Woody argues that extra procedures and related costs brought on be defensive medicine are responsible for much of cost of the health costs.

“Defensive” medicine is a right wing buzzword - people used to talk about preventative medicine. In one example cited by Woody, his doc wanted to do a heart test on him, even though “they both knew” he did not need it. I guess A) this means Woody has diagnostic equipment at his house; and B) his doctor is incompetent.

However, what if the doctor had found something, worked quickly to treat it, thereby precluding more costly treatment. In this case, hasn’t the “Defensive” practice of medicine saved money?

Furthermore, given what appears to be relatively undisputed evidence - in the studies linked to, and apparently unchallenged by Woody himself - that the actual payout of MedMal claims is only 1-2 % of health care costs, and caps really don’t seem to make a difference in premium costs; isn’t it really paranoia by ins companies and doctors driving up costs, rather than the actual prospect of litigation? That is, all this defensive medicine is being performed based on the spectre of lawsuit, rather than any sort of reality based assesment of the chances of getting sued and/or liklihood of success. Ergo, isn’t this problem brought on by ins. co’s and doctors, not the hated “trial lawyers.”

If Woody is right, why hasn’t the capping of damages in at least 19 states made no appreciable difference in premiums?

Maybe the issue for Woody isn’t the size of the jury award, byut the prospect of being sued at all. If so, Woody is asking for far more legal protection for doctors than anyoen else inn society. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Period. Whether it survives a motion to dismiss the next day is another matter. You still have to hire an atty to defend it. Ergo, if this is Woody’s argument, he is saying that doctors should be precluded from being sued in the first instance. In fact, in my state, you have to have at least one doctor opine that malpractice has occured before the suit can be filed. No decrease in premiums that I have seen.

Lastly, can anyone think that profit based health care ever benefit the patient. Profit based health care means simply that the service provided will be the one with the greatest profit - generally, the cheapest to produce but which costs the most.

We don’t get pushed into bankruptcy when a family member gets ill, unless massive amounts of drugs need to be taken daily.

Woody, you just don’t get it. Single payer is peace of mind. Remove the profit motive to deny care, regulate the costs so that doctors and hospitals must justify outrageously large bills to people with experience in handling medical costs, and cover everyone, even smokers and fast food eaters.

Healthy non-smoking vegan joggers still get cancer too. Cover everyone, and let the law of averages do its thing.

Single payer is ethical, responsible, and provides more value to the customer…which is why no Republican will ever be for it. No one tells you what doctor you have to go to, and you can go to any hospital, not just the ones your insurer has a prior relationship with (Single payer has a relationship with them all).

With everyone covered there’s plenty of work for health care professionals to do, you know, care.

By the way, industry groups (doctors, insurers) will always be on the wrong side of this issue. Don’t let them stop you or scare you. It’s your country too, and if it’s so bad they leave the profession it’s probably because they’re close to retirement anyway.

But it will also leave the people injured and incapacitated by negligent medicine practiced by good and bad doctors alike without any recourse. If the injured person didn’t have health insurance, s/he will have to pay not only the provider’s bill for the injurious treatment, but the subsequent bills for the next 1-100 years of treatment that will be required.

Moreover, the negligent doctor will be permitted to proceed happily along to the next patient, without a care, knowing that his/her bad practice has no practical consequences. Woody’s worries that “enough lost suits and a doctor loses his livelihood” would be no more! In other words, in WoodyWorld, once one gets the M.D. degree, it’s a worry-free professional life for all except the patients.

The costs of the tort system must be measured against the compensation they provide victims as well as the economies and improved practices that the system encourages by making the failure to implement good practices costly.

Says Woody (paraphrase, but accurate)

reg, I’m so disappointed, but my moderated comments had links for you, but I gave up after three or four times trying to post them. The extra procedures and related costs are simply due to defensive medicine. People are more motivated to avoid losing money than they are in making it. Plus, enough lost suits and a doctor loses his livelihood.

Remember this example of what drives up costs?

“Survey finds 90% of Pennsylvania physicians make medical decisions based on avoiding suits:

“Virtually all the physicians who responded to the survey said they sometimes or often engaged in at least one of six forms of defensive medicine, procedures that in many cases were likely to add to health-care costs.”

Thank the Democrats and their friends the trial lawyers.

Piehole, you didn’t say anything that I haven’t fought off before. You want government to do your bidding and I want government to leave me alone, because I can do a better job without its interference.

BTW, corporations are extensions of individuals. Corporations are the vehicles that create wealth for collective investors, of which a great part is made up of retirement plans. I guess you don’t want grandpa making any money from his stock as long as someone else gets something for nothing.

#1 - “forcing insurance companies to accept the currently uninsurable” is a phrase that can only come out of the mind and heart of somebody who loves corporations more than people. People, like you, who operate out of that worldview, are a huge problem in this world of ours. Please accept my sympathy for your condition.

#2 - Who is in great health throughout their life? Virtually nobody. That part of your argument rests on a straw man, easily dismantled by you in your rush to prove your larger point. Which is what, again? That people are expendable and corporations must be protected at all costs?

#3 - Says Woody (paraphrase, but accurate): “The sole liberal solution to any problem is to take money from other people.” As a simple rebuttal to that odious worldview, I give you the fruits of progressive/liberal politics down through the ages:

* Inherent, universal rights of individuality and humanity rather than kingly/divinely “allowed” (and revocable) rights
* end to child labor by law
* the concept of a time-limited work week, with time off
* the right of women to vote
* the freeing of black people from slavery, and their right to vote
* the idea of a minimum wage (a step up from real slavery to wage slavery, but still a step up)

… why do I go on? Y’know, you’re not a serious person to be in a conversation with. Best of luck with your droll worldview, which is carrying our culture and times further down the slippery slop to the Swamp of Isolated Selfishness and Ruin, on a daily basis. Good luck with that!

