(08-21-2009 09:35 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Malpractice insurance is obviously a big component, and I'm sure there are others. I don't see a whole lot of that in the current proposal (kind of obvious when you have a CBO estimate of a 10-year net cost savings of approximately negative $1 trillion). Too many entrenched interests are lobbying to keep their preferred status or minimize a negative change from the status quo (and I'm not just referring to the lawyers here; pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc. are all calling in their chits).

And I state it that way in part for the obvious shock value. I do wonder, though - if everyone is covered in some way, shape or form, assuming nothing else changes, what direction would the general cost of services go? On the plus side, providers are less likely to have to write off procedures due to non-payment of most of the cost (depending on how deductibles work), so you would think their gross revenue would increase. However, now the providers don't have a pool of customers that might not be covered that they can slap with the high charges while giving in to the insurance companies on their lower allowable charges, meaning tightening on that revenue side of the equation.

I'm not sure anyone can know the answer to that right now, but it's definitely an interesting question (IMO).

Howard Dean admitted there is no "Tort Reform" in the Health Care Bill because "they didn't want to fight the Trial Lawyers."

I think its more accurate to say they didn't want to piss off one of the Democrat Party's biggest contributors.