Freakin’ Liberals!!!!

[tread_tramp]

Freakin' snaffles

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That hasn''t been the case in BC, which has had reference-based pricing for about 5 years now.

 

All the trial lawyers live south of the 49th parallel.

[Dru]

Maybe you can convice them to move to Antarctica. They can take drug company marketing reps with them.

[cj001f]

Exactly

Because they don't want to go they shouldn't pay? Sorry I'm not a bleeding heart here - they have money to pay. When they were alive they could only keep the house if they were expecting to return. Since they obviously didn't return why should they be able to shield their assets? To put it simply:

Why should everyone else pay for them to pass things on to their heirs?

[cj001f]

Fine, let people use "last year's" latest and greatest drug at a fraction of the cost. Guess what would happen when said patient suffered from side effects, or died (even if the death would have occurred anyway, not necessarily because of the drug or lack of it's relative efficacy)? That's right - law suit, malpractice, etc.

So we should bar all suits - or cap the awards at a pittance? Shield people who perform unauthorized penile enlargements? Allow drug companies to perform cynical settlement calculations like Ford did with the Pinto? Doesn't sound like much of a solution.

[Crux]

The problem here is that this is not the problem--it is the symptom.

the problem is that if you are not destitute before you go on medicaid, you sure will be after you do. The problem is the healthcare system.

 

Which is also not the problem, but the symptom. Medical costs are rising because of rising costs imposed by the government and society - malpractice insurance and frivolous lawsuits come to mind.

 

Malpractice claims should not be blamed for problems with insurance costs; if we do this then we will necessarily be putting the wrong target in our sights, else allow ourselves to be mislead by people with the money honey.

 

Consider these facts: Claims paid for malpractice have been on the decline for years now. Overall, malpractice claims are consistent -- they are not and have not been rising -- contrary to what insurance companies would have you believe.

 

It's true that insurance companies have greatly increased the premiums charged for insurance, but these companies are absolutely not paying out more money for malpractice claims! At the same time, the companies are not entirely to blame, as these companies are simply doing business within an ineffective business model where there is a substantial disconnect between the paying customer and the service produced.

 

As it continues to be, the insurance companies are pressed by market forces to speculate on a bullish stock markets, when the opportunity presents, as was the case in the 1990s. During that period, the companies lowered premiums to compete for policy-buying dollars, but were able to do so only because they depended upon shrewd stock speculation for profits. When the market crashed, then the insurance companies were back to depending upon their own less mercurial resources. Soon the low premiums fell far short of that required to cover expenses. The expenses have been fairly consistent, adjusted for inflation and all that, but after a burst in the stock market bubble, the premiums then required a meteoric escalation to make ends meet. This financial trajectory hurt and continues to hurt the medical care system; as an already expensive system is rendered unstable, it destroys or at least over-burdens a lot of participants. In this case, the particpants comprise a majority of the American public who are experiencing a decline of accessibility to health care.

 

In short, the instability of the system is the problem, and this instability is a product of neither our government nor our society, per se. More accurately stated, it's the health care system itself that's at fault (to whatever extent that system is defined by the financial structure that supports it). IMO, as long as the healthcare system is financed through the hands of market speculators, we can count on being taken for ride.

[archenemy]

 

Malpractice claims should not be blamed for problems with insurance costs; if we do this then we will necessarily be putting the wrong target in our sights, else allow ourselves to be mislead by people with the money honey.

 

Consider these facts: Claims paid for malpractice have been on the decline for years now. Overall, malpractice claims are consistent -- they are not and have not been rising -- contrary to what insurance companies would have you believe.

 

It's true that insurance companies have greatly increased the premiums charged for insurance, but these companies are absolutely not paying out more money for malpractice claims! At the same time, the companies are not entirely to blame, as these companies are simply doing business within an ineffective business model where there is a substantial disconnect between the paying customer and the service produced.

 

As it continues to be, the insurance companies are pressed by market forces to speculate on a bullish stock markets, when the opportunity presents, as was the case in the 1990s. During that period, the companies lowered premiums to compete for policy-buying dollars, but were able to do so only because they depended upon shrewd stock speculation for profits. When the market crashed, then the insurance companies were back to depending upon their own less mercurial resources. Soon the low premiums fell far short of that required to cover expenses. The expenses have been fairly consistent, adjusted for inflation and all that, but after a burst in the stock market bubble, the premiums then required a meteoric escalation to make ends meet. This financial trajectory hurt and continues to hurt the medical care system; as an already expensive system is rendered unstable, it destroys or at least over-burdens a lot of participants. In this case, the particpants comprise a majority of the American public who are experiencing a decline of accessibility to health care.

