26 states join Obama health care lawsuit in Fla

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
The mandatory clause is a good portion of what will make reform effective in reducing costs. Unless everyone has insurance, society will continue to pay for the costs of the uninsured, and medical costs will continue to rise in order to make up the deficits created by the uninsured who receive treatment. In particular, treatment for catastrophic illness or unexpected injury that requires extensive and long term treatment.
Click to expand...

I've often felt that the biggest culprit in rising health care costs are from various lawsuits. There are malpractice lawsuits, bad drug lawsuits, bad implanted devices lawsuits; the list goes on. Doctors and hospitals end up paying insanely high insurance premiums to cover themselves. That cost is passed down to us.
 
saywhatkid said:
I've often felt that the biggest culprit in rising health care costs are from various lawsuits. There are malpractice lawsuits, bad drug lawsuits, bad implanted devices lawsuits; the list goes on. Doctors and hospitals end up paying insanely high premiums to cover themselves. That cost is passed down to us.
Click to expand...

and also from people who were unable to pay for it.
 
saywhatkid said:
I've often felt that the biggest culprit in rising health care costs are from various lawsuits. There are malpractice lawsuits, bad drug lawsuits, bad implanted devices lawsuits; the list goes on. Doctors and hospitals end up paying insanely high premiums to cover themselves. That cost is passed down to us.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a portion of it. However, in states that put a cap on malpractice suits, medical costs continued to rise at the same rate as the states that don't have a cap. Costs of caring for the uninsured are a much bigger culprit.

And yes, the cost of malpractice insurance is exhorbitant as a result of frivolous lawsuits. A physician simply cannot pay the premiums without making a profit. Same with hospitals who carry the insurance for their physicians.
 
jillio said:
Can you explain why the states with caps have continued to see a rise in medical costs despite a cap on lawsuits?
Click to expand...

cuz of big fat checks they collect from government and insurances and nobody can do anything about it till now.
 
Jiro said:
cuz of big fat checks they collect from government and insurances and nobody can do anything about it till now.
Click to expand...

I don't get what you are saying. Big fat checks who collects from the government and insurances?
 
jillio said:
I don't get what you are saying. Big fat checks who collects from the government and insurances?
Click to expand...

hospitals. doctors. implant companies.
 
jillio said:
They are collecting big fat checks from the government? In what instances?
Click to expand...

medicaid/medicare.

example - CI. pacemakers. medications. etc.
 
jillio said:
Can you explain why the states with caps have continued to see a rise in medical costs despite a cap on lawsuits?
Click to expand...

Because people in power, when given the chance, will circumvent regulation. Kind of makes those caps look like wasted legislation, you know?
 
saywhatkid said:
Don't forget drug makers. Remember those $10 Tylenols?
Click to expand...

To offset the cost of providing Tylenol to patients who are uninsured, and to offset the cost of providing care to the insured that reimburses less than the cost of the hospital to provide the treatment. Additionally, to offset the costs of insurance companies who refuse to pay for medically necessary treatment because they claim it is a pre-existing condition or that the treatment wasn't necessary. All with a high school diploma.

I am reminded of the case of a woman who was denied insurance payment for treatment of a broken arm because she had a history of domestic violence. Insurance company claimed that because she was a victim of abuse, she was more likely to have injuries. Pre-existing condition clause. And yes, it was an actual case reported, I believe, on CNN.
 
saywhatkid said:
Because people in power, when given the chance, will circumvent regulation. Kind of makes those caps look like wasted legislation, you know?
Click to expand...

I personally think they were wasted, simply because they are not the biggest contributor to rising medical costs.
 
jillio said:
To offset the cost of providing Tylenol to patients who are uninsured, and to offset the cost of providing care to the insured that reimburses less than the cost of the hospital to provide the treatment. Additionally, to offset the costs of insurance companies who refuse to pay for medically necessary treatment because they claim it is a pre-existing condition or that the treatment wasn't necessary. All with a high school diploma.

I am reminded of the case of a woman who was denied insurance payment for treatment of a broken arm because she had a history of domestic violence. Insurance company claimed that because she was a victim of abuse, she was more likely to have injuries. Pre-existing condition clause. And yes, it was an actual case reported, I believe, on CNN.
Click to expand...

all for more reason to push for law to ban "pre-existing condition clause" and they did.

but they didn't give me a good reason for mandatory insurance clause.
 
Jiro said:
medicaid/medicare.

example - CI. pacemakers. medications. etc.
Click to expand...

Do you know what medicare and medicaid reimbursement rates are? They do not reimburse fee for service. They determine what they think a procedure is worth, and reimburse by that table...on average 30-40 % below actual fee. That creates deficits.
 
Jiro said:
all for more reason to push for law to ban "pre-existing condition clause" and they did.

but they didn't give me a good reason for mandatory insurance clause.
Click to expand...

Because without insurance, that woman would still be non-paying and we would still have to absorb those costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top