Tort reform laws need modification to limit damages against, in this case specifically, doctors? 93% of all doctors admitted to practicing defensive medicine; defined here.
Defensive medicine: Medical practices designed to avert the future possibility of malpractice suits. In defensive medicine, responses are undertaken primarily to avoid liability rather than to benefit the patient. Doctors may order tests, procedures, or visits, or avoid high-risk patients or procedures primarily (but not necessarily solely) to reduce their exposure to malpractice liability. Defensive medicine is one of the least desirable effects of the rise in medical litigation. Defensive medicine increases the cost of health care and may expose patients to unnecessary risks.
So on one side of the liberal agenda, we have a desire for a nationalized, subsidized, non-equitable health care system - yet we also are against preventing frivolous lawsuits which ultimately raise malpractice insurance costs and that, in turn, causes doctors to practice defensive medicine.
Another liberal paradox....... Please answer my question without a temper tantrum or the word BUSH, he has nothing to do with it - neither does Iraq or NEO-CONS! I'm not a Neocon, I was born this brilliant.
http://www.newsbatch.com/vtarch705-hsmalprc.html
I still haven't recieved an answer to the question. Explain to me how you can be so passionate about lowering the cost of health care and so deeply rooted into the issue of anti-malpractice (tort) reform? It just doesn't make sense!
Does my question automatically pin me as a 'victim of public education'?
You violated my temper tantrum rule.
No gold star for you Mr.
angels_harp_2000
As the risk of sounding insulting... Liberals aren't very well informed people.
They want the best of everything without understanding how A impacts B impacts C.....
"Free" healthcare.... but with tax cuts
Socialized medicine... without giving up any coverage
Safety... but with gun bans
No new prisons... but want criminals off the street
Keep America safe.... but no war.
Spend spend spend.... but still expect to retire.
Fund 401K plans... but don't allow people to get "too wealthy"
Embrace "diversity"... but not if you're non-PC
Talking with a Liberal is literally like talking to a 8 year old kid.
otto2294
i dont care my government already provides for all its citizens and we enjoy free health care. sorry though that youve been brainwashed into thinking your life is worth money
Gen. Stiggo [Atheati-in-Chief]
It may be because every actual study done has shown that damage awards have a negligible impact on health care costs. But the insurance companies have managed to convince doctors otherwise. If the doctors would look at the facts, and see that insurance premiums go up due to factors other than payouts, such as the performance of the underlying investments, they might not go along with what the insurance companies tell them to do. A perfect example is California, which a few years ago imposed caps on damage awards. The doctors there were told that this would protect them from having their premiums go up. As it happened, while payouts went down, premiums still went up. We don't need tort reform, we need insurance reform.
Lyle G
You misunderstand.
What they demand is government control and HIGHER cost.
You confuse their lie that it would be "free" with promising "lower cost."
phil
the lawyers control the democratic party,they want free health care but want to sue for high amounts in court,they are greedy and evil
ndmagicman
You do realize that under a national health care system, the tort reform you so blindly want, is already a resolved matter. The physicians malpractice insurance would either be totally eliminated or drastically reduced under a national health plan.
iraqisax
Health care can be lowered by reversing the cause of it's current high price. And that is government involvement. Ever since government became involved in the health care area, cost have risen. The more we have centralized planning, and the less competition, the higher the prices, and the lower the quality.
This is basic economics. Unfortunately, victims of the public schools don't understand this. They are easy prey for our politicians power grabs. Public education is government education. Does anyone think that our politicians are going to convince us of their limitations?
John D "Your ad here"
The answer might simply be that many Democrats felt that $ 250,000 was too little compensation for certain cases. Not all lawsuits are frivilous. If a doctor's mistake deprives someone of the ability to work for the rest of his life, his or her family would be deprived of much more than $ 250,000.
***
"I still haven't recieved an answer to the question. Explain to me how you can be so passionate about lowering the cost of health care and so deeply rooted into the issue of anti-malpractice (tort) reform? It just doesn't make sense!"
The idea of lowering health care costs through universal insurance [early screening of illnesses before they reach advanced stages, reduced paperwork, increased productivity in the workforce due to a healthier population] is not at odds with the concept of ensuring that an individual is adequately compensated in the event that a health care professional completely screws up his or her life.
WhiteHouse Watching
They cannot. The current system of your Doctor and Your Lawyer are opposing forces. If litigation was limited, doctors would not have the malpractice costs to defend against a badly trimmed toenail. How can we have tort reform when the laws are made by Lawyers. Vote out the incumbant! Lawyers are evil.
bob_frangione2000
You are making a rather spurious leap. You are also confusing health care with insurance. Insurance is not and never was designed to offer health care. It is a separate business that sells a service to both doctors and potential patients. Tort reform goes far beyond medicine and malpractice insurance is not the major cause of skyrocketing health care costs. In fact health care costs are fairly stable compared to health insurance costs. A major problem with tort reform is that it is too unilateral. Without an equitable gain to consumers, it is not a reform at all.
By the way, there is nobody currently capable of polling 93% of all doctors.
Orignal From: How can liberals demand lower health care costs, yet be anti tort-reform?
Post a Comment