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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (537817)	12/21/2009 12:12:47 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575784

I'm not sure where you got that number but it is NOT EVEN CLOSE. The figure comes from several prominent articles written on the topic, including studies done by the CBO in 2003 and again 2004, which concluded that the savings to the federal goverment for medicaid, medicare and all of the federal health insurance apparatus would represent about $15B over ten years (in 2003) and 2% (in 2004) respectively. The studies went on to say that it was nearly impossible to determine the effect of the legislation on utilization patterns, because of the complex social aspects of the topic. Effects on Defensive Medicine Proponents of limiting malpractice liability have argued that much greater savings in health care costs would be possible through reductions in the practice of defensive medicine. However, some so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients. On the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small. A comprehensive study using 1984 data from the state of New York did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs, even though physicians reported that their practices had been affected by the threat of lawsuits.(14) More recently, some researchers observed reductions in health care spending correlated with changes in tort law, but their studies were based on a narrow part of the population and considered spending for only a few ailments. One study analyzed the impact of tort limits on Medicare hospital spending for patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction or ischemic heart disease; it observed a significant decline in spending in states that had enacted certain tort restrictions.(15) Other research examined the effect of tort limits on the proportion of births by cesarean section. It also found savings in states with tort limits, though of a much smaller magnitude.(16) However, when CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts. Still, the question of whether such limits reduce spending remains open, and CBO continues to explore it using other research methods. cbo.gov Once again, you show yourself to have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. This is the last post with you when your responses are little more than peackockery. Do you want to have an exchange, fine...make your point, post your sources and I will do my best to respond...you want to get your insecurities nourished? go else where. Al