the cost of healthcare is outrageous. My wife and I pay almost $1000 a month for us and our son. And even with that, I am having neck surgery and have to pay $2000 out of pocket for the hospital alone. That doesn't even include what copays I will have for anesthesiologist and my orthopedic. I almost cancelled the surgery because I can't afford that but hoping the hospital takes small payments per month. The rates in this country are outrageous but I also realize healthcare is expensive. I guess it won't bother me as much when I am not in so much pain in two weeks.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: This thread has a lot of great posts
"subjective reasons" meaning what? Improper reasons? A jury hears a case and awards damages. How do you decide the value of, say, having a pair of legs, above and beyond the impaired ability to earn a living? Because that is what we're talking about. Because people think that the non-economic caps are just on "pain and suffering" and decide that that is too loose a concept and juries are stupid. Except, beyond the issue of questioning jurors who actually sat thru a trial, it's not just pain and suffering. California caps non-econ damages at $250,000, which by statute includes "pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement and other nonpecuniary damage". So where is the fairness in that? Some doctor paralyzes you and all you can get beyond lost income is $250k? Isnt that obviously way too little? No one of sound mind would trade working legs for $250k.
No, subjective is pain and suffering. I would also agree with you that if the mal practice results in the patient's inability to work then that absolutely needs to be considered. What I am talking about here is the $5 million award to someone when there are no real costs that would add up to that.
Although not a mal-practice law suit, the woman who got how many million because she spilled a hot cup of McDonald's coffee in her lap? Pain and suffering...
A doctor is grossly negligent and causes you paralysis below the waist. You're a software programmer so your ability to earn a living is not impaired. You'll have more costs in life as life is more expensive for the wheelchair-bound, so you get that as damages.
Should you get damages for the fact that your life is now way shittier, you cant play sports like you used to, can fuck your wife, you cant take her to small romantic restaurants, you cant pick up your daughter like other fathers, everything physical task takes longer and is harder leaving you exhausted, and you end up depressed because of your shittier life? Because that's what is at issue. Should the victim eat that, or should a doctor (who has insurance for these very reasons) eat that?
healthcare system (model), you cannot keep malpractice/lawsuits at USA levels. Europeans are not suing at the drop of a hat and they certainly have the same medical issues/failures we have. Their court systems have much stricter requirements for lawsuits and they certainly don't allow the fishing that goes on around here. It is a total package that keeps costs reasonable or at least less than our costs. Doesn't mean that true malpractice shouldn't be compensated or the remedy to the medical issue (if possible) corrected at no cost to the patient. Doesn't mean bad doctors should not lose their licenses. But maybe it does mean the 33% plus expenses shouldn't be the standard cost of recovery.
Why? what are the "levels" of med mal spending you perceive. Plaintiff and defendant costs plus payouts are about $10 bn (2010). I dont think there is much growth either -- I've seen that med mal filings are shrinking a lot of places. So $10 bn in a $3.2 trillion industry. I really fail to see the materiality of that.
Then you get to defensive medicine. Some estimates are as high has $50 billion give or take. But you have to buy into the notion that litigation is causing defensive medicine. Doctors certainly say fear of suit leads them to unnecessary testing. But the studies dont back it up. E.g. the RAND study of ERs before and after "tort-reform" showing no difference in testing levels.
Im not saying there arent any changes you can make to the tort system, but it's very functional. Monied interests, notably the AMA (doctors), insurance companies, US Chamber of Commerce (anti-damages suits by consumers, find doctors get more public sympathy than corps), and the GOP (self interest since trial lawyers support Dems) hammer at you on this tort reform issue in ways you dont even realize. They done a good job convincing people that "tort reform" is some big money saver for the system and needed to cure some scourge (I guess of dumb citizens siting on juries??). Dont buy the hype. It's bullshit. The data doesnt lie. Link - ( New Window )
I'd like to read more about Sweden. We hear a lot about the Scandinavian countries. But, the most oft mentioned ones are socialist countries with universal healthcare. I don't think that will ever fly here (although I am not completely opposed to it). So, it would be interesting to see how another capitalist nation handles this type of healthcare.
Realistically, wouldn't we have to move to a fully socialist economy in order to move to fully universal healthcare and education in this nation?
since that is really the only area I can speak with any degree of competence on.
- As was referenced earlier, yes the US does fund the R&D expenses for the rest of the world. This is partially in relation to a "one payer" system many of the European countries have. Also one of the biggest reasons against having a one payer system as many forms of medication are not available in some countries because of how they negotiate.
