Might this be the problem? (Page 2): I have somewhat of an idea.... 3 years of chemo for benzene poisoning.... started in 09.... doctors wanted a new drug not fully approved yet...

emarine

working class stiff wrote:

I have recently watched a hard working man be broken by his medical bills, and he was well-insured by a state. Of course he's still working.
emarine.....your bills could have been his.
Medical costs are out of control

I have somewhat of an idea.... 3 years of chemo for benzene poisoning.... started in 09.... doctors wanted a new drug not fully approved yet... insurance company refused to pay... drug was 68k per month... went the first month out of pocket then the ACA made the drug legal before the trial was over... after 30 years paying for health insurance and never using it the learning curve is real sharp, after 3 years the bill was 1.2 million and the insurance would not pay around another 50k... said charges were not needed... doctors insisted they were... with 2 kids in collage and normal people bills... it will test you .... I was very lucky at age 50 I was young enough to work through it and push on.... I could really understand why some cant... The ACA if far from perfect but it warrants a chance. I also had a million dollar cap.... the 200k would have been just about impossible to do.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

emarine wrote:

Three solid replies... right on target.. is it pos... (show quote)

Typically less than 5% of the ins premiums you pay go to profit for the insurance co. One of the reasons premiums are so high is because state politicians demand that all insurers in the state cover certain procedures, like sex-change operations. That raises the cost for everybody.

Some of the reasons the cost of medical care is so high are frivolous lawsuits (necessitating malpractice ins for providers), the separation of patient and payee (when your ins is paying you don't care what the cost is), and the massive amount of paperwork required by ins companies, lawyers and state and federal bureaucrats.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Voice of Reason wrote:

Typically less than 5% of the ins premiums you pay... (show quote)

Tort Reform!!!! Step 1 in any logical attempt to tackle the high cost of medical care! ACA puts the cart before the horse, but of course, no one on Capitol Hill wants to do a goddam thing about tort reform because they're all so busy raking in cash from ambulance chasing law firms.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

BigMike wrote:

Tort Reform!!!! Step 1 in any logical attempt to tackle the high cost of medical care! ACA puts the cart before the horse, but of course, no one on Capitol Hill wants to do a goddam thing about tort reform because they're all so busy raking in cash from ambulance chasing law firms.

I couldn't agree more. And the answer is so simple - loser pays.

Molly

While I agree there are many frivolous lawsuits, there are also some very legitimate cases. I'm all for tort reform so long as the legit cases have a voice

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Molly wrote:

While I agree there are many frivolous lawsuits, there are also some very legitimate cases. I'm all for tort reform so long as the legit cases have a voice

I agree completely. That's why I don't favor limits to judgements. Loser pays will eliminate frivolous lawsuits without having any negative effect on legitimate ones.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Voice of Reason wrote:

I couldn't agree more. And the answer is so simple - loser pays.

Yes, and then on to step two, which will be much clearer as we begin to see the results of step one. Maybe step two could be a look at ambulance chasing law firms, class-action lawsuits and the money involved in them. This is some thing that needed to be done in little bites rather than a seven course meal in one gulp.

ashbrocha

BigMike wrote:

Tort Reform!!!! Step 1 in any logical attempt to tackle the high cost of medical care! ACA puts the cart before the horse, but of course, no one on Capitol Hill wants to do a goddam thing about tort reform because they're all so busy raking in cash from ambulance chasing law firms.

I like when people shout out "tort reform" without making any sort of analysis of what is wrong with tort law, why it is wrong, and what needs to be fixed, and how that will solve the problem.

vernon

emarine wrote:

That is pretty funny... but you get the point... 20 bucks for 2 Tylenol or 88 bucks for a 2 dollar bag of saline... is price gouging part of free market capitalism... why is this allowed?

because the hospitals have to make up for the charity cases that come through the er

vernon

ashbrocha wrote:

I like when people shout out "tort reform" without making any sort of analysis of what is wrong with tort law, why it is wrong, and what needs to be fixed, and how that will solve the problem.

i have to say ,i think loser pays would clear up a lot of problems.my doc pays 250thousand a year for liability insc and he has never been sued

vernon

emarine wrote:

I have somewhat of an idea.... 3 years of chemo fo... (show quote)

Molly

vernon wrote:

because the hospitals have to make up for the charity cases that come through the er

This is a huge reason health care costs so much

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

ashbrocha wrote:

I like when people shout out "tort reform" without making any sort of analysis of what is wrong with tort law, why it is wrong, and what needs to be fixed, and how that will solve the problem.

What part of loser-pays did you not understand?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

ashbrocha wrote:

I like when people shout out "tort reform" without making any sort of analysis of what is wrong with tort law, why it is wrong, and what needs to be fixed, and how that will solve the problem.

What is wrong: Crazy lawsuits and crazy judgements have been a plague on our medical system for years. Its one of the reasons malpractice insurance is so high.

Why it is wrong: Its costing everyone tons of cash.

What needs to be fixed: Litigation costs.

How that will solve the problem: Lowering litigation costs and insurance rates.

I know that is way oversimplified, but they need to start somewhere and hammering that s**t out is their job, not mine, and obviously its a problem or they wouldn't toy around with the idea every so often.

ashbrocha

Voice of Reason wrote:

What part of loser-pays did you not understand?

So, what you are saying is, you favor a legal system where someone who is tragically, catastrophically injured due to someone else's negligence should be faced with the possibility of being out of pocket tens of thousands of dollars if the defendant hires a team of lawyers to beat him on some technicality, some nuanced issue of law, or a lucky jury?

Sounds to me like you advocate a system in which we discourage injured people from seeking redress of their greivances.