There is only one thing to say here

Oh, and as for the wingnut talking point you hear on Limbaugh and Drudge - that medical malpractice premiums and lawsuits are having this massive affect in driving doctors out of business?

Well, let's turn off the Rush Limbaugh show for a second, and see what teams of actual non-partisan analysts found:

CBO Report"

Effects on the Availability of Physicians' Services

Some observers argue that high malpractice premiums are causing physicians to restrict their practices or retire, leading to a crisis in the availability of certain health care services in a growing number of areas.

GAO investigated the situations in five states with reported access problems and found mixed evidence. On the one hand, GAO confirmed instances of reduced access to emergency surgery and newborn delivery, albeit "in scattered, often rural, areas where providers identified other long-standing factors that affect the availability of services."

On the other hand, it found that many reported reductions in supply by health care providers could not be substantiated or "did not widely affect access to health care."(17)
Click to expand...
 
***Sneaks In***

Darla said:
You're not right, and you've obviously never worked in marketing. You cannot be in advertising without being in marketing, and you cannot be in marketing without being in advertising. You could not get a job in marketing, unless it's entry level, if you do not know and have experience in marketing. You could not get a job in advertising, unless it's entry level, without experience and knowledge of marketing.

Marketing and advertising people are interchangeable for the most part, and work in the same department, side by side. The sales force is down the hall. R & D can be in another building.

But whatever your point is, it doesn't matter. You have driven this so far off course, in order to twist and turn from my simple statement, about malpractice costs, which I then backed up with the CBO report. You refuse to accept the Cbo report, and thats ok. Some still refuse to accept that the earth is round. It's not in my interest to argue with them.

According to any source I have read, advertising costs are higher than R &D costs, in big pharma and have been for years. Whether or not they include the sales force, I don't know, go look it up if it's important to you. Again, whether or not you believe it is irrelevant to me. I don't care SF. I educate myself by reading. I have no investment in whether or not you are educated.

Have a good night.
Click to expand...


Against better judgement..mind ya...since I bailed from this thread..alas between marketing on E-bay and Craigs list...'hey Paula'..opp's never mind that was a song...but 'hey Darla'...by your own admission...experience rocks over the classroom...right...now pa-lease from now on don't tread on me' in military experience threads'...and marketing for that matter...***sneaks out***:rolleyes:
 
One more problem with the CBO report... though I am sure it too will be ignored....

They ONLY include FEDERAL expenditures on healthcare in their study. They are not looking at what the private sector pays. WHY???????????
 
"Oh, and as for the wingnut talking point you hear on Limbaugh and Drudge - that medical malpractice premiums and lawsuits are having this massive affect in driving doctors out of business?

Well, let's turn off the Rush Limbaugh show for a second, and see what teams of actual non-partisan analysts found:
"

Enough of what you hear on Rush... I don't care about Rush... I don't listen to him or any other talk show for that matter.

Answer the question...

should they be including social security costs in their total healthcare spending numbers?

Why are they not showing the savings to the private sector?

If we reduce the per visit charge that hospitals/doctors pass along to us... does that not also reduce the costs of medicare and medicaid reimbursements? Why don't they address this?

Bottom line, their study is very generalized, does not include private spending on healthcare, does not look at how reductions in malpractice reduce costs of medicare, medicaid and individual insurance premiums.

They also do not address the correlation of the spike in malpractice costs (shown in their chart) to the spike in individual insurance premiums. WHY NOT?????

Can you answer any of these? Can they? You and Darla are acting like I am set in my thinking... when in reality you are both ducking answering any of these questions other than "we believe religiously in the CBO, the CBO cannot be wrong, the CBO is our God" bullshit.
 
Superfreak said:
One more problem with the CBO report... though I am sure it too will be ignored....

They ONLY include FEDERAL expenditures on healthcare in their study. They are not looking at what the private sector pays. WHY???????????
Click to expand...


Now you're scaring me. Are you saying the Federal Government is much better and more capable at controlling costs, including costs associtaed with malpractice insurance, than private insurers?

You commie pinko!!!!
 
"Now you're scaring me. Are you saying the Federal Government is much better and more capable at controlling costs, including costs associtaed with malpractice insurance, than private insurers? "

Please tell me you are kidding.

In no way am I saying that. I am saying that their study of the benefits of a reduction in malpractice costs did not include healthcare costs of the individual or corporations.
 
