Will technology accomplish what the GOP could not?

Cap malpractice lawsuit damages and get malpractice insurance prices under control.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat...l-malpractice/

Total malpractice costs are only 2% of total health care costs. Capping them will only make more malpractice happen, without making medical care any cheaper.

Capping lawsuit awards are just a wet dream of people hate personal responsibility and the private ownership of property. It has nothing to do with controlling costs of healthcare.
 
It has been over 10 years since of victim of malpractice has prevailed in the Texas Supreme Court against a doctor or insurance company. Lots of hoops to jump through in order to pursue a valid claim. No wonder the suits take so long.
 
Total malpractice costs are only 2% of total health care costs.

Kinda, there's also the defensive medicine component, which would be invisible unless we conducted a natural experiment.

Wasn't there a study done correlating a decrease in (over)testing and tort reform? That's be some useful data either way.
 
Kinda, there's also the defensive medicine component, which would be invisible unless we conducted a natural experiment.

Wasn't there a study done correlating a decrease in (over)testing and tort reform? That's be some useful data either way.


The "defensive medicine" argument doesn't hold up. There is more "defensive medicine" in Texas, where malpractice suits are aggressively blocked, than there is in Minnesota, which is very open to malpractice lawsuits. Further, that "defensive medicine" is revenue to the doctors that are doing it.
 
To help contain the medical malpractice component of medical costs, we need to put a cap on what doctors and their insurance companies can spend on their own lawyers in defending malpractice claims.
 
The "defensive medicine" argument doesn't hold up. There is more "defensive medicine" in Texas, where malpractice suits are aggressively blocked, than there is in Minnesota, which is very open to malpractice lawsuits. Further, that "defensive medicine" is revenue to the doctors that are doing it.

What you've just done is suggest that the objection could be tested via a correlational analysis as well as that the defensive medicine 'cost' of malpractice concerns would actually be invisible (because, as you've said, the dr. has a profit motive on that front anyway). :p
 
What you've just done is suggest that the objection could be tested via a correlational analysis as as as that the defensive medicine 'cost' of malpractice concerns would actually be invisible (because, as you've said, the dr. has a profit motive on that front anyway). :p


Not sure I can parse my way through that post....:confused:
 
Steny Hoyer wants more money to fix Obamacare exchanges

Rep. Steny Hoyer wants to give President Obama more money to help fix the costly federal health care exchanges that have been roiled by problems since they launched at the beginning of the month.

Asked Tuesday how Congress could help improve the system by which millions of Americans must buy insurance by the end of the year, the House minority whip and Maryland Democrat said, "We can give them a little money."

"[Republicans have] been pretty much focused in the House of Representatives on undermining the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in every which way that we possibly could," he said.

Hoyer admitted that he does not know whether the project, which has already cost more than $400 million, has faced funding problems. "I don't think that's the reason," he said. "If I know that, I'll blame it."

The federal exchanges, the online marketplace for the uninsured to purchase insurance in 36 states, went live on Oct. 1. But the millions of Americans who have visited the site have been stonewalled by error messages, and most have been unable to buy coverage.

ome estimate it could take weeks or even months to eradicate all the problems. Obama acknowledged the problems in a press event Monday, but vowed improvements and stood by the law.

Republicans have called for Obama to fire Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Hoyer said that's not necessary, but echoed the president's concerns.

"I certainly believe it's a bad performance," Hoyer said. "Obviously this was not done the way it should have been done, and I'm sure if I was a Republican I would yell and scream about it as well.

"I'm sure that everyone who was a proponent of the Affordable Care Act is not happy — me included," he added, "because it gives fodder to those who are opposed to the substance of the act."
What's the better political move here? Tell the President and his party to go to hell and deny money to repair the exchanges as the law burns down around them? Or force a delay in the individual mandate in exchange for the money to repair the boondoggle?
 
I was an ObamaCare guinea pig

By Sally Kohn
Published October 21, 2013
FoxNews.com



I signed up. I saved. And so will millions of Americans.

Honestly, I couldn’t wait to sign up for ObamaCare — not because I talk about it on television, but because I’m tired of being ripped off by my insurance company.

I live in New York State — which for several decades has had the highest individual insurance premiums in the nation.

For the past three years, since leaving a job at a non-profit organization and then exhausting my COBRA, I have relied on the individual insurance market to get coverage for myself, my partner and our daughter.

Three years ago when I was shopping for insurance, there weren’t that many options to choose from. And the plan I ended up with is expensive and, to put it bluntly, crappy.

