The new BO health care plan (Page 6)

Ding Ding Ding we have a WINNER!

Lawyers.

And here it is....the medical establishment brings up "tort reform".  "Tort reform" (what ever that means) will do nothing to lessen the health care costs.  (Usually "tort reform" means capping damages in some way shape or form, which of course limits the liability of doctors and drug companies.  Obviously, if I was a doctor or a drug company I'd be in favor of tort reform too)  The reality is that in states that have some type of cap to damages the cost of health care was uneffected after the imposition of those caps. (In Fla. after caps were instituted the average cost of health care actually rose, and has continued to rise.) Additionally, a Harvard study showed that the cost to the health care system of tort actions represents less than 1% of the total health care system costs.  (And just to the doctors that are reading this, here's an interesting tid bit, your malpractice insurance rates have no actual relationship to actual tort actions.  Malpractice liability insurance is the most profitable causualty insurance for insurance companies.  Your'e paying for insurance company profits.  That's right, the highest rate of profits is for medical malpractice insurance!!)  Interestingly, another Harvard study estimated that less than 20% of all negligently injured patients ever file any type of civil suit.  And of those that do file less than 5% actually recover.

Is tort reform needed, probably.  But that's simply because all systems need tweeking over time. 

However, it defies reality to assert that the major reason for high cost health care is tort issues.  But, it's easy to blame attorneys, we're easy targets (And I don't practice in this area of the law, I'm a prosecutor).

Oh also, in Fla. when the medical industry was fighting for damage caps a second initiative was placed for a vote, This initiative would have required Doctors to have their license to practice medicine revoked if they were found to have been grossly negligent on three seperate occassions.  The medical establishment fought this.  Go figure.

The reality is that Health Care and all it encompasses is BIG PROFITABLE business.  And no one wants to give up their slice of the pie.  They would agree to reform but it's always the other guy that is the problem.

Has health care costs gone down in Texas?  The last data I showed was a resounding "no".  That like all other states the cost of Health care to the consumer has continued to rise steadly in line with the national average.  So, you're keeping more of your money due to a reduction in your med. mal. premium.  But your industry hasn't passed that savings on to the consumer.  If I am right about the numbers, I think this actually adds to my argument that the legal professions role in the health care costs is minimum at best.

(I don't know if you have personally.  If you have fantastic.  But your industry as a whole has not)

Specifically to DerekL:

I'm not advocating taking or capping doctors salaries.  I'm not blaming the medical profession for the health care crisis.  That would be like blaming solely the insurance industry or the drug companies or the legal profession.  The point I was trying to make is that all sectors of the "Health Care" industry are to blame.  Focusing on one part or the other as the central "cause" of the problem is disengenious.

For years people have been pointing at the legal profession and arguing or asserting that it is the cost of med. mal. suits that is driving up the cost of health care.  The reality is that it is not true.  At least it is not true to extent that this portion of the puzzle is the major contributing factor.  The number and amount of successful med. mal claims is infentesimally small compared to the other pieces of the puzzle.

As an attorney I would agree to tort reform if the medical provider industry (Doctors, hospitals) also agreed to reform.  Also you shouldn't agree to reform unless the insurance industry agrees to reform.  Likewise the insurance industry shouldn't agree to reform unless the drug companies agree to reform.  It's all interwoven.  Each part plays against each other, and in turn each part plays one another against each other in the court of public opinion.  And all of the industries do so in an attempt to protect their own self interests ($$$$$$)

My previous post may have come off snarkie and as a personal attack on you and your profession.  I didn't mean it that way.  Iwas simply trying to look at the component numbers.

(1) The AMA and the Drug Companies and Medical Industry exercise no power in the political process.  Riiiighghghtttt..... Your industry has absolutely no lobbyists!!!!  Seriously?

(2)  You've mis stated my argument.  I NEVER said that tort issues "don't affect" costs.  Never said it,  because I don't beleive it.

(3) What I said was that the role of tort issues in the Health Care system costs is in truth negligible compared to other factors.

(4) My point is, and I'll make it clear, that the medical provider industry and the drug companies have attempted to, and successfully, shifted the blame from themselves to lawyers.  They have actively argued that the major cost to the Health Care system is tort issues.  This is a claim that is not based in reality. Over and over it has been demonstrated, independently of the various bar associations, that tort issues comprise only the smallest fraction of health care costs.  However, this shift in perception against bad old rich lawyers, has allowed the medical providers to  lobby for, and have in many states successfully pushed through damage caps. 

(5) Is there a cost to the health care system for litigation and tort issues: Yes.  Is it the major cost....Not even close.  Blaming the lawyers for the high cost of health care is a smoke screen and subtrafuge. 

We were typing at the same time.

You go cure someone, I'll go put a criminal in prison!

I think that one thing that we can come to agreement on out of this discussion is that trying to solve this issue and put out a plan in one summer is an absolute recipe for disaster.  You can say you want a universal system all you want but the complex interdependency of all of the stakeholders will take a long time to sort out.  Looks like a 5 year plan, not a 5 month plan.  I firmly believe in the ideals behind Canada's system but after 40 years we are still trying to figure things out.  Good luck getting it right in 5 months.