Off Topic Poker Forums

I think tort reform is a bit over-stated; but, I've been told by one of my friends that studied medicine abroad (and is a HUGE liberal) that in those other countries, healthcare is cheaper because "they don't have to worry about getting sued". I was a bit surprised by her comment. Generally, I'd view tort reform as minor in comparison to prodigious costs shifts and other distortions.

That's total utter BS!
If you sue an individual, how does that increase your cost of healthcare?
Doctors also carry malpractice insurance for that very reason, and that has nothing at all to do with health insurance premiums.

But tort reform applies to ALL torts not just medical.
So basically lets use this totally hypothetical example here.

Stu, you and your beautiful wife decide to buy your first house. 2 miles away is a DuPont chemical plan. Well life is going great, and you guys decide it's time to start a family. While your wife is pregnant you guys both start getting sick. You figure that it's just a bug that's going around and no big deal. However whenever your child is born, he's born with some unusual birth defects.

Not too long after the birth, your wife's condition worsens and eventually she dies. You feel that your health is actually getting worse too. You come to find out the DuPont plant has been ventilating toxic chemicals, which just happen to blow down wind to your house.

Now your wife is dead, your kid needs lifelong care, and you're in bad shape yourself.
Well you live in a tort reform state, and guess what.... You can only sue Dupont for 300k. After lawyer fees you might have half of that. 150k, guess that's the pricetag on the life of you, your wife, and son.

That's how tort reform works.

Not to mention a jury still has to rule in your favor. Additionally against a corporation (who is legally an individual) torts are your ONLY redress for wrongs. You can't throw DuPont in jail, so you sue them for punitive damages. You punish them by hurting them financially.

Create a public health insurance. If you don't have a job it is free. If you have a job it is paid by the employer.

Use the public hospitals to measure the costs of the different treatments. Treatments at private hospitals are then covered by the insurance if and only if they are in the same price range as equivalent treatments at the public hospitals.

i'm softening on the idea of universal health care. cold logic says poor people should just suck it up, but i don't want to defend this logic anymore. i am human after all.

as for this solution, it seems like it's on the right track, but only because it seems to be an attempt to create pseudo-competition. and there's an assumption that the cost of public hospitals should be the benchmark.

if the costs of the public hospitals are skewed in one direction or other, then it simply spreads the same distortion into the private hospitals.

maybe if this model was tweaked so that the lowest cost, best servicing hospitals, regardless of ownership, gets the most funding? say if people were given some amount X to spend on health care at whatever provider they wanted--like school vouchers. it creates incentives for hospitals to lower costs and provide better service without a central authority. maybe there is a system like this somewhere already?

Can't believe the Supreme Court even upheld this. Feel sorry for people living in the fascist dictatorship USA is becoming.

Can't believe the Supreme Court even upheld this. Feel sorry for people living in the fascist dictatorship USA is becoming.

Agree with this, but I think it's a different debate perhaps.

If you sue an individual, how does that increase your cost of healthcare?

The first thing we must acknowledge is that there's no such thing as "free" anything. ALL COSTS are shifted from someplace. Universal health care would not be free, nor would current taxes pay for such a thing. Addressing your comment per se, all costs, including law suits paid by insurance and not doctors, are shifted. Guess who pays... I wasn't one to believe that tort made any difference, but somehow my friend that studied in Europe was under the impression that medical expenses were cheaper there due MOSTLY to tort... there's no way this can be true, but I am cognizant that any expenses (including tort) will ultimately increase the input cost which eventually makes its way to the customer.... so if we say insurance will be paid by employer, for example, it's actually paid by the worker. Taxes paid by a corporation are actually paid by the customer. Real estate taxes paid by a landlord are actually paid by the tenant and so forth.... the person doing the paying is the one holding the bag. the one earning the money isn't (generally speaking)

Yeah don't want to derail the thread with a debate about that, just had to voice my displeasure about Obama "Care" or lack thereof & Dictator Obama.