- Drugs are approximately 10% of the cost of healthcare, which is no where compared to hospitals, physicians's ect. Included within that 10% costs are RD & Marketing associated with manufacturers/innovators and then a very large percentage attributed to distributors (cardinal, mcckesson) and retail chains (cvs, rite aid, etc.). Manufacturers obviously garner the most attention but look at the market cap of the distributers and you will realize they all make more money than any pharma company.
- Product liability is a massive driver of the cost of drugs. The amount of money paid in litigation costs and settlements is staggering. Some of those cases are nefarious but the vast majority are simply a reflection of the way tort law is currently set up and Levine v. Wyeth. You reform product liability tort and you could probably lower drug prices 5%.
Quote:
"subjective reasons" meaning what? Improper reasons? A jury hears a case and awards damages. How do you decide the value of, say, having a pair of legs, above and beyond the impaired ability to earn a living? Because that is what we're talking about. Because people think that the non-economic caps are just on "pain and suffering" and decide that that is too loose a concept and juries are stupid. Except, beyond the issue of questioning jurors who actually sat thru a trial, it's not just pain and suffering. California caps non-econ damages at $250,000, which by statute includes "pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement and other nonpecuniary damage". So where is the fairness in that? Some doctor paralyzes you and all you can get beyond lost income is $250k? Isnt that obviously way too little? No one of sound mind would trade working legs for $250k.
No, subjective is pain and suffering. I would also agree with you that if the mal practice results in the patient's inability to work then that absolutely needs to be considered. What I am talking about here is the $5 million award to someone when there are no real costs that would add up to that.
Although not a mal-practice law suit, the woman who got how many million because she spilled a hot cup of McDonald's coffee in her lap? Pain and suffering...
A doctor is grossly negligent and causes you paralysis below the waist. You're a software programmer so your ability to earn a living is not impaired. You'll have more costs in life as life is more expensive for the wheelchair-bound, so you get that as damages.
Should you get damages for the fact that your life is now way shittier, you cant play sports like you used to, can fuck your wife, you cant take her to small romantic restaurants, you cant pick up your daughter like other fathers, everything physical task takes longer and is harder leaving you exhausted, and you end up depressed because of your shittier life? Because that's what is at issue. Should the victim eat that, or should a doctor (who has insurance for these very reasons) eat that?
Why? what are the "levels" of med mal spending you perceive. Plaintiff and defendant costs plus payouts are about $10 bn (2010). I dont think there is much growth either -- I've seen that med mal filings are shrinking a lot of places. So $10 bn in a $3.2 trillion industry. I really fail to see the materiality of that.
Then you get to defensive medicine. Some estimates are as high has $50 billion give or take. But you have to buy into the notion that litigation is causing defensive medicine. Doctors certainly say fear of suit leads them to unnecessary testing. But the studies dont back it up. E.g. the RAND study of ERs before and after "tort-reform" showing no difference in testing levels.
Im not saying there arent any changes you can make to the tort system, but it's very functional. Monied interests, notably the AMA (doctors), insurance companies, US Chamber of Commerce (anti-damages suits by consumers, find doctors get more public sympathy than corps), and the GOP (self interest since trial lawyers support Dems) hammer at you on this tort reform issue in ways you dont even realize. They done a good job convincing people that "tort reform" is some big money saver for the system and needed to cure some scourge (I guess of dumb citizens siting on juries??). Dont buy the hype. It's bullshit. The data doesnt lie.
Link - ( New Window )
Should you get damages for the fact that your life is now way shittier, you cant play sports like you used to, can fuck your wife,
I'm confused. What do you want damages for?
Realistically, wouldn't we have to move to a fully socialist economy in order to move to fully universal healthcare and education in this nation?
But it doesn't matter. The Koch's are withholding millions from reps who vote no
- As was referenced earlier, yes the US does fund the R&D expenses for the rest of the world. This is partially in relation to a "one payer" system many of the European countries have. Also one of the biggest reasons against having a one payer system as many forms of medication are not available in some countries because of how they negotiate.
- Drugs are approximately 10% of the cost of healthcare, which is no where compared to hospitals, physicians's ect. Included within that 10% costs are RD & Marketing associated with manufacturers/innovators and then a very large percentage attributed to distributors (cardinal, mcckesson) and retail chains (cvs, rite aid, etc.). Manufacturers obviously garner the most attention but look at the market cap of the distributers and you will realize they all make more money than any pharma company.
- Product liability is a massive driver of the cost of drugs. The amount of money paid in litigation costs and settlements is staggering. Some of those cases are nefarious but the vast majority are simply a reflection of the way tort law is currently set up and Levine v. Wyeth. You reform product liability tort and you could probably lower drug prices 5%.