Tort reform might save me money, but will it save you any?

As a doctor I am all for limits on personal injury or tort reform. Limits may ultimately lead to reductions in my malpractice insurance. Good for me, but I don't think it is going to be as big a cost saver to the system as people think.

I agree tests and treatments are sometimes ordered frivolously, but that is not all because the doctor is scared of being sued. Well, maybe it is. But that fear comes from the general public's expectations and it's influence on standard of care.

For an example of this is look, what happened last year when a body looked at mammogram recommendations. When the group looked at the recommendations for how often screening should be done the whole country got in arms about possibly changing the recommendations. Because even if studies shows you have to screen 1000 extra people to catch one extra cancer (being facetious) society wants those screens. Nobody wants to be that one in a thousand who isn't caught.

Now in order for tort reform to be effective for the public, and not just for me, there would have to be reform in the practices of medicine. This would involve looking at standards of care to see the cost/benefit/risk ratio of doing certain test in certain situations, or when to or not to treat certain conditions. Sound like the "death panels" the dems were accused of creating, right? But how else are you going to change the culture in medicine?

The funny thing is when dems mention creating bodies to evaluate these risk/benefit ratio's they are called death panels. When repubs call for tort reform which will ultimately lead to the creation of the same panels they aren't death panels anymore.

I think we need to look at the overarching similarities between both sides proposals. Finding the commonalities between the two points of view should make it easier to find compromises--makes sense to me

I dont think Congress would know what a compromise was if instead of slapping them in the face it lightly kicked them in the butt....

Compromise
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands

.


That seems a simple enough concept, so why is it so hard to get our Congress to grasp that?

My biggest problem with the whole healthcare debate isnt that I am not getting everything I wanted out of the bill. It is just that I dont feel that I am getting anything for those things that I wanted but are disappearing. I dont expect to get everything I want that is not true compromise.

There is no true compromise going on. In a true compromise I would expect to hear one party say what they previously were not willing to accept that they will now accept given condition X is met. I have yet to hear that from the republicans.

From the the democrats standpoint I would expect them to say we will only make X concession if doing so would gain support for Y. I havent seen that either. Not across the isle. In the democratic party there has been compromise because of a few "blue dog" democrats trying to tenuously hold on to purple seats.

With all do respect to President Obama, Ried, Gibbs et al., I dont want you all to slow down on healthcare. I think more than three decades is slow enough. What I want is you guys to sit down to at a table on TV and say: "If I give serious tort reform a try, will you try a form of some kind of public option? Two possible responses

1) Yes," ok lets bang this out" or 2) No: "Ok reconciliation and I'll holler back in 2010, and 12"

Sounds simple, makes sense to me.

If you lose your current insurance plan under "Obamacare" dont blame the government, blame "the free market".

PolitiFact.com rated Obama's assertion:

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
As half true.

They point out that there is no provision requiring employers to take a public option, but acknowledge many employers would opt for that plan if it is cheaper.

Given the fact that in order to lose the health care you have the employer would have to opt for the cheaper plan, is it the government's fault if you end up with a new plan?

I dont believe it is. It is capitalism, it is choice, it is common sense to me.