Medical liability reform is no cure-all for what ails our nation’s health care system. But imposing limits on malpractice lawsuits could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade, according to a new congressional budget analysis. The limits would lower malpractice insurance premiums and reduce defensive medicine, in which doctors order tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending against possible lawsuits.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
178 Comments
Well, that’s a start.
Agreed: it needs to be done.
Yeah, maybe.
Thing is, insurance companies are, y’know, insurance companies. I’ve been looking for a link but Google has failed me. Somebody did an investigation in the the spike in medical malpractice insurance rates and connected it to the huge losses of Hurricane (whatever) in the 90s.
The gist is this: insurance companies hate paying money out. They love coming up with excuses to raise premiums. If you’re a doctor, you’re a captive customer; you have to pay malpractice insurance premiums. It’s an offer you can’t refuse.
Missouri enacted tort reform which limited malpractice awards. Now, it has reduced the number of malpractice cases filed, but has not reduced doctors’ malpractice insurance premiums a whit. Another couple of hurricanes and the collapse of Wall Street hurt the insurance companies and every doctor has to pay whatever the price is for malpractice insurance.
i would bet it is significantly more than $54 billion. they are low balling because they are not serious about the tort reform or the reduction in defensive medicine
Since tort law has traditionally been based on states’ rights, it’s truly ironic CONs hopped on federally-imposed tort “reform” by encouraging the central government forcing the concept “down our throats.”
Forget about CONs’ alleged “principles.”
The only reason this issue is discussed is because the Repubic Party is owned by corporations and “trial lawyers” contribute to Democrats. (As if insurance companies don’t hire “trial lawyers” themselves.)
“Trial Lawyers” must have tested well in Repubic Party focus groups.
“doctors order tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending against possible lawsuits.”
BS. Doctors order tests and procedures so they can inflate the bill. That and they are imcompetent and and impatient to spend time with pharmaceutical representatives and not their patients.
the gist is this: the government wants to take more of your money and exert more control. They love coming up with excuses to take more. If you don’t want medical insurance or you are rich(?)you are a captive customer and you will be fined or they will take your money to give to others. it’s an offer you can’t refuse.
bj comes thru……must be because monkey took a laxative this morning
ah…i spilled my coffee and got a million dollars…..
“Give us limited or no responsibility and we will lower costs!”
No.
How about let’s take the insurance companies out of the middle. That is where the waste is.
no……….let’s take the free loaders out of the middle…that is where the waste is………….sorry bj
“wichhick” regurgitates –
“ah…i spilled my coffee and got a million dollars…”
Perhaps you should look up the facts of the case.
And, btw, the McDonald’s coffee case has nothing to do with medical malpractice, now does it?
Wasn’t the coffee prescribed by a doctor?
Funny how excited people get about an issue that constitutes one half of one percent of the cost of health care.
Tort reform is a smokescreen.
monkey.i know you are narrow minded, but tort reform is needed in much more than the medical industry……….go take another laxative
so xxx, you agree they are low balling…
“wichhick” contributes –
“….go take another laxative.”
Why?
Are you lonely?
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 7:35 am | Permalink
so xxx, you agree they are low balling…
________________________
I don’t know.
Neither do you….
Even former DNC chairman Howard Dean said tort reform should be part of health reform.
He said it would not happen because the dims will not bite the hand that feeds them and that would be the trial lawyers.
xxx..i agree i don’t.but i do know where i would place my bet……..go to http://www.salina.com and read what 3 had to say on the issue…….yesterday’s articles.interesting
monkey…..and you contributed……..what?…
I wouldn’t limit the amounts so much as what defines malpractice.
If I don’t have a history of regular visits and preventitive care and I get sick, Dr. tries something (with my approval) rather experimental in nature and I die and my family decides to sue?
My family is wrong.
Monkeyhawk
Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:58 am | Permalink
Since tort law has traditionally been based on states’ rights, it’s truly ironic CONs hopped on federally-imposed tort “reform” by encouraging the central government forcing the concept “down our throats.”
===================================
The problem is that the Federal Government will not allow states to invoke states’ rights in this matter.
I personally wish they would.
Obviously, there is malpractice and accidents happen, but it’s gotten out of hand with multi-millionaire dollar law suits.
Ask any physician the cost of their medical malpractice insurance and it’s huge. OB doctors may have to carry the largest amount of insurance.
Besides passing the costs on to consumers, physicians have to practice defensive medicine with ‘CYA’ lab tests and imaging diagnostics.
Malpractice should be decided for each individual case.
I think rather than surgeries going awry. Which we all know their are risks associated with most surgeries. That real malpractice happens, with patient and client neglect. Mis-diagnosing critical illness in early stages. Or writing your patients illness or symptoms off as something benign without running a full slate of tests to properly confirm unfounded suspicions.
Doctors are busy. Some really too busy to properly care for the truck load of clients they have to deal with properly. There’s a Doctor shortage, but the Doctors we have, don’t really seem to have the time give the highest quality care.
If anything, malpractice needs to be reserved for the most serious cases. Doctors need more protection against frivolous lawsuits. While being held more responsible for their clients care. If anything, the Insurance industry needs to be sued, for gumming up the process between Doctor and Client relationships.
Doctors would probably throw some of their over caution to the wind, if the insurance industry didn’t mark so many people as high risk. A Doctor has to fear being sued, and fear lack of payments to high risk patients with insurance that doesn’t cover most of their care.
Doctors are being squeezed both ways. This in turn reduces the quality and quantity of care that is given. It boils down to the insurance industry making their dollars before it’s dolled out to the Doctors.
With Health Reform, Doctors can expect to see a 15% decrease in salary. But they’ll also see a 20-30% increase in savings. Their salary might not looks as pretty, but they’ll actually be making more money.
I wonder how many medical mistakes are avoided by ordering the ‘defensive tests’.
XXX
Posted October 13, 2009 at 7:33 am | Permalink
Funny how excited people get about an issue that constitutes one half of one percent of the cost of health care.
Tort reform is a smokescreen.
_______________
Where did you get that number? Must have pulled it out of your Azz.
