What Happens When Government Health Care Doesn’t Work?
[Guest post by DRJ]
“A Montbello mother says her 9-year-old son’s death from severe asthma could have been prevented had Denver Human Services resolved problems with his Medicaid pharmacy benefits.
Zuton Lucero said she called Human Services every three days for months last year when she was suddenly unable to get prescription drugs for her son, Zumante.
The boy’s health deteriorated without the medication, his doctor said, and he died at Children’s Hospital in July after losing consciousness at his house after an attack.”
The article has the sorry details. Be warned before you read them.
Advocacy lawyers blame a flawed state computer system and the county human workers who “fell down.” I also blame the system because when government is the final arbiter, there is no appeal.
— DRJ
Why didn’t she pay cash for the prescription? Advair costs a little more than her cable TV and less than her liquor bill. She let her kid die to preserve her lifestyle, miserable as it is, I think.
nk (db4a41) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:28 pmDRJ – that has been my biggest beef with the government option all along. Once the government takes over we have NOWHERE to go to appeal our lack of care, bad care, messed up care, etc. NO WHERE. Who, precisely, do you appeal to when the IRS jerks you around? Unless you have deep pockets, no where. Is there ever a point to complaining at the DMV? Hell no. So the government goes from being our protector against corporate abuse to being the monolithic perpetrator.
NK – Surely some how she should have been able to pay for it. Some how. Hell, sell cupcakes to raise funds. Clean houses. Something.
Vivian Louise (643333) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:36 pmShe was working as a teacher’s assistant at a public school according to the article.
Also, I strongly doubt that Denver does not have a public hospital with a free pharmacy. Except that she would have had to spend as much as two hours to take her kid there.
nk (db4a41) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:39 pmOne year. For Advair.
Government run health care.
Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:43 pmShe could have done a lot of things, but government dependence breeds this kind of thinking.
Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:45 pmnk I think these programs breed dependence and stupidity… it’s like how if I released my turtles into the wild they’d probably do stupid stuff and die
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:47 pmIsn’t hte government the final arbiter of appeals in a private system too?
imdw (085706) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:51 pmHorrible.
I’m sure the computer system contract was won by a campaign donor.
Patricia (e1047e) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:56 pmI think that slavery steals the souls of people for many generations after their bodies have been freed, but that’s probably racist.
nk (db4a41) — 2/4/2010 @ 3:56 pmI remember when I was little we used to go here a lot, me and my mom. Mostly “for tests.” They’re probably very different now… but the would press plates of prickly needles against your back, with each needle having a different allergen, Then you had to sit there for like twenty thirty forty fifty minutes and then they’d come back and note which ones you had reactions to.
They also had a thing they called a “truck” that they rolled along your skin and it had a needle that went up and down with the wheels so it would prick you at intervals. No idea what that was about.
At the end of the day you saw the doctor and then we would go to this mall nearby and… I can’t remember which department store it was… but it had a candy counter, which was weird. But they had these awesome little white chocolate candy thingers, and I’d get a bag for the drive home. We did this for years until I got a driver’s license.
Then when I went to college I stopped giving myself shots and nothing happened so we just forgot about the whole thing until later when I started having horrible asthma again but we realized that was from living next to a train track. I make a point of not doing that now.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:04 pm*they* would press plates I mean
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:05 pmimdw – Yes, the government is the final arbiter of appeals in the private system. But they are not ALSO the provider. The problem comes when the provider and arbiter are the same entity. The government will always protect the government.
Vivian Louise (643333) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:06 pmDon’t most kids grow out of childhood asthma? Sad beyond belief.
Dmac (539341) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:07 pmHow’s this for faith in government run health care?
Well, tell that to Danny Williams, premier of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The popular 59-year-old politician has discovered that nothing is for free. He’s somewhere in the US today — prepping for heart surgery.
Seems the procedure he needs simply isn’t available in Newfoundland — at any price.
