Inorite? And the cost? It is now damn near impossible to sue a doctor for malpractice. I don't think that's a good trade - the legislation did not save me any money, and now I have lessened capability for compensation if the doctor screws up. But insurance companies made money. Lots. Doctors got a little too. Wooooo. This was not the supposed aim of the legislation. And MFW's defense? A silly quip about how non-surprising it is that "for-profit" companies have kept a bit of the pie for themselves. Pathetic.
You have got to be kidding me. Did you even bother reading the studies? Know what that tells me? There is VERY LITTLE correlation in the tort lawsuits between negligence and rewards. So your claim that "where doctors are beyond reproach and can tort with impunity" is horsesh1t. If most of patients with legit claims don't get a reward and damages are given to those that do not have a legit claim, then the tort system is broken from the get-go even before the insurance companies mucked it up. Secondly, what I found more interesting how at least in Ohio, after capping damages, the frequency of rewards dropped, but when they are rewarded, the payout went up. That says to me more of the crap claims are being tossed out and those that had legit claims got more, the way it should be. Of course, part of the reason for the improvement is putting in an audit process, aka oversight. That helped too. And like I said, we knew the insurance company wanted this from the get-go. It's not as if they pushed it through and found out the insurance companies were behind it. Quite frankly, I expected them to want their cut of the profit and I don't care if they get one. What I care about is whether the health care system gets its own cuts too. According to the CBO, the AHRQ and the state of Ohio. They do.
See, and you wonder why I call you a moron. You've pretty much ignored about 3 links and oh, about 50 studies in that link that says you're a moron. Giving you a lecture on how real life works turned out to be a monumental waste of time. I'm sure in your little jerkoff fantasy world, premiums and claims for the insurance companies (who of course, would be NPO's) would match up perfectly. All tort suits would only be filed when there's a legitimate claim and the damages rewarded would never be in excess or deficiency. And of course, the sh1thole that is Texas (from a health care perspective) would have great coverage. The problem is, you woke up. Insurance companies are for profit and will continue to be unless there's a public insurance system (as I've said). Texas will see an increase in health care cost so long as population growth excess to provider growth (especially now that the baby boomers are retiring and getting old). Most of all, health care will likely continue to rise. There's nothing out there right now that will wipe it out. The only hope is to slow its increase, as the malpractise/tort reform is doing. But the funniest part of all I think, is you somehow think that if the insurance companies benefited more, you're somehow being screwed. That's like saying you're lowlife hobo begging on the street starving to death, a rich man gave you a piece of bread, a bigger hobo beat you up and took most of it, you aren't better off than you were. Um no, if you aren't better off you'd be starved to death.
The medical profession, the business-side, is desperately in need of greater regulation (primarily to combat the drastic increases in cost caused by the profit-sluts who run the hospitals). Our government, and many of our people, have been far too supportive of big business for far, far too long - and the troubles we're having now, with healthcare and with the economy in general, are the best evidence of that.
And I am left wondering if a big, bad med mal plaintiff beat you up (with his one good arm) and took your lunch money. It must be quite liberating to be that devoid of logic, reason and reality.