It’s been posted many times, get your head out.
Health-care reform is bogged down because none of the bills before Congress deals with the staggering waste of the current system, estimated to be $700 billion to $1 trillion annually. The waste flows from a culture of health care in which every incentive is to do more — that’s how doctors make money and that’s how they protect themselves from lawsuits.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12973517
#
Phantom
Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:45 am | Permalink
I wonder how many medical mistakes are avoided by ordering the ‘defensive tests’.
I’m sure a lot. This is the sad part. Good Doctors get sued. And Doctors that have committed a real malpractice find ways to weasel their way out of a lawsuit. Then in turn, good doctors fear future malpractice down the road, and take defensive measures, such as neglecting patients altogether, or recommending them to another Doctor. So they won’t have the responsibility on their hands of a patient they deemed a future disaster.
Or Doctors finding ways to nickel and dime you, by running meaningless tests they already know the answers to.
To an uneducated patient, some Doctors probably nickel and dime them to death. More so than a shady auto mechanic.
I read one article from the NYT that tort cases were $30.4 billion annualy (2007), which would be about 1.7 percent of total health care dollars.
However, I think this may miss the mark as this is the cost of litigation and lawsuits settled.
It doesn’t include the cost of defensive medicine where there are unnecessary lab and diagnostics tests.
The 30 billion dollar figure from the NYT may be way too law.
A study by the Perryman group on tort reform initiated in Texas was:
$112.5 billion increase in annual spending
$51.2 billion increase in annual output – goods and services produced in Texas
$2.6 billion increase in annual state tax revenue
$468.9 million in annual benefits from safer products
$15.2 billion in annual net benefits of enhanced innovation
499,000 permanent jobs
430,000 additional Texans have health insurance today as a result of the medical liability reforms
—
There appears to be a huge savings just in Texas by itself.
Why not do it and get the savings and cost reduction?
BTW, the second biggest contributor to the Democratic Party was trial lawywers.
Those figures from a doctor’s blog:
http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2009/07/27/texas-tort-reform/
donndublin
Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:47 am | Permalink
XXX
Posted October 13, 2009 at 7:33 am | Permalink
Funny how excited people get about an issue that constitutes one half of one percent of the cost of health care.
Tort reform is a smokescreen.
_______________
Where did you get that number? Must have pulled it out of your Azz.
________________________
Then prove me wrong.
Texas, the state with the third highest in the nation for medical insurance. Yea, let the nation emulate them.
XXX, donndublin seems to be obsessing over that number he thinks you pulled out of your nether regions. Perhaps you could invite him for lunch and let him have a sniff?
JMWalker
Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:11 am | Permalink
XXX, donndublin seems to be obsessing over that number he thinks you pulled out of your nether regions. Perhaps you could invite him for lunch and let him have a sniff?
__________________________
I’ve seen his pic on myspace. I’m afraid he’d make a pass at me….
Donnie, since you’re Google-challenged:
http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf
From an Article on Tort Reform and a supporter, Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri
Democrat:
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html
Physicians frequently cite a higher figure — 10 percent — as the share of overall health care costs attributable to malpractice litigation and defensive medicine. The figure appears to come from a 1996 study by two Stanford economists
that estimated the costs of defensive medicine at 5 percent to 9 percent of health care spending and the of litigation at 2 percent.
So, accoring to physicians, about 12 percent average of Health Care costs could be realized if tort reform takes place.
oops, 11 percent average…
Would tort reform make much difference in health care costs? Probably not: Analysis
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html
_____________________________
Tort Reform is a smoke screen. It seems to work well with those who are fact-challenged.
XXX writes: Tort Reform is a smoke screen. It seems to work well with those who are fact-challenged.
So you are calling Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri
Democrat a liar then.
Just so everyone knows where you stand.
Regular
Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:30 am | Permalink
oops, 11 percent average…
__________________________
“The figure appears to come from a 1996 study by two Stanford economists that estimated the costs of defensive medicine at 5 percent to 9 percent of health care spending and the costs of litigation at 2 percent.”
But do prattle on.
so xxx did you go to http://www.salina.com……………..views from a small business owner, an insurance agent, and a doctor………worth reading
Regular
Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:40 am | Permalink
XXX writes: Tort Reform is a smoke screen. It seems to work well with those who are fact-challenged.
So you are calling Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri
Democrat a liar then.
Just so everyone knows where you stand.
_______________________
No, and I was trying to avoid calling you a liar.
The reason premiums are so high is because the damage a malpracticing doctor can do is incredible. Not every doctor, mind you, but there are drunk, drugged or just plain inept doctors who account for many medical errors, such as the one in Florida last year who amputated his patient’s good leg, requiring someone else to go back and remove the other. What is needed is a way to effectively remove the doctors who are screwing it up for all the good ones. And yes, there are frivolous lawsuits (if you talk to those sued, they are all frivolous), but the courts are there for recourse. Don’t make it impossible for people who have suffered disasters at the hands of impaired and/orincompetent doctors to recover the damages and do what is necessary to get on with their lives and support their families.
XXX writes: No, and I was trying to avoid calling you a liar.
Coward, I quoted the article…and another one from Texas.
Evidently, you don’t believe in real world evidence of two different states where tort reform was implemented.
I believe it was implemented in Massachusetts as well – I’ll try to find that study.
If tort reform is not necessary, then why are all of these states doing it?
it would seem with tort reform, less defensive medicine (to avoid the law suit) and a reduction in fraud…….we could pay for the health care proposal?…………or if gore would give more than $353.00 to charity…..
Why is it that when the Government has ‘good intentions’, the citizens end up getting the shaft?
Given history, I believe “Heath Care Reform/takeover” will follow this path.
what are the countries annual health care costs
“Total medical malpractice payouts, for injuries and deaths caused by medical negligence in the nation, have recently hovered between $5 billion and $6 billion annually. This is less than half of what Americans pay for dog and cat food each year.”
http://www.centerjd.org/air/issues/MedMalSystemCostsFactSheet2009F.html
Regular
Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:44 am | Permalink
XXX writes: No, and I was trying to avoid calling you a liar.
