ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Snorri1234]

(5) Price Gouging - People should step in to stop price gouging, not the government. You don't like the prices at Business X, go to Business Y.

Doesn't the very definition of "price gouging" involve using a monopoly or similar to raise prices? Ie. you have corn, nobody else sells corn, you can gouge prices on your corn.

The thing is that price-gouging usually happens when people don't have the luxury of going somewhere else.


Within the medical world there are several cases of where price gouging actually happens and why the free market can't correct them. Like drugs which have effectively a monopoly because there are no real alternatives (some cancerdrugs), or medical emergencies where people simply can't get to another doctor or hospital.


Saying that people, not the government, should stop price gouging is absurd.

Okay, it's not absurd, but whatever.

It's interesting that you noted that price gouging happens because people can't go elsewhere. That happens to be the case with health insurance, ironically enough. And it happens to be the case because health insurance companies cannot cross state lines. And it happens to be the case because of federal and state laws. Go figure.

No that's bullshit and also irrelevant. Not being able to cross state-lines is not a problem. What's preventing all companies from going to the states with the least regulations on what they can do?

But I'm not talking about that. Insurance-price-gouging is only a bit of a problem. It's the price gouging by medical suppliers that is a bigger problem. If a drugcompany raises the price of a drug and there's no real alternative, what are people supposed to do? Die?

[PLAYER57832]

(1) US Not Healthiest - Agreed... what makes you think that is going to change with the current healthcare bill?

Universal, affordable coverage or even just a major increase in the insured will mean more people are able to get preventative care and timely treatment. Further, it is hoped (granted, this is not gauranteed), that universal coverage will provide greater incentive to at least stop subsidizing bad habits (like corn and sugar subsidies).

(2) Attorneys - What makes you think that is going to change with the current healthcare bill?

Current bill won't .. but its also not really a major factor in insurance costs.

(3) Public Education vs. Public Healthcare - My point with this was that if public education is so poorly run, what makes anyone think public healthcare will be run any better?

Poorly run? Then why is it that people from all over the world still flock to our public institutions like UC Berkeley, Penn State... etc.?

Further.. every industrialized country in the world, and a few not-so-industrialized, has a better system (better care more cheaply). That is our basic proof.

(4) Doctors PRACTICE universal healthcare, they are NOT for state run healthcare. Find me a poll.

You are mincing words here. The BILL is not about state-run healthcare. It IS about universal health coverage.

(
(5) Price Gouging - People should step in to stop price gouging, not the government. You don't like the prices at Business X, go to Business Y.

Except WE are not the ones buying the insurance! Our employers are!

This is why more and more people "have insurance" , but insurance that has such high deductibles, high co-pays and limited coverage they STILL wind up on the public roles, despite paying hefty premiums.

(for example, at the plant my husband left, they pay over $350 a month for family coverage. The regular co-pay is $35, the emergency room co-pay is $75 and specialists co-pays are $55. None of those count toward a yearly set of deductables of $1000 a person .. worse, they way they wind up with that is rather sneaky. They tell people there is a $500 deductable, but when you read further, there is a $500 deductable, PLUS a $500 per person family deductable, until the family reaches $2500 total... And after that, you still don't get ful coverage, it is only 80%, after about $5000 then it goes up to 90%)

[Phatscotty]

Look at it this way. Be realistic about the American Economy. You are a hospital. You have 10's of millions of dollars worth of top notch medical equipment, and the power and ability to the most important thing to every single person in the world. The ability to save your life and help you through your pain.

There is no way in hell a service like that is going to let you get treatment and walk out of the doors with small amounts of money due. They charge because they can.

[PLAYER57832]

Look at it this way. Be realistic about the American Economy. You are a hospital. You have 10's of millions of dollars worth of top notch medical equipment, and the power and ability to the most important thing to every single person in the world. The ability to save your life and help you through your pain.

There is no way in hell a service like that is going to let you get treatment and walk out of the doors with small amounts of money due. They charge because they can.

The same is true every where in the world, yet THEY manage to offer their people better care more cheaply!

