Healthcare crisis spirals further out of control

[CShine 0]

Health insurance premiums rose by 11% this year while at the same time 5 million fewer jobs offered health insurance than did so 3 years ago. Only 63% of companies now offer health coverage to their workers at all. The numbers are even worse for small businesses.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...alth_care_costs

The healthcare sector is still in a state of disaster, yet it's getting very little mention in the election. Why does no one seem to care about this enough to make it part of the national debate?

[CCTAU 3,336]

That's not true. President Bush is pushing for tort reform in the healthcare industry. And all the dems can come up with is electing another lawyer who made millions by sueing doctors.

The President is touting many things that YOUR media does not report. And yet all your candidate can do is move toward socialist healthcare. Why should he care if my healthcare sucks? He's rich and can still pay for a private doctor. Get the scheisters to quit suing the doctors and healthcare costs can be controlled.

BTW, in Canada Clinton would still be waiting for a doctor!

[CShine 0]

Tort reform does not reduce insurance premiums. This is common knowledge. There is literally tons of info out there on the net directly from the insurance industry which says in no uncertain terms that tort reform has never been a reliable way to reduce insurance costs. That's because the great bulk of healthcare inflation is driven by the cost of new research and development and the rising cost of hospital care. Lawsuit costs are literally miniscule by comparison to the actual costs of patient care. Bush's proposal is a window dressing that ignores the causes of healthcare inflation.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Health insurance premiums rose by 11% this year while at the same time 5 million fewer jobs offered health insurance than did so 3 years ago. Only 63% of companies now offer health coverage to their workers at all. The numbers are even worse for small businesses.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...alth_care_costs

The healthcare sector is still in a state of disaster, yet it's getting very little mention in the election. Why does no one seem to care about this enough to make it part of the national debate?

And Trial lawyers like Edwards of course have no influence at all on the cost of medical care....yeah right.

I wish the Dems were able to look at both sides of an issue and not see just politics and their own POV only.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Tort reform does not reduce insurance premiums. This is common knowledge. There is literally tons of info out there on the net directly from the insurance industry which says in no uncertain terms that tort reform has never been a reliable way to reduce insurance costs. That's because the great bulk of healthcare inflation is driven by the cost of new research and development and the rising cost of hospital care. Lawsuit costs are literally miniscule by comparison to the actual costs of patient care. Bush's proposal is a window dressing that ignores the causes of healthcare inflation.

And this is also why we have the BEST health care in the World, second to none. The people from foreign countries come here for care. We do not go there.

I want health care for all. I know that the Federal Govt will absolutely mis-manage it into the ground. If the Libs really wanted NHC, they would come up with a way to have it administered by an outside source. I really think this is another political position with the Dems.

Saying that Tort reform will have NO effect is just plain stupid. There are doctors leaving their locales and fields because of their insurance premiums. Look at the exodus of ob/gyns in NC alone, thank you John Edwards.

[CShine 0]

Tort reform does not reduce healthcare premiums for average people. It never has. The insurance industry has always been the first to say this.

The American Insurance Association (AIA) said that lawmakers who enact “tort reform” should not expect insurance rates to drop.  Specifically, a March 13, 2002, AIA press release leads with an astounding pronouncement: “[T]he insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings.”

Donald J. Zuck, Chief Executive of Scpie Holdings, Inc., a leading malpractice insurer in California, told the Wall Street Journal: “I don’t like to hear insurance-company executives say it’s the tort system – it’s self-inflicted.” 

In the current debate, no insurance spokesperson will agree to premium reductions if damages caps are instituted.  Indeed, they acknowledge damages caps won’t reduce premiums.  American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) President Sherman Joyce told Liability Week that: “we wouldn’t tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.”

And, according to Victor Schwartz, General Counsel of ATRA:“many tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and I’ve never said that in 30 years.”

The Center for Justice & Democracy recently completed an exhaustive study of the relationship between “tort reform” and malpractice premiums.  They concluded that “tort reform” has historically had no impact on insurance rates.

Locally, John Henry, CEO of Emory Hospitals, including Emory University Hospital and Crawford Long Hospital told the Atlanta Business Chronicle that: “what is happening to us is more than just malpractice insurance.  Directors’ and officers’ liability insurance has gone through the roof, insurance on buildings has gone up.  There does not seem to be any direct relationship between claims and premium increases; it seems more related to Sept. 11 and the need for insurance companies to generate profits for shareholders.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, “ome doctors are beginning to acknowledge that the conventional focus on jury awards deflects attention from the insurance industry’s behavior. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for the first time is conceding that carrier’s business practices have contributed to the current problem, says Alice Kirkman, a spokesperson for the professional group:“[W]e are admitting it’s much more of a complex problem than we have previously talked about,’ she says.”

http://www.gtla.org/public/justice-preserv...e-Packet.html#3

[BamaGrad03 0]

Interestingly enough, I heard a survey that had national healthcare numbers which excluded those who are independent contractors and others who DEFER coverage...the numbers were WAAAAAAAY different than those the dems want you to believe.