Coward, I quoted the article…and another one from Texas.
_______________________________
Fug u, this discussion is over.
XXX
Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:47 am | Permalink
Fug u, this discussion is over.
====================================
So I gather from your response, you are against savings in Health Care reform.
Must be, you keep defending that tort reform should just be overlooked and ignored because of your spin.
If Regs 1996 guestimate isn’t replicatable, then it’s unreliable and should be dismissed out of hand.
“The authors found wasteful defensive medicine in the treatment of elderly heart disease patients and extrapolated their findings to other areas of health care. But other experts, including the CBO and researchers at Dartmouth College, have been unable to replicate those findings.
“The fact that we see very little evidence of … dramatic increases in the use of defensive medicine in response to state malpractice premiums places the more dire predictions of the malpractice alarmists in doubt,” the Dartmouth researchers wrote.
XXX don’t confuse the cons with facts, their minds are already made up.
Regular
Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:51 am | Permalink
So I gather from your response, you are against savings in Health Care reform.
____________________________
That would make you incredibly stupid.
No surprise there…
Phantom
Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:53 am | Permalink
XXX don’t confuse the cons with facts, their minds are already made up.
======================
Odd, I didn’t know Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat was a “con.”
Perhaps you and XXX can email her and let her know of her new status.
Phantom
Posted October 13, 2009 at 9:53 am | Permalink
XXX don’t confuse the cons with facts, their minds are already made up.
___________________________
Ain’t it da truth!
Surely XXX, your strong and adamant defense against Tort reform appears you don’t want any savings in health care reform.
Tax and spend is it?
Prove me wrong about your stance.
so if mccaskill’s numbers are half right, costs would go down 100 billion a year……………and what about all the other liability insurance,,,,,,,,,,,for the coffee machine in the waiting room, liability insurance for the rug at the entrance,,,,,,the machines in the hospital………or that dreaded q-tip………….libs……….just continue to keep your blinders on…..
why do you think Cessna quit building single engine aircraft………….
so xxx..you afraid to read the articles in the salina site
phantom….what “facts” are you referring to……….
phantom..we all know what a “fact” is to you
“Total medical malpractice payouts, for injuries and deaths caused by medical negligence in the nation, have recently hovered between $5 billion and $6 billion annually. This is less than half of what Americans pay for dog and cat food each year.”
This a lot of cat food. Of course, this number, whatever it is, is not used when computing the percentage of health care cost that is attributed to torts.
This is because this number is paid by malpractice insurance; so the real number is the amount of the premiums being paid by the medical people. So the amount being paid for malpractice insurance will be somewhat higher than that awarded by the courts.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
Fine BlueJay: Take insurance companies out of the middle. Do NOT institute Nationalized Health Care because they would be in the middle too. Let everyone just pay for their own services. It will definitely drive down the cost of health care.
There are actually clinics which will not take insurance money operating now. They charge a lot less for their services. People who cannot afford health insurance like them.
monkey must have taken another laxative,,,,,,phantom showed up
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 10:02 am | Permalink
so xxx..you afraid to read the articles in the salina site
_____________________________
What makes you say that? I lived in Salina for about 30 years. The Journal is regular reading material for me.
You sure jump to a lot of conclusions…
What about the rate of unnecessary cesareans during childbirth? Hospitals continually try to get their rates down, but the threat of lawsuits keeps the numbers up.
XXX writes: I lived in Salina for about 30 years.
—————–
That does explain some of your quirks. :D
xxx……so what did you think of the articles………..as a side note not to reveal anything…….go to school there?
Deb,
“What about the rate of unnecessary cesareans during childbirth?”
About half of those could be prevented simply by banning obstetricians from golf courses. C-sections have the advantage of being schedulable, where normal deliveries aren’t particularly. Also, C-sections generate higher incomes for doctors and hospitals.
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 10:20 am | Permalink
xxx……so what did you think of the articles………..as a side note not to reveal anything…….go to school there?
______________________________
You’re going to have to be a little more specific about what it is you want me to read. Like an article title or something.
I attended Marymount College in Salina and took classes at KTI before KState took over.
I have read and been told by several Doctors that a large chunk of medical school is spent on the legal aspect of practicing medicine. On the subject of malpractice and lawsuits, in deed how to prevent and defend against malpractice.
Living in a litigious society, where there is little requirement of actual grounds. An example of it is the mother who suited and won against a furniture store for lack of control of children in the store. When she tripped over her own five years old.
Doctors and hospitals have been sued over and won for some of the most ridicules things that did not have anything to do with medicine. A doctor can always be second guess by another Doctor, that is why in a serious condition you are advised to get a second opinion.
There should be limits place on the awards, Juries tend to be more sympatric to the plaintive since they are generally the “little guy”. But the Doctor should be ordering tests in order to have the correct diagnose.
Not to cover in case the patent come back and sues later.
As a child our Doctor would often order tests, but when you walked out of the office both the Doctor and you were assured of what was wrong and how to correct it. There was no SWAG on the Doctor’s part,
“You either have a bad cold or lung cancer… If you do not feel better in two weeks or have died come back”.
But this should not be such a issue, tort reform is a simple matter and should be done.
xxx it was a 10/10 article titled “health care residents share their views about the issue” by michael strand………..as to salina you didn’t grow up there?
Caps on injured people’s reimbursement determined by “Big Government,” taking the power out of the hands of the citizen juries, no matter how grievous the act that caused the injury.
How reflective of conservative flip-floppiness.
actually casareans save lives (mother and baby)……….and is a good alternative to abortions when the mother’s life is at stake…..
The much vaunted “cost savings” from tort reform in Texas includes all products and services. Actual effects on medical costs have been negligible.
Are insurance rates lower in Texas? No.
Deb,
After the death of my wife, my father-in-law found the bill for her delivery at Huchinson Hospital in 1937:
Hospital room- 3 days @ $2.50
Meals- 3 days @ $.75 a day
Doctor’s fee- $3
Total bill- $12.75
Of course he was earning $7 for a 6 day week, 12 hrs a day and he was docked for the work he missed taking her to the hospital.