[Phatscotty]

Look at it this way. Be realistic about the American Economy. You are a hospital. You have 10's of millions of dollars worth of top notch medical equipment, and the power and ability to the most important thing to every single person in the world. The ability to save your life and help you through your pain.

There is no way in hell a service like that is going to let you get treatment and walk out of the doors with small amounts of money due. They charge because they can.

The same is true every where in the world, yet THEY manage to offer their people better care more cheaply!

Is everywhere in the world subsidized the local, state, and federal governments, as well as insurance companies?

[Snorri1234]

Look at it this way. Be realistic about the American Economy. You are a hospital. You have 10's of millions of dollars worth of top notch medical equipment, and the power and ability to the most important thing to every single person in the world. The ability to save your life and help you through your pain.

There is no way in hell a service like that is going to let you get treatment and walk out of the doors with small amounts of money due. They charge because they can.

So why do you have a law that says everyone should be treated in an emergency, regardless of ability to pay?

[PLAYER57832]

Look at it this way. Be realistic about the American Economy. You are a hospital. You have 10's of millions of dollars worth of top notch medical equipment, and the power and ability to the most important thing to every single person in the world. The ability to save your life and help you through your pain.

There is no way in hell a service like that is going to let you get treatment and walk out of the doors with small amounts of money due. They charge because they can.

The same is true every where in the world, yet THEY manage to offer their people better care more cheaply!

Is everywhere in the world subsidized the local, state, and federal governments, as well as insurance companies?

Sorry, but I don't even understand this sentence... I think you might have typed to quickly?

Ironically, you have pointed toward the major argument for socialized medicine... Medical care is not really optional, and you don't really have a free choice in where you go (some exceptions, but usually no), particularly in an emergency. This means that competition barely exists.

Add in a system where many people get covered and really don't have to worry about the costs, and you get a lot of people who have to give up everything they own to pay medical bills, plus a lot who simply do without. NONE of this helps our society, increases our tax base or helps reduce our tax burden in any way. In fact, they all contribute to the skyrocketing costs of healthcare in the US,

(and note, I like either the German or French systems best... neither have state-run healthcare).

[Frankly, my dear]

The best health care is to eat healthy and exercise. Beyond that, major injuries or medical issues need to be addressed. If the taxpayer is to pay for the medical care of individuals I say NO more obesity tolerated, NO more lazy f*** who sit around and play xbox waiting for the first, and NO more Ciggarettes/Booze/or any other type of stupid shit.

When this happens, I will be glad to pay your medical bills.

-A hard working American

[thegreekdog]

So much to address... I knew it was a mistake to come back in this thread.

(1) The insurance industry is not motivated by employer costs, it is motivated by healthcare costs. Healthcare costs are controlled by, among other things, the cost of medicines, doctors, procedures, etc., etc. Among the factors in rising healthcare costs is the lack of preventative care and the overabundance of charity care for those that cannot afford to purchase health insurance or healthcare. And what I said to you, Player, was not baloney, but fact. In fact, if you read your last post (the baloney one), you'll see that your discussino had nothing to do with how much money insurance companies make in income; rather, you discussed related issues regarding employer costs and the like. This is why it frustrates me to have this discussion with you. You argue points attendant to the main point. Sorry. Anyway, I'm not saying the current healthcare system is great; I'm saying there needs to be incremental change to the current healthcare system that is not either (1) the current healthcare bill or (2) universal government-controlled healthcare.

(2) Let's assume, for a second, that the reason price gouging occurs is because people don't purchase their own insurance. Why don't people purchase their own insurance? Why do people rely on employers? Can we make it so that people can purchase their own insurance without relying on employers?

(3) Mr. Adams point (and mine) regarding public education is that the problems with public education are not solved by and are in some cases exacerbated by the "public" part of that phrase. I don't want to argue about public education, because I think we can all agree that it is a failed system for many kids (obviously some exceptions, obviously not the government's fault). The point is that we think the government is some panacea that will fix healthcare in the United States. Why? You guys berate me constantly for assuming that private industry is a panacea, so why don't you guys tell me why government is the panacea?

