Nobody said we should protect bad doctors. Where did you get that from? Tort reform won't protect bad doctors - but it will protect good ones.

Also - why no response on the previous issues - the "insurance mandate" discussed previously? Do you concede the point that the blog you posted is invalid?

It costs serious money to bring in expert witnesses, pay lawyers, subpoena records, etc in a malpractice suit. If you limit damages, you make it less likely that someone is going to go to the expense of bringing a case and you protect bad doctors. I do not agree with limiting the right to seek relief through our legal system.

And how is it invalid? It shows that there's a history of the government mandating someone purchase health insurance. Is it a direct and exactly the same comparison? No, of course not. But that's not the point. The point is that the framers believed that the government had a basis for being in the health insurance business.

True..the first this is $$$$$ but the reality it is a bit different. The emotional and physical toll it took on my dad who was a ER physician was incredible. He had two congestive heart failures. One silent heart attack. The 12 hour shifts took their toll. Pronouncing children dead and telling the parents took their toll. Telling an elderly women her husband has passed took their toll. The boys detention center across the street would often bring over bodies of boys who hung themselves. He had to legally pronounce them dead. Believe it or not...there is a human inside the doctor who suffers triumph and tribulation just like any other human. They react just the same. It is not like see on TV with George Clooney. Far from it. I know...did a 12 hour shift with my dad once. My dad was known at the hospital by the nurses as "The Baby Saver.' He would not stop until every last resource and bit of knowledge was used to save a baby. Money did not matter. Nothing matter....just life for that baby.

My mother who works in Trauma - that sounds a lot like the things she deals with.

and people say they should make less money?

please.

i say what they do make is barely enough.

My dad never made over 100k a year. People fail to realize malpractice insurance coverage is in the 100k region for million dollar or more policy. That is not a cheap policy.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide a link. I didn't find that specific claim and the fact that they are still around speaks volumes about their actions and the actions of the state.

Well, that's one of the things I'm against. And yes, I'll give it to you that such behaviour is unethical, but it is also necessary; if you dont do it, someone else will and you're out of business.

My point is that so long as the state has the power to intervene on their behalf, it will always be a target, and it will always be like that. Big companies have armies of highly-paid, highly trained professionals whose only function is to manipulate the government you would give power to for their own ends.

I have faith in democracy and the average voter, but let's be honest, they're nothing against purpose-built lobbyists; and that is especially true when you consider the people they are talking to. Politicians are not purpose-built social servants, they are purpose-built vote-getters. All it takes to get them to vote for something that will become law for generations is a good spin-doctor, and that's not taking into account normal Washington politics.

The free market works pretty well for everything else, why not let it run the healthcare system? It isn't perfect, but it generates wealth to enable the successful to help those who slip through the cracks, and it can't be perverted (for long) by convincing words or kickbacks or political stunts. In a free market, at the end of the day the responsibility lies with the consumers, who should be able to take responsibility for themselves and with whom any kind of real responsibility must lie anyways.

We can agree to disagree, but unless you have some system to ensure that only well-qualified saints dictate the terms of national policy, I'll place my faith in the fact that people don't buy bad products twice and that they tell their friends about it.

Oh, well. Even if we don't agree, thanks for listening to my side of the case and taking the time to voice your opposition. I appreciate anyone who doesn't simply accept things without question. We could discuss this further, but odds are I'll just end up repeating myself since I've mostly presented my case already, and nobody wants that. If you've anything further to add, though, I'd be happy to hear it.

Mookie - your killing me here. There is nothing in the entire legislation - and I challenged you to point it out if it were - about insurance or purchasing ANYTHING. It was an tax on those carrying out international trade - nothing to do with insurace or the purchase of a good or service by those involved. Show me otherwise. As for the government being involved in the health care business - they were specifically setting up a hospital for "sick and injured sailors" - man alive - look at the timeframe - this was the beginnings of the formation of the VA. Why would sailors be injured? Could it be from having fought a war? This was taxing international trade to fund a VA hospital - not getting into health insurance. Sheesh.

Really - data and facts? This statement comes right after you link 2 articles - one that states:

"The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true"

and then admits the "experts" they talk to "estimate" amounts ("Insurance costs about $50-$60 billion a year, Baker estimates") with absolutely NO fact based studies to refer to. What is he basing this on? In other words - they disagreed with 2 studies that HAVE been done - so they find a guy to make his own "guestimates" based on their own viewpoints. Yea - thats "data and facts". Oh - the other link - its called a BLOG. Those don't count as data and facts either.

The article you linked was Baker giving his own out of his arse guess on costs, yet it does at least mention 2 studies that point some of the excessive costs. But the point of the article - and yours along with it - fail to have any source other than some fella's personal opinion and guess.

Let's deal in Data and Facts - show me studies that show where such reform would not assist (and its no panacea by any means - I know that) in reducing the costs of health care. Oh wait - you can't - because there aren't any.

Just like there are no references to insurance or the mandated purchase of a good or servince in the 1798 act.