Look at the great results from Texas:
“Texas is the uninsured capital of the United States. More than 5.8 million Texans – including 1.5 million children – lack health insurance. Texas’ uninsurance rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. Those who lack insurance coverage typically enjoy far-worse health status than their insured counterparts.”
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5517
http://www.salina.com/news/story/Voices-of-the-care
Is the Salina article wichhick refers to.
davidb……….so you are saying you don’t want to reduce medical care costs…….you just want to “get” the insurance companies…….how so “american” of you….is this all obama wants………just as we thought you want more government and more destruction of capitalism……do you ever “think” b/4 you speak?….
DavidB
Posted October 13, 2009 at 10:53 am | Permalink
Look at the great results from Texas:
——————–
What does a massive influx of illegal aliens into Texas that affect medical costs have to do with tort reform?
Or is it you just hate Texas?
hick,
Forget to mention that an abortion is much safer for the woman than a c-section? Or even a normal delivery?
Jed
Posted October 13, 2009 at 10:57 am | Permalink
hick,
Forget to mention that an abortion is much safer for the woman than a c-section? Or even a normal delivery?
=========================
Forget to mention that abortion isn’t very safe for the baby.
thx reg…..i’m not good at that
Ant,
“Forget to mention that abortion isn’t very safe for the baby.”
So for you, a woman is just a means to a baby?
Jed: I have delivered 5 children at the cost for attendant care during pre-natal and childbirth at $1200 each. We did not use insurance to cover the childbirth expenses. They were not cesarean.
I found the bill very interesting. So your wife’s own birth cost nearly 2 weeks wages in 1937?
While I appreciate our health care system a great deal, I have found some parts of the “system” to be very frustrating especially in regards to childbirth.
Hick.. don’t put words in my mouth.. that crap is all your imagination. Not mine.
Jed
Posted October 13, 2009 at 10:57 am | Permalink
hick,
Forget to mention that an abortion is much safer for the woman than a c-section? Or even a normal delivery?
—————————————————-
Physically maybe. Psychologically, no.
Change the subject, eh? Tort reform has NOT helped get Texans insured. Like the President said, “It’s no silver bullet,” but some reform is not out of the question.
For the right, tort reform is just a dodge, because the facts do not support the contention that tort reform will improve health care in any but a minor way. So it does deserve some minor attention.
Jed invokes his inner Chas with-
“Ant,
“Forget to mention that abortion isn’t very safe for the baby.”
So for you, a woman is just a means to a baby?”
Get a grip Jed.
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 10:46 am | Permalink
xxx it was a 10/10 article titled “health care residents share their views about the issue” by michael strand………..as to salina you didn’t grow up there?
__________________________________
I read the article. Odly enough, I know Tom and Jeff and Deb. Of course the article was interesting. There are a lot of concerns that need to be addressed.
This is probably a good time to note that if you’ll check my posts, I haven’t said much about my position on health care reform beyond my concerns about pre-existing conditions and our need as a society to provide some level of health care for folks that can’t afford it. When someone without insurance shows up at the emergency room, whether it’s a citizen or an illegal, the rest of us pay for it.
Ignoring health care reform may feel good now, but in a few years we’re all going to be hurting. It’s not going to get better.
_______________________________
“as to salina you didn’t grow up there?”
I moved to the Salina area when I was 12.
If there’s something specific you’re getting at about Salina, we can go offline to discuss if that would make you more comfortable.
so david b show me where what i said you said is incorrect…..
Read your own posts..
i’m not shy about salina……..born there left when i was 14…….immediate ancestors are from saline/mcpherson counties………many distant relatives…….lots of swede in me……..
besides i always like to connect to anyone who may have been part of my life……..just to say hi and wow………just ran into someone who i knew when i grew up (which was along time ago) in salina the other day……..wonders never cease
Texas Medical Association supports reforms:
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=7557
despite the MIRACLE of Texas tort reform.
david b you agreed costs were lower…………….just not with insurance rates…….this indicates you don’t want to “try” and lower costs if the insurance rates don’t go down………. so did the overall costs go down and or additional revenue for the state generated?
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 11:41 am | Permalink
besides i always like to connect to anyone who may have been part of my life……..just to say hi and wow………just ran into someone who i knew when i grew up (which was along time ago) in salina the other day……..wonders never cease
_______________________________
I get back to Salina occasionally. Most of my family is still there and my dad’s family settled there when the indians still roamed that area. My great grandmother lived in a dug-out at the base of Iron Mound.
Kia,
“Physically maybe. Psychologically, no.”
Especially with you people doing your damnedest to guilt-trip them.
xxx……….you can still see the dugout my grandmother was born in in saline county..close to the mcpherson county line….land is no longer in family but i just “visited” it a couple of years ago..as i’m getting older i do not remember where iron mound is…..by the way my aunt still lives in my great grandparents house……built in 1876…..
while visiting her birth place i found an old hand dug well in the creek……nobody knew it was there……probably well over a hundred years old
xxx.i’m going to get a ceiling fan……….hope to hear more on your ancestors……….
Olympia Snow (R Me) says she will vote for the Baucus Bill today.
Time for Roberts and Brownback to put politics of No behind, and back the bi-partisan health care bill.
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
i’m getting older i do not remember where iron mound is…..
__________________________
Remember where the old water slide was? Iron Mound is just east of there.
Here’s a landmark you’ll remember. The stone house at the west end of Iron Ave. My great grandfather built that and donated it to the city.
If you think tort reform will save money, how much could be saved by banning Big Mac’s?
xxx…..i’ll be in salina next month…..i’ll check it out…………when we were young we spent a lot of time at indian rock and the river…….when did you arrive…………..when did you leave……
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
xxx…..i’ll be in salina next month…..i’ll check it out…………when we were young we spent a lot of time at indian rock and the river…….when did you arrive…………..when did you leave……
_______________________________
I broke my nose sledding at Indian Rock. Face plant into a big rock.
My family moved to Solomon in 1965. I moved into Salina summer of 1969 (the year I graduated high school). I moved to McPherson (actually Elyria) in 1997. I came to Wichita in 1999.