(4) Malpractice is not a small percentage of costs. I have a friend that is a doctor. Do you know what his second biggest cost is? Yep, malpractice insurance. Do you know why? Frivolous lawsuits. Do you know why he charges exobritant prices for procedures? To pay his ridiculous malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance is also a major factor in insurance costs. If a doctor has to up his prices from $1000 to $2000 to pay for malpractice insurance, insurance companies have to up their coverage to account for that. It's pretty simple.

(5) Crossing state lines is not bullshit and is completely relevant to this discussion; it doesn't stop being relevant just because you wish it to be irrelevant.

(6) I'm not sure about the drug company issue as I have not thought about it. I think your ire might be better directed at pharmaceutical companies than at insurance companies if this is your beef.

(7) The government will never, ever, ever, ever, ever stop subsidizing bad habits. Ever. You know why? Bad habits are a major source of tax revenue. You know what else will soon be a major source of tax revenue? Going to the doctor's. I'm telling you right now, the worst thing that could possibly happen to the government is that people eat healty, stop drinking, and stop smoking.

(8) By the way, this bill will not be universal health coverage. Just fyi. Not sure what you guys are reading.

Attendant note - I'm not talking about public universities Player; c'mon. I'm talking about the high school in West Philly or the high school in Podunk, Pennsylvania.

[Snorri1234]

Sorry. Anyway, I'm not saying the current healthcare system is great; I'm saying there needs to be incremental change to the current healthcare system that is not either (1) the current healthcare bill or (2) universal government-controlled healthcare.

And noone is asking for government-controlled healthcare. Regulations and funding do not immediately mean control.

Hospitals and doctors here for example are still for-profit.

(2) Let's assume, for a second, that the reason price gouging occurs is because people don't purchase their own insurance. Why don't people purchase their own insurance? Why do people rely on employers? Can we make it so that people can purchase their own insurance without relying on employers?

Obviously that needs to happen anyway. But that requires reducing costs of insurance and mandates that people get insurance.

(3) Mr. Adams point (and mine) regarding public education is that the problems with public education are not solved by and are in some cases exacerbated by the "public" part of that phrase. I don't want to argue about public education, because I think we can all agree that it is a failed system for many kids (obviously some exceptions, obviously not the government's fault). The point is that we think the government is some panacea that will fix healthcare in the United States. Why? You guys berate me constantly for assuming that private industry is a panacea, so why don't you guys tell me why government is the panacea?

You could try being a little less dishonest greek.

Noone thinks the government is superawesome. What is being said is that it will be better than the current system.

I don't want to argue about public education either, but do you really think things would be better if private industries did it?

(4) Malpractice is not a small percentage of costs. I have a friend that is a doctor. Do you know what his second biggest cost is? Yep, malpractice insurance. Do you know why? Frivolous lawsuits. Do you know why he charges exobritant prices for procedures? To pay his ridiculous malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance is also a major factor in insurance costs. If a doctor has to up his prices from $1000 to $2000 to pay for malpractice insurance, insurance companies have to up their coverage to account for that. It's pretty simple.

Total costs. I don't doubt that for a doctor malpractice insurance isn't big or that it doesn't raise prices somewhat, but it doesn't weigh up to the costs for equipment, drugs, salaries, hospital-stays and all that. Even the studies funded by insurance-companies only rate medical insurance costs (both insurance and more testing) at 10%. It is probably less because frivolous testing is not always for malpractice cases and other studies list it as low as 4 or 5%. (Most all agree that simply the insurance itself is just 2%, since that is easily calculable.)

I'm not saying I don't approve of tort-reform. But for me that has more to do with being easier on doctors and such.

(5) Crossing state lines is not bullshit and is completely relevant to this discussion; it doesn't stop being relevant just because you wish it to be irrelevant.

It is irrelevant to the issue of whether drug companies can and do gouge prices. It's just bullshit because there is no real reason to assume such a thing will help.

(6) I'm not sure about the drug company issue as I have not thought about it. I think your ire might be better directed at pharmaceutical companies than at insurance companies if this is your beef.

Duh. This is a failing of the government not having the balls to make regulations. The immoral practices of insurance companies are cutting people out, denying coverage (even after having paid) and other such awesome things. Price gouging by insurance companies only works with employers because they're less able to find a new plan.

