Originally posted by CliffLandinI found this interesting:
And pay considerably more in malpractice insurance for a net of considerably less. Look at the big picture.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/doctors.html
Prof. Karl Lauterbach
Health economist and member of the German parliament
Germany has pretty good results, it has fairly good costs, it's equitable, and yet they're constantly talking about reforming it. Does that mean people are not satisfied?
Well, people are by and large satisfied. Physicians are not always satisfied because they would like to earn more money. We have actually now decided that we [will] increase physician income, in particular for office physicians; we have already increased the income for hospital physicians by about 10 percent. But I don't know a single European system where physicians do not all the time ask for more money. This is basically part of the description of their job.
I can tell you one thing, complaining about not making enough money is not part of the job description for doctors in the US.
Now compare how much a doctor in Germany makes as compared to a politician:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/germ-m21.shtml
I am reminded of a book a read when I was a kid, it was called "The New Class". I wonder how many of those on the left have read that book.
I don't think it is a good thing. I was just making the observation that doctors are going to have to take a hefty cut in pay. I think they should take a hefty cut in pay.
Insurance is the reason why we have problems today. Insurance companies collect thousands of dollars from me every year and I received very little back. That's the case for most adults under the age of 50.
Since so few people actually collect on insurance, they can take some of that excess money and pay higher amounts on those few who get charged. Then doctors charge more because insurance companies will pay more, but then insurance comapanies raise rates because doctors pay more. People are afraid that medical bills could cause them to go bankrupt without insurance, so they are willing to keep paying for the more expensive insurance.
One sweet deal the insurance companies get is that they tell doctors how much they'll actually pay. A doctor can set a procedure price at $200, but if they join a certain company they agree to receiving $120 for that same procedure and writing off the difference. In essence, there are two different prices. The procedure is cheaper if you have insurance, but more expensive if you don't.
Originally posted by EladarThis is only partially true.
I don't think it is a good thing. I was just making the observation that doctors are going to have to take a hefty cut in pay. I think they should take a hefty cut in pay.
Insurance is the reason why we have problems today. Insurance companies collect thousands of dollars from me every year and I received very little back. That's the case for most adu ...[text shortened]... nt prices. The procedure is cheaper if you have insurance, but more expensive if you don't.
A major factor in the cost of medicine in the U.S., which I have mentioned before but you choose to ignore, is the cost of malpractice insurance. My father, who was an oral surgeon for nearly 50 years, paid over $100k per year in malpractice insurance. He was never sued, not once, but because he did oral surgery, the insurance agencies charged that much.
A doctor can't just eat that cost, they have to pass it on.
Originally posted by CliffLandinThere's no law requiring a doctor or any other professional to purchase malpractice insurance. That's their call.
This is only partially true.
A major factor in the cost of medicine in the U.S., which I have mentioned before but you choose to ignore, is the cost of malpractice insurance. My father, who was an oral surgeon for nearly 50 years, paid over $100k per year in malpractice insurance. He was never sued, not once, but because he did oral surgery, the insurance agencies charged that much.
A doctor can't just eat that cost, they have to pass it on.
EDIT: It appears that I was incorrect regarding medical malpractice insurance; most states do require a doctor to have it.
Originally posted by no1marauderLawyers in congress making laws to benefit more blood-sucking lawyers leaching off of the medical industry. Just one more reason why we should shoot all the lawyers.
How does it "destroy billions of dollars in taxpayers' money every year"?
Really, at a minimum (if we can't just shoot them) there should be a ban on lawyers in Congress. Lawyers making laws... ...that's just stupid. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Originally posted by no1marauderFor example through:
How does it "destroy billions of dollars in taxpayers' money every year"?
- Unnecessary lawyers.
- Unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy.
- Unnecessary legal procedures in general, resulting in costs for judges, safety of courts etc.
- Disproportional financial compensation, resulting in inefficient allocation of production factors (destruction of wealth through larger income differences).
It seems to me that the answer is to limit award damages. If you damages are limited, then the insurance need not be so high.
In theory this would seem to be anti-consumer because if there is a case, then the person who was wronged will get less money and the doctor is escaping with less of a punishment.
In fact, although the person receives less money, the doctor is receiving the same punishment because he isn't paying for the malpractice lawsuit, the insurance company is.
Insurance company regains what it lost through higher premiums, which means the doctors pass that on their patients. In fact, it is the patients who are footing the bill for malpractice lawsuits.
The ones making all the money in the present system are the insurance companies who provide the coverage and the lawyers.
Originally posted by EladarIt seems we've found a point on which we completely agree.
It seems to me that the answer is to limit award damages. If you damages are limited, then the insurance need not be so high.
In theory this would seem to be anti-consumer because if there is a case, then the person who was wronged will get less money and the doctor is escaping with less of a punishment.
In fact, although the person receives less money ...[text shortened]... ney in the present system are the insurance companies who provide the coverage and the lawyers.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn this country I think it is the Democrats who are standing in the way of tort reform in respect to malpractice law suites. As I said earlier, it is the misguided view that the little guy's right to stand up against the big guy. In fact, it is the little guy being manipulated by the lawyers and insurance companies.
It seems we've found a point on which we completely agree.
What's the probability that Obama will lead the way for malpractice reform, capping punative damage?
Originally posted by EladarSince Democrats and Republicans both had 8 consecutive years to tackle the issue and both have done nothing, I doubt much will change under Obama.
In this country I think it is the Democrats who are standing in the way of tort reform in respect to malpractice law suites. As I said earlier, it is the misguided view that the little guy's right to stand up against the big guy. In fact, it is the little guy being manipulated by the lawyers and insurance companies.
What's the probability that Obama will lead the way for malpractice reform, capping punative damage?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFrom what I've read, Bush was trying to push tort reform, but the Democrats in the Senate blocked it. Congress has to come up with the legislation for the President to sign.
Since Democrats and Republicans both had 8 consecutive years to tackle the issue and both have done nothing, I doubt much will change under Obama.