The usual WoodPecker standard of sloppy analysis, half-assed argument and last resort to ad hominem….

If we force insurance companies to accept the currently uninsurable, either the rates of those people will be astronomically high or everyone else will have to pay higher premiums to cover what they do not pay. Sure your friend with long running health problems would benefit. But a friend who is in great health would have to pay extra just for her. Nothing is free.

When there is a problem, I wish that liberals would seek solutions other than taking money from other people.

- -

Thinker: “In the meantime, we should make some changes to federal law to improve the situation… an easy start would be to make health insurance premiums tax deductible for individuals.”

I agree with you. Now, why do you think that the Democrats consistently block such proposals? Why, letting people take care of themselves is not in the interests of those who want to seize power and transform this nation into a socialist disaster.

- -

Thinker: “In the meantime, we should make some changes to federal law to improve the situation… an easy start would be to make health insurance premiums tax deductible for individuals.”

I agree with you. Now, why do you think that the Democrats consistently block such proposals? Why, letting people take care of themselves is not in the interests of those who want to seize power and transform this nation into a socialist disaster.

- -

Kevin and Randy, the comparisons of profit margins and rates of returns of insurance companies to various other industries makes a lot of sense. Insurance competes in our nation’s and global money market against all businesses for investors. In addition, the comparison gives us a point of reference when insurance companies are accused of making “excessive profits,” which are any profits to a socialist.

- -

reg: In response to “patients are subjected to many additional and medically unnecessary and costly tests. Why? ” says “The fact that these tests generate fees has nothing to do with it, of course…”

reg, unnecessary procedures for defensive medicine has a lot to do with higher medical costs–not just insurance. If doctors are prescribing, say 40%, more procedures simply for legal considerations, then those costs get passed along through the system and end up in the laps of the consumer. Don’t be so stupid or stubborn.

- - - -

Piehole: “Here’s the basic reality of insurance: the larger the pool of people, the lower the costs for all included. Right? Right. So … if you have THE ENTIRE COUNTRY in the pool, doesn’t that guarantee the lowest possible costs? That’s just logical, right?”

You also add a larger pool of people who are going to drive up costs faster than any premiums could come down. Otherwise, insurance companies would cover them now–if these people were willing to pay instead of using money for drugs, cigarettes, booze, and fattening greasy fried chicken. That’s logical.

- - - -

reg: In response to “patients are subjected to many additional and medically unnecessary and costly tests. Why? ” says “The fact that these tests generate fees has nothing to do with it, of course…”

reg, unnecessary procedures for defensive medicine has a lot to do with higher medical costs–not just insurance. If doctors are prescribing, say 40%, more procedures simply for legal considerations, then those costs get passed along through the system and end up in the laps of the consumer. Don’t be so stupid or stubborn.

- - - -

Piehole: “Here’s the basic reality of insurance: the larger the pool of people, the lower the costs for all included. Right? Right. So … if you have THE ENTIRE COUNTRY in the pool, doesn’t that guarantee the lowest possible costs? That’s just logical, right?”

You also add a larger pool of people who are going to drive up costs faster than any premiums could come down. Otherwise, insurance companies would cover them now–if these people were willing to pay instead of using money for drugs, cigarettes, booze, and fattening greasy fried chicken. That’s logical.

- - - -

Thinker: “In the meantime, we should make some changes to federal law to improve the situation… an easy start would be to make health insurance premiums tax deductible for individuals.”

I agree with you. Now, why do you think that the Democrats consistently block such proposals? Why, letting people take care of themselves is not in the interests of those who want to seize power and transform this nation into a socialist disaster.

- - - -

Kevin and Randy, the comparisons of profit margins and rates of returns of insurance companies to various other industries makes a lot of sense. Insurance competes in our nation’s and global money market against all businesses for investors. In addition, the comparison gives us a point of reference when insurance companies are accused of making “excessive profits,” which are any profits to a socialist.

reg, unnecessary procedures for defensive medicine has a lot to do with higher medical costs–not just insurance. If doctors are prescribing, say 40%, more procedures simply for legal considerations, then those costs get passed along through the system and end up in the laps of the consumer. Don’t be so stupid or stubborn.

Piehole: Here’s the basic reality of insurance: the larger the pool of people, the lower the costs for all included. Right? Right. So … if you have THE ENTIRE COUNTRY in the pool, doesn’t that guarantee the lowest possible costs? That’s just logical, right?

You also add a larger pool of people who are going to drive up costs faster than any premiums could come down. Otherwise, insurance companies would cover them now–if these people were willing to pay instead of using money for drugs, cigarettes, booze, and fattening greasy fried chicken. That’s logical.

Thinker: In the meantime, we should make some changes to federal law to improve the situation… an easy start would be to make health insurance premiums tax deductible for individuals.

I agree with you. Now, why do you think that the Democrats consistently block such proposals? Why, letting people take care of themselves is not in the interests of those who want to seize power and transform this nation into a socialist disaster.

Kevin and Randy, the comparisons of profit margins and rates of returns of insurance companies to various other industries makes a lot of sense. Insurance competes in our nation’s and global money market against all businesses for investors. In addition, the comparison gives us a point of reference when insurance companies are accused of making “excessive profits,” which are any profits to a socialist.