(7) The government will never, ever, ever, ever, ever stop subsidizing bad habits. Ever. You know why? Bad habits are a major source of tax revenue. You know what else will soon be a major source of tax revenue? Going to the doctor's. I'm telling you right now, the worst thing that could possibly happen to the government is that people eat healty, stop drinking, and stop smoking.

Wait....why would going to the doctor be a source of tax revenue?

[thegreekdog]

Wait....why would going to the doctor be a source of tax revenue?

And noone is asking for government-controlled healthcare. Regulations and funding do not immediately mean control.

Hospitals and doctors here for example are still for-profit.

Yes, people in this particular thread are asking for government-controlled universal healthcare. Confuses the shit out of me. There are just a few things that one can support: (1) universal government-controlled healthcare, (2) the current plan, (3) no plan, or (4) something else. I argue something else. Other people argue 1 and 2, or 1 and 4, or 2 and 4. No one sticks to just one thing. Confuses me.

You could try being a little less dishonest greek.

Noone thinks the government is superawesome. What is being said is that it will be better than the current system.

I don't want to argue about public education either, but do you really think things would be better if private industries did it?

I'm being as dishonest as you people are being when you try to paint me into some anarchist, government-hating corner. I'm going to start a thread on that by the way. Annoys me. I think private industries would be shitty at running education (if they were the only ones to run it). So, here's the question... which is better: all public, all private, or a mixture of both? The latter is the best, right? So, let's apply that to thegreekdog's healthcare plan - government insures those that cannot afford health insurance, major fixes to malpractice, portability of insurance across state lines, etc.

It is irrelevant to the issue of whether drug companies can and do gouge prices. It's just bullshit because there is no real reason to assume such a thing will help.

True. But that's not what we were talking about. Like I said, I don't know how to fix drug company gouging.

Wait....why would going to the doctor be a source of tax revenue?

Dude... how do you think the US is going to pay for any healthcare plan? When costs for government stuff goes up, taxes go up.

[spurgistan]

You're not really conflating health care and health insurance, are you? I mean, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but if we're talking about the US, government managed care is really naught but a glint in the eyes of hardcore liberals and people from the rest of the world who don't know why we stand so proudly athwart private health care. You may be scared of it (and you have some good reasons) but what's happening is reforming the way we pay for health insurance.

[thegreekdog]

You're not really conflating health care and health insurance, are you? I mean, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but if we're talking about the US, government managed care is really naught but a glint in the eyes of hardcore liberals and people from the rest of the world who don't know why we stand so proudly athwart private health care. You may be scared of it (and you have some good reasons) but what's happening is reforming the way we pay for health insurance.

Is it? I do not think that's what this bill is about at all. I also do not think it has anything to do with universal health care or government-run healthcare. To be honest, I know more about what the bill is not about than what it is about. Another reason to start over (with Republican ideas intermixed). But, we won't do that so we'll get an ineffective bill that imposes all sorts of regulations and creates a new government department that will cost billions.

[Phatscotty]

Look at it this way. Be realistic about the American Economy. You are a hospital. You have 10's of millions of dollars worth of top notch medical equipment, and the power and ability to the most important thing to every single person in the world. The ability to save your life and help you through your pain.

There is no way in hell a service like that is going to let you get treatment and walk out of the doors with small amounts of money due. They charge because they can.

So why do you have a law that says everyone should be treated in an emergency, regardless of ability to pay?

Because of liberals. I don't fully disagree with that law, but of course, cost and revenue sources seem to never be terribly important when we set these kind of things up......

[Phatscotty]

Malpractice insurance is a small percentage of costs. So are most doctor's salaries actually.

Take a deep breathe, count to 10.........

You are so wrong, OMG. dude, you can't just go around saying crap like that. A doctor reads that shit and he's loading up his gun and going on a rampage. You just can't say stupid shit like that, because malpractice insurance is a HUGE FUCKING PART OF COSTS you %@#$^%@#$%^#.

[Snorri1234]

You could try being a little less dishonest greek.

Noone thinks the government is superawesome. What is being said is that it will be better than the current system.

I don't want to argue about public education either, but do you really think things would be better if private industries did it?

