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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (72489)	9/22/2009 9:38:47 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224884

Yep, we need to learn from a sleazy, slimy malpractice attorney like Patricia. You are so damned funny and you don't even realize it. Interesting how you quote the insider, money makers in two businesses without concern that their opinions are rooted in their pocketbooks.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (72489)	9/23/2009 7:32:23 AM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224884

Headlines: Obama mania waning... Of course it is. We already know that. Too many disappointments.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (72489)	9/26/2009 6:54:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 224884

Public Citizen found that malpractice litigation costs amount to less than 0.6 percent of overall health-care spending Which is a lot of money considering how big health care spending is. And I'm not sure I would consider the statement by Public Citizen to be anywhere close to definitive here. More importantly, direct litigation costs are not the majority of costs that we need to consider here. Defensive medicine is probably the highest cost, also insurance costs that over the long run have to be higher than the liability costs, because the insurance companies have to pay their costs and make a profit. And competition is lowered in some areas as people in the specialties with the highest malpractice insurance costs, who also live in states with the least limits on medical torts, tend to move or shut down their practice. This is itself a cost, and also works to increase prices. No empirical evidence demonstrates that defensive medicine exists. That's not just false its ridiculous. The idea that extra tests are ordered only to protect from fictitious lawsuits Is a false and irrelevant idea. They are to protect from real or potential lawsuits not fictitious ones. And few would say that fear lawsuits is the only reason for unneeded tests, its just one important reason. And its not just tests. More risky procedures can be performed because of a series of lawsuits based on doctors not using those procedures. Check out John Edwards and his contribution to the increase in C-Sections. Let's focus on what has been proven to reduce costs and improve lives — eliminating preventable errors Of course we should work to such reduce errors (they can never be eliminated, so calling for their elimination is empty rhetoric), but we can do so while also working for a more sane liability system. rather than giving up fundamental rights Tort reform doesn't involve giving up fundamental rights.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (72489)	9/26/2009 10:30:16 PM
From: MJ	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224884

Kenneth There are many facets to reducing cost-----the writer has one aspect right but not the other. Decreasing preventable errors (let's call it what it is dead people) is a great idea-----but how to implement decreasing preventable errors. I do find it rather unbelievable that 98,000 preventable errors cost $29,000,000,000.00 dollars. If no lawsuits were filed------ then why the high cost???? (For these preventable errors?) That is almost $300,000.00 per each of the 98,000 preventable errors, 98,000 people dead due to 'preventable errors'. Did the cost occur before the death of the person, or did the cost occur after the death of the people? If people don't sue then why the high cost-----what is in the cost this writer is giving?? How did the writer arrive at this cost? Were there lawsuits involved that drove up the cost of these preventable errors? This doesn't make sense. seattletimes.nwsource.com "The true crisis in medical malpractice is negligent medical care. The Institute for Medicine estimates that more than 98,000 deaths a year are caused by preventable medical errors, making this our nation's sixth-leading cause of death. The cost to the system of these deaths alone is estimated at more than $29 billion dollars annually — twice the cost of the malpractice system as a whole." Sure sounds to me like another Federal Regulatory department in the making-----an increase in government spending----. Is this what the writer is advocating? How would she stop "preventable errors"? Doesn't the prevention belong in the doctors office, the hospital, the nursing home, the operating room? How can the Federal Government be in all of those places simultaneously without a substantial increase in $ spent on an increased beauracracy????? And, why should the Federal govenment be in these places? mj