Sfreak, I hate when you send me on wild goose chases, to debunk something you claimed ;)


Here's what the report says:


Source: Congressional Budget Office based on data from the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (data for all physicians) and from annual premium surveys conducted by Medical Liability Monitor newsletter (data for physicians by specialty).


It was a comprehensive survey of doctors. Not just doctors who accept medicare (which is virutally all doctors anyway)
 
Cypress...

"Source: Congressional Budget Office based on data from the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (data for all physicians) and from annual premium surveys conducted by Medical Liability Monitor newsletter (data for physicians by specialty).


It was a comprehensive survey of doctors. Not just doctors who accept medicare (which is virutally all doctors anyway)"

AND???? I did not say anything to the contrary. I said... why are they not looking at the effect malpractice costs have on individual premiums. WHY are they including social security in total healthcare spending costs.? WHY are they looking at total spending anyway? Shouldn't they be looking at the breakdown of doctors visits and finding out how that effects the base cost of healthcare? IF malpractice claims go down and malpractice premiums go down... would that not lower the costs of each doctor/hospital visit... which in turn LOWERS the majority of medicare and medicaid costs? WHY are they not including the costs of ALL healthcare spending in their assessments and not just federal spending?
 
Superfreak said:
Cypress...

"Source: Congressional Budget Office based on data from the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (data for all physicians) and from annual premium surveys conducted by Medical Liability Monitor newsletter (data for physicians by specialty).


It was a comprehensive survey of doctors. Not just doctors who accept medicare (which is virutally all doctors anyway)"

AND???? I did not say anything to the contrary. I said... why are they not looking at the effect malpractice costs have on individual premiums. WHY are they including social security in total healthcare spending costs.? WHY are they looking at total spending anyway? Shouldn't they be looking at the breakdown of doctors visits and finding out how that effects the base cost of healthcare? IF malpractice claims go down and malpractice premiums go down... would that not lower the costs of each doctor/hospital visit... which in turn LOWERS the majority of medicare and medicaid costs? WHY are they not including the costs of ALL healthcare spending in their assessments and not just federal spending?
Click to expand...

Well, I sound like a broken record but I even question the premiums that we are paying. We should look into regulating and monitioring how these companies are coming up with premiums to begin with. I suspect that we are over charged and that most insurance companies underpay their liabilities in an untimely fashion.
 
"Well, I sound like a broken record but I even question the premiums that we are paying. We should look into regulating and monitioring how these companies are coming up with premiums to begin with. I suspect that we are over charged and that most insurance companies underpay their liabilities in an untimely fashion."

Not sure how they calculate the premiums. I would be shocked if the insurance companies are any less regulated than the financial services. We have the government and AGs (like former AG spitzer) all over us. That said... most of us are overcharged.
 
Do any of you think that keeping people from suing for medical malpractice will reduce our health insurance premiums or medical costs one penney ?
 
Well I don't it will just be sucked up as profit increases....
And only around 2% in any case.

I guess you don't realize AHZ that doing away with the little guys right to "justice" is part of the NWO do you ?
 
uscitizen said:
Well I don't it will just be sucked up as profit increases....
And only around 2% in any case.

I guess you don't realize AHZ that doing away with the little guys right to "justice" is part of the NWO do you ?
Click to expand...

Well I disagree. if we maintain a free and transparent insurance market, those reduced costs will be passed on to the consumer.

So now you believe in the NWO? Make up your mind.

and most people advocating tort reform are speaking of caps on the punitive portion. Proven damages will still be awarded.
 
uscitizen said:
Ahh so the NWO has convinced you that Tort Reform is not a part of their plan ?

Those sneaky bastiges...
Click to expand...

One their most powerful and influential groups is their phalanx of lawyers, who can, in effect, create public policy with their influence. Tort reform lessens the power of this group.
 
Tort reform lessens the power of the little guys and strengthens the big fish's hold on us. You might want to rethink this a bit.
 
"Tort reform lessens the power of the little guys and strengthens the big fish's hold on us. You might want to rethink this a bit."

Speaking of rethinking.... how about you think on this... IF a jury awards $100 million to someone in a malpractice case... who pays that $100 million?

Do the shareholders of the insurance company pay? Or maybe its the executives of the insurance company?

Or does the insurance company simply raise the rates on individual insurance premiums and malpractice premiums to cover the costs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top