Real Sports w/Brian Gumbel - maybe the best sports segment I've ever seen. Must watch.

bhedges1987

I don't care what people say... I still like Tiger Woods.  

nolaegghead

henapple said:

Damn people... Tort reform. No one has mentioned why a Tylenol is $37? Geez you morons. BTW, my insurance doubled for worse insurance. Good to know my hard work is good for others. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/malpractice-savings-reconsidered/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annenberg_Public_Policy_Center

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

pgprescott said:

henapple said:

Damn people... Tort reform. No one has mentioned why a Tylenol is $37? Geez you morons. BTW, my insurance doubled for worse insurance. Good to know my hard work is good for others. 

I mentioned that. 

http://bfy.tw/9Ybn

What  a joke! PBS, LA times, fact check? Really. Haven't you heard of fake news? That's like asking the fox if the hens are going to safe. You

nolaegghead

pgprescott said:

nolaegghead said:

pgprescott said:

henapple said:

Damn people... Tort reform. No one has mentioned why a Tylenol is $37? Geez you morons. BTW, my insurance doubled for worse insurance. Good to know my hard work is good for others. 

I mentioned that. 

http://bfy.tw/9Ybn

What  a joke! PBS, LA times, fact check? Really. Haven't you heard of fake news? That's like asking the fox if the hens are going to safe. You

Tony put the Tort reform as a solution to the high costs.  Find anything reputable that supports this?  Annenberg Public Policy center isn't reputable?  What a joke!  Where do you get your information?  The ministry of magic?

pgprescott

I don't need a study to know this. It is self evident. 

HeavyG

pgprescott said:

I don't need a study to know this. It is self evident. 

That's one of the funniest things you've ever said here.

nolaegghead

pgprescott said:

I don't need a study to know this. It is self evident. 

I'm thinking more osmosis from all the geniuses you surround your self with. 

pgprescott

If you disagree you either haven't thought this through or you suffer from that fancy effect that was mentioned earlier.

 Might want to think the issue through. Maybe try and think about yourself as a provider. Then think about all of your potential expenses. Ok, that's all the help I'm gonna give you. Don't embarrass yourself. 

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

Hey Freddy let's go out fishing. 

nolaegghead

pgprescott said:

If you disagree you either haven't thought this through or you suffer from that fancy effect that was mentioned earlier.

 Might want to think the issue through. Maybe try and think about yourself as a provider. Then think about all of your potential expenses. Ok, that's all the help I'm gonna give you. Don't embarrass yourself. 

I thought about it.  Setting limits on medical malpractice suits would result in 0.5% savings.  My brain is some kind of super computer.

You're quite the energizer bunny for solving problems by thinking about them and "seeing" the evident solution.

So if you're running a business, you would probably ban all spreadsheets in accounting because crunching the numbers (as has been done with the estimates on savings on tort reform) is just some liberal lie if it maligns with your gut feeling.

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

pgprescott said:

If you disagree you either haven't thought this through or you suffer from that fancy effect that was mentioned earlier.

 Might want to think the issue through. Maybe try and think about yourself as a provider. Then think about all of your potential expenses. Ok, that's all the help I'm gonna give you. Don't embarrass yourself. 

I thought about it.  Setting limits on medical malpractice suits would result in 0.5% savings.  My brain is some kind of super computer.

You're quite the energizer bunny for solving problems by thinking about them and "seeing" the evident solution.

So if you're running a business, you would probably ban all spreadsheets in accounting because crunching the numbers (as has been done with the estimates on savings on tort reform) is just some liberal lie if it maligns with your gut feeling.

Sure it would. Not .4 or .6. Spot on bud. Thanks

nolaegghead

I'm always in the ballpark, sport.

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

I'm always in the ballpark, sport.

Sure you are. Ha ha ha. 

nolaegghead

pgprescott said:

nolaegghead said:

I'm always in the ballpark, sport.

Sure you are. Ha ha ha. 

I'm so glad you recognized that along with my excellent sense of humor.   I have the best humor.

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

pgprescott said:

nolaegghead said:

I'm always in the ballpark, sport.

Sure you are. Ha ha ha. 

I'm so glad you recognized that along with my excellent sense of humor.   I have the best humor.

No argumet there Carey. 

DMW

Spaightlabs

Why in the world would anyone support tort reform within the administration of Mr. Litigation?

nolaegghead

Spaightlabs said:

Just out of curiosity, whatcha suppose a medical practice pays per year per physician for med mal if they are 'clean' from a loss perspective?

Depends on what they do.  High risk OBGYN I think has the highest payouts and premiums.   I would think something like podiatry is on the opposite end of the scale. 

nolaegghead

total costs for medical malpractice are around 2.4% of total medical spending

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048809/

Spaightlabs

We tried a tort reform deal here not too long ago. It would have capped one component of wrongful death awards at $250,000 which is absurd.

theyolksonyou

Golf is expensive. 

Spaightlabs

total costs for medical malpractice are around 2.4% of total medical spending

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048809/

Correct - which is not a significant driver of medical or medical insurance costs.

nolaegghead

If you completely eliminated all medical malpractice lawsuits, so if you are injured through negligence, that would save 2.4% on our total medical spending.  

Hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. screw up.  Many of the policies in place are to reduce mistakes and give better medical care.  In many cases, we're talking about life and death.

For example, when hanging blood, a second nurse has to verify the blood type on the blood and the chart, the patient, etc.

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

If you completely eliminated all medical malpractice lawsuits, so if you are injured through negligence, that would save 2.4% on our total medical spending.  

Hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. screw up.  Many of the policies in place are to reduce mistakes and give better medical care.  In many cases, we're talking about life and death.

For example, when hanging blood, a second nurse has to verify the blood type on the blood and the chart, the patient, etc.

again, they predicate the whole thing by telling you how difficult it is to quantify. I also wonder if they account for all the ancillary cost on both ends of the transaction. It's a blind dart toss. They surely only account for the tangible savings they can actually count and prove( tons of grey area)  Similar to how they accounted for the ACA cost. These types of observation are really obvious. That is why one should be highly skeptical of the findings from these sorts of studies or reports. Not saying they are not trying, but I'm also sure that in many cases there is a point of view or desired conclusion in which to support. Interesting  

nolaegghead

pgprescott said:

nolaegghead said:

If you completely eliminated all medical malpractice lawsuits, so if you are injured through negligence, that would save 2.4% on our total medical spending.  

Hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. screw up.  Many of the policies in place are to reduce mistakes and give better medical care.  In many cases, we're talking about life and death.

For example, when hanging blood, a second nurse has to verify the blood type on the blood and the chart, the patient, etc.

again, they predicate the whole thing by telling you how difficult it is to quantify. I also wonder if they account for all the ancillary cost on both ends of the transaction. It's a blind dart toss. They surely only account for the tangible savings they can actually count and prove( tons of grey area)  Similar to how they accounted for the ACA cost. These types of observation are really obvious. That is why one should be highly skeptical of the findings from these sorts of studies or reports. Not saying they are not trying, but I'm also sure that in many cases there is a point of view or desired conclusion in which to support. Interesting  

I think everyone agrees this is not the reason why health care costs are so high.  This is why it's not in the fcking news.  Anything regarding lawyers resonates with certain demographics, that's pretty much the only reason why you hear about it on fringe news.

pgprescott

nolaegghead said:

pgprescott said:

nolaegghead said:

If you completely eliminated all medical malpractice lawsuits, so if you are injured through negligence, that would save 2.4% on our total medical spending.  

Hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. screw up.  Many of the policies in place are to reduce mistakes and give better medical care.  In many cases, we're talking about life and death.

For example, when hanging blood, a second nurse has to verify the blood type on the blood and the chart, the patient, etc.

again, they predicate the whole thing by telling you how difficult it is to quantify. I also wonder if they account for all the ancillary cost on both ends of the transaction. It's a blind dart toss. They surely only account for the tangible savings they can actually count and prove( tons of grey area)  Similar to how they accounted for the ACA cost. These types of observation are really obvious. That is why one should be highly skeptical of the findings from these sorts of studies or reports. Not saying they are not trying, but I'm also sure that in many cases there is a point of view or desired conclusion in which to support. Interesting  

I think everyone agrees this is not the reason why health care costs are so high.  This is why it's not in the fcking news.  Anything regarding lawyers resonates with certain demographics, that's pretty much the only reason why you hear about it on fringe news.

It's a part of the problem. How much? Idk really. I do think we should always correct issues like this or anything else. Certainly is not a cure. Take the money out of the savings equation, just the nonsensical procedures and tests run on people for little or no reason are enough to warrant a change. It's a matter of decency. 

pgprescott

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/ten-years-of-tort-reform-in-texas-a-review

Another point of view. See. 

pgprescott

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/tort-reform-in-the-states-protecting-consumers-and-enhancing-economic-growth

And more. 

pgprescott

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/tort-reform-in-the-states-protecting-consumers-and-enhancing-economic-growth-in-mississippi

More!