LOL, like insurance rates would remain the same.

Ike,

I don't know more than you do about health care policy because I'm a lawyer. I know more than you because I read.

Your pattern of behavior, shared by most doctors I have interacted with, is to start at the result you want (usually more money for yourself or confirmation that black people are dumb criminals or reinforcement regarding the idea that the best way to help poor people is to give them less money) then engineer a justification for policies that produce the result.

So for example, you want to bitch and moan about the cost of Obamacare but when anyone brings up paying doctors less you get your panties in a bunch and insist they will quit being doctors, which is ****ing absurd and blatantly counter-factual.

Stop arriving at policy choices by seeking confirmation of your deeply immoral, fact-averse view of the world.

Oh look, fly is lying again. This surprises no one. You fought tooth and nail against the doc shortage simply because it was inconvenient for the argument your were making at the time. You spewed so hard you didn't even care about people actually getting treatment. You don't get to talk down to anyone itt.

FOR THE FOURTH ****ING TIME, TEXAS ALREADY HAS HAD CAPS FOR LIKE 12 YEARS. PREMIUMS HAVE NOT GONE DOWN AND COSTS HAVE NOT GONE DOWN

****ING FACTS HOW DO THEY WORK

If a Dr is going to stay in business he has to pass on his operating costs to the end users.

So we want to lower health care costs, but we should not **** care about the costs passed on to customers.

The documentary Hot Coffee had a section on this as well and they concluded that tort reform led to no reductions in costs to patients.

Pretty gross results. Need to get way more people to sign up.

Please cite, because the articles I have read indicate it has.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../03/303718.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice




But also keep in mind that Texas does not have a hard cap. It only caps noneconomic losses (pain suffering...) Most proponents want something like what Nebraska has, which caps everything at 1.750 Million.

That article confirms what I already said - that there are fewer suits and lower payouts.

What it doesn't say, because it isn't true, is that health care premiums for consumers and aggregate cost have decreased.

So doctors & hospitals, special snowflakes that they are, should not be required to make their victims economically whole again! And if they are, well by god that's not real tort reform! Just ****ing brilliant.

Wait wait wait, you're going off aggregate cost? So if the downward price pressure of tort reform doesn't overwhelm the various upward price pressures on health care it didn't work????

The caps, afaik, do not effect making people economically whole. They affect punitive damages. Although I will cede to the lawyers on this one.

I enjoy hearing righties saying that the way to reduce health care costs is to 'reform' people's constitutional right to a fair trial by their peers.

Hey, let's also reduce gun violence by 'reforming' peoples supposed right to bear arms.

Ike even you are smart enough to find google and realize what I obviously meant, which is that the rate of increase in costs is not lower in tort reform jurisdictions. Shockingly, doctors, hospitals and insurance companies are the beneficiaries. Consumers, not so much.

Yea it needs to be a lot lower.

In FL it was mostly insurance companies who benefitted. There are lots of docs who still can't afford med/mal insurance and choose not to carry it. They have signs posted prominently in their waiting rooms informing patients of this. Not sure if the sign is a requirement.

You are right. lololabob seems to think this doesn't go far enough though.

It's pretty damn rich to accuse someone else of being lolol after falling on your face. Bob actually nailed exactly what happened.

Your analogy is dumb. Despite gun ownership being a right it is still subject to regulation. There are plenty of other industries, specifically vaccination and aviation that have a much more sensical approach to liability.

If we're going the technocrat route, I'd love to see blanket immunity for any health care provider reporting a medical error within 48 hours (aviation does something similar) and have people paid out of a fund paid into by health care providers.

My current biggest problem with out malpractice system is that it strongly discourages doctors disclosing mistakes (hint: NOT negligence). This makes it a lot harder to come up with various QIs

Can we have Obamacare for pets? End of life care is expensive. Tempted to build an oxygen tank myself for less cost.

Texas capped more than just punitive, ikes, seattle was hypothetically discussing replacing punitive awards to the victim with civil/criminal charges. And to echo something earlier, that's not something I know because I'm a lawyer. It's not something I know because I researched the issue extensively. That's something I know because there are like 3 links to articles about it on this ****ing page. That **** takes literally seconds.

Again, through the magic of giving the absolute mininum amount of **** to click a link and briefly skim,

"But, said Hyman, who worked on health policy for President George W. Bush at the Federal Trade Commission, "we found no evidence that Texas spending went up slower in comparison to all other states and may have had an increase."
The researchers said their study suggests that Medicare payments to doctors in Texas rose 1 to 2 percent faster than the rest of the country, Black said.""

LOL I know you really do want more money, and part of you has to be terrified that you'll ikes it up something awful once you start treating patients fulltime:

But that's your problem, not mine.

Anyway, back to the topic, here's a Slate article about a special election that is being lol promoted as the latest "referendum on Obamacare", just like every other election since 2009.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...want_to.2.html

There's a big ole' block quote that is really everything about the state of American politics circa 2014:
ikes too bad you're already married, this lady seems like she's a real keeper.

lol?

Who gives a flying **** if med mal insurance rates went down if PATIENTS didn't see any savings? The EXPRESSED reason for passing all this garbage tort reform legislation was to CONTROL HEALTHCARE COSTS FOR CONSUMERS. This legislation, pretty much everywhere it's been passed, has demonstrably NOT done that.

And I was responding to lololbob's notion that capping financial awards that make victims financially whole is a good idea, anyway, so you're obviously paying so little attention that you're responding to the wrong person itt.

Jesus ****ing Christ it's like debating toddlers.

Did not say what I supported.

But, if ACA stays in place, it would make sense to cap future meds. (economic loss) Probably in the top two most expensive with loss of earnings capacity as the other.

Why give someone the 100,000's of their future meds, when they will be able to still obtain insurance at a fraction of the cost?

So this was just a non-post

? +juan?

What do you support exactly?