Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obamacare removes choice from the marketplace. If you want a high deductible plan you used to be able to get one, but now the max out of pocket is around $6K. All of the cheaper plans are going to disappear. My plan is $80, but next year a comparable plan is $202; it's $138 for double my deductible.
ETA: I can get plans starting at $40-$50/month for a higher deductible and those plans might be suitable for some people, but those plans will no longer be offered.
Politicians: You can't have a HDP.
Americans: But what if I want a high deductible plan? Politicians: NO SOUP FOR YOU!
Make that Insurance Companies. They wrote that in. Can't make money if the healthy people all sign up for cheap high deductible plans.
tort reform doesnt mean immunizing providers from the consequences of their actions
Yet that is *precisely* how it turns out to work when implemented in the US. Because of caps, some individuals and families are left holding the bag for a lifetime of medical care and supervision because judges and juries' hands are tied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
but what we CAN do is start with a medical board that would review each lawsuit on its merits, and what damages are reasonable.
The only way I could ever support some sort of tort reform is if the *actual* costs of remediation, maintenance and care for the injured individual were totally exempt from any caps whatsoever and were completely ignored by whatever compensation formula was adopted. I'm opposed to any kind of medical tort reform that lets a medical provider escape the 'if not for you' standard of fault and liability.
If a child is rendered brain-damaged at birth due to avoidable medical error, then IMO the liable party or parties should be wholly and completely responsible for the costs of that child's lifetime of care (and should have no say whatsoever in any medical decisions on the child's behalf, including costs).
We can certainly talk about caps on punitive damages, but regrettably, the way tort reform is being pushed in the US, it's clear that its proponents want caps on *actual* damages as well. I'll never accept or support that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
many times doctors are sued for small errors, but they have to pay big money because someone got a boo boo that doesnt mean anything.
Please cite some cases of this. I'm being serious; I'd like to see some examples of medical malpractice cases that involve "big money" being paid out for meaningless 'boo boos.' Links would be great if you could provide them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
its one thing if someone is seriously hurt, and is going to require long term medical care, but it is another thing entirely when someone is slightly injured and sues for millions.
I'd like to see some cases where a plaintiff won 'millions' for a 'slight injury,' please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
there has to be a limit on SOME awards, not all of them.
I think that courts and juries are certainly competent to make decisions on medical malpractice awards. If a jury is competent to impose the death sentence on a murder defendant, then a jury is certainly competent to decide how much an injured patient deserves in their malpractice suit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
and cost reduction IS a sufficient reason to advance tort reform. when it costs the average doctor $200,000 per year just in medical malpractice insurance premiums, something is very wrong.
[/quote]
Sorry, I can't accept that. A basic principle of conservatism is that those who accept increased risk have the opportunity to receive greater rewards. Tort reform attenuates or removes the risk from the medical provider without a concomitant decrease in reward. If doctors want the reward, then they should accept the risk. If they didn't want the risk, then they could have chosen a less risky specialty.
Why does a man need maternity coverage? Why does a woman past child bearing age need maternity coverage? Why?
The answer is because it is mandatory that it be part of any plan.
People are finding out "what's in the bill," and they aren't happy. My wife is reading posts on Etsy, where she sells handmade clothing. She tells me people are angry. And what is so amazing is she says most of these people are 'liberals'!!!
They are finding out what it's going to cost them, before they are even covered! High deductibles, mean that they shell out thousands, before they get anything paid for. This means, for many of them, that they not only can't afford the so-called health plan; they can't afford to go to the doctor!
The ACA is a sham. It doesn't lower costs, and it isn't going to make health care better. Pre-existing condition? Be prepared for an extremely expensive premium.
Call or fax your Congressmen and Senators and demandthe ACA be repealed.
You should totes run a Presidential candidate with that as a declared goal. Hey, wait - you did! How did that work out for you?
And these nightmare scenarios are from the current bunch of people attempting to get coverage from a system that was broken from the word go.
Wait till the November/December corporate provided insurance renewal gets into full swing. Those people already covered are going to get the shock of their lives when premiums triple or quadruple, and deductible/copay amounts triple or quadruple.
