuits cost federal taxpayers “at least” $28 billion a year in added costs to government medical programs. Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services claims total savings – public and private – of as much as $108 billion a year.

 

Those claims rest mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system.

 

But both the GAO and the CBO now question their sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.”

 

“In short, the evidence available to date does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect, either positive or negative, on economic efficiency, ” the CBO said.

 

That link that I had above had other articles from various sources too if you bothered to click.

[jon]

Bob, I'm stating the facts not argueing with you. If it were my choice everyone would have insurance, we would take care of our homeless, we'd be better at protecting women and children from abuse, etc etc etc.

 

Graupel you can post any link you please. Just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it is the truth. BTW I work in a hospital. My dad builds hospitals. I have friends who are doctors and nurses. They tell me the contrary.

 

Yeah I think the US would be a lot better without people like Edwards, doesn't he hold the record for the largest settlement or something. The UW had a recent settlement of $40 million because a test got screwed up and they thought she had cervical cancer so they removed it. Pathology showed later she was fine. Not to sound insensitive, she should just be glad to be alive. I'm not saying she doesn't deserve a settlement, but $40 million is out of control. Becuase of that the school of medicine had to scrap plans for badly needed new research facilities. And you are telling me this is right? Get real.

[Alpinfox]

Jon,

I agree with you that $40million seems unreasonable, but the other side of the issue is that only big settlements like that get big corporations to change their practices.

 

I believe that 99% of health care providers are honest, caring people who have their patient's best interest in mind, but I don't feel the same way about the chemical companies for example. I think they produce some dangerous products and don't care if they injure people as long as they make a shitload of money. The only way they will change their ways is if somebody sues the pants off of them or perhaps publicly shames them into action a la "unsafe at any speed". They sure ain't going to change their ways if injuried parties can only sue them for damages (medical bills or whatever).

[cj001f]

Jon,

I agree with you that $40million seems unreasonable, but the other side of the issue is that only big settlements like that get big corporations to change their practices.

Except in medical malpractive it isn't big corps who change. They fuck us over every chance they get.

[Alpinfox]

I believe there SHOULD be a maximum $$ for medical malpractice cases. Say, $1 million?

 

I do NOT think there should be a maximum for most other defendants.

 

Another reason why there should NOT be a $$ limit on lawsuits against big companies is that the lawyers won't invest the investigation time, money, and energy if there isn't a big payoff. The Erin Brokovitch-type stuff (lawyer spends years researching chemical pollution resulting in medical problems/deaths, sues chemical company, wins) wouldn't happen if the max payoff was only $1 million.

[cj001f]

I believe there SHOULD be a maximum $$ for medical malpractice cases.

 

I do NOT think there should be a maximum for most other defendants.

In most of medicine (and life) there's a statistic governing how often a given operation, transaction, treatment, diagnosis, etc. will be succesful. If you fall on the wrong side of that because of fate, not negligence, too fucking bad.

 

Unfortunately our judicial system doesn't take the same view, negligence is too easy to infer, because benefit of doubt rests with the plaintiff.

[Alpinfox]

In most of medicine (and life) there's a statistic governing how often a given operation, transaction, treatment, diagnosis, etc. will be succesful. If you fall on the wrong side of that because of fate, not negligence, too fucking bad.

 

Unfortunately our judicial system doesn't take the same view, negligence is too easy to infer, because benefit of doubt rests with the plaintiff.

 

I agree.

 

 

 

About OB/GYNs:

 

They are sued so frequently because most families cannot afford to pay for lifelong care for a child born with a disability or disease. Their options are: give the child up for adoption or sue the OB and/or hospital claiming they did something wrong in delivery and it's their fault.

[cj001f]

Their options are: give the child up for adoption or sue the OB and/or hospital claiming they did something wrong in delivery and it's their fault.

Too true. Having dated an incredible woman w/Spina Bifida (people are now aborting fetuses w/SB) I have to say this is crap. Sometimes life deals you a farmer's hand. You can't fold, face up.

[Ireneo_Funes]

In most of medicine (and life) there's a statistic governing how often a given operation, transaction, treatment, diagnosis, etc. will be succesful. If you fall on the wrong side of that because of fate, not negligence, too fucking bad.

 

But do statistics=fate?

 

I hope not!

[selkirk]

In some area's of the Country OB-Gyn malpractice insurance rates have climbed so high due to how often they're sued that there aren't any OB-Gyn's there anymore (West Virginia I think?) So due to malpractice rates, the women there don't have access to specialists. Bad F-!%**!' en news for everyone.

[Bogen]

 

But do statistics=fate?

 

I hope not!

All the grandeur and futility of the human condition in one easy lesson!