A Wonderful Place Called Tawas
Like my two conservative counterparts, I try to follow a wide array of media outlets to help keep myself informed and up to date. Sometimes this gets difficult as partisan slants seem to infiltrate every pore of the main stream media, from the AP to the Wall Street Journal. One place that I have turned to over the past year or so is my local newspaper. Other than being a place that i’ve found some temporary solace in, it’s an outlet that keeps me more grounded and less dissaffected than anyplace else. The readers are people I know and trust.
Aside from reading the weekly paper from cover to cover, i’ve also taken to task a few of the letters to the editor over the past year or so. This is a great exercise that I would encourage everyone to do. It provides you with a captive audience, allows for some anonimity, and gives you good writing experience.
A couple weeks ago in my local paper, the former local Magistrate, the honorable Judge Edward Keller wrote a letter to the editor asking the local citizens why they think they need tort reform as a means to lower overall health care costs. Although factually correct, I did not believe his argument was framed correctly, so I decided to challenge his assessment. Read below for his letter written September 23rd, and my response below that written on October 7th.
Judge Keller's Letter
My Response
3conservativebros
MacGregor
Johnny M
Timmy K
So we waste our energy and discussion on how much savings. Maybe this is more about hating lawyers and the very small percentage of people that win that should not.
The numbers just do not warrant a discussion of tort reform.
“After reviewing thousands of patient records, medical researchers have estimated that only 2 to 3 percent of cases of medical negligence lead to a malpractice claim. For every notorious error — the teenager who died in North Carolina after being given the wrong blood type, the 39-year-old Massachusetts mother killed by a chemotherapy overdose, the newborn twins (children of the actor Dennis Quaid) given too much blood thinner — there are dozens more. You never hear about these other cases.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/economy/23leonhardt.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=leonhardt&st=cse
Mark,
Thanks for checking out the site, appreciate your comments.
But i disagree, the numbers warrant the exact opposite of what ur saying. This isnt only about tort reform to lower malpractive insurance or potential awards to lawyers, its about taking a serious look at this complex problem with an objective eye.
My letter in response to the judge was that he tried to put the argument for tort reform into a narrow corridor, framing it for people who universally want to find ways to lower overall health care costs..
Even your NYTimes article estimates the costs of defensive medicine at 60 billion, much lower than all of the assessments that ive read. Do you really believe this amount to be non deserving of at least a hearty debate?
Again the numbers just do not add up. If 85% of the American people believe we need tort reform then why to these same people not control this when they are on juries. It does not make sense.
According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.
Of that 1 to 1.5 percent what portion of that is “frivolous”?
http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=USA/2008/200811/2008_tort_costs_trends.pdf (Page 10)
And then of course the report from Towers Perrin that states that the total tort cost in the US is 2% of the GDP. What percentage of that is “frivolous” and of that percentage what percentage is “frivolous” corporate lawsuits. So how much are “frivolous” lawsuits driving up the cost of everything? Maybe less than 2 cents on the dollar or maybe even less the 1 cent on the dollar?
Mark,
Again im not buying your argument and i dont think many others will. First of all, 1 to 1.5 percent of 2 TRILLION is no chump change. And yes we have no way of knowing exactly how much of these suits are frivolous. Thats why i posted the results of the study showing 40% may have been..
And again i wasnt speaking to the actual 30 billion dollars for medical malpratice tort costs(even though that is a lot of money), i was speaking to the estimated 60 to over 200 billion of costs attributed to defensive medicine. Defensive Medicine that one study showed was employed by 9 out of 10 doctors..
When you are talking about a health care overhaul with a price tag of over 800 billion, 100 to 200 billion per year is or could be an important piece of the pie…….Did you even read my letter? I was trying to show there are always two sides to an issue, and the desire for tort reform to curb defensive medicine is at least somewhat valid based on the statistical data.
So just to get this straight…..You do not believe that taking a serious look at reforming tort law and its potential effects regarding defensive medicine, (which even President Obama believes to be a major issue), is the right thing to do? Are you a single payer guy? This is not a challenge i am just looking for your opinion, and im trying to learn what the best route is myself.
One to one point fiver pecent of two trillion must be the govt. equivalent of chump change, if you compare that amount to what the govt. will gladly pony up for other programs, and/or weapons systems that never see the light of day. I’m becoming curious who the real fiscal conservatives are, if they still exist. Why is tort reform being framed as a big part of the health care argument, if tort reform represents such an incrementally small portion of cost?
Gabe,
Good point, as i am against all bailouts.
I wouldnt call a cost, if taken at face value is 30 billion, if taken for the argument is 60-200 billion, an incrementally small portion of the cost when we are looking at health care bills in the 800 billion dollar range.
I also dont think anyone is saying that tort reform is a big part of the argument, just a part that is long overdue.
Tort reform is not only a necessity for the cost factor. The high number of medical male practice lawsuits on doctors and the amounts of those lawsuits is definitely a deterrent to the youth of the US to practice medicine. It is becoming more and more prevalent that the doctors practicing in the US are from other countries. Countries in which, even with the high cost of schooling and the high cost of insurance to practice medicine, they still make a far better living practicing medicine here than any career in their native countries.
Without tort reform, we will soon have to press 1 for English for the translator so we can talk to our doctors of tomorrow. We are getting to a critical shortage point of our medical professionals and the fears of lawsuits have a lot to do with it. Why would you spend all those years studying medicine, go way in debt to get your degree, if one mistake can open you up to not only paying for your mistake but paying for it for the rest of your life.