Its sad that healthcare should be profit based in the first place. Your health is a right, not just a privilege like a new car or a T.V.

its a lot like college.

Education and health are two things that should never be profit driven, or allowed to have prices skyrocket like they are currently. I still wonder why our government allows this madness

K-12 education is a right. College is not, and it is entirely profit-driven.

What the heck are you talking about? It's an interview with a professor who studies this stuff. But you discount it because it's posted on a NYT blog. WTF? If you make comments like this, then I think the debate's about done.

There aren't any that you wish to believe. Go ahead and write Professor Baker and tell him what's wrong with his research. Don't worry, I'll wait.

Psst: your Semmelweis reflex is showing...

Done here.

Totally agree. When it comes to the lives of people, it is the governments duty to protect life. We go to war over so called self interest, it would seem the, pain, suffering and death of millions of US citizens would be such an interest when it can be denied by those seeking mass profit.


As I stated earlier, medicine has becompe a political based monopoly, the whole health spectrum is driven now by mass profits, Doctor's, Insurance, Pharma and Lawyers getting rich off all.

The GOP is big on stopping abortions because of life, yet they have no problem denying life after your born.

Course that's how you create two class cultures, create a system by law where only the elite can have either. In the end it doomed any nation that's tried it.

but why is that? To get almost any kind of job over minimum wage now you need at least 4 year degree.

maybe when you were younger you could go work at gm or something takeda, but its not anymore.

I don't have a really good answer for that. And you are right; nowadays an undergraduate degree is practically a minimum if you don't want to end up in a dead-end job making minimum wage for the rest of your life. The masters degree is the new bachelors degree, and the doctorate is the new masters degree. If this trend continues, your children will likely need a doctorate if they want to compete for the highest-paying jobs.

I dunno if thats even right. Doctorates are getting more common too. Maybe they need to make an even higher level

I vote uber super doctor :O:

This is why this beast has to go away:

Oh god, don't make me go back to school again.

:haha::wah: Same here. I took a community ed Korean class, and after two sessions I though to myself "what the hell am I doing here!":dead:

While apparently Mookie has decided to avoid a serious discussion on this issue, I would like to inform some of the readers regarding the points he - and by extension - the person quoted in the article/blog he linked were making.

Now, Its important to actually read the blog/interview, since the first thing one notes is that it is dated 2009. Sounds fairly recent - but the latest medical data study (not costs study) that the good Dr. Baker could point to was 1996. Hmm wait a second - thats 15 year old data. Well, it gets better - or worse, depending on your perspective. Dr. Baker is a "critic" of tort reform - in other words - he is perfectly HAPPY with the system as it is. Wonder why? Well, could it be because he is a professor of LAW and Health Services? In other words, he teaches lawyers - who are the ones that get the nice big contingency fees for such cases. He teaches folks like John Edwards, who by "channeling" the spirit of a dead child, made over a million dollars in contingency fees for a malpractice suit.

So now that its clear that the Dr. Baker has a reason to not want tort changes, lets look at his data for arguing against it. After all, judging an argument on the desires of the person is unwise - their facts may hold water. Dr. Baker is correct on some things - for example 2.1 Trillion dollars was spent on health care in 2007. He then quotes the Towers Perrin Study saying Tort Costs totaled 30.4 Billion, or 1 to 1.5 percent of the total costs. Dr Baker is telling an out and out LIE here - the 2008 update for the total tort costs in 2007 from Towers Perrin is not 30.4 Billion, but 252 Billion. Verify this at:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...j-eJdxTYkg34qA

If you prefer not to use the google doc viewer - just google TOWER PERRIN TORT and read it yourself. I will quote it here (page 5):

$252 billion is nearly over 10% of the TOTAL costs in 2007. Yet this is only the TORT costs - it doesn't even take into account the increase in insurance premiums the doctors - and thus by extension - we the consumers - pay. Considering the same study notes that insurance premiums have risen beyond the rate of inflation - the link between excessive RISK of tort claims and the increases in costs cannot be ignored.

Tort reform is not a panacea for health care. Anyone who thinks it is could not be more wrong. But - taking on a segment of costs that is more than 10% right now, plus the (very conservative) 7% extra defensive medicine costs, along with the decrease in risk exposure insurers would face - could easily equate to a 20%-25% drop in costs. Is it a total fix? No way. But knocking about 1/4 of the costs off is a really good start!

Why did Dr. Baker lie? I don't know. But look at the CBO's numbers from 2007 - then look at Towers Perrin. 10% is nothing to sneeze at - and when your talking the associated savings as well, tort reform is a major piece of the puzzle.

The only folks who don't like the idea of tort reform seem to be those in the law field, or those who get suckered into taking someone's word as gospel.

EDIT: Ah nevermind. It's probably best I excuse myself from the "debate" altogether. Too much to take and make personal here.

I wish there was a way to weed out the frivolous lawsuits vs the legitemate ones.

For point two, just sic Teddy the trust-buster on them.