Agree with this, but I think it's a different debate perhaps.


The first thing we must acknowledge is that there's no such thing as "free" anything. ALL COSTS are shifted from someplace. Universal health care would not be free, nor would current taxes pay for such a thing. Addressing your comment per se, all costs, including law suits paid by insurance and not doctors, are shifted. Guess who pays... I wasn't one to believe that tort made any difference, but somehow my friend that studied in Europe was under the impression that medical expenses were cheaper there due MOSTLY to tort... there's no way this can be true, but I am cognizant that any expenses (including tort) will ultimately increase the input cost which eventually makes its way to the customer.... so if we say insurance will be paid by employer, for example, it's actually paid by the worker. Taxes paid by a corporation are actually paid by the customer. Real estate taxes paid by a landlord are actually paid by the tenant and so forth.... the person doing the paying is the one holding the bag. the one earning the money isn't (generally speaking)

I definitely agree, it all gets paid forward.
However as far as I know just about everywhere in Europe still has a civil court system =)

But I've never heard of an MD going out of business due to litigation costs.
Many of the lecturers for my courses (my degree is legal studies) have all said they can count on one hand how many plaintiff verdicts they've seen in medmal cases.

N0where:
Pharma companies know they're selling 100% useless products. Statin drugs (that lower cholesterol) don't prolong life, or even do anything beneficial. The disclaimer right on every commercial reads "does not prevent heart attacks". Statin drugs are the MOST prescribed drug in the world.

Research shows:
1. There's no casual relationship between cholesterol and heart disease.
2. Statins provide NO NONE, not 1 iota of benefit at all to women, or anybody over 50. In fact in people over 50, and women, higher cholesterol leads to LONGER life.

2 things:
1) I don't disagree with you, but man you gotta have a citation in there somewhere.
2) None of what you say is related in any way to the point I was making.

That's total utter BS!
If you sue an individual, how does that increase your cost of healthcare?
Doctors also carry malpractice insurance for that very reason, and that has nothing at all to do with health insurance premiums.

But tort reform applies to ALL torts not just medical.
So basically lets use this totally hypothetical example here.

Stu, you and your beautiful wife decide to buy your first house. 2 miles away is a DuPont chemical plan. Well life is going great, and you guys decide it's time to start a family. While your wife is pregnant you guys both start getting sick. You figure that it's just a bug that's going around and no big deal. However whenever your child is born, he's born with some unusual birth defects.

Not too long after the birth, your wife's condition worsens and eventually she dies. You feel that your health is actually getting worse too. You come to find out the DuPont plant has been ventilating toxic chemicals, which just happen to blow down wind to your house.

Now your wife is dead, your kid needs lifelong care, and you're in bad shape yourself.
Well you live in a tort reform state, and guess what.... You can only sue Dupont for 300k. After lawyer fees you might have half of that. 150k, guess that's the pricetag on the life of you, your wife, and son.

That's how tort reform works.

Not to mention a jury still has to rule in your favor. Additionally against a corporation (who is legally an individual) torts are your ONLY redress for wrongs. You can't throw DuPont in jail, so you sue them for punitive damages. You punish them by hurting them financially.

This is a pretty extreme and nearly impossible example- I deal with the EPA every day and let me assure you these people are insane- you can"t take a leak outside without some ass hole bureaucrat showing up to sniff it.

The current system is basically this- You show up with a fever and a headache, Dr. sends you home with aspirin saying give it a week see if it goes away instead of running $40K in crazy tests. You turn up with some 1 in a million rare disease that cripples/kills you, now you are suing and even if you lose the Dr./ his insurance company is out a ton in legal fees, if you win there is serious millions in cost to be paid.

This isn't so much about the rare disease but the 999,999 ridiculous tests from the scared Docs that is the real cost.

