On 09/30/09 15:34, andrel wrote:
> One of the reasons for their high earnings (at least as given by some us
> physicians that I know) is that they have to be able to pay a) the
> mal-practice insurance and b) the mal-practice law suits.

	It's often claimed as the reason, but studies indicate that they barely 
affect health care costs:

http://www.factcheck.org/president_uses_dubious_statistics_on_costs_of.html

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7174/04-28-MedicalMalpractice.pdf


-- 
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass.  M.Twain

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:
>> The US spends 16% of our GDP on healthcare.  That's more than we spend on 
>> defense, and we're fighting in Iraq *and* Afghanastan!
> 
> 
> Isn't much of that money going to the people who provide the healthcare? 
> Doesn't that motivate them to provide the best services possible?
> 
>  - Slime
>  [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ] 
> 
> 
The people providing the health care are not determining what is being 
provided, or even the "prices". Insurance companies mitigate their costs 
by a) not covering some things, b) hand picking doctors they know will 
minimize their costs, and/or c) refusing to pay for some treatments. In 
one case, a major insurance company actually "bought up", what was, at 
the time, the only two agencies responsible for rating the actual cost 
of medical procedures, then ordered their, now sub-companies, to under 
rate the costs, so that the companies could make **you** pay for some 
percentage of the real cost for the procedure. They got sued, and 
forced, as part of the settlement, to pay money out, to create an new 
*independent* agency to provide such cost ratings. The problem is, they 
themselves still use "their" companies, and so does nearly every other 
company that wants to save themselves money, instead of basing coverage 
on "honest" averages of those costs. Worse, some morons just recently 
convinced the courts that it was "unfair" for us to only pay the 
percentage we where (I think like 10-15%), and to raise it to 20% of the 
costs, and there is at least one idiot in congress, if I remember 
rightly, on the right wing side, who has suggested it would be ever 
fairer if we paid 30-35% of the cost of medical bills, as premiums. Or, 
in other words, 30 cents, out of every dollar, for **all** procedures, 
whether it be a $20 bottle of pills, or a $10,000 surgery.

Insurance companies are in it to make money, while minimizing how, when, 
and how much, they pay out, when you "need them". Its also why they 
almost *never* cover preventative care. Some moron figured, some place, 
that the odds of most people needing to have $100,000 was extremely 
small, but if 1,000 people all had to pay $20 to get a checkup (this 
being when they first came up with the stupid idea), they would be 
paying out $200,000 a year, instead of $100,000. So, its better if you 
never use it, and they keep making money, than if you do use it, to 
prevent paying for actually medical problems. At least from their 
perspective.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Worse, some morons just recently 
> convinced the courts that it was "unfair" for us to only pay the 
> percentage we where (I think like 10-15%), and to raise it to 20% of the 
> costs, and there is at least one idiot in congress, if I remember 
> rightly, on the right wing side, who has suggested it would be ever 
> fairer if we paid 30-35% of the cost of medical bills, as premiums. Or, 
> in other words, 30 cents, out of every dollar, for **all** procedures, 
> whether it be a $20 bottle of pills, or a $10,000 surgery.
> 

Note, my numbers "may" be off. I do know that prior to buying out the 
companies, we only paid the "difference", after that we paid a 
percentage that didn't reflect any true difference, and that there are 
some morons now trying to *double* that.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 30-9-2009 23:14, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/30/09 15:34, andrel wrote:
>> One of the reasons for their high earnings (at least as given by some us
>> physicians that I know) is that they have to be able to pay a) the
>> mal-practice insurance and b) the mal-practice law suits.
> 
>     It's often claimed as the reason, but studies indicate that they 
> barely affect health care costs:

As far as I can see from a quick scanning of these documents they don't 
do that. Even if you can criticise a study that does not imply that the 
opposite conclusion must therefore be true.


> http://www.factcheck.org/president_uses_dubious_statistics_on_costs_of.html
> 
> http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0
> 
> http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7174/04-28-MedicalMalpractice.pdf
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

On 09/30/09 17:25, andrel wrote:
>> It's often claimed as the reason, but studies indicate that they
>> barely affect health care costs:
>
> As far as I can see from a quick scanning of these documents they don't
> do that. Even if you can criticise a study that does not imply that the
> opposite conclusion must therefore be true.

