tcc3 says:

Tort reform:

http://rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=36768

http://nber.org/aginghealth/2009no3/w15371.html

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

Beating a dead horse isn’t a solution to a complex problem.

Sea Lawyer says:

#19, Yes, the immense expense of treating chronic diseases is much more of a factor than the red herring that is tort reform.

Part of the problem with the whole system is that we pride ourselves in measuring life expectancy as a positive. If we all lived to 100 because we were all healthy, and healthy people live longer, then that would be one thing. But what we are really accomplishing is artificially extending the lives of increasing numbers of extremely unhealthy people with the use of expensive medical treatment. I don’t see the long-term benefit to this as a species.

jescott418 says:

I am not much of a fan of Government programs. They are usually inefficient and poorly run and the American people may have needed some type of basic health care for American’s who cannot afford it. But America cannot afford it either. We are ignoring the problem of low wages and poor benefits and replacing them with more federal debt to solve them. This is not going to work.

jbenson2 says:

tcc3 said:
So Lawyers are against tort reform because they have a vested interest. But we can take Drs at their word despite their own vested interest.

There’s a disconnect there.

Yes, the disconnect is between tcc3 and reality.

We don’t have to take the Doctors’ word. All we have to do is examine our own experiences.

Just consider the dozens of megabuck extra tests that are done to ensure every possible side effect is considered.

Texas got a dose of sanity recently and put in a few medical tort reforms and guess what! The medical malpractice costs are going down.

Amazing? Not really, just common sense.

tcc3 says:

Is there a direct or significant correlation between med malpractice and overall healthcare cost?

For the reduction in “defensive medicine” is there an increase in mistakes, misdiagnoses, or outright sloppyness due the reduction in pressure from possible law suits? Is the cost savings worth it?

Some people would say no to both those questions. See links above.

You’re still beating a dead horse.

What about expensive chronic conditions?

Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

But what we are really accomplishing is artificially extending the lives of increasing numbers of extremely unhealthy people with the use of expensive medical treatment. I don’t see the long-term benefit to this as a species.

I quoted this because I think it’s the key point. One one side you have this clear reality. Even my relatives who work in health care tell me this all the time…they keep dead people alive for months, years. For example, Dick Cheney. It’s insanely expensive.

On the other side: Death Panels.

tcc3 says:

Try copy/paste. Or Google. That information wasn’t hard to find. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

I say again: if tort reform is part of the solution, its a small part.

This is a distraction from a larger, more complicated issue.

aslightlycrankygeek says:

tc3,

Yes, doctors do have some vested interest in tort reform, as lawyers to at preventing it. The fact that both have such an interest in it proves there is big money to be made, and big money to be saved. For lawyers, it is potential lost revenue. But in the case of doctors, most of this cost just gets passed on to the consumer. They sure aren’t paying for the extra tests themselves are they?

You provided some good links on studies that conclude tort reform do will not end up giving much premium savings. I don’t have time to read every word, but what I saw from cursory looks is that they are very specific and are looking at it only with respect to lawsuit limits effecting premiums with everything else left as-is. There is a lot more to comprehensive reform than that, and in your second link, it seems to imply that interstate competition would greatly increase the effectiveness of tort reform. You can argue this point all day based on what which side you believe, but I tend to trust the words and actions of those in the medical profession more than those hypothesizing from the sidelines.

You are right in saying there is no magic bullet. The ideas that #10 proposed can help reduce costs significantly, but health care will still be expensive. But the reality is that Obama’s plan will not save any costs – it only re-distributes who is paying for the costs. You know the plan was run with the actual numbers after the bill was passed, and is going to cost way more than the Dems claimed, right? This was never about cutting costs it was about expanding health coverage and government control.

If you want to do more to severely cut costs you have to make tough decisions about what your length and quality of life is going to be. Nobody wants to talk about that point – people want to believe they can get something for free. I would rather make those decisions myself. I understand the current situation is having insurance companies making the decisions, and many people have not choice. (Some people are in that situation because of other choices they have made, but that is a separate debate.) Why not actually try some ideas to fix that without giving the same power to a government that is already almost bankrupt and will need to be cutting costs wherever it can? You can bet once the government fully takes over health care, they will care much more about actually cutting costs, and you will see them making the decisions for you.

MikeN says:

Pure ideology there. Make the system worse so that your preferred ideological solution is implemented. Who cares what happens to others in the meantime.

bobbo, to the left of Obama says:

Mike==pure drivel. Under Obamacare as currently conceived, more people get healthcare and at reduced cost to the taxpayer. Not as good, not as cheap, as single payer will bring us, so as usual, your post is simply wrong.

Want to rephrase?