I know SOOOO many people who are independent contractors and have to get their own healthcare. I also know people who work for higher wages because they have to get their own.

Why does no one want to talk about those people? Why do they just THROW them in with the others as people who arent getting the care they need?

Why are healthcare costs rising? Because lawyers are getting HUGE settlements for their clients? Is the answer national coverage from the government?...where its FAILED everywhere else?

[CCTAU 3,336]

Tort reform does not reduce insurance premiums. This is common knowledge. There is literally tons of info out there on the net directly from the insurance industry which says in no uncertain terms that tort reform has never been a reliable way to reduce insurance costs. That's because the great bulk of healthcare inflation is driven by the cost of new research and development and the rising cost of hospital care. Lawsuit costs are literally miniscule by comparison to the actual costs of patient care. Bush's proposal is a window dressing that ignores the causes of healthcare inflation.

It's not the lawsuits that take the bulk of the money..... Its all the premiums paid just in case there is a lawsuit because lawsuits are so frivilous (hence your boy Edwards).

And do you really believe that the insurance companies (who are getting rich BTW) are going to tell you how to keep them from getting rich. Tort reform is the first step in gaining control over these costs. And the President is the only one proposing it. If its just window dressing then for God's sake dress the window and move on. But to say its negligible is idiocy!

[BamaGrad03 0]

Quick Quick...name me ONE governmental program that works better or manages money better than its private counterpart...

[tiger88 934]

My favorite thing about healthcare is when the hospital bills you like $2000. You're insurance agrees to pay $200-$300 and the hospital accepts it. What a huge crock of crap.

[Tigermike 3,044]

The Queen says "Shove it, you )*&%%#$#*((_)*(&*%$ Idiots!"

Heinz Kerry:   

Opponents Of Health Care Plan Are 'Idiots'

Candidate's Wife Doesn't Mince Words

Teresa Heinz Kerry says "only an idiot" would fail to support her husband's health care plan.

But Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, told the (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal that "of course, there are idiots."

Kerry's proposal includes health care subsidies for children, the unemployed, small companies and more; and government assistance to insurers and employers that keep premiums for workers down.

If Kerry is elected, Heinz Kerry predicts that opponents of his health care plan will be voted out of office. She says, "Only an idiot wouldn't like this."

Heinz Kerry stumped in Lancaster, Harrisburg and York on Wednesday, the third day of a four-day campaign swing through Pennsylvania.

On Thursday, she holds a roundtable discussion health care at a hotel in King of Prussia.

LINK

[BamaGrad03 0]

Im already sick of that elitist *@(!&

[SupperClub 0]

Im already sick of that elitist *@(!&

I am too. I honestly couldn't imagine her as the 1st Lady of the United States. She is classless, IMHO.

[TitanTiger 20,501]

Bush also outlined plans for health savings accounts and wants to change the laws so that small businesses can pool their buying power, even across state lines, and get the same kind of discounts for health coverage that large companies get now. That would be a big help.

[Tigermike 3,044]

If they want to do something, why doesn't The Senate and The House pass legislation to give every citizen the same health insurance that they have?

[TitanTiger 20,501]

I'm all for universal care...if they can figure out how to do it without screwing it up like the Canadians and British have, and without raising taxes. Here's an article that articulates some of the issues:

CLINTONCARE VS. CLINTON'S CARE

By MICHAEL F. CANNON

September 8, 2004

THE speed with which President Clinton received quadruple bypass surgery provides an important lesson in health-care reform that voters should keep in mind this election season.

Last Thursday, the former president went to Northern Westchester Hospital, near his home in Chappaqua, complaining of chest pain and shortness of breath. As The New York Times reported, "Initial tests showed nothing extraordinary," but doctors asked the former president to return the next morning.

Friday morning, cardiologists performed an angiogram. One reported seeing "multi-vessel coronary artery disease, normal heart function and no heart attack." However, the extent of the blockage in his coronary arteries was severe enough that doctors sent him to Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said that when doctors at Columbia-Presbyterian saw the extent of the blockage, "They did advise him to have bypass surgery, and to do it as soon as he could." Columbia-Presbyterian admitted the former president Friday and performed a successful quadruple bypass Monday.