And, with his own health on the line, he prefers to put his trust in the “second-rate, profit-driven health-care behemoth” south of the St. Lawrence, rather than try a hospital in Canada.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/oh_no_canada_lRaE7XngBCNxVFz6y7fnuL#ixzz0ecDWJkLr
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:08 pmAnybody remember the movie “As Good as It Get”? Remember the scene with the waitress’s kid with asthma ? When she said “God damned HMO” every theater erupted in applause. Asthma deaths are rising. I’m not sure why but it used to be very rare to hear of someone dying of asthma. It’s pretty common the past 15 years.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:19 pmI thought she said God damn bastard HMO’s…
it was totally gratuitous… I will check
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:20 pmhere .. I guess we both missed it a little
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:22 pm“imdw – Yes, the government is the final arbiter of appeals in the private system. But they are not ALSO the provider. The problem comes when the provider and arbiter are the same entity. The government will always protect the government.”
If your social security benefits are denied, you can appeal. If you’re a NYC schoolteacher and they’re trying to fire you, you can appeal A WHOLE LOT. This idea that simply because it is the government means your appeals are curtailed it is just wrong. It varies. Just like it does on the private side, you might be stuck in arbitration, from which you’ll have very little appeal. Or you could go to litigation, which might be quite open ended.
imdw (f7b257) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:29 pmNo, they just come to the US when their government run health care fails. But, where will US citizens go for health care when our government health (GOD forbid it becomes govt. run) care will fail?
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:34 pm“No, they just come to the US when their government run health care fails. ”
We can trade that for the drugs we buy from their pharmacies.
imdw (00bfab) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:37 pmThat they first buy from our pharmaceutical companies at a reduced rate that is subsidized by Americans buying higher priced drugs. How long do you think it would be b4 our drug companies are bankrupted, you little pissant?
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:46 pm“How long do you think it would be b4 our drug companies are bankrupted, you little pissant?”
They seem to be doing pretty ok with their government granted monopolies. Even in these tough economic times.
imdw (de7003) — 2/4/2010 @ 4:59 pmNotice he moves goalpost again? They are doing okay because either insurance companies or the private customers are paying the increased prices caused by Canadian price restriction laws, pissant. I wonder just how much less the American consumer would pay if they didn’t sell at these reduced prices to socialistic health countries like, England, France, Canada, etc. etc. etc.
Seems like if we outlawed this practice, OUR health care costs would come more in line with what a free market economy can support.
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:12 pmThe rule of thumb with iamadickwad and economics is to never let it come within a mile of your checkbook.
JD (cc3aa7) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:13 pmImadickwaddumbass, you are nothing but a dishonest douchenozzle troll. If you love socialism so much, may I suggest you move to China, N. Korea, Cuba, or any other socialist/communist country, and stop trying to make the US into your idea of socialist utopia.
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:15 pmPublic health systems are **slow**. A lot of people have died here in New Zealand because critical treatment has been too slow – at one stage we were flying people to Austrlia.
I’ve blogged a few times on it.
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/bogus-death-statistics-even-more-bogus-than-she-realises/#comment-18277
Oh, and this post details how a girl was turned down for a perfectly routine operation, while Michael Moore complains about people in the US not getting experimental treatment. Ha (laughs bitterly)
scrubone (7df100) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:18 pmhttp://halfdone.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/another-wonderful-day-in-our-public-health-system/
If your social security benefits are denied, you can appeal. If you’re a NYC schoolteacher and they’re trying to fire you, you can appeal A WHOLE LOT. This idea that simply because it is the government means your appeals are curtailed it is just wrong. It varies.
DRJ was wrong to characterize this as being about being an appeal. There doesn’t appear to have been any formal denial of benefits in the first place. It was just an incompetent bureaucracy. There is no possibility of appealing incompetence and this kind of mind numbing bureaucratic incompetence is primarily the province of government.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:18 pmPOA, he has to move the goalposts. A child just died, in part because a government-run healthcare provider failed to get an inexpensive medicine to a child; for at least a year.
What can he say, except to ignore it and try to change the subject.
Pons Asinorum (ffeb5e) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:21 pm“Seems like if we outlawed this practice, OUR health care costs would come more in line with what a free market economy can support.”