“If you think tort reform will save money, how much could be saved by banning Big Mac’s?”
There is at least a kernel of an idea there. Let’s tax the hell out of them, and anybody that is at least 25% obese, pays twice the premium for insurance. If we are going to make the healthcare industry (or insurance industry) accountable, how about those who are costing the system huge amounts of money. LIke Smokers, and the obese. Let’s tax the hell of out risky behaviors, and apply it only to healthcare for others. No transferance into another program. Straight up healthcare costs.
Who cares if McDonald’s goes broke. They pay low wages anyway. Those damned high school and college kids, and those old folks, who work there can sit home and be thankful they are contributing to the health of the country.
On second thought, let’s just tax the hell out of fat people and smokers. A direct tax. Payable directly to a fund to pay for healthcare for the indigent. Unless of course, they are fat people and smokers.
littlejohn
Posted October 13, 2009 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
“If you think tort reform will save money, how much could be saved by banning Big Mac’s?”
There is at least a kernel of an idea there. Let’s tax the hell out of them, and anybody that is at least 25% obese, pays twice the premium for insurance. If we are going to make the healthcare industry (or insurance industry) accountable, how about those who are costing the system huge amounts of money. LIke Smokers, and the obese. Let’s tax the hell of out risky behaviors, and apply it only to healthcare for others. No transferance into another program. Straight up healthcare costs.
___________________________________
Let’s take it a step further and tax everything that’s not good for you. Let’s start with alcohol. There’s a huge drag on health care costs. And while we’re at it, let’s tax anything with sugar in it, or salt.
Parents of obese children pay quadruple.
WHy must you take things to absurd extremes? It is not helpful in anyway.
We could look at farm subsidies that tend to make many unhealthful foods artificially low… we could look at why healthier fruits & vegetables receive next to no subsidies..
my uncle was from solomon……i left salina in 64………..i graduated from high school in 67…..both my sisters are in mcpherson……..left wichita in 2003……..ah elyria……..think i got a speeding ticket there…….working on the interstate in the late 60’s……..
xxx…i have enjoyed the conversation……….the good old days………are really pretty good…
as to indian rock……………i fell (actually jumped off in panic) off a skate board going close to 300 miles an hour…….my skin is probably still there
If you subsidize the manufacturing of poor quality food, you will have many more people being taxed for consuming the poor quality foods. It is a win-win baby!
Let’s take it a step further and tax everything that’s not good for you. Let’s start with alcohol. There’s a huge drag on health care costs. And while we’re at it, let’s tax anything with sugar in it, or salt.
————————
Depends what you define as sugar and salt. There are many things that have ’sugars’ in them. Complex carbohydrates come in many forms – as does salt.
Sucrose, Lactose, Maltose, Fructose – etc.
Salts – many types as well, from table salt, to brines for canning, sea salt, curing salts, etc.
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
xxx…i have enjoyed the conversation
____________________________
As have I. Maybe we can get together for lunch sometime and discuss further.
wichhick
Posted October 13, 2009 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
as to indian rock……………i fell (actually jumped off in panic) off a skate board going close to 300 miles an hour…….my skin is probably still there
______________________
Skateboarding on that hill was a lot of fun. I doubt if you’ll see much of that anymore. I’m going to bet that you weren’t wearing helmet or pads, LOL!
no helmets or pads……..and our skate boards were “really” skate boards, made out of old metal skates and a board……………the vibrations made your feet numb almost immediately.
“We could look at farm subsidies that tend to make many unhealthful foods artificially low… we could look at why healthier fruits & vegetables receive next to no subsidies..”
We could look at farm subsidies and….get rid of them altogether. The only reason they are there?
Farmers are the Democrats friend and ….cheap food for the masses. In reality, if there were no farm subsidies, much less of those targetted products would be produced. Doing two things. Raising prices because there is no surplus, bring in more foreign imports (because they do it cheaper, and everybody apparently likes cheaper)
But, I am for removing farm subsidies altogether. Sink or swim baby
If you want prices to fall, just get rid of the middleman, government and insurance companies. I’ve been going to the same doctor for years. I pay him $35 dollars a visit when I’m sick and have catastrophic insurance for when something bad happens. Nothing bad has happened, knock on wood, but I can tell you that I save thousands of dollars a year by not paying for basic medical needs insurance.
But, I am for removing farm subsidies altogether.
====================================
Let’s remove housing subsidies and “Green Technology” subsidies as well.
Surely we can be fair about this?
Subsidies are here to choose the winners and the losers in a particular market. Since governments are engaged in choosing winners and losers, they become fully responsible for everything that goes on in that particular market.
OK. Kill all the subsidies but just don’t touch camel racing. We have to have our camel races. What do you people want? Riots in the street or what?
Smokers are already funding CHIPS, they deserve a break.
This information is patently false. Any doctor that practices defensive medicine is guilty of committing malpractice AND insurance fraud. They’re telling patients that tests are necessary and they’re telling the insurance company to pay for them. In order to win a MedMal case you have to prove that a physician violated the standard of care. The standard of care is the “actions that a reasonable physician would take in similar circumstances.” There is no condition for which the standard of care is over-the-top testing. Mistakes happen in medicine, it doesn’t mean there is malpractice. Those who claim to practice defensive medicine are a) criminals or b) going along with the hype in he hopes it will bring their premiums down. Check out this article for more: http://www.vamedmal.com/library/the-high-cost-of-defensive-medicine.cfm
Which leads me to my next point. Premiums do not go down from caps, it’s been proven in places that have them. Arbitrarily limiting recovery will only have one effect, limiting access to proper settlements and rewards. If a toddler loses his/her limb to a doctors gross negligence is the rest of his/her life with only one arm or leg really worth a mere $275,000 on top of medical bills?