 

In short, the instability of the system is the problem, and this instability is a product of neither our government nor our society, per se. More accurately stated, it's the health care system itself that's at fault (to whatever extent that system is defined by the financial structure that supports it). IMO, as long as the healthcare system is financed through the hands of market speculators, we can count on being taken for ride.

 

I am curious where you have learned this information--I would like to read more about it.

 

As far as I know, insurance companies exist in many forms. Premera Blue Cross, for example, is one of WAs largest providers and it is a non-profit. Regence Blue Shield is employee owned if I remember correctly. These companies don't rely on the stock market for thier income.

 

There are also many smaller companies that fill niche markets. My father built and owned one of these small companies. What almost put a very lucrative, solvent company under was one person. One woman gave premature birth to triplets who were not healthy. They would have to be hooked up on machines to survive, and had defects mimicking encephalitis (no brain). The mother fought to have these kids kept alive, and won a huge settlement to do so. The triplets are now in their early twenties. They have never moved, spoken, etc on their own. But they do get paychecks.

 

By using all means available to keep every person alive no matter what the possible outcome (Terry S.?), our medical system is being drained of resources. This "culture of life" is expensive. It's too expensive. And we refuse to ration healthcare, even when it seems like a logical, humane choice.

 

I am not saying this is the whole problem, but I do think it adds to the whole issue.

 

And as an aside, I do not see the instability of the stock market as a detrimental force. It is the very dynamic that enables people to make money from it.

[Crux]

I am curious where you have learned this information--I would like to read more about it.

 

As far as I know, insurance companies exist in many forms. Premera Blue Cross, for example, is one of WAs largest providers and it is a non-profit. Regence Blue Shield is employee owned if I remember correctly. These companies don't rely on the stock market for thier income.

 

There are also many smaller companies that fill niche markets. My father built and owned one of these small companies. What almost put a very lucrative, solvent company under was one person. One woman gave premature birth to triplets who were not healthy. They would have to be hooked up on machines to survive, and had defects mimicking encephalitis (no brain). The mother fought to have these kids kept alive, and won a huge settlement to do so. The triplets are now in their early twenties. They have never moved, spoken, etc on their own. But they do get paychecks.

 

By using all means available to keep every person alive no matter what the possible outcome (Terry S.?), our medical system is being drained of resources. This "culture of life" is expensive. It's too expensive. And we refuse to ration healthcare, even when it seems like a logical, humane choice.

 

I am not saying this is the whole problem, but I do think it adds to the whole issue.

 

And as an aside, I do not see the instability of the stock market as a detrimental force. It is the very dynamic that enables people to make money from it.

Please note my statements are in regard to the price of malpractice insurance, not the price of health insurance.

 

Most of the information I learned at a seminar held during a conference of the Washington State Nurses Association (WNA) in Olympia last February. The guest speaker provided conclusive evidence, based on research of public records, to show that tort litigation -- including malpractice lawsuits -- is not the problem it is said to be by some insurance companies. The speaker was specific on several areas of contention, and provided details on how malpractice insurance companies were at once competing to provide the lowest premiums to healthcare practitioners and speculating on the recent bullish stock market with available cash. Return on investment income proved to be the principle revenue for these insurance companies, that is, until the market crashed. Although one may reasonably view the instability of the stock market as not a detrimental force but an advantage that enables better investors to profit in reward for risks taken, in this case it is argued that the negative consequences of risk were effectively transferred to the parties who pay for healthcare. In short, the medical malpractice insurance industry, in this dynamic, used the adjacent micro-economy of the healthcare system to buffer the risks taken by insurance investors and subsequently exacerbated an already unstable healthcare system.

 

The February presentation convinced me that tort litigation does not have a volatile impact on the cost of health care because claims paid are consistent and by many measures are actually declining in quantity when adjusted for inflation. Moreover, as dysfunctional as it may be, tort litigation is the principle means available in the American political and legal system for the people to forcibly correct negligent behavior. Therefore, my position has since been that we'll do better to not scapegoat trial lawyers and so-called frivolous lawsuits for problems we suffer in how we do the business of healthcare. We need solutions, but in so far as malpractice suits and frivolous claims are not the problem we won't develop solutions by attacking these two overemphasized features of the landscape.

 

On the web, you can find writings on this topic posted by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Also, the speaker at the presentation mentioned above authored a newly published book in which his findings are detailed; I don't have the title, but it may be one of several of related content that can be found by a search for books on medical malpractice and/or tort reform at Amazon and other bookstores.