Yes it’s always interesting to consider what the free market price is when the government sets, say, the terms of patents. Oh and then provides an entitlement to buy those patented items and pays for that with the deficit.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:22 pmActually, this post is a good one – also from here in NZ.
http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2010/01/19/dying-to-get-in/
I have recently gone back into general practice full-time. One thing that seems very clear to me is that it has become increasingly difficult to refer people into the hospital system unless they are critically ill.
scrubone (7df100) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:24 pm….
This is a direct consequence of socialised medicine and it is why I get ratty when someone makes the silly comment “but at least even the poorest of us can get treatment” as a justification for it. No they can’t. Unless they have an acute illness or a potentially life or limb threatening problem, the uninsured amongst us are often denied treatment in the name of “triage” or “resources” or “points”. What is usually not explicitly stated is that this is simply rationing and that the poor, as usual, bear the brunt of it.
patents are of the devil
happyfeet (713679) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:25 pmKeep barking you fuckin’ moonbat. No one, and I repeat NO ONE here takes you seriously in the very least.
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:26 pmnk: The Children’s Hospital in Denver has a pharmacy — it’s an on-site Walgreen’s — and it accepts charity cases, but I assume she could never prove she was entitled to charity care.
Gerald:
This is what I was talking about but it’s my fault for using the word “appeal” instead of something more descriptive like “separate entity from whom she might reasonably obtain redress.”
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:28 pmimdw hates innovation and American business.
JD (cc3aa7) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:30 pm32 addressed to Imadickwaddumbass
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:30 pmCan you imagine what would happen to pharmaceutical research if the govt. takes it over? How ’bout global warming? Can anyone say NASA is now to study global warming and not actually do all of that space shit that they were created for?
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:34 pminnovation can be very threatening to the integrity of the current paperwork forms… it’s important that innovation take place only within the posted guidelines.
happyfeet (713679) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:35 pmIf it was that vital that her kid get the medicine she could have 1) paid for it out of pocket until the insurance question was straightened out. 2) asked her Dr. for samples. The hospital ER doctor did give her samples, long after the kid went without. Who waits this long for vital medicine? Sure the gov’t screwed up and someone’s head should roll (but won’t), but she’s a parent. She’s ultimately responsible. Her doctor probably could have cleared it up with a phone call. Her doc probably also knew about the drug co’s program of giving medication to indigent patients.
sam (5ef311) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:38 pmULTIMATELY THIS WAS THE MOM’S RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
“nk: The Children’s Hospital in Denver has a pharmacy — it’s an on-site Walgreen’s — and it accepts charity cases, but I assume she could never prove she was entitled to charity care.”
Do they take credit cards?
“This is a direct consequence of socialised medicine and it is why I get ratty when someone makes the silly comment “but at least even the poorest of us can get treatment” as a justification for it. No they can’t. Unless they have an acute illness or a potentially life or limb threatening problem, the uninsured amongst us are often denied treatment in the name of “triage” or “resources” or “points””
You mean they can’t just go to the emergency room?
imdw (017d51) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:38 pmHave you ever been in a Walgreen’s that did not take credit cards?
JD (cc3aa7) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:42 pmBark, moonbat, bark.
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:43 pm39 that is.
peedoffamerican (422035) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:44 pmULTIMATELY THIS WAS THE MOM’S RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
she called every three days… I think the fault is more that she’s been sort of…
it’s been impressed upon her that you don’t simply just pay for these things. Nobody probably ever modeled that sort of behavior for her. It may have never occurred to her that you could buy them yourself…
happyfeet (713679) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:44 pmDeaths from asthma, and other aflictions that were never considered fatal….
AD - RtR/OS! (0a4b14) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:55 pmMore and more we see children who grow up “in a bubble”. They don’t go outside to play, they don’t walk to school, they aren’t exposed to what used to be considered everyday events and conditions. I would also posit that this “asthma epidemic” is mostly in urban areas, and that children who grow up in rural, farming communities develop immunities that protect them throughout their lives, and have far less of these conditions.
Nice how you support policies that starve a government program of resources, then complain when that government program is unable to do its job well.
