View Single Post
      04-21-2015, 12:38 PM   #12
Taskmaster
Banned
Japan
2331
Rep
9,157
Posts

Drives: M235i 6MT / E92 328 Msport 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Florida

iTrader: (6)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PINeely View Post
This article is about reforming defensive medicine, not tort reform as a whole. From the article: "Tort reform" would only eliminate orders made purely because of fear of litigation -- that is, 100% defensively -- and that's a tiny percentage of the total."

Not true. There are costs associated with defensive procedures, ie ordering an MRI when someone doesn't necessarily need one. And yes, those cases make up a tiny percent of tort reform savings. But the biggest reason that everything in healthcare is so expensive is because people love to turn around and sue the people who have just saved their lives. And yes there is a place for such suits, such as the case where the guy had a pair of hemostats left in him after they buttoned him up. But the vast majority are frivolous contingency suits. Frivolous contingency suits are more or less uncommon, but everyone still has to be prepared for them.

This is why malpractice insurance exists. This is why hospitals keep lawyers on staff, because they have to be ready for such suits. Do you know how much it costs for hospitals, even the rural ones around where I live, to keep 2-4 lawyers on retainer? All of this inflates overhead for both the practitioners and the hospitals. And THAT is why a Tylenol in a hospital costs fifteen dollars. It's not a red herring. Everything costs more because lawyers are involved at every level, and lawyers are expensive. It's just a fact.
Please, feel free to source any study that shows reasonable savings. I've found nothing but failures, including TXs.