Everyone thinks that the legal system is some sort of lottery with plaintiffs and lawyers trying to get rich. The insurance companies have done a fantastic job of vilifying the plaintiff’s bar and portraying every lawsuit as frivolous. In reality, the insurance companies hold all the cards and it is incredibly difficult to win any MedMal case. People complain that litigation is the problem but God forbid they support caps and end up on the wrong side of a doctor’s carelessness. Juries of people like you and I are the ones rewarding sums (which can be reduced by a judge) so let’s not pretend like it’s a handout line; real cases get real rewards for real people from real people at the expense of those who are truly negligent. The frivolous cases are weeded out. The system works.
Caps are not the answer to stemming the cost of medicine, a bust up of the hydra-monopoly that is American insurance is.
Well bmbarna, it looks like your foray into reality shut down the discussion.
You make some very good points.
bmbarna
Posted October 13, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
This information is patently false. Any doctor that practices defensive medicine is guilty of committing malpractice AND insurance fraud. They’re telling patients that tests are necessary and they’re telling the insurance company to pay for them.
=================
Evidently, you step outside when they were giving the medi-colegal classes as your ‘patently false’ statement is well, patently false.
#stepped
My daughter has a friend who’s husband died due to malpractice at a local hospital. While moving him to avoid bedsores (he was in a coma) they dislodged his feeding tube. He did come out of the coma, and his prognosis looked good until the effect of the dislodged tube became apparent. That resulted in multiple complications that took his life at a very young age.
He left behind two sons under the age of five and a stepdaughter, as well as his wife, parents and grandparents.
Under tort reform proposals, his family would only receive $250,000 for the malpractice, before legal fees. That seems like a very small sum for the life of a father of three in his early twenties.
(For the naysayers – his doctors that were treating his head injuries stated without equivocation that he would have lived and fully recovered if not for the feeding tube issue.)
It’s not the claims that make the biggest impact WSClark, it’s the huge punishment damages awarded by juries when trial attorneys who specialize in ambulance chasing get in the courtroom to find error, any error that will fatten their pocketbooks.
Same thing happens in fraudulent claims in auto accident and the recent trend for big city attorneys to leap on to small towns who can’t afford attorneys and bully them into payments.
As I said before, trial attorneys are the number 2 contributor to the Democratic Party campaign funds.
The federal government has the prospect in proving to the American workers and legal population that they are wrong in thinking that politicians are catering to the open border parasites? Two laws could be imposed, that would assign employment to elderly citizens and others, as a vanguard in inspecting I-9’s auditing forms for use with the E-Verify, computer verification software. Thousands of jobs could be created as an interior illegal immigration force, giving ICE more backing in investigating businesses hiring foreign labor? In all regions of the country these interior inspectors would listen to Whistle blowers and then investigate companies, such as with the apparel company in Los Angeles who had to jettison 1800 foreign nationals. To me it’s very questionable that a company the size of that clothing company could be completely ignorant of its workers, specifically in a SANCTUARY CITY AND STATE like CALIFORNIA?
Another idea is in the commencing voting season next year? Instead of just taking the incumbents and clean faced lawmakers by their word? That when they swear an oath that they will protect and defend the American people, we should hold them to it? We should ensure their honesty by having them sign an agreement executed under perjury, that he/she will defend us from foreign and domestic enemies? Let’s face it if you study the immigration enforcement grading at NUMBERSUSA, a highly regarded pro-sovereignty website, you will observe Sen. Harry Reid has a C- ? He and Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano, Sen.Chuck Schumer (F- ) Diane Feinstein ( F ) and countless others have used their political influence to under fund, create obstacles and otherwise use Senate-House laws to collapse any worthwhile enforcement laws such as police apprehension 287 G and the No-Match letter? Ask yourself? What do these politicians have to gain from keeping our border fence wide open? Even the church is approving the BLANKET AMNESTY, when the 1986 was just a facade of fraud. Perhaps the churches would like to open their coffers, homes and bring in illegal alien families to squat there, instead of dumping it in the lap of the taxpayers yet again? My Baptist church has very few passionate people, when it means feeding their own families?
Just type into Google each name followed by illegal immigration as many are brought and sold once they get to Washington, as out from the sleazy woodwork comes the lobbyists with bags of money. For an example type in Pelosi–illegal immigration–corruption. One headline reads–NANCY PELOSI CULTURE OF CORRUPTION! Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein Appropriated Federal Funds for San Francisco DA’s Program that Expunged & Kept Illegal’s Criminal Records from the Feds: The diseased lists of political sleaze goes on and on. The rumors that Pelosi has vineyards in Central California have an abundant illegal alien labor? If you really want to know the–TRUTH–about the next path to citizenship for the 20 to 30 million foreign nationals, just surf the net.
GOOGLE–JUDICIAL WATCH and learn what your financial future has in store for you. Ordinary people have been crippled by financing illegal immigration? That’s right! They bleed you for more and more taxes to supplement the poorly paid income of illegal workers? Remember it’s not the US government who pays for free health care, education for the millions of illegal kids brought over here. Removing the chance of a decent education for our kids? It’s the US taxpayer who can hardly afford to balance their own budgetary needs. The only people who benefit from cut rate labor are the dishonest business owners. That’s why we need mandatory E-Verify, to disrupt their hiring of cheap labor. Even our kids cannot get summer jobs any more, because fast food employers hire illegal workers?
If American workers don’t get organized and run these political renegades out of town, we will have a BLANKET AMNESTY to deal with. We can stop this travesty by holding their feet to fire at 202-224-3121 and yelling they will not be reelected.
URGENT: TEA PARTIES NATION WIDE ON NOVEMBER 14 AGAINST BLANKET AMNESTY. NO MORE MONEY FOR ILLEGALS’
Today, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) will be offering an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill that would require the U.S. Census Bureau to add questions regarding immigration & citizenship status to the 2010 decennial census. If these questions are not asked it is certain that illegal aliens will be counted in the census and states will lose/gain Congressional seats (and electoral college votes) due to this counting of illegal aliens.DEMAND FROM YOUR SENATORS THAT SEN. VITTERS’ AMENDMENT BE INCLUDED.
“It’s not the claims that make the biggest impact WSClark, it’s the huge punishment damages awarded by juries”
So you feel that it would be appropriate for this young family to have an award of only $250,000 before legal fees for the loss of their father and husband, Regular?