Spike (b7bdc2) — 2/4/2010 @ 5:58 pmI heard cockroaches cause asthma a lot these days. I read it on the internet.
happyfeet (713679) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:00 pmWell, if the greedy
AD - RtR/OS! (0a4b14) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:03 pmcockroachesSEIU drones weren’t draining the coffers with their obscene pay & benefit packages,their might be more money available for the intended recipients of these services.
>It may have never occurred to her that you could buy them yourself…
I’ve been on that medication before. If you buy it on your own, its $150 a month. If your insurance company pays for it, it costs them much, much less.
Nice how the system is stacked against poor people.
Spike (b7bdc2) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:04 pmSpike – Who, exactly, is supporting the policies you refer to, and which policies, specifically, are they?
JD (cc3aa7) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:05 pmAnd, just whose sock lint is Spike trailing?
AD - RtR/OS! (0a4b14) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:08 pmThe UAW is to General Motors what the SEIU is to our little country.
Except GM had someone to bail them out.
happyfeet (713679) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:10 pmPerhaps this is an example of what is meant when we were promised that Obamacare would lower the costs. After all, get rid of the patient and you lower the costs of treating that patient.
Fritz J. (c671c7) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:11 pmI’ve been on that medication before. If you buy it on your own, its $150 a month. If your insurance company pays for it, it costs them much, much less.
Wow, Spike seems to know everything about this case. So how about some sources for these claims, Spike? No doubt it’s as simple as looking it up, right?
Spike, you still there?
Dmac (539341) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:11 pmYes spike. We demand that you prove your contention that individual cash purchasers have no buying power and can’t demand the group rates that insurance companies get. Who ever heard of the little guy getting shit on in our system?
imdw (f7b257) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:30 pmI googled and the $150 came up a lot. I don’t think it’s cheap. There were substitutes mentioned but that they were less effective.
happyfeet (713679) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:43 pmOnce upon a time people who had illnesses were known as patients and they went to doctors to get treatment.
Now people are known as “subscribers” or “people on the panel” whether they are sick or not, and the responsibility to treat them falls on a corporate entity.
For a tragedy like a space shuttle explosion to occur, there is typically a wide-ranging collection of errors that all needed to “line-up just so”, in other words, a lot of blame to go around.
Sounds like the mom sure went to some significant degree of effort to try to rectify the situation, though she could have “always done more”.
Medical assistance bureacracies are only as helpful as the individual on the end of the phone- some remember that you are talking about people and care about taking care of problems, others are biding time until the clock says they can go home.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:50 pmthe left such as the huffington post left constantly say we need socialized health care because the insurance companies constantly deny coverage so they can earn bigger profits. I point out that the threat of lawsuits help keep the insurance companies honest where as the govt has sovereign immunity and therefore no incentive to provide quality health care. the typical response is that the governmeent is benevolent where as the insurance companies are only after profit.
Joe_ dallas (93323e) — 2/4/2010 @ 6:54 pmYet again, the trolls ignore the fact that the reason meds cost less in Canada is the same reason meds for animals cost less in the US … if anything goes wrong with Canadian humans or US animals, even if not the fault of the doctor/vet, they won’t sue everyone in sight most likely …
With Tort Reform, ideally with “Loser Pays”, costs of drugs in the US would come down to what they are in Canada …
Of course, the Trial Lawyers Association (whatever they call themselves this week) are frantically funding the current Dems to avoid Tort Reform for as long as possible …
Yes, the mom could have done more … 20/20 hindsight of the most painful kind … the mom also may not have realised that there was more she could do … she may have other responsibilities (like keeping her job to support her family) preventing her camping out in the Denver Human Services offices for the days or weeks in might take to get the situation corrected …
Hmmm … do you think that the “advocacy lawyers” are filing suits against the State and the County ?
Let’s see …
Gov. Bill Ritter – Democrat
CO House of Representatives – Majority Democrat
CO State Senate – Majority Democrat
Denver City – (and I quote) “While Denver elections are non-partisan, Democrats have long held a virtual monopoly on Denver politics with all elected officials having Democratic Party affiliation.”
Hmmm – sorta rules out lawsuits, now, don’t it ?
It’s a good thing that all those Democrats are in place to protect kids like Zumante !
