Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/29/2012 04:36:05 PM · #1026

I think Obamacare is broken, unconstitutionl (certain parts), and should be removed in it's entirety. That way real health reform can take place....For instance, taking care of the frivolous lawsuits. That is one way to lower costs.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/29/2012 05:24:21 PM · #1027

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

...For instance, taking care of the frivolous lawsuits. That is one way to lower costs.

Except it won't. That's a red herring. It's been disproved over and over again. It wouldn't make a significant dent, and the system's not as broken as people seem to think it is.

Q.
But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.

A.
Thatâ��s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. Thatâ��s a rounding error. Liability isnâ��t even the tail on the cost dog. Itâ��s the hair on the end of the tail.

Quoted from the New York Times: many other discussions of this, coming to the same conclusion, may be found through Google.

R.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/29/2012 05:32:03 PM · #1028

My brother is a gynecologist. His malpractice insurance is huge because that type of doctor gets sued alot. By law you are allowed to sue a gynecologist until the time your child is 18 years old. If you can't tell within a year or maybe two years that your doc screwed up in delivery...you should forfeit your right to sue

frisca

Nikon D70

03/29/2012 05:34:11 PM · #1029

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Are you saying that we could save money on medical costs if malpractice insurance wasn't so expensive?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/29/2012 05:40:59 PM · #1030

yes doctors have to charge alot to pay for this extremely high insurance if there were less lawsuits the insurace would be cheaper if the ins. is cheaper they charge less...then peoples ins. would also be cheaper.

I know other things could be done but that is one thing that help ease the pain that the wallet sees.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/29/2012 05:47:29 PM · #1031

"Under increasing pressure from third-party payers and facing the uncertainty of healthcare reform, physicians have been able to find some comfort in stable or, in some cases, declining medical liability premiums.

The years-long pattern of plateaued premiums continues, according to Medical Economics' 2010 Exclusive Survey on malpractice, part of our Continuing Study that also examined earnings (September 24 issue) and productivity (October 22 issue). The survey was administered in June and answered by more than 4,000 office-based MDs and DOs in more than 17 practice areas and specialties.

Thirty-seven percent of survey respondents reported that their malpractice premiums stayed the same in 2009, whereas 11% said they decreased. Nineteen percent reported an increase, whereas 31% said they didn't know.

Family physicians and general practitioners reported median annual premiums of $12,600, virtually the same ($12,500) as in 2008. The median for pediatricians fell $1,000 to $11,500 a year, whereas internists reported an increase of $2,000 to $14,500. Ob/gyns, whose median annual premiums rose to $51,200 from $45,000, saw the biggest increase, but it's still less than the median $55,000 they reported in 2007."

From the journal "Medical Economics".

That's a drop in the bucket, Cowboy. It's not where the problem lies. Could there be improvement in this area? Yes! Is it "why" health care is so expensive ion this country? Resoundingly not!

R.

03/29/2012 05:50:19 PM · #1032

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

If you had any idea just how difficult it is to prove any form of malpractice against a doctor or a hospital you would find this comment almost laughable.

As a former police officer I am not allowed to sit on a jury, take a job in a police watchdog agency and other similar position simply because of the perception that I might be biased. Well, just who oversees the doctors you ask... well other doctors... no bias there I guess.

You are providing anecdotal comments that truly have little to do with the overall costs one normally associates with health care.

Ray

03/29/2012 06:00:54 PM · #1033

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

if there were less lawsuits the insurace would be cheaper if the ins. is cheaper they charge less...then peoples ins. would also be cheaper.

Not true. The money paid out to settle malpractice suits has actually fallen over the past 15 years, yet malpractice insurance premiums have gone the other way and those insurers are VERY profitable. Insurers overestimate losses and underestimate profits to support the myth of a malpractice crisis and justify higher premiums... estimates that turn out to be bogus when the actual numbers are reported. Reducing lawsuits does not lower premiums. It raises insurance company profits.

03/29/2012 06:04:26 PM · #1034

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
if there were less lawsuits the insurace would be cheaper if the ins. is cheaper they charge less...then peoples ins. would also be cheaper.

Not true. The money paid out to settle malpractice suits has actually fallen over the past 15 years, yet malpractice insurance premiums have gone the other way and those insurers are VERY profitable. Insurers overestimate losses and underestimate profits to support the myth of a malpractice crisis and justify higher premiums... estimates that turn out to be bogus when the actual numbers are reported. Reducing lawsuits does not lower premiums. It raises insurance company profits.

Ok then go after the ins companies

03/29/2012 06:07:01 PM · #1035

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
if there were less lawsuits the insurace would be cheaper if the ins. is cheaper they charge less...then peoples ins. would also be cheaper.

Not true. The money paid out to settle malpractice suits has actually fallen over the past 15 years, yet malpractice insurance premiums have gone the other way and those insurers are VERY profitable. Insurers overestimate losses and underestimate profits to support the myth of a malpractice crisis and justify higher premiums... estimates that turn out to be bogus when the actual numbers are reported. Reducing lawsuits does not lower premiums. It raises insurance company profits.

Ok then go after the ins companies

...and how then does that have anything to do with universal health care... or have you forgotten that this was at the forefront of your argument against Obamacare.