WSClark
Posted October 13, 2009 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
“It’s not the claims that make the biggest impact WSClark, it’s the huge punishment damages awarded by juries”
So you feel that it would be appropriate for this young family to have an award of only $250,000 before legal fees for the loss of their father and husband, Regular?
—————
I didn’t say anything resembling what you interpreted.
What I’m saying if someone loses function or limb in a medical case, then the punishment phase should be limited.
Let’s say some nurse forgot to release the tension on a bandage and it cuts of the circulation of someone’s hand. In court, they come to the conclusion that 250K will pay for the damages, but also give 10 million dollars as punishment.
The outlandish punishment fees is what drives everyone costs up. I made that up and I’m sure there are more ridiculous cases than the one I just made.
In other tort cases, the old lady who spilled coffee on her lap at McDonald’s was a case where the punishment phase was far in excess of the negligence fee.
How many burgers does one need to sell to recoup 600 thousand dollars?
“I didn’t say anything resembling what you interpreted.”
I didn’t interpret anything – I asked a question of you.
(BTW: The various proposals for tort reform include a $250,000 cap – that’s where I got the number I referenced.)
And I was not referring to hot coffee at McDonald’s – I was posting about a young man that lost his life due to malpractice at a Wichita area hospital.
Clark,
Would 1 billion cover the loss of their father?
“Would 1 billion cover the loss of their father?
Make light of it if you choose, Anti, I wouldn’t expect more from you, but it is obviously is a tragedy when a young father dies needlessly due to malpractice.
Tort reform is needed. It is not just the high awards, sometimes unreasonably so, sometimes not, that hurt so badly. It is the deep pockets syndrome, and somebody else has to be at fault syndrome that pervade our society. Limiting lawyer fees, punishing true malpractice and not rewarding the “well, SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY” is a start. Making the actual damages compensatory, with much smaller penalty awards would be a better way. Perhaps, with true malpractice, you punish the practioner by not allowing him or her to continue practicing, instead of just paying insurance to cover his/her ass. Perhaps not allowing settlements out of court will make laywers only take those cases that have merit, instead of just hoping to get bought off.
Make light of it if you choose, Anti, I wouldn’t expect more from you, but it is obviously is a tragedy when a young father dies needlessly due to malpractice.
==========================
Truly I am not making light of the situation. I am just pointing out that no amount of money can replace a life.
Also, doctors are people. As people they make mistakes. This factor obviously does not include gross incompetence.
WSClark
Posted October 13, 2009 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
“I didn’t say anything resembling what you interpreted.”
I didn’t interpret anything – I asked a question of you.
(BTW: The various proposals for tort reform include a $250,000 cap – that’s where I got the number I referenced.)
And I was not referring to hot coffee at McDonald’s – I was posting about a young man that lost his life due to malpractice at a Wichita area hospital.
————————-
Yes, sorry that happened.
I’ve lost a few relatives to some “Oh noes” and general oversights of physicians. It’s tragic when a young father or mother dies.
That’s why I have so much respect for our servicement who sacrifice their lives in duty to their country – or to Police or Firemen.
It’s a tragic case no doubt, but I not sure what you want from me other than empathy. People do die, mistakes happen and life can be cruel.
It makes no sense to me why a drunk driver killed my best friend when we were both nine years old. I pause on occasion thinking about it. Or the young man who committed suicide when I was on call in the military and I had to remove, tag and bag the valuables. I still see his face to this day, he looked like he was just asleep.
Or handling bags of what used to be a pilot and his navigator when they slammed into a mountain due to an equipment malfunction.
Life can really suck, especially when it involves death of someone close and their death was unfair or from negligence or just an incident that should have never happened.
I know of no scale out there that can weigh out the value of a human life.
Liability limits have been set for years and are well known in the insurance and other industries like employee compensation.
Occasionally I step back and think about people in foreign lands who have their limbs blown away by mines or their family member has died because of disease or a war time action. They or their family will probably never see a dime.
Yeah, life sucks sometimes, but it’s not so bad here in the U.S., imo.
“Also, doctors are people. As people they make mistakes.”
Repeated mistakes. The young man went into the hospital with a head injury. He was conscious and lucid less than twenty-four hours before he died due to the breakdown of his bodily organs due to the malpractice.
“I am just pointing out that no amount of money can replace a life.”
The proposed cap of $250,000 would be a slap in the face to his family that should have been able to enjoy at least 60 more years of his presence.
Clark,
In the case you cite, what dollar figure would you place on justice?
I don’t know that there is a “right” answer, but I am curious as to your figure.
Ant,
Until the medical community finds some adequate way to police their own ranks, high-dollar settlements from the screw-ups are the only way we have to to send a message that malpractice is unacceptable. There are a couple doctors out there I’d gladly settle with without monetary compensation- all I want is their heads on pikes in my front yard, and payment of whatever legal bills it’ll take to get them. Until that’s possible, we only have lawsuits. Sometimes we don’t even have that. Some of the worst screw-ups join the military to avoid malpractice suits, and continue to malpractice on our servicepeople, who deserve better.
Well Jed, no wonder there is a shortage of people in the medical field.
Obama will make that shortage greater.
Jed are you sure you aren’t an ambulance chaser?
The proposed cap of $250,000 would be a slap in the face to his family that should have been able to enjoy at least 60 more years of his presence.
That’s what military members get from their SGLI life insurance if they die.
Ant,
I didn’t sue because I wouldn’t win what I wanted- their heads on pikes in my front yard as assurace that nothing that bad would happen to someone else’s family at their hands, and as warning to the ones yet to malpractice.
“In the case you cite, what dollar figure would you place on justice?”
Based on a low-ball figure of $35,000 per year (his income)for 45 years (the minimum balance of his working life), a figure of $1.6 million after legal fees would be a minimum that I would feel is appropriate.
“That’s what military members get from their SGLI life insurance if they die.”
Life insurance. Medical malpractice.
Two different subjects.
Life insurance. Medical malpractice.
Two different subjects.