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 2/4/2010 @ 7:37 pmhttp://www.gskforyou.com/10_programs_over.htm
It took about 12 seconds to find this.
JD (d55760) — 2/4/2010 @ 7:47 pmimdw:
She and her son received medical treatment. The breakdown was in getting the prescription filled. Perhaps your doctor gives you samples instead of a prescription but this mom got samples, too.
As MD in Philly suggests, this was likely due to a combination of factors — one of which is that this mom tried to get help for her son but had no one else to turn to. When the government said No, she couldn’t turn to a state insurance board for help because her “insurance” was the government. Her son’s providers probably believed they had done all they could by giving her prescriptions, samples, and perhaps advice to keep calling.
Asthma is a strange disease because you seem okay until you’re not, and then it can be too late. She probably felt her son was adequately if not optimally managed by his nebulizer. Parents don’t want to treat their asthmatic children like invalids or they can become that but, even with medicine, every parent of an asthmatic could be in her shoes.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 2/4/2010 @ 7:47 pm“With Tort Reform, ideally with “Loser Pays”, costs of drugs in the US would come down to what they are in Canada … ”
Up above someone said canadian prices are lower because we subsidize them. So how does that fit in with your wingnut meme of “tort reform”?
imdw (c5488f) — 2/4/2010 @ 7:55 pmThere were many many idiot Republicans what voted to “reimport” drugs from Canada.
I think Paul Ryan was one of them.
happyfeet (713679) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:01 pmI have not been able to find a public hospital in Denver which provides free care and medicines to indingents, like Cook County (Stroger) Hospital does. They have a sort of one, Denver Health, which looks like a fraud on the public — a pretense that it’s a public hospital — they’ll take you if you have some kind of insurance.
So I was wrong to say that the kid could have gotten the medicine for free.
nk (db4a41) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:03 pmI love it when leftists like iamadickwad demonize pharma, biotech, and scoff at the idea of tort reform.
JD (d55760) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:05 pmMeanwhile, a [url=http://ezralevant.com/2010/02/danny-williams-flies-to-us-hea.html]Canadian provincial premier flees Canadian government healthcare[/url] for treatment in the US.
Where will we have to go to escape Obamacare?
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:06 pmOops, here’s the link.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:07 pmSPQR – Dominican Republic. Costa Rica. Cuba. Lithiuania. They all have significantly better healthcare systems than ours.
JD (d55760) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:09 pmI don’t know about other states, but the California MediCaid (MediCal) program pays less than what the treatment costs the doctor. So those costs have to be made up by other patients. Now add in the cost of the paperwork the state mandates and you get even higher prices for those who pay cash.
Just remember, it doesn’t matter whether you pay for it in person or through your taxes, you still pay for medical care.
Alan Kellogg (0981ab) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:19 pmThis is what I was talking about but it’s my fault for using the word “appeal” instead of something more descriptive like “separate entity from whom she might reasonably obtain redress.”
Right. imdw went off on some irrelevant point about appealing social security benefits and the like. In that case the separate entity is a court. In theory the mother here could have gone to court, but it’s not clear what her legal claim would be since there was no actual denial, just a bureaucratic morass.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:38 pmFeatures and bugs, people. Features and bugs.
JD (d55760) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:43 pm“In that case the separate entity is a court. ”
No I think social security appeals start with the agency itself. Not an article III court.
imdw (304e04) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:48 pmIt is really rather irrelevant what iamadickwad is trying to argue, in order to divert from the topic.
JD (d55760) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:50 pmSo how does that fit in with your wingnut meme of “tort reform”?
Explain why you’re against tort reform moonbat. Are you a lawyer, you don’t want to slow the flow of $ to your party, reflexively against any conservative idea?
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:51 pmWas a Medical Effectiveness Panel involved in this story? Is this just a preview of ObamaCare? Is that why imdw is whining?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:52 pmYep. I could add to this, but why bother?
What an insane result, though. I would never wait for Uncle Sugar to get my kid what he needed. There’s no use headed down that road, but what a sickening situation.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/4/2010 @ 8:56 pm“If you’re a NYC schoolteacher and they’re trying to fire you, you can appeal A WHOLE LOT.”
