The public plan... good article...

[Canceled2]

No... THEY are.... literally.

Germany is the size of Montana, France is about twice the size of Colorado. Their populations are denser. That is one of the reasons. Look at the other countries that are usually held up as examples of the universal care....they are the same.

The other factor is the litigious society we live in. Some on the left want to pretend that the costs of litigation and the defensive medicine that takes place purely for CYA doesn't add to our costs.

People should be able to recover damages, but uncapped 'punitive' damages do little other than raising premiums on everyone.

You forgot that we are also a republic with the soveriegn rights of states to consider and their own unique budget issues and laws.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hilarious. Still lacking for either of your bullshit claims: evidence. I'm not sure what amazes me more, your original bullshit or the fact that you get upset when people call you on it.

LMAO...

You have not called me on anything twit. Again, look at any economics or marketing text. It is far more cost efficient to treat a million people in one city than a million people spread out over 25 cities. A point a coward like you refuses to discuss. Because you KNOW it is true.... yet because it shows you are wrong, you refuse to admit it. Just like a good little party hack.

The only bullshit on this thread is that which you continue to spew forth in your vain attempt to once again duck the issue.

Good bye hack. Your idiocy now belongs with UScitizen.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Jesus Christ. Hey SF, who is the TLR Foundation? What does "TLR" stand for?

And you call me a hack? Wow.

wow, like a normal hack you attempt to attack the website. The website simply linked to the report you idiot. But again, I am done wasting time on a moron like you. If you wish to debate issues, fine, but when all you do is ignore all evidence that goes against your wet dreams, you are no longer worthy of my time.

 

[belme1201]

http://tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/Texas_Tort_Reform_Report_2008.pdf

Here is one on tort reform in general.

I don't know who TLR is, but the Perryman study appears to give tort reform caps total credit for Texas' economic gains since 1995. I find that rather disingenuous since they seem to have forgotten the fact that, of all the states in the US, Texas benefits most of all from high oil prices which, if honest, the survey would note. It is we in the hinterlands who have paid for Texas' economic success in that period, not tort reform, since oil prices were at record levels for a major portion of the survey years.
I don't know the reason for an influx of doctors, however, I am quite sure a booming economy and more free cash may have an influence on doctors in the process of making a choice in locating their practices.
In addition, it says that liability insurance to doctors went down 21.3% yet insurance rates to the public went up at a faster rate than the US as a whole, doubling in just 4 years of the study. Could the companies be taking advantage of the booming Texas economy?
It does not compute that tort reform is having any positive effect whatsoever on medical costs in Texas, "Give it time" is too simple an answer.The tilt of the survey seems to lend credit to the possibility that the new tort reform laws are not working as planned. I skimmed the survey, so if my conclusions are incorrect, have at me.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't know who TLR is, but the Perryman study appears to give tort reform caps total credit for Texas' economic gains since 1995. I find that rather disingenuous since they seem to have forgotten the fact that, of all the states in the US, Texas benefits most of all from high oil prices which, if honest, the survey would note. It is we in the hinterlands who have paid for Texas' economic success in that period, not tort reform, since oil prices were at record levels for a major portion of the survey years.
I don't know the reason for an influx of doctors, however, I am quite sure a booming economy and more free cash may have an influence on doctors in the process of making a choice in locating their practices.
In addition, it says that liability insurance to doctors went down 21.3% yet insurance rates to the public went up at a faster rate than the US as a whole, doubling in just 4 years of the study. Could the companies be taking advantage of the booming Texas economy?
It does not compute that tort reform is having any positive effect whatsoever on medical costs in Texas, "Give it time" is too simple an answer.The tilt of the survey seems to lend credit to the possibility that the new tort reform laws are not working as planned. I skimmed the survey, so if my conclusions are incorrect, have at me.

1) You forget that oil prices were also at record LOWS for five of the years.

2) The survey does not give sole credit to tort reform for all economic gains in the state

3) Yes, it states malpractice rates went down (though I thought it was closer to 30%). It also stated that defensive medicine did not stop. That was a key point. If defensive medicine didn't stop, then individuals would not see much of a decline in their bills and thus in their insurance premiums. It stated that the money saved from malpractice went to increase charitable (pro bono) work by the hospitals. IF that is true (big if), then they are essentially subsidizing the uninsured. That said, I would want to see their evidence of that claim.

4) I don't think you are incorrect in stating that the tort reforms (at least on the medical side) are not working as they expected. They expected the practice of defensive medicine to decline with the reforms. This clearly did not occur.

 

[belme1201]

1) You forget that oil prices were also at record LOWS for five of the years.

2) The survey does not give sole credit to tort reform for all economic gains in the state

3) Yes, it states malpractice rates went down (though I thought it was closer to 30%). It also stated that defensive medicine did not stop. That was a key point. If defensive medicine didn't stop, then individuals would not see much of a decline in their bills and thus in their insurance premiums. It stated that the money saved from malpractice went to increase charitable (pro bono) work by the hospitals. IF that is true (big if), then they are essentially subsidizing the uninsured. That said, I would want to see their evidence of that claim.

4) I don't think you are incorrect in stating that the tort reforms (at least on the medical side) are not working as they expected. They expected the practice of defensive medicine to decline with the reforms. This clearly did not occur.

TLR, a Texas tort reform group and the sponsors of the Perryman survey, give district by district economic gains based solely on the period since the adoption of the Texas tort law, and show it as such. There is no mention of the real reason for the Texas economic gains, nor do they mention the, apparently embarrassing to them, fact that Healtchcare costs to Texans, during the same period, had gone up at a higher rate than the rest of the country.
If the base year was a period of lower oil prices, it merely serves to exaggerate the comparison from 1995 forward to 2007 when prices were at record levels. In other words, they are engaging in economic reporting shenanigans, so why trust anything they might say?