I definitely agree, it all gets paid forward.
However as far as I know just about everywhere in Europe still has a civil court system =)

But I've never heard of an MD going out of business due to litigation costs.
Many of the lecturers for my courses (my degree is legal studies) have all said they can count on one hand how many plaintiff verdicts they've seen in medmal cases.

aren't hospitals usually sued not individual doctors? i'm not sure since i haven't watched HOUSE M.D. in a while.

anyhoo... http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/230642/malpractice-litigation-and-cost-health-care/avik-roy

uh oh... http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/obamacare-fail-tort-reform-malpractice-insurance-costs-crippling-medicine-article-1.452167 (according to this the avg premium for medical malpractice insurance for a N.Y. based neurosurgeon is 76k a year? whaaa?)

seems to be a rock and hard place situation we got here. yeah, it's a mess. or maybe these scamming docs are just making excuses?

Sneakers, you really piledrived this nail on the head.

2. No, there is not a free market for health insurance. If there was, we would all be able able to shop around -- across state borders. Yes, Stupid Governments again. They think they are the smartest and overregulate everything. In the end, no one can enter the market except those with really really deep pockets. Open the state borders to purchase/sell insurance, and prices would drop.

If they opened the insurance market across state borders, you don't think all the insurance companies would find the states with the best (for them) requirements and operate from there? It's not a coincidence that all the credit card companies operate out of Delaware.

If they opened the insurance market across state borders, you don't think all the insurance companies would find the states with the best (for them) requirements and operate from there? It's not a coincidence that all the credit card companies operate out of Delaware.

Consumers would choose the insurance that fits there needs.

The other side of the coin is that for a company to have access to all 50 states, they must have an office in every state (minimum). Thus the reason for deep deep pockets when a company wants to go into any over-regulated artificially segmented market.
EDIT: as it is headed, the Federal government will have a 50-state monopoly, while the private-sector is regulated out of full markets (vs state-by-state).

As for scoffing at controlling all of the lawsuits (sniffles -> lawsuit)......
......Well, we are all now the proud shareholders of any lawsuits made to the Fed system (Obamacare). We will not be able to sue some rich company.....we will be suing ourselves everytime (as we are now the insurance company). But many will never understand the math. Debt does matter (private and govt).
Like a huge stormcloud feeding itself......s*** will start breaking.

2 things:
1) I don't disagree with you, but man you gotta have a citation in there somewhere.
2) None of what you say is related in any way to the point I was making.

how about an article? http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0404.brownlee.html

it's gotta be true, i read it on the internet!

seriously, people need to stop thinking doctors are benevolent, all-knowing wizards cloaked in their +1 healing white wizard robes but simply over-educated body technicians. call them on their bs, and educate ourselves!

However as far as I know just about everywhere in Europe still has a civil court system =)

She specifically talked to me about this. What she said was that due to healthcare being government owned and operated coupled with the fact that the government operates/presides over the court system, effectively when you sue, they just decide what they'll do or won't do.
In other words, you have a lot less legal recourse since they act as the judge and jury!!

She specifically talked to me about this. What she said was that due to healthcare being government owned and operated coupled with the fact that the government operates/presides over the court system, effectively when you sue, they just decide what they'll do or won't do.
In other words, you have a lot less legal recourse since they act as the judge and jury!!

big brother, indeed.

the rest of the world may think the American way of life is brutal and harsh, but damn it, the solutions for each problem in isolation just makes everything worse overall, imho.

i agree there seems to be problem with lawsuits and the cost of doing business for doctors, but i don't think that's government problem to fix, or that government (or intellectuals advising governments today) is smart enough to fix it, especially with more government.

this is pretty tangential, but the financial markets have this same problem in modern society with their ever-increasing complexity and government's desire (read: hubris) to control that complexity with disastrous results. Christmas Trees and the Logic of Growth by Mark Spitznagel

Einstein had it right when he said, “Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.” we need to pull back and let forces smarter than ourselves individually, namely market forces, to bring order to such complex systems.