I'm being as dishonest as you people are being when you try to paint me into some anarchist, government-hating corner. I'm going to start a thread on that by the way. Annoys me. I think private industries would be shitty at running education (if they were the only ones to run it). So, here's the question... which is better: all public, all private, or a mixture of both? The latter is the best, right? So, let's apply that to thegreekdog's healthcare plan - government insures those that cannot afford health insurance, major fixes to malpractice, portability of insurance across state lines, etc.

Yes a mixture. Like in all the other countries. While not every European country has a big private healthcare industry, when you're in the EU you can travel to all other countries and use the facilities they have there. Whether insurance covers that depends, but those who want private care can have it.

Same goes for Canada really, parts of it are private and they make use of USA doctors and facilities when they want and can afford it.

Dunno about Japan, but Japan is crazy anyway so let's ignore them.



The reason people are painting you in a corner is because you are acting like you have an unique plan yet it is strikingly familiar to a bunch of European plans and to what a lot of liberals in the US want. Check the German or Dutch system, me thinks the German system is probably the most to your liking.

[Snorri1234]

Malpractice insurance is a small percentage of costs. So are most doctor's salaries actually.

Take a deep breathe, count to 10.........

You are so wrong, OMG. dude, you can't just go around saying crap like that. A doctor reads that shit and he's loading up his gun and going on a rampage. You just can't say stupid shit like that, because malpractice insurance is a HUGE FUCKING PART OF COSTS you %@#$^%@#$%^#.

Yes a whopping 2% of total costs are for malpractice insurance. Man, I am really afraid of some redneck doctor now loading up his gun man.

For a doctor personally it is of course a big deal of the costs, which is why so few doctors are willing to work as GPs. But tort-reform isn't going to solve the problems with the system.

Because of liberals. I don't fully disagree with that law, but of course, cost and revenue sources seem to never be terribly important when we set these kind of things up......

Why wouldn't you fully disagree with that law? It's like a law saying that a supermarket has to give away 30% of all it's products each year.

[Trephining]

While malpractice insurance might not be a huge part of overall costs, avoidance of malpractice lawsuits is a large driver for higher medical utilization. Doctors prescribe unneeded and unhelpful tests to avoid lawsuits - commonly referrred to as "defensive medicince".

[Snorri1234]

While malpractice insurance might not be a huge part of overall costs, avoidance of malpractice lawsuits is a large driver for higher medical utilization. Doctors prescribe unneeded and unhelpful tests to avoid lawsuits - commonly referrred to as "defensive medicince".

Yes and even then it comes to about 7-10%

I'm not saying "Hey let's ignore it", but let's not pretend it is one of the most important things that should be focused on.


Or at least make the argument that it sort of forces doctors out of the more general things and into the obscure but lucrative branch. American GPs are probably the most underpaid (if you factor in malpractice insurance) and overstressed doctors in the country/world. Say you want more GP's, don't pretend this issue solves the financial problems of the system.

[Mr_Adams]

Yes a whopping 2% of total costs are for malpractice insurance. Man, I am really afraid of some redneck doctor now loading up his gun man.

I'd love to see your source. My source says 10%.
http://2dboy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/nerd.jpg

If you guys don't mind, I'd like to see a bit more citation here, lends more credibility to your argument. i should cite as well. thanks.

Edit: I really don't understand why you guys keep talking about insurance companies, and then defending your arguments with the price of medical equipment. clearly your problem is with medical supply producers, not the insurance companies who pay for them.

[Symmetry]

While malpractice insurance might not be a huge part of overall costs, avoidance of malpractice lawsuits is a large driver for higher medical utilization. Doctors prescribe unneeded and unhelpful tests to avoid lawsuits - commonly referrred to as "defensive medicince".

Heh- the malpractice reform is worthy, but it's a bit of a myth to suggest that doctors are covering themselves from lawsuits by ordering extra tests. Atul Gawande's piece in the New Yorker on McAllen, Texas (the most expensive place in the US for healthcare) delves pretty deep into the matter:

Here

Now it's a long article and it treats the matter very thoroughly, so I'll quote the relevant section:

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’

[Snorri1234]

Yes a whopping 2% of total costs are for malpractice insurance. Man, I am really afraid of some redneck doctor now loading up his gun man.

