Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tonto who wrote (674765)	3/11/2005 8:19:59 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

So... one study shows capping tort rewards could potentially save "7.2 percent to 12.7" of the total medical spend. Another shows 1%. (And, as I recall, the California before-and-after-tort reform analysis showed no significant change in the ever-rising cost of medical care after they capped tort recoveries... same with a few other States such as, apparently, the latest study showed for Texas....) I'm fine with making some reforms to the tort process... but with such a small portion of rising medical costs attributable to tort actions alone --- perhaps 10% or less --- one wonders where are all the grand plans for restraining the OTHER 90% or so of the rising costs. What's being ignored? Insurance reform? Reform of the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, and health delivery organizations? Patent reform (perhaps Congress should stop endlessly entending drug patents)? Deployment of more IT in health delivery to cut back on needless mistakes? Medical professional organizations taking the lead on separating out the 5% of the doctors and nursing professionals who cause 50% of the claims, so safe practioners can benefit from lower insurance rates (the same as is done for auto insurance)? Etc., etc., etc. Where are the other 'big hits' for the remaining 90% or 90%+ of the problem?