Ray

03/29/2012 06:12:54 PM · #1036

That is not the main reason I am against it. I am against it because of the mandate "you have to have ins or pay a fine to the govt" Companies can't necessarily afford that. I know the mandate states 50 employees or more...but still that is extremely expensive. This will cause products to go up in price or companies will move out of the country. So guess who gets hurt....everybody

03/29/2012 06:17:44 PM · #1037

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

...........ummmmm NO

Ray

03/29/2012 06:18:20 PM · #1038

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Ok then go after the ins companies

Republicans don't go after companies (whether insurers or pharmaceuticals) because those are supposedly the "job creators"... even though record profits have not been accompanied by record employment. You cannot lower insurance costs significantly without addressing the source of the increase: individual and corporate greed. The same applies to gas prices and national debt. As long as greed is enabled and regulation/fair taxation vilified there will be no resolution.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/29/2012 06:26:43 PM · #1039

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Companies can't necessarily afford that. ...

This will cause products to go up in price or companies will move out of the country. So guess who gets hurt....everybody

Cowboy, you really need to take the time to study economics.

Companies leave the countries for other reasons such as cheap labour, low taxes, subsidies, free land and a host of other handouts that you, me and every other grunt pays for.

If I paid for an IPad in terms of what it actually cost to make one, then chances are I would own one... but I don't and likely never will... primarily because I earnestly believe that it is a prime example of how we are all being taken advantage of.

Ray

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/29/2012 08:01:24 PM · #1040

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

That is not the main reason I am against it. I am against it because of the mandate "you have to have ins or pay a fine to the govt" ...

Do you think people brought to the ER should be allowed to die if they can't prove they have insurance or the ability to pay the full bill themselves? The government has told hospitals no, you have to treat those people. Ultimately the cost of that care is absorbed by people who do have insurance, or by the taxpayers through Medicaid, tax write-offs for the hospitals, and so forth. So, why shouldn't those free-loaders without insurance have to reimburse the government.

Why should my taxes and premiums subsidize people who want to get a free ride? Besides, the d*** "penalty" is only a tiny fraction of what I pay now in premiums -- it's still a relative bargain for the 5 million or so people actually subject to the "mandate" (the rest of us are under no compulsion to change the health care plan we have now).

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

03/29/2012 09:25:24 PM · #1041

I doubt that is a one time or even a yearly penalty.
From what I have seen the insurance companies get a deep discount. It is the uninsured who get stuck with the whole bill.....and if you have assets, they can take them.

Message edited by author 2012-03-29 21:26:44.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/29/2012 09:44:39 PM · #1042

Originally posted by David Ey:

It is the uninsured who get stuck with the whole bill.....and if you have assets, they can take them.

Right -- medical emergency is the number one reason for personal bankruptcy ... that really helps the economy (for lawyers) ...

It's a yearly penalty -- an extra line on your Federal tax return. As I heard a lwyer point out on one of the numerous news analyses, if the Congress had had the guts to call it the "No Free Ride Tax" the "mandate" would be completely constitutional.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/29/2012 10:22:24 PM · #1043

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

The days of massive malpractice suits are pretty much over. The gold mine in the old days was " Pain and suffering" which is being closed down state by state. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 which capped noneconomic damage awards at $250,000, reducing spiraling malpractice insurance premiums and ensuring continued patient access to health care. MICRA has since become the national model for effective tort reform.

While there is a steady drip of idiotic piling on for drug companies and procedure torte cases, most members of HMOs and PPOs are not even allowed to sue any more as binding arbitration are part of all our agreements with providers. Since the 80s malpractice cases have fallen in number and average payout while medical costs have quadrupled.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/10/2012 07:19:57 PM · #1044

We have a new world record: Arizona just passed a bill effectively declaring that life begins two weeks BEFORE conception.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

04/10/2012 08:15:26 PM · #1045

Originally posted by scalvert:

We have a new world record: Arizona just passed a bill effectively declaring that life begins two weeks BEFORE conception.

Wow. I really feel like the world has gone nuts.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/10/2012 08:20:15 PM · #1046

I read this piece earlier today... //www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-there-a-republican-war-on-women/the-republican-war-on-women-is-real

There were over 1100 antichoice provisions introduced in 2011 and 900 antichoice provisions introduced so far in 2012. Legislators in 13 states have introduced 22 bills seeking to mandate that a woman obtain an ultrasound procedure before having an abortion. Of these, seven states are pursuing the state-rape vaginal probe variety. In addition, legislators in 13 states have sponsored right-wing "Personhood" type bills, too extreme even for the electorate of Mississippi, that could make both abortion and reproductive choices highly restricted.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/10/2012 08:25:40 PM · #1047

Originally posted by scalvert:

We have a new world record: Arizona just passed a bill effectively declaring that life begins two weeks BEFORE conception.

Well, it IS a ludicrous law IMO, but that's not really why. Doctors have done this forever. Since nobody can know exactly when a pregnancy began, doctors set the "age" of a pregnancy as of the day of a woman's last period. Since THIS law prohibits abortions after 18 weeks, they need to define WHEN a pregnancy begins, and the best they can do is use the doctors's notional formula.

THAT part of it seems straightforward enough. Nobody's saying "life begins before conception", that's a silly exaggeration.

R.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/10/2012 09:19:11 PM · #1048

It does amaze me that the health care reform act is about to be struck down because the government can't force people to buy a product (health insurance) that they really ought to have. At the same time the very legislators who are most upset with "Obabcare" see no problem at all with forcing patients seeking an abortion to buy a procedure (an ultrasound) that has no medical purpose at all.

04/10/2012 10:35:55 PM · #1049

Originally posted by BrennanOB: