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

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

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

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.

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 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 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. 

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

And more.