Currently, I pay $965 per month for family coverage that includes:

• a whopping $7,000 deductible;

• $36,000 out-of-pocket max per year;

• an annual coverage limit of $2,000,000;

• a $35 co-pay for doctor’s visits ($55 for specialists); and

• a $15 co-pay for generic prescriptions.

All this plus the plan has very limited out-of-network coverage that, I found out the hard way, is subject to such a gauntlet of procedural hurdles that my family has spent thousands of dollars in so-far-unreimbursed out-of-network expenses.

I’m not going to tell you who my current provider is, though I’m inclined to purely out of loathing and spite. But for the record, for over a year I paid for their version of “gold” coverage that had a $3,000 deductible, only a $25 doctor’s co-pay and a $6,000 out-of-pocket max.

But that plan didn’t process any of my reimbursements either and cost a whopping $1,687 per month. That’s over $20,000 per year!

You can see why, regardless of what party I vote for, I was excited to have some more affordable options.

So I logged onto the New York State health insurance exchange website. Yeah, I had a few false starts — the website was down a lot early on either because of service glitches or overwhelming traffic.

For a few days, I couldn’t do anything at all on the website.

Then for a day or so I could “log-in” but not complete registration. And then for a day, I could answer the questions to complete my registration but not actually complete the process.

On one occasion, I got so frustrated at the stalled exchange website that I actually shook my computer.

Not pleasant.

But finally, early on the first Saturday morning following the launch of the exchange site — probably because the rest of the state (unlike my five-year-old) was still asleep -- I was able to log-in and complete my registration and check out all my options for insurance.

There were literally 50 plans that were better than my current insurance -- both with lower premiums, lower out-of-pocket costs and better coverage. And there were ten plans with a higher premium than my current insurance, but with lower deductibles.

So -- and here’s an important point -- the reason that more people haven’t signed up for coverage yet is probably that, just like me, they needed to take some time (and first, find some time!) to weigh all the options.

While the exchange site was user-friendly and explained my options in a clear and simple way, picking an insurance plan isn’t exactly like ordering a hamburger. It took a minute to find my calculator and think about the options.

Within a week, I had settled on a “gold” plan offered by Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield. The plan includes:

• a $2,000 total deductible;

• an out-of-pocket max of $12,500 for the year;

• a $30 co-pay for visits to our primary care doctor;

• a $15 co-pay for generic prescriptions;

• NO annual coverage limit — because that’s now prohibited thanks to the Affordable Care Act; plus

• an added bonus: the plan I selected includes child dental.

This option will cost my family $931 per month — $408 per year less than my previous crappy plan and a $5,000 savings in deductibles. A big win for me and my family financially and in terms of what’s covered.

Plus in the past, I spent several days looking for and comparing insurance options. Under ObamaCare, even with the slow and sticky website, I spent a total of four hours — to save over $5,400. That kind of return on investment would make Warren Buffett drool.

Counter to wild stories about the government taking over health care, the exchange was simply a public portal to a range of all-private insurance options. I went with a “gold” plan for lower deductible and out-of-pocket costs. And I chose Blue Cross Blue Shield because my current primary doctor is in-network.

But one of the most exciting things is the new companies providing private insurance through the exchange; I’ll be watching the reviews over the next year and might change plans when re-enrollment comes around.

As of October 20, the Associated Press reported that 476,000 Americans had filled out insurance applications through the federal and state exchanges. Not bad, considering the poor performance of the sign-up websites.

But it’s only been 20 days since the exchanges launched, and folks have 60 more days (through December 15) to sign up for coverage to take effect on January 1, 2014. And people have 60 days after that (February 15) before the individual mandate penalty kicks in.

In other words, there’s still plenty of time to fix the websites and for more Americans to enroll — and save. Meanwhile, we know that in a state like Oregon, ObamaCare has already reduced the number of uninsured individuals by 10%. Glitches aside, that’s a great start.

We’ve suffered through four years of outlandish attacks against ObamaCare -- that it will kill our grandmothers, or at least just kill our economy. But the fact is that ObamaCare has created a private marketplace so that millions of American families like mine can get affordable, quality health insurance while keeping more of our hard-earned money.

Ideologues may not like ObamaCare, but my wallet and my family’s health sure do.

Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer. You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sallykohn.

Print
Email
Share
Comments
Recommend
Tweet

Related Opinion
Love it or hate it, start of ObamaCare is big deal
My ObamaCare surprise
Americans now lab mice for one of the greatest experiments in US government

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013... Things You Need To Know This Morning In Tech
 
Am I the only one who expected the site to have massive issues on launch? When is the last time any major product like a game hasn't had server issues and massive bugs when it first comes online?
 

