Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
First off, you're copy pasting from the president of the "American Association for Justice," which is a plaintiff lawyer's advocacy group. It's like relying on the head of Phillip Morris for info about tobacco.
Second, 0.5 percent of $2.3 Trillion is a ****load of money.
Third, it's only 0.5% becase the tort reform that the CBO is looking at only deals with caps on pain and suffering, which doesn't really deal with the underlying issue. A program that enacted comprehensive reform of the entire process by which medical malpractice is addressed would have far greater effects.
Could Tort Reform Help Rescue Health Care Legislation? Third Way Perspectives
What does that have to do with anything? That's some of the worst logic I've ever heard, although it's fairly typical for a plaintiff's lawyer. That's like saying that murder isn't a big deal because it's only 1% of all crime.
The proposals direct the states to institute pilot programs and then provide a whopping $25 million to do so. Yea, real reform there.
That is just awful, awful logic. Wow. I just really don't know what to say about that.
No, I'm saying that the idea that the coverage for the test itself is predicated on the result doesn't make sense at all. No doctor that I've ever heard of would consent to perform such a test, since their receipt of payment could be conditioned on the outcome. That doesn't sound right.
NO, I think the logic was quite sound above. Costs did not go down over all. Tort reform did not lower costs. That's the point. (see KeeKee's post)
As for the doctor, he was never involved to my knowledge. He didn't call my provider and considered me responsible for the cost. We had one insurance and had just switched to another. As this goes forward, it will be interesting to see how it plays.