The timeframe is important.

President and Sen. Clinton's greatest health-care legacy is their attempt to pass the Health Security Act in 1994. At the time, it was said that 39 million Americans lacked health insurance. The president made "health coverage that cannot be taken away" his administration's top priority, and sought to do so by turning America's health-care system over to the federal government.

Under the Health Security Act, Washington would have compelled all Americans to buy health coverage, dictated what type of coverage they would receive and where they would purchase it, set prices for coverage and medical services and encouraged states to form their own single-payer health-care systems.

The power of individuals to make countless choices about their health care would have been handed over to government, and the few remaining market mechanisms that contain costs and promote quality would have been lost.

The Economist wrote of the Clinton plan, "Not since Franklin Roosevelt's War Production Board has it been suggested that so large a part of the American economy should suddenly be brought under government control."

Critics warned that socialized medicine would have the same effect in America as it has in other countries.

When government makes medical care "free," people demand medical care without regard to cost. Governments can't keep up with the excess demand and therefore must find some way of allocating care amid shortage conditions. Most choose to make patients wait.

According to Nadeem Esmail and Michael Walker of Canada's Fraser Institute, the median wait for an appointment with a cardiologist in Canada's single-payer health-care system was 3.4 weeks in 2003. The wait for urgent bypass surgery was another 2.1 weeks on top of that, while the wait for elective bypass surgery was a further 10.7 weeks. Great Britain and New Zealand have even longer waiting times for bypass surgery.

Esmail and Walker cite studies confirming that longer waits for heart surgery bring higher risks of heart attack and death. In fact, they report that U.S. hospitals act as a "safety valve" for Canadian patients who face life-threatening shortages: "The government of British Columbia contracted Washington state hospitals to perform some 200 operations in 1989 following public dismay over the 6-month waiting list for cardiac bypass surgery in the province...A California heart-surgery center has even advertised its services in a Vancouver newspaper."

Had America had followed his lead 10 years ago, President Clinton might not have been able to get his diagnosis and surgery appointment so quickly. Instead of waiting overnight for an appointment with a cardiologist, he might have had to wait the 3.4 weeks Canadians do. Instead of waiting three days for quadruple bypass surgery, he might have had to wait more than two weeks.

Instead of receiving care from what Sen. Clinton called "one of the great hospitals in the world," President Clinton might be looking for a safety valve.

Since the Clinton health plan was defeated, untold patients have been aided because America's health-care system, whatever its faults, was not subjected to the shortages and waiting lines that plague other nations.

But the future is less certain. Sen. John F. Kerry is aggressively promoting his $1 trillion health-care plan, which borrows heavily from the Clinton plan. Kerry too seems to believe that having government issue a paper guarantee of "coverage" is the same thing as having access to medical care.

Truth be told, presidents and senators will never have a hard time getting medical treatment. Esmail and Walker report "a profusion of recent research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically-connected." It's the rest who have to wait.

Despite the government's egalitarian rhetoric, "low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbors."

I join all Americans of good will in wishing President Clinton a speedy recovery. And I hope they will join me in wishing Sen. Kerry's health plan a quick, painless death.

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28080.htm

[ChattanoogaTiger 0]

As a physician I have to comment on this thread. I apologize for the long post

This is a very complicated issue (rising medical costs) with multiple factors causing the upward spiral. These factors include an aging population, life style decisions (obesity, drugs, smoking, etc), prescription drug costs (not the pharmaceutical industries fault), medical malpractice costs, and defensive medicine. Although malpractice premiums may be controlled by investment earnings many companies have been driven into receivership by gargantuan claims against the company (this too is "common knowledge"). What many lay people do not understand is the cost of defensive medicine ie doctors ordering expensive tests just to cover themselves. The cost of medical malpractice is so high that some high risk specialities (neurosurgery and OB GYN) are no longer offering services. These specialities pay up to 300,000 per year in some states for covearage.

As a physician I think tort reform will help curb the costs. California has done this on a limited basis with positive results. http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2002/pd031402f.html

For a long read on health care costs go to this link

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judic...hju85403_0f.htm

A final comment: John Edwards wife recently suggested that th best way to cut malpractice costs is to reign in bad doctors

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/...ics/9612556.htm

By this I thinks she means those who have been sued and therefore committed "malpractice". Virtually every physician in the high risk specialities have been sued at least once. In Tennesse the following statistics are sobering:

According to State Volunteer Mutual Insurance Company, the company that insures most of the doctors in Tennessee, of all the doctors who have practiced more than ten years in our state, 64 percent have faced legal action, 90 percent of OBGYNs, and 90 percent of orthopedists have been sued. I do not have the link for these statistics but attend the yearly risk management seminars sponsored by SVMIC where these numbers are reported. In a way Mrs Edwards is right in that malpractice costs will decrease because few doctors will be left to practice

[Tiger Al 0]

A final comment: John Edwards wife recently suggested that th best way to cut malpractice costs is to reign in bad doctors. By this I thinks she means those who have been sued and therefore committed "malpractice". Virtually every physician in the high risk specialities have been sued at least once.

