Rush Limbaugh HEARTS status quo healthcare

[Conan71]

It's lawyers....sorry. But if they sue and lose, they should pay all the costs associated with the suit....

Where's Rwarn with his meme that that's less than 1% of total healthcare costs these days?

[heironymouspasparagus]

FOTD,
You must know after 5,000 plus posts that Guido struggles with English.  He is locked into Okie and just can't quite catch every word.  In particular, notice how there is never a direct answer to a question and seldom a reply about the actual topic of discussion. 

It's the Republi-contin in the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch bottled Kook-Aid.

[Conan71]

It's the Republi-contin in the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch bottled Kook-Aid.

Must...
Resist...
Sorry....
Can't....
This is screaming out

[Red Arrow]

Any competent English grammar teacher would have a field day almost anywhere on this forum.

[rwarn17588]

Where's Rwarn with his meme that that's less than 1% of total healthcare costs these days?

Malpractice costs account for less than 2% of total medical costs. Those aren't my numbers, but the CBO's.

[guido911]

Malpractice costs account for less than 2% of total medical costs. Those aren't my numbers, but the CBO's.

So what? 2% is better than 0%. Let's make reforms with the eye on reducing all costs, not just those sexy to dems.

[nathanm]

So what? 2% is better than 0%. Let's make reforms with the eye on reducing all costs, not just those sexy to dems.

How about we focus on the biggest costs first, where the greatest savings might be realized?

[rwarn17588]

So what? 2% is better than 0%. Let's make reforms with the eye on reducing all costs, not just those sexy to dems.

I think most people would rather focus on a big target than an itty-bitty one, thanks.

Even if in the extremely unlikely event that you actually manage to halve the cost of malpractice, it's a savings of less than 1%.

Considering that medical costs consistently outpace the rate of inflation, that's a big whoop-dee-doo. And, as the CBO showed, the "cut malpractice costs and everything will be hunky-dory" canard obviously is false.

[Red Arrow]

I think most people would rather focus on a big target than an itty-bitty one, thanks.

Even if in the extremely unlikely event that you actually manage to halve the cost of malpractice, it's a savings of less than 1%.

Similar to Obama's spending freeze.

[Conan71]

I think most people would rather focus on a big target than an itty-bitty one, thanks.

Even if in the extremely unlikely event that you actually manage to halve the cost of malpractice, it's a savings of less than 1%.

Considering that medical costs consistently outpace the rate of inflation, that's a big whoop-dee-doo. And, as the CBO showed, the "cut malpractice costs and everything will be hunky-dory" canard obviously is false.

For as shrewd as you sound with your personal finances, I'm always amazed by your comments of "That's only 1%" or "That's only $1 bln".

It only takes 10 or 20 of these "it's only 1%" to make a big difference. You have to start somewhere. I'm truly amazed at how de-sensitized people are to the value of $1 bln these days, especially our legislators.

[Conan71]

I'm keeping a careful eye on my statements from my insurance company and medical providers from my shoulder surgery and I'm seeing a few areas that are raising red flags with me.

One is a statement from my insurance company came last night, the claim date was two days prior to my surgery, it was a "lab" claim and the physician's name clearly stood out at me.  It's my daughter's boyfriend's father, a cardiologist.  I'd know for certain if I saw him that day and I most definitely did not.  All I can figure is that must have been how they keyed through the charge for the EKG they did on my pre-op visit at St. Francis.  I understand the purpose of a pre-surgical eval by a cardiologist and a PA from the anesthesiologist's office.

There's a few other procedures I'm questioning as to how necessary they were.  They took an X-ray of my shoulder on my two week follow up visit.  My surgery was for soft tissue issues which would not readily show up on an X-ray.  There's another $100 I can't see was needed unless my surgeon was looking for a missing hex socket, ratchet, or screwdriver. 

Another was a pre-op visit with my surgeon the same day I had the pre-op at the hospital.  I gained nothing from it and I can't see how my surgeon gained anything from it other than an additional $120 office call charge.  I literally spent less than 2-3 minutes with him and had some great coffee, but that's it. 

I think there are simply some extraneous charges that get thrown in which do not need to.  Every time I hear "Oh, we don't need to do this" or "We are going to cut your re-hab visits from three to two a week" I'm perfectly content with that.  Insurance companies could probably do a better job of reviewing what sort of extraneous visits they are allowing if they are concerned about capping costs. 

If the government went to a single-payer system and did not take time to do careful audits of all the sausage stuffing that goes on around hospitalizations and surgeries, all we'd be doing is passing the problem along to the tax payer without really looking at why the costs are so high.

[rwarn17588]

For as shrewd as you sound with your personal finances, I'm always amazed by your comments of "That's only 1%" or "That's only $1 bln".

You're making the very rash assumption that tort or malpractice reform or whatever they're calling it these days is actually going to halve that 2% to 1% (remember it's less than 2% of total medical costs), when there's no evidence it will at all. There's no evidence it will even cut such costs 10%, which would be a savings of 0.1 or 0.2% amid the cost of medical care.

And when you factor in medical costs rising 2-3 times the rate of inflation each year, which would completely eat up those savings, it's not going to do much, if at all.

It's a hell of a lot of effort with little return. That, I think, is economics that you can understand.

You (and FOTD) are paying attention to a tiny little turd amid a gigantic sewage pond. There are much bigger targets that one should be targeting.

[we vs us]

You're making the very rash assumption that tort or malpractice reform or whatever they're calling it these days is actually going to halve that 2% to 1% (remember it's less than 2% of total medical costs), when there's no evidence it will at all. There's no evidence it will even cut such costs 10%, which would be a savings of 0.1 or 0.2% amid the cost of medical care.

And when you factor in medical costs rising 2-3 times the rate of inflation each year, which would completely eat up those savings, it's not going to do much, if at all.

It's a hell of a lot of effort with little return. That, I think, is economics that you can understand.

You (and FOTD) are paying attention to a tiny little turd amid a gigantic sewage pond. There are much bigger targets that one should be targeting.

And it's almost a moot point.  Obama told the GOP at their Baltimore get together that he's open to considering tort reform as part of the overall package.  Of course, he did make the excellent point that there's got to be some back and forth and honest negotiation for that to happen. 

Of course with the current crop of GOP stalwarts, the answer is obvious:  no.

[Conan71]

There are much bigger targets that one should be targeting.

Such as?

[Conan71]

And it's almost a moot point.  Obama told the GOP at their Baltimore get together that he's open to considering tort reform as part of the overall package.  Of course, he did make the excellent point that there's got to be some back and forth and honest negotiation for that to happen. 

Of course with the current crop of GOP stalwarts, the answer is obvious:  no.

What are some examples of how the Democrats have extended an olive branch or exhibited a true effort at bi-partisanship?  I keep hearing that the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of a reform plan which is total BS.  They can't get it heard in committee.

Gridlock is what happens when both sides are unwavering, not one.