"However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several 
other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such 
large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public 




with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits."

"Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology 
Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to 
defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive 
Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the 



"Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total 
health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated 
$24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of 
overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent 
to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only 
about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health 
insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)"



-- 
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass.  M.Twain

Post a reply to this message

On 1-10-2009 1:12, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/30/09 17:25, andrel wrote:
>>> It's often claimed as the reason, but studies indicate that they
>>> barely affect health care costs:
>>
>> As far as I can see from a quick scanning of these documents they don't
>> do that. Even if you can criticise a study that does not imply that the
>> opposite conclusion must therefore be true.
> 
> "However, a fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several 
> other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such 
> large costs. A 1990 study by the Harvard University School of Public 




> with limits on lawsuits, compared to states without limits."
> 
> "Finally, a 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology 
> Assessment found some added costs (under $54 million total) due to 
> defensive radiology in children with head injuries and defensive 
> Caesarian sections in certain women with difficult pregnancies. But the 


> 
> "Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total 
> health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated 
> $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of 
> overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent 
> to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only 
> about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health 
> insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)"

Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses. Probably not 
mentioning the studies that are in agreement with the Bush paper etc. 
Let me put it this way: I don't believe any study that claims one or the 
other. The only way to prove anything is running the whole economy for 
20 odd years with one option and then rerun the same period with the 
other option. Which is impossible.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/01/09 13:41, andrel wrote:
> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses. Probably not
> mentioning the studies that are in agreement with the Bush paper etc.
> Let me put it this way: I don't believe any study that claims one or the
> other. The only way to prove anything is running the whole economy for
> 20 odd years with one option and then rerun the same period with the
> other option. Which is impossible.

	Which is also why people like yourself are not ones policy makers want 
to listen to.<G>

	And BTW, even that won't tell much. There are too many other 
significant variables over that 40 year period which may impact health 
care more than this.

-- 
Why a man would want a wife is a big mystery to some people.  Why a man
would want *two* wives is a bigamystery.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses.
> Probably not mentioning the studies that are in
> agreement with the Bush paper etc.

Argument from wishful thinking.

Disclaimer: I chimed into this late and explicitly don't know what side of the
debate you are on.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-10-2009 1:22, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/01/09 13:41, andrel wrote:
>> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses. Probably not
>> mentioning the studies that are in agreement with the Bush paper etc.
>> Let me put it this way: I don't believe any study that claims one or the
>> other. The only way to prove anything is running the whole economy for
>> 20 odd years with one option and then rerun the same period with the
>> other option. Which is impossible.
> 
>     Which is also why people like yourself are not ones policy makers 
> want to listen to.<G>

Normally I am not so 'scientific' about this sort of things. Yet, in 
this case there are so many confounding factors. E.g. you can not look 
to one state, take a measure that might influences the salary of someone 
and assume that the fact that the neighbouring state pays more is of no 
effect. There is also a whole chain of things influenced by law suits. 
Not only the physician but also the other medical staff and the board of 
the hospital etc. Even larger than that, law suit influence the mindset 
of a whole country. You can not look to the experience in another 
country either because too many things are different...

>     And BTW, even that won't tell much. There are too many other 
> significant variables over that 40 year period which may impact health 
> care more than this.

Correction, I was talking about the same 20 years twice. So it is not 
only practically and politically impossible, but even physically.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-10-2009 12:55, gregjohn wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Referring to studies with just as many weaknesses.
>> Probably not mentioning the studies that are in
>> agreement with the Bush paper etc.
> 
> Argument from wishful thinking.
> 
> Disclaimer: I chimed into this late and explicitly don't know what side of the
> debate you are on.

I think I am on no side at all. As I said, I don't believe any 
'evidence' for any position in this debate.

I do have an opinion on the US healthcare issue, but that was not really 
what this was about.

Post a reply to this message