And the malpractice attorneys

There are a couple of other things that come into play:

1) There is some insanely expensive equipment that is used for a lot of treatments today

2) People in the 50s simply died from things that are treatable today. Treating a disease is more costly than saying “I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do for you.”
Total Comments by kosmo: 291

The same thing happens elsewhere, with the insurance industry playing both ends. Voters are told that outrageous lawsuits are the cause of all problems, while insurance companies justify rate hikes by telling state regulators that caps aren’t a justification for lowering premiums.

I feel for the doctors, as they’re victims in all of this. We have an insurance problem, not a lawsuit problem. Unfortunately, the opposite has been drilled into our heads for years (by guess who?). Insurance companies historically operate at a loss with respect to premiums vs. payouts. This is intentional, though, as they use that premium money in investments. Unfortunately, when those investments tank, then the premiums are jacked up and screams of cost containment arise.

I don’t believe in shifting the burden, anyway, of grievous medical negligence that cripples people to those who can least carry that burden (the injured, crippled, amputees, and paralyzed). I do believe in weeding out bogus cases. In PA, there is now a requirement that a medical expert certify a case as having merit before it is filed, and as a result med malpractice filings have dropped significantly.

Unfortunately, all of the rhetoric that we hear targets the truly valid cases with all of this talk of caps, and doesn’t do a thing to attack the bogus ones.

Anyway, all my talk really doesn’t even get at the main issue- even if caps were the “magic bullet” for malpractice premiums, it is a minuscule portion of total health care costs.
Total Comments by Evan: 104

I completely understand your comments and I agree with the sentiment. However, I still can’t support the public option. I have sent communications to my representatives with my ideas to reach the same goal that you are. Offering different levels of health care plans (cafeteria type plans), regulation of costs from the health care providers, regulation of the actuarial methods used to figure insurance costs and finally an insurance pool for those not able to qualify for health insurance.

After seeing my family members utilize the Social Security and Medicare systems, I just can’t support creating any new government plans. We have a great health care system and insurance system. I think we need to remember that health care costs have gone up because of advances in technology and increased law suits. My neighbor who is an Otolaryngologist, pays more for his malpractice insurance than I make in an entire year. By simply opting for a public option and not fixing what is truly broken, we’re not going to gain any ground. We’re just going to have lousy insurance at an equally high cost.

You make a great point that competition is vital. We need to preserve that yet fix what is not working.

It was great hearing your points Evan! Thank you!
Total Comments by Squeaky: 73

That’s why I’ve been leaning towards a public option (if it is truly that – an OPTION), as the big insurer in our area has no real competition, resulting in a profit margin that is through the roof, and reserves that have expanded to over a billion dollars. Unfortunately, when you’re dealing with a basic necessity like health care, competition is essential as people can’t just choose to do without.
Evan´s last blog ..5 Needed Improvements in Windows 7
Total Comments by Evan: 104