How would you like for the plan being offered you is 40% of your current net pay? And the deductible is equal to or greater than your yearly AGI? And that's BEFORE ANY insurance coverage kicks in - and then you will be taxed on any coverage dollars you receive.
What's the use of a policy you can never use?
We have been played.
Repeal the ACA BEFORE they further decimate the healthcare system.
Would you trust a system that invested untold billions in green technology?
The ACA is a sham. It doesn't lower costs, and it isn't going to make health care better.
It's hard to hear over the roar, but perhaps the biggest surprise so far is that the premiums being offered by the exchanges are primarily less expensive than what was predicted, and that many people are being able to find less expensive coverage than what was offered before... if they could even get coverage at all. And the real irony is that many of the people who stand to benefit the most, the "working poor," are protesting the loudest, because they just don't understand it.
To mention only one of the many ways ACA will help us get ... Getting everyone covered by insurance will help to push down costs as healthcare providers have to negotiate with insurers over allowable charges. There's no hope of getting allowable charges under control until there's transparency about the real costs, and what is allowable. That's needed to put an end to the likes of $20 cotton balls and $75 aspirins and $1200 procedure that only cost $75 in other countries which are added to every bill to make up for the uninsured people who pay nothing. Get everything out on the table, with everyone participating in the shared risk, and then we can talk about what are right and reasonable charges.
Quote:
Pre-existing condition? Be prepared for an extremely expensive premium.
You don't seem to understand how this actually works.
I think this is my biggest single frustration with the whole public discussion, that people who don't really know how the law works and what it does keep complaining about it anyway.
I agree with you on having dedicated medical panels for med mal cases. But $200K average premium? I'd say not typical. Of course as an internist I'm low risk, but as a typical doc I pay around $15K a year.
IMO tort reforms should be pursued as we docs have tried for many years. But I don't see tort reforms as lowering overall HC costs much in the long run. Worthwhile indeed, but may be only good for a few percent here and there. For instance it would do little for me and my practice.
I'd favor tort reform more if it were easier to reform a physician's right to ever practice again in the event of malfeasence. I'd favor it more if , in that event, all of his credentials were forever voided. That includes his education. Tie the voiding out to his SS #, and have the info dispersed via everify as well.
I'd favor tort reform more if it were easier to reform a physician's right to ever practice again in the event of malfeasence. I'd favor it more if , in that event, all of his credentials were forever voided. That includes his education. Tie the voiding out to his SS #, and have the info dispersed via everify as well.
Do NOT void his student loans, though.
I have seen it, but malpractice is rarely ever so viscous or nefarious as to warrant such destructive punishment.
It's hard to hear over the roar, but perhaps the biggest surprise so far is that the premiums being offered by the exchanges are primarily less expensive than what was predicted, and that many people are being able to find less expensive coverage than what was offered before... if they could even get coverage at all. And the real irony is that many of the people who stand to benefit the most, the "working poor," are protesting the loudest, because they just don't understand it.
To mention only one of the many ways ACA will help us get ... Getting everyone covered by insurance will help to push down costs as healthcare providers have to negotiate with insurers over allowable charges. There's no hope of getting allowable charges under control until there's transparency about the real costs, and what is allowable. That's needed to put an end to the likes of $20 cotton balls and $75 aspirins and $1200 procedure that only cost $75 in other countries which are added to every bill to make up for the uninsured people who pay nothing. Get everything out on the table, with everyone participating in the shared risk, and then we can talk about what are right and reasonable charges.
You don't seem to understand how this actually works.
I think this is my biggest single frustration with the whole public discussion, that people who don't really know how the law works and what it does keep complaining about it anyway.
Get a grip dude .. People without much money probably know more about money than any of the rest of us do - and they aren't stupid ...
Oh .. I think people are getting a pretty good idea of how things are going to be ..
This is a guy that makes $18,000.00 a year, is married and has one child - no smoking and no pre-existing conditions:
Now .. What was that again about people not knowing the law? ..
With numbers like these you don't need to know the law to know that you're screwed ...
Riddle me this why don't you -- How many people in this nation are going to be forced to accept being on welfare over the next 18 months?
If you aren't a welfare case now - you most certainly will be by the time ObamaCare gets done with you.
Last edited by bigskydude; 10-05-2013 at 10:53 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