I'd love to see your source. My source says 10%.
http://2dboy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/nerd.jpg

Yes, and that same source that says "10%" actually says 2% is the actual malpractice insurance and the rest is "defensive care". You know, doing more tests just to be more sure simply for a jury, not because there's any real doubt.

Article about it.
for the pdf

[thegreekdog]

While malpractice insurance might not be a huge part of overall costs, avoidance of malpractice lawsuits is a large driver for higher medical utilization. Doctors prescribe unneeded and unhelpful tests to avoid lawsuits - commonly referrred to as "defensive medicince".

Heh- the malpractice reform is worthy, but it's a bit of a myth to suggest that doctors are covering themselves from lawsuits by ordering extra tests. Atul Gawande's piece in the New Yorker on McAllen, Texas (the most expensive place in the US for healthcare) delves pretty deep into the matter:

Here

Now it's a long article and it treats the matter very thoroughly, so I'll quote the relevant section:

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’

Doctors don't directly order unnecessary medical tests to cover malpractice insurance. It's an indirect phenomenon.

I'm a doctor, I need more money to cover my outrageous medical bills. How do I get more money? Well, the insurance companies will pay me for $5,000 for running this unnecessary test and have $500 for this two minute follow-up appointment. Let's do that. So the insurance company shells out $5,500 unnecessarily, the insurance company raises rates for employers, who pay employees less and take more out of their paychecks to cover medical insurance, President Obama gets elected and vows to fix the insurance system. The insurance bill gets passed and nothing happens with medical malpractice insurance. Doctors do the same shit. Wheee.

[Symmetry]

While malpractice insurance might not be a huge part of overall costs, avoidance of malpractice lawsuits is a large driver for higher medical utilization. Doctors prescribe unneeded and unhelpful tests to avoid lawsuits - commonly referrred to as "defensive medicince".

Heh- the malpractice reform is worthy, but it's a bit of a myth to suggest that doctors are covering themselves from lawsuits by ordering extra tests. Atul Gawande's piece in the New Yorker on McAllen, Texas (the most expensive place in the US for healthcare) delves pretty deep into the matter:

Here

Now it's a long article and it treats the matter very thoroughly, so I'll quote the relevant section:

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’

Doctors don't directly order unnecessary medical tests to cover malpractice insurance. It's an indirect phenomenon.

I'm a doctor, I need more money to cover my outrageous medical bills. How do I get more money? Well, the insurance companies will pay me for $5,000 for running this unnecessary test and have $500 for this two minute follow-up appointment. Let's do that. So the insurance company shells out $5,500 unnecessarily, the insurance company raises rates for employers, who pay employees less and take more out of their paychecks to cover medical insurance, President Obama gets elected and vows to fix the insurance system. The insurance bill gets passed and nothing happens with medical malpractice insurance. Doctors do the same shit. Wheee.

This is all fair comment, and it's part of why malpractice reform is worthy. My point is that doctors will still order unnecessary tests even when malpractice litigation is virtually eliminated. The McAllen case in the article I posted shows that malpractice reform will not, in itself, stop doctors from ordering such tests.

I absolutely agree with malpractice reform- it makes doctors' lives unnecessarily difficult. What I wanted to point out is that reform will not do what some people claim it will do- reduce costs due to unnecessary procedures and tests. There are many other factors- notably the medical culture of the area, and the ways in which doctors are rewarded for performing tests with few tangible benefits to the patient.

The argument that doctors perform tests out of fear of litigation is logically sound, but doesn't seem to work in practice. McAllen spends vastly more on healthcare than other parts of the US, with, it should be noted, no improvement in public health. It has virtually no malpractice litigation.

I'm very wary of using a single example and projecting onto the whole, but McAllen is notable for being the most expensive, and I think it's worth taking into account.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not saying medical malpractice reform is the only answer, but it must be an answer. And right now it's not an answer.

As a related note, it's not an answer because the American Bar Association has major political influence. I've toyed with the idea of renouncing my membership to that particular institution, but I'm too scared.