I don't think she meant that every doctor who's been sued is a bad doctor.

Similarly, doctors should police their ranks better for shoddy practitioners, Edwards said. "Half of the malpractice in this country is practiced by 5 percent of the doctors," she said.

Sounds like she's saying there are some habitual offenders and they're the ones who're the bad doctors.

Out of curiosity, if your dream came true and tommorrow malpractice insurance decreased 90%, what would you do differently to decrease the cost of your services to patients?

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

I might be naive, but just how is "health care" such a crisis when all the polls show that only 10-12% of Americans think that it is a major priority in the country.

[ChattanoogaTiger 0]

Tiger AL

good question

In my case I am in pediatrics in a teaching hospital. We take care of all patients regardless of ability to pay. Sixty percent of my patients are TennCare so the reimbursement is terrible. All of my patients have serious chronic illnesses so they are big consumers of the TennCare dollar, which by the way is almost bankrupt. I reference my earlier post about TennCare being a model for a national health care system. Don't let it happen.

If I was in private practice (general pediatrics) and malpractice reform was in effect, I would spend more time with patients, order less tests and order fewer prescriptions. The contribution of malpractice claims to the cost of medical care is more than the premium. Defensive medicine costs are a large indirect cost.

I am a big advocate for children. They are not of worth in our society. If a pregnancy is inconvenient, get rid of the child. If a child is nuisance abuse it and kill it. If a child needs medicine, the money could be better spent on an adult. If facilities are needed in a hospital, the adult side always gets the most. However, I can not support the Democrats proposals because I have seen the failure in our state. I dont want a system like Canada's because the care is even worse. Medicines that I use daily to treat my chronic patients are not availabe or are tightly controlled in that system. This is to the detriment of the patients

sorry for my preaching. Hope I answered your question

[AU Tailgating Rules 0]

Teresa Heinz Kerry thinks you are an IDIOT.

You brought up a good point in this arguement. The indigent (uninsured) in America, get better, faster, and more complete health care than any of the government insureds in Canada.

I would imagine, given the compassion of most doctors in this country, that if they could save $300,000 in malpractice insurance, they would all provide much more indigent care.

[LegalEagle 22]

CT, thanks for discussing this subject. I hope I have time to join in before the thread gets too cold.

Pressed for time, I would like to know when you think it would be proper and justified to sue a doctor?

Would you under any circumstances sue a doctor?

If a doctor was responsible (gross negligence lets say) for the death of your son, a professional, leaving 4 kids, an uneducated housewife and large mortgage, what would be an acceptable value in money for his life?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

what would be an acceptable value in money for his life?

are you kidding?

[LegalEagle 22]

what would be an acceptable value in money for his life?

are you kidding?

No, I am not kidding. That is what the "cap" on tort liability is. The tort reformists want to limit the amount you may recover from a doctor when he/she is responsible for your injury or death.

Others, capitalists, small government supporters, a.k.a. trial lawyers, argue that the assessment of damages by citizens in a jury box is the best was to control malpractice and that arbitrary caps should not be mandated in order to allow doctors to have cheaper insurance rates, which would also relieve them from losing their amassed fortunes when they destroy their patients' lives through their negligence.

[CCTAU 3,336]

what would be an acceptable value in money for his life?

are you kidding?

No, I am not kidding. That is what the "cap" on tort liability is. The tort reformists want to limit the amount you may recover from a doctor when he/she is responsible for your injury or death.

Others, capitalists, small government supporters, a.k.a. trial lawyers, argue that the assessment of damages by citizens in a jury box is the best was to control malpractice and that arbitrary caps should not be mandated in order to allow doctors to have cheaper insurance rates, which would also relieve them from losing their amassed fortunes when they destroy their patients' lives through their negligence.

The probelem here being two fold. Why don't you explain to all the good people as to WHEN YOU WOULDN'T SUE. Has nothing to do with the circumstance for most of you, it's only if I could get some money or not. Loser pays would choke the hell out 99% of the lawyers out there.