|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Paradise
Posts: 855
|
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Paradise
Posts: 855
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimking
The only issue I have with tort reform is the monies saved is miniscule in relation to the big picture. One's premium may be reduced $30 over a year's span but will save insurance companies plenty and may not reduce doctor's malpractice insurance. In fact in some states where tort reform took place their rates increased instead.
The way the system is now, it keeps doctors and hospitals on their toes. It can keep the quacks to a minimum, and there are plenty of them out there and always have been for millinium. If reform is needed than it should be done to protect the patient not to boost profits for insurance companies.
|
I agree, the insurance companies make too much. Their profit margin is around 5% if you only consider premiums vs. Dr. payouts. But they make much, much more on their short-term loans (something like 30% I've been told) rather than any profit from premiums vs. physician pay-outs. It's a racket. But still, I'm not willing to sacrifice the quality of care I currently get which is certain only to punish the insurance companies by switching to national health care.
When tort reform was initiated in California years ago, limiting non-economic damages like pain and suffering to $250,000, malpractice premiums dropped 30-40%. Texas too. For some specialists, that might be $60,000 per year, per doc, reduction in premiums alone. It's part of the solution to be sure...
Last edited by Dubious; 03-07-2010 at 12:20 AM.
Reason: sp
|