That’s because you’re a member of a very powerful union. It has NOTHING to do with the government being accountable. If you’re a parent who is unhappy about poor-quality schools or foolish and unjust administrative policies, you’ll quickly find that it’s easier to get blood from a stone than satisfaction from the government.
pst314 (dbf8fd) — 2/4/2010 @ 9:27 pm“Explain why you’re against tort reform moonbat”
In general i don’t want to limit people’s ability to hold their providers accountable. But this guy seems to think that this explains the differential in prices with Canada. I think that’s particularly loony, on top of any looniness that is thinking tort reform is some major solution.
imdw (46c091) — 2/5/2010 @ 4:32 amThe problem with this:
“In general i don’t want to limit people’s ability to hold their providers accountable”
…is that it ends up being everyone else that pays for it. If a person screws up, how much should they lose? If you make a mistake, should your child be denied a better life? Your spouse?
It seems easy to pick on a bad doctor or institution. But whenever big judgements are passed against them – many others are directly (adversely) affected. In the end, we are paying for other people’s mistakes thru higher medical costs (to cover dr malpractice insurance and the uninsured).
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/5/2010 @ 5:28 am“But whenever big judgements are passed against them – many others are directly (adversely) affected. In the end, we are paying for other people’s mistakes thru higher medical costs (to cover dr malpractice insurance and the uninsured).”
So what you’re saying is that we all end up paying the costs, so that instead of one person suffering a lot, we all suffer a little? That’s a feature of the tort system — whether medical or industrial or what have you. We spread the risk of catastrophic loss so it does not fall on one unfortunate person, but we also provide incentives to reduce the chances of this catastrophic loss occurring.
imdw (df0dab) — 2/5/2010 @ 5:55 amThe amount of these settlements is an issue. And the incentives provided include CYA procedures and processes that medical professionals must follow.
These (and others) add up to huge costs all of us incur for little or no benefit.
The reform is not an either or. Not to get rid of all cases against doctors or allow any settlement amount. The reform is about making sense of settlements and understanding inherent risks in life and our choices.
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/5/2010 @ 7:24 amTort reform does not relate to stopping people from recovering costs. It’s about limiting punitive damages, which by definition are not actual costs, and lawsuits against parties who are not directly connected with whatever happened but are being sued because they have deep pockets.
Another part of tort reform limits the amount collected by the lawyers. That has nothing to do with stopping people from recovering costs either.
Nor does it have anything to do with catastrophic loss occurring.
States that enacted limits on medical lawsuits, like Texas, have seen an increase in doctors while most states are losing them. That’s not unverifiable garbage like claims by sleazebag lawyers that they are making society significantly safer, it’s fact.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/5/2010 @ 9:36 am“It’s about limiting punitive damages, which by definition are not actual costs, and lawsuits against parties who are not directly connected with whatever happened but are being sued because they have deep pockets.”
Not it is about reducing incentives. But forgive me if I addressed something you did not mean. I have heard of tort-reform being about limiting ‘non-economic damages’ which is wider than punitive damages.
“Another part of tort reform limits the amount collected by the lawyers. That has nothing to do with stopping people from recovering costs either.
Nor does it have anything to do with catastrophic loss occurring.”
If you think people can recover without lawyers…sure it has nothing to do with it.
imdw (0172f3) — 2/5/2010 @ 9:46 amNot it is about reducing incentives.
What incentives?
I have heard of tort-reform being about limiting ‘non-economic damages’ which is wider than punitive damages.
There’s both proposals. They’re not costs, which is your phony justification for not limiting lawsuits.
If you think people can recover without lawyers…sure it has nothing to do with it.
Hey a moonbat creates a strawman argument.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/5/2010 @ 10:57 amLawyers are maybe 0.5% of the cost of health care. Want to reduce health care costs? Get rid of Medicare and watch “health care providers” scream as though their guts were being ripped out.
nk (db4a41) — 2/5/2010 @ 11:02 amLawyers are maybe 0.5% of the cost of health care.
I don’t know about that. It’s indisputable that there’s has been an increase in doctors in states that have passed tort reform as a result of the reforms.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/5/2010 @ 11:14 am