===============
Not really…
One you plan for pre-mortem.
The other you try to get via lawyers via post-mortem methods. Of which, the trial lawyer will glady take their 33 percent cut.
Yeah, that’s justice – feeding the barracudas.
“Yeah, that’s justice – feeding the barracudas.”
Free enterprise – lawyers working for MONEY.
reggie,
Gee, the lawyer I talked to wanted 40%+!
Jed
Posted October 13, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
reggie,
Gee, the lawyer I talked to wanted 40%+!
—————
Yeah, then there is the IRS, State taxes, death taxes…
You know, by the time the family gets what is left they won’t know if they’ve been robbed or rode hard and put away wet.
This is one time I’m going to come down on the side of my conservative friends.
I used to lobby on insurance issues (against now-HHS Secretary Sebelius) 20-odd years ago.
What most people don’t realize is that over 90 percent of the world’s insurance is controlled by Great Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.
The $100,000 life insurance policy you take out is a $10,000 policy by the company you bought it from. They go out and take a $90,000 policy on your life from a reinsurance company. That company goes out and takes a $70,000 policy from another company. The third company goes out and buys a $50,000 policy from a fourth company.
The average car insurance policy is really 7 insurance policies.
The average physician’s malpractice insurance policy can be in reality 100 or more policies… with an OBGYN, it’s not uncommon to see 225 policies written on one doctor.
After the first 2-3 policies, all that money goes out of the US, never to return.
Foreign insurers refer to our court system as “the American torts lottery”, because you never know what’s going to come out of a particular case.
That’s why conservatives are right on this point… getting control over damages will help reduce health care costs.
Doing so in a way that protects patient rights should be the issue here.
WSClark
Posted October 13, 2009 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
“Yeah, that’s justice – feeding the barracudas.”
Free enterprise – lawyers working for MONEY.
——————-
That would be 30-40 percent of your deceased friend’s family money that the attorneys will walk away with.
Who or what did they lose in the case to be paid such huge sums?
In addition what Mr. Controversy wrote, reigning in these barracuda is what the U.S. needs. They need it now.
“Who or what did they lose in the case to be paid such huge sums?”
In a contingency case, lawyers generally receive 40% of the award if they win – nothing if they lose.
Out of their 40%, they pay all of the filing, clerical and research costs, including the fees of consulting lawyers and expert witnesses.
What does a corporate CEO do to “earn” his $100 million compensation package per year?
It’s interesting that Con/Republicans object to pay caps for CEO’s that receive corporate bailout money from the Federal government, but they want to restrict the earnings.
Very interesting.
I wonder if it has anything to do with campaign contributions?
“but they want to restrict the earnings.”
but they want to restrict the earnings of LAWYERS.
Well Mr. Clark, you are just flip flopping all over the place. You bring up a sad story, then to show your remorse and pain, you throw in corporate profits and defend attorneys in litigious suits.
I’d offer you a Kleenix, but it looks like they were onion tears.
“you throw in corporate profits and defend attorneys in litigious suits.”
Yes I am defending lawyers. Who else would you expect my friend to have handle her case? Her plumber? The CEO of the company she works for? The Lies garbage man that picks up her trash? A WEBlog blogger?
Why should a corporate CEO make millions upon millions of dollars, yet an attorney should have his earnings restricted?
Onion tears – tell that to his family.
I feel sorrow for the family, but for you Clark, wearing their sadness on the family to further your liberal agenda is pathetic.
And of course, you feel no shame about it. Libs are what they are – users and abusers.
My guess If a CEO takes 40% of the gross income of a company, he’s paid too much. Unless he does so by being the majority stockholder. How many ceos take 40%? How many earn 100 million? My guess is the largess of a few, it not like the compensation of the rest.
“but for you Clark, wearing their sadness on the family to further your liberal agenda is pathetic.”
BS – pure and simple.
My family and I did everything we could for his family while he was hospitalized – from feeding his children, to babysitting, to cash donations, to organizing relief for the family, to fixing problems with their home.
You know nothing of the situation, or how deeply my family and I were involved in trying to help them, in any and every way we could.
As usual, Regular, you and your know-it-all contempt for anyone that doesn’t share your political POV shows through.
You are a disgusting POS.
To paraphrase “Broadcast News.”
.
.
(Regular as)Paul Moore: “Now, if there’s anything I can do for you…”
(C*’s Family as) Fired aging reporter: “Well, I certainly hope you’ll die soon.”
.
.
That is the level of compassion that Paul “Regular” Moore has for his fellow man.
One-size-fits-all Big-Government-determined settlements are what the cons are crying for… hypocritical, If you were to ask me.
And once again Clark plays the (P)ersecutor (A)Accusor (V)ictim in perfect fashion. Too bad it’s predictable and I know his game. PAV all day, all night – that’s Clark for ya.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“PAV all day, all night – that’s Clark for ya.”
(C*’s Family as) Fired aging reporter: “Well, I certainly hope you’ll die soon.”
Death is too good for you, JM, Eier, Republikhan, Blog Monitor, Republican, Reguliar, etc.
You are an A S S H O L E of the first order.
Loser.
“Well, I certainly hope you’ll die soon.”
I would second that motion.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“PAV all day, all night – that’s Clark for ya.”
(C*’s Family as) Fired aging reporter: “Well, I certainly hope you’ll die soon.”
Death is too good for you, JM, Eier, Republikhan, Blog Monitor, Republican, Reguliar, etc.
You are an A $ $ H 0 L & of the first order.
Loser.
“Well, I certainly hope you’ll die soon.”
I would second that motion.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Well, WEBLOG won’t allow me to post my reply to the Regu-liar, but let’s just say that I feel that Paul “Regular” Moore would be welcome to expire REAL soon.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
WEBlog won’t allow me to post ANYTHING.
F uc k you, Regular.
Amazing, that last post got through the monitors, but five previous posts didn’t.
What up with that.
Oh, well.
F uc k you, Regular.
WSClark
Shame on you!!!!
5.4 bil a yr. over a decade, drop in the bucket in overall expense, and just a fraction of that would go toward ins. reduction.