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 (674777)	3/12/2005 3:23:24 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Like I said: 'zero to 12.7%', or '1% - 10%' is an area that can help get costs under control --- but that ALONE will have little measurable effect on lowering our ever-soaring health care costs (as the Texas and California studies illustrate). Think about the statistics for a moment: If we accept the results indicated from a broad range of studies, say as to the TOTAL impact of ALL tort cases (forgetting for now the beneficial effect on lowering long-term health costs that negatively incenting bad medical practices has... the same sort of beneficial effect on the nation's health that penalizing toxic environmental pollution has, for example), no, if we focus just on ONE SIDE of the ledger, and look at the COSTS of tort actions against participants in the medical profession... most studies put that 'cost' at 1% to 10% of the total health care dollar. Since all the proposed 'tort reform' plans that are out there don't actually BAN tort actions --- they merely put a federal or state cap on the awards --- then one cannot expect to ever 'save' ALL of that '1% - 10%', but merely a FRACTION of it... because cases will continue, just with a cap on awards. So, what are we looking at? 1/4 or 1/3 of '1% - 10%' at BEST? (And that, of course, still ignores any beneficial effects that dis-incenting bad behavior has on health consequences....) I'm fine with working for that small gain --- BUT WHAT ABOUT THE 95% OR SO OF THE REST OF THE RISING COSTS??????? Isn't it time to address all of the OTHER PROBLEMS that underlie the vast majority of rising costs as well?