She was on Chris Hayes tonight, probably angling for an MSNBC gig since I think her days at Fox are numbered :p

Once I got past the glitches I was pretty surprised how quickly I got to the "choosing insurance" part.

Oh, and now Ohio has accepted the medicaid extension in their state? That's some more good news

@Kaitzilla, nice post. I disagree with some of that stuff (mainly the first link), but a well thought out alternative...though I mean, not anything any Republican would ever accept unfortunately :p
 
What's the better political move here? Tell the President and his party to go to hell and deny money to repair the exchanges as the law burns down around them? Or force a delay in the individual mandate in exchange for the money to repair the boondoggle?

Probably the best move for the Republicans is to give the money to repair the boondoogle and try to get some embarrassing hearings going on the website details.

Maybe showcase a few angry young men complaining about higher premiums.
 
To help contain the medical malpractice component of medical costs, we need to put a cap on what doctors and their insurance companies can spend on their own lawyers in defending malpractice claims.

Your giving lawyers a bad good name JolleyRoger :lol:
 
Yes, Obamacare does seem to be a win for New York people. :hatsoff:

That raises a good question. What would make it a 'win'?

Its flaws, as I can see them, would be to force people to buy insurance who'd normally be unwilling to do so. I mean, that's the 'flaw' that we see on the tin; it's right there in the open.

What would make the program a 'win' though? On first pass, reducing people's premiums would be a win. That would require a subsidy, and that would only be apparent to those who already HAD insurance. People forced to buy insurance would still only feel the bite: regardless.

Another real point of contention is the quality of the insurance. I get the impression that Obamacare forces insurance to be of a certain quality. There might be a real issue that some people's insurance (though cheap) was actually exceptionally crummy. So, they were 'happy' with their insurance despite the fact that it wouldn't really help them if they ever needed it. On the other hand, Obamacare was heavily lobbied, and so it might have standards that were actually too high; this would obviously be a horror of rent-seeking.

Those are my thoughts. What are other potential 'wins'? We could suggest that maaaybe Obamacare is the first effort to reform Medicare. I mean, for some, it sucksthat the reform was to build another welfare program. But the actual effort against Medicare would be a win.

You often raise good points. Your phrasing above piqued my theoretical interest.
What would be 'wins'? What would be 'loses'? What're the wins/losses that are 'debatable' (i.e., subsidies bringing down costs)? What're the wins/losses that should actually be agreed upon across partisan lines?
 
That raises a good question. What would make it a 'win'?

Its flaws, as I can see them, would be to force people to buy insurance who'd normally be unwilling to do so. I mean, that's the 'flaw' that we see on the tin; it's right there in the open.

What would make the program a 'win' though? On first pass, reducing people's premiums would be a win. That would require a subsidy, and that would only be apparent to those who already HAD insurance. People forced to buy insurance would still only feel the bite: regardless.

Another real point of contention is the quality of the insurance. I get the impression that Obamacare forces insurance to be of a certain quality. There might be a real issue that some people's insurance (though cheap) was actually exceptionally crummy. So, they were 'happy' with their insurance despite the fact that it wouldn't really help them if they ever needed it. On the other hand, Obamacare was heavily lobbied, and so it might have standards that were actually too high; this would obviously be a horror of rent-seeking.

Those are my thoughts. What are other potential 'wins'? We could suggest that maaaybe Obamacare is the first effort to reform Medicare. I mean, for some, it sucksthat the reform was to build another welfare program. But the actual effort against Medicare would be a win.

You often raise good points. Your phrasing above piqued my theoretical interest.
What would be 'wins'? What would be 'loses'? What're the wins/losses that are 'debatable' (i.e., subsidies bringing down costs)? What're the wins/losses that should actually be agreed upon across partisan lines?

Now that there are certain standards, there will be less hiding price increases by lowering quality.

I'm not sure wins or losses can be picked out at this point, beyond those with pre-existing conditions benefiting and young men losing out.

Maybe next September/October when insurance companies see how many federal government subsidized young people signed up and adjust their premiums when the new enrollment period starts up.
 
I think a a general win would be to improve access to health care, generally. If people who were previously priced out of the insurance market are now able to procure coverage that can actually help them, I think that's a win. If people are able to upgrade essentially worthless insurance to something that could help stave off a medical bankruptcy, that's a win. If premiums fell, that probably a win, but hiking up premium costs on those who can probably afford it to spread out the benefits would be, in my mind, worth it.

As for the next political move, I think that's pretty clearly to actually come behind a feasible alternative. If a party pretends that health care access isn't a problem, or that un or underinsured people isn't an issue, they'll lose no matter how badly this rollout gets bungled
 
Back
Top Bottom