They overprescribe tests to protect themselves and please the client that waste money currently. That is an unseen cost that President Obama is not talking about!!
Why is Obama a liar?
1. costs skyrocket.
2. Certain medical fields close
(Kentucky losing OB/GYNs due to insurance concerns
November 11th, 2004
Kentucky has lost about a third of its obstetricians and gynecologists in the past 5 years because of growing concerns over malpractice insurance.
Statistics show that Kentucky lost 212 of 671 licensed obstetricians/gynecologists from 1999 to 2003. The state also has higher-than-average rates of doctors who have stopped practicing obstetrics or decreased the number of high-risk pregnancies they will handle, according to a survey by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists)
Shovel Ready
This is the single biggest waste of money in healthcare (estimated at $ 40 to $ 60 billion annually), and Obamacare ignores it completely. Obama is owned by the shysters.
lolall61
shouldn't a patient have the right to sue a physician for malpractice? of course they should.
competent doctors don't run unnecessary tests.
the impact is minimal in the big picture.
sl63128
Tort reform is the key issue to the cost of health care, fact. Malpractice insurance is a significant cost. Yet, Obama said he will not fix tort reform he wants to keep his fellow lawyers in business. If they do not cap the amount patients can sue for (key word cap- not abolish the right to sue) then the cost will continue to grow. I hope people want taxi cab drivers delivering babies because that is essentially what will happen, when no OB can afford the risks any longer!
bellatruth
Not just that, but the cost of Malpractice Insurance for Hospitals and Doctors alike, is just Obscene. All of these things add to the High cost of our Health Care.
Shawn McGraw
But, wait, I thought this was due to those evil, rotten, greedy, for-profit machines.
This is just one example of the host of things that Obama and his empty-headed proponents exclude that greatly increase costs. When you don't allow the market to self-regulate, you employ layer upon layer of regulations that drive up prices and limit access.
The ethics of the medical practitioner are irrelevant. If the patient wants the procedure, and the practitioner declines the procedure, and the onus is now solely on the practitioner rather than the patient. With the current legal structure, even if the suit isn't viable, the practitioner must still maintain a high level of legal protection due to the onslaught of our litigious "you made me do it" society. This increases overall cost.
If the practitioner suggest the procedure and the patient declines, the onus is then on the patient. However, you will still find suits that award damages to the patient as they "didn't know any better" and "just signed the form". Well, hells bells, you mean I have to actually read what I'm signing?
This, boys and girls, is what you call the Law of Unintended Consequences.
It much easier to simply employ the class warfare/class envy card as that simply relies on emotion, rather than cognitive skills.
P.S. The Patriot, you've copied that message over and over, and each time one of the posters points to the fallacy of utilizing sampling vs. statistics, and your hysterical economic illiteracy. There are are host of cascading factors that skew data such as the ones you've provided. The life expectancy and death rate are not linked to health care coverage or availability. Try to be intellectually honest next time.
If you seek Amy
We need true tort reform before we should institute O's health care - but it will not happen he is as beholden to the trial lawyers as he is to the union thugocracy.
J.D.
It is almost impossible to prove medical malpractice for the absence of treatment. Doctors do not over-prescribe tests to avoid malpractice, they do it because patients request unnecessary procedures and since they have health insurance and doctor is getting paid, the doctor prescribes it. An ethical doctor, that tells their patient 'no' will not face a legitimate malpractice suit.
The Patriot
Yes. First of all, Obama wants to make insurance more available to all. And change the system so that it is cheaper, and also so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland where private companies are involved in providing insurance.
Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.
Third, Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this.
FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.
FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.
That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.
Malpractice healthcare costs are so high though as they have to pay out for healthcare costs in the future. In the present system, you can not get insurance for pre-existing conditions, therefore if someone is the victim of a mistake, the payout has to fund the continuing healthcare costs. If you stop insurance companies from not covering such conditions, then the payouts fall as the cost of healthcare afterwards will be cheaper. That means that doctors will not need to pay as much in insurance which will mean healthcare will be even cheaper!
Orignal From: What is the impact of medical malpractice on health care costs?It makes physicians waste money unnecessarily?
Post a Comment