"The medical malpractice reform of 2003 was a move in the right direction for average Texans trying to cope with increased health costs"

What an odd conclusion. Texans aren't saving any money on their health care bill. The only sure thing anyone can say is that instead of physicians paying 150% more than they were in 2001, they are now paying approximately 140% more.

I paid $7000 in 2001 and this year I'm paying $26,000 in malpractice premium in my state for the same coverage. Almost 300% more. Yes that's an odd conclusion.

There must be a veritable epidemic of innumeracy going on....

("Innumeracy is a term coined by Douglas R. Hofstadter and popularized by mathematician John Allen Paulos, in analogy to illiteracy. You are innumerate if you can't use math to make sense of the world. Innumerate people may be able to do arithmetics or even bits of higher math, and they may even become engineers or other scientists, but they will not grasp the basics of statistics. This is not bad in itself, since most people don't need it most of the time. But the lack of understanding usually comes in a package with lack of awareness of what is missing and where it is important. Many pseudoscientific claims can only be refuted using mathematical understanding, so innumerate people easily fall for them." http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Innumeracy)

In order to reduce a, say, 100% increase in something to its previous level, there has to be a 50% DECREASE. For example, if something costs $50, and there's a 100% increase (which means you DOUBLE the initial amount) the new price is $100.

A 50% DECREASE in a $100 price brings makes the NEW price - once again - $50.

Therefore, it is either innumerate - or deliberately dishonest - to suggest that an 11.7% average cut malpractice insurance rates reduces what Texas doctors are paying brings their rates from 150% more to 140% more...

PLUS...I'm not sure where that 11.7% figure came from in the first place, since MedPro, one of the largest carriers, just announced its third REDUCTION in premiums in the past 12 months, for a cumulative reduction since the beginning of 2005 of 13% - following reductions in previous years as well.

Also, Texas Medical Liability Trust, the largest medical liability insurance company in the state, had doubled its rates from 1998 to 2003. Since the law passed, it delivered a rate cut of 12 percent in 2004 and 5 percent for 2005. Another 5 percent rate cut went into effect this year, according to the company and the Texas Department of Insurance. Cumulatively, that's a 20 and a half percent DECREASE since the law was passed, which is about two fifths of the way to that 50% decrease we mentioned earlier - the one that would bounce BACK the 100% INCREASE of the previous years to its original level....

MORE IMPORTANTLY, however, is that more physicians are willing to practice medicine in Texas because the medical justice system there doesn't treat them like golden geese any longer....

I must admit to some confusion, though...who said that health insurance premiums would come down as a result of medical liability reform?

They're two entirely SEPARATE kinds of insurance....references to health insurance costs in this context are almost always an effort to muddy the waters and confuse the debate...

I suggest you look up the definition of "immunity" since you clearly don't understand the word in this setