Actually, if healthcare is $2.5T/year of spending, your figure of 11% means it’s… what, $260b per year?
So according to this
it’s more than the annual budget of DHS, Ag, HUD, DOL, DOE, and Education Dept combined. Hardly chump change.
-
A panel of technocrats dispassionately examining incidents? You mean a… death panel?
-
Are you suggesting that we ban patients from obtaining legal representation to help prosecute their malpractice claims?
ETA: Why are you comparing the amount which might theoretically be saved via tort reform with federal budgets? Those are private funds, so unless we presuppose that single-payer healthcare passes the government is not going to be paying much of it, if any.
Once again, the CBO says this: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=441
54 billion over ten years. Less than six billion a year. Is it possible for you to learn? I know you can do this.
-
Sry, you’re pushing the wrong button; nice try though. I’m not one of those people who think that there’s a scheme to put in death panels. I’m actually a realist: I think that there is a finite amount of resources in this country to pay for healthcare (or anything, for that matter), and of course care will be rationed differently under people’s sepcific circumstances.
-
I’m suggesting that the system I’ve described is a whole lot more efficient (and ‘fair’, to go all socialisty on you). The disgusting trial lawyers association (excuse me, “American Association for Justice”), as the Dem sugar daddies, are blocking reasonable change since it puts them out of business.
-
Just using those numbers to give some sense of scale.
-
Fair enough, I suppose - but you have a problem here. What if this dispassionate panel of technocrats issues a silly ruling? We need an appeals process, which brings us back to…
-
The system you’ve described is unconstitutional, then. Any law which removes a plaintiff’s right to counsel would violate the rights of equal protection, due process, and access to the courts, and also violates the constitutional separation of powers.
-
We’ve already got a sense of scale: 5% of the total cost of healthcare. In any event, certainly not enough of a savings to fix the present system.
The CBO’s analysis takes into account only the effect of tort reform on *Federal *healthcare spending, which would only be a portion of the total savings. Given that the DHHS estimated the total cost of medical malpractice suits and defensive medicine at around $260 billion per year, I don’t think a total savings of $100 billion is unreasonable.
Good points here. I think it needs to be said: tort reform wouldn’t do away with courts; it would simply tack a few more rules on what litigants, lawyers, and courts could and could not do.
I will add though that here in Alberta (where we have single-payer health care), a cap on soft tissue injuries was tried and found unconstitutional. I believe Ontario had the same experience, but am not sure. While the cap was in place, however, a great many litigants and their physicians did try to establish soft tissue injuries in such a way that they fell outside the parameters that would subject them to the cap. The point is, that instituting a cap may not necessarily solve the problems, unless you’ve also instituted a way to force everything under it in such a fashion that the constitution is not violated. (Note that to the best of my knowledge, the Canadian constitutional provision that was invoked parallels one of the rights enumerated in the US Bill of Rights, so an American cap may also be found unconstitutional if one is tried.)
One thing that I haven’t seen addressed in the discussion so far (at least, as regards non-malpractice tort lawsuits) is the effect a single-payer scheme can have on tort lawsuits. By way of example, here in Canada, where a single-payer health insurance scheme operated by the different provinces is in place, personal injury lawsuits tend to be much smaller that in the US. There is no need to sue for medical bills, because those are looked after by the single-payer scheme, and it is important to note that the government insurer is prevented by law from subrogating against the at-fault party. Certain treatments that are outside of the single-payer scheme (physiotherapy, chiropractic care, etc.) can be claimed in a lawsuit, and if justified, will be awarded; and awards for pain and suffering, punitive damages etc. are still possible within certain well-defined parameters. But the idea that an uninsured victim can sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars for necessary medical care does not exist, because while the victim may receive hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of care, he or she is always insured.
There’s generally no need to sue for medical bills here, either; most people who are able to obtain care in the first place are already insured. However, jury verdicts tend to be based on the total amount of medical expenditure (multiplied), even if it wasn’t the plaintiffs’ own money.
Well yeah, but we’re discussing federal HCR. I assume local areas would institute their own legislation according to their parochial interests.
Rgr that, but I dont think it’s unconst at all; you choose or do not choose to enter into a contract, either with a private healthcare company/insurance or w/Medicare. I see arbitration-first or arbitration-only clauses in contracts all the time… this would seem to be similar to me.
I agree that tort reform itself isn’t enough to fix it completely, but it’s a huge chunk that is being willfully ignored by the Democratic party, them having been bought off. Too bad that they would trade in their principles for 30 pieces of silver.
what part of “modifying the tort system would account for .5% of medical spending a year” don’t you get?
while we’re at it, let’s make sure doctors and hospitals use the discount wallpaper to decorate their offices, and let’s further make sure that they return to dial up internet access.
Wrong. this is the exact language from the CBO letter:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf
Your cite goes on to say -
And further
and also
Regards,
Shodan
ok… thanks? 
The CBO is commenting on a range of issues with tort reform. They are not only talking about federal spending, but that is a large part of what the document is concerned with. Your assertion that it would only amount to 0.5% is incomplete.
It would be 0.5% from lower malpractice insurance premiums and lower utilization, plus an additional $41 billion from reduced federal spending, plus an increase of federal revenues of $54 billion.
So, assuming that 0.5% is $11 billion per year, over ten years that is $110 billion. Add to that the $41 billion over ten years and $54 billion over ten years, and you wind up with a good chunk of change.
IOW, Congress could reduce the cost of health care by $200 billion over the next decade or so, and we don’t have to raise the tax rates to do it. But they choose not to.
I have a strong feeling that Congress is treating the CBO as they would this Medicare advisory board, which is supposed to impose some discipline on spending. The CBO, who is all non-partisan and reliable when they say Obamacare is not going to increase the deficit (providing they make some cuts, eventually), says that tort reform will reduce the deficit more than trivially. So why won’t Congress do something that will bring down the deficit and hold down health care costs now, instead of Obamacare, that might bring down costs if Congress starts doing something tomorrow they haven’t got the guts to do today?
Regards,
Shodan
Well said. That’s the reason most Democrats don’t believe that HCR will actually lower the deficit. Not the uber lefties on this board, you understand, but normal Americans.
More on that here
Congress will have to cut spending and/or raise taxes to address the deficits of HCR. Congress will have to cut spending and/or raise taxes to address the deficits of Social Security. Congress will have to cut spending and/or raise taxes to address the deficit created by Obama’s stimulus package.
Congress does not have to cut spending or raise taxes to enact tort reform, but that is the only thing they don’t want to do. GO figure.
Regards,
Shodan
HCR as you call is not really reform, it is a bunch of trade offs, most of which will not make any difference, will not stem the tide of ever increasing medical payouts, will not, in fact, do much. Why are we wasting all this time debating something that will do pretty much nothing in the long run. Shouldn’t we be looking at the bigger picture and perhaps debating the causes. No, we just want to politicize and pull talking points out of our ass.
And M4M, you’d asked in post 109 about the longer-term costs. I have been looking for recent CBO numbers about that, and the most recent I can find is July. If you have a more recent link, please send it.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10400/07-26-InfoOnTriCommProposal.pdf
Take a look at page 12. A sliver of what they are saying:
Remember, this is because CBO usually only formally scores costs/effects for the next 10 years. It’s pretty clear to most people that the Dems are trying to game the system by making 99% of the costs (according to CBO) not start paying out until 2014, thereby masking the long term costs of the proposals.
And as Sho likes to say, that’s assuming that those cuts, the hard decisions, actually make it out of Congress on schedule, and are not tinkered with.
Actually I think you’ve conflated some numbers here.
What is summed up in the CBO report is this:
.2% health care spending by lowering malpractice premiums.
.3% health care spending by lowering utilization of services (defensive medicine)
Which totals: 11 billion in 2009 so 110 billion.
On the Federal side there is:
41 Billion savings in Medicare, CHIP, Fed Employees and so on spending.
13 Billion additional tax revenue because the lowered cost of insurance would increase taxable income.
Which totals: 54 billion.
So even if you add the two up (which I’d say isn’t right considering we’re talking about federal dollars here) it totals 154 billion. Which is still a lot of money, but not as much as you’d claimed.
Now, I agree that there should probably be some tort reform enacted, but it isn’t going to make more than a ripple in our healthcare spending.
Yes, but if they did tort reform they’d lose a few Democrat votes and gain no Republican votes. Surely you’re sharp enough to see why they can’t do this right now, right?
It’s easy to see things as simple black and white issues, but the fact is, that there would be no chance of HCR if they did this.