[Peter_Puget]

I should state that income accruing form premium funds invested is important for virtually any insurance company. There is nothing new or unique or deep in such a conclusion. [/color] Although one may reasonably view the instability of the stock market as not a detrimental force but an advantage that enables better investors to profit in reward for risks taken, in this case it is argued that the negative consequences of risk were effectively transferred to the parties who pay for healthcare. BAsically as malpractice liability merely transfers wealth from physicians to (some) patients, aggregate costs are unaffected. In short, the medical malpractice insurance industry, in this dynamic, used the adjacent micro-economy of the healthcare system to buffer the risks taken by insurance investors and subsequently exacerbated an already unstable healthcare system. I believe that in the US Malpractice insurance is about 1% of healthcare costs.

 

The February presentation convinced me that tort litigation does not have a volatile impact on the cost of health care because claims paid are consistent and by many measures are actually declining in quantity when adjusted for inflation. Moreover, as dysfunctional as it may be, tort litigation is the principle means available in the American political and legal system for the people to forcibly correct negligent behavior. Therefore, my position has since been that we'll do better to not scapegoat trial lawyers and so-called frivolous lawsuits for problems we suffer in how we do the business of healthcare. We need solutions, but in so far as malpractice suits and frivolous claims are not the problem we won't develop solutions by attacking these two overemphasized features of the landscape. The real cost of malpractice liability is limited to the cost of the actual resources consumed by such liability, principally the time of lawyers and expert witnesses (roughly half the total amount awarded in judgments goes to pay lawyers and expert witnesses), unless defensive (what Crux calls "forcib[le] correct[ing] negligent behavior ) medicine is assumed to cost more than its benefits in improving treatment outcomes. ie. .5% of total US healthcare expenditures

 

On the web, you can find writings on this topic posted by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Also, the speaker at the presentation mentioned above authored a newly published book in which his findings are detailed; I don't have the title, but it may be one of several of related content that can be found by a search for books on medical malpractice and/or tort reform at Amazon and other bookstores.

 

Also, US averages dont mean a thing if litigation outcomes differ by region.

[cj001f]

So if malpractice is 1% of the total, and the total cost is rising 10% a year, how does changing malpractice insurance reduce the skyrocketing costs of healthcare?

[Crux]

…I should state that income accruing form premium funds invested is important for virtually any insurance company. There is nothing new or unique or deep in such a conclusion…

You might also add that buyers of malpractice insurance enjoyed lowered premiums during the years when the insurance companies enjoyed large revenues from the stock market. Even though these companies drifted into dependence upon stock market speculation for principle source of income, they continued to compete for insurance premium dollars and were compelled to lower prices to where insurance premiums were at levels far short of that required to cover claims and other costs of operation.

 

In the short run, everybody was happy. The insurance companies made some easy money on the bull market and healthcare providers were sheltered from the real costs of malpractice insurance. When the market crashed, the insurance companies were caught in a bind when they at once lost money on the stock market and were still contracted to cover malpractice claims and litigation costs. Quite simply, total revenues were no longer adequate to cover expenses. In order to stay in business, the insurance companies had to raise premiums drastically. Indeed, there is nothing really dark about this, but it seems unusual for an entire segment of the insurance industry to teeter on bankruptcy because it shifted away from the primary mission of selling selling insurance and into the business stock market speculation.

 

The problem here, from the perspective of the health care industry, is the sudden upswing in insurance expenses. Healthcare depends upon insurance companies to provide cash flow repsonsive to immediate healthcare costs, to smooth over the bumps presented by individual expenses, but in this case the insurance industry failed to deliver without inflicting the same kind of instability it was depended upon to prevent.

[Dechristo]

I recollect hearing or reading that during the 73rd Congress an amendment was passed that essentially gave control of ALL property in the U.S. to the government.

 

My memory has it that there was language similar to "property shall be owned privately by the pleasure and discretion of the Federal government"... something to that effect.

 

Anyone know the exact verbiage?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I recollect hearing or reading that during the 73rd Congress an amendment was passed that essentially gave control of ALL property in the U.S. to the government.

 

My memory has it that there was language similar to "property shall be owned privately by the pleasure and discretion of the Federal government"... something to that effect.

 

Anyone know the exact verbiage?

 

No, but it's true, isn't it? Is there such thing as "private property"? If you pay off your home loan completely, you still have to pay real estate taxes. If you do not, your house will be taken from you. Sounds like the government is *renting* land to you. And who sets the rent? The government - at their "discretion". In Snohomish county, taxes would be adjusted (always up) every 4 years - now they've switched to annually. Doesn't matter to them if your salary has not gone up - just that the property is more valuable.

[Dechristo]

This goes more to the eminent domain side of things in that the court ruling this thread addresses only updates a law that was instituted and in effect for over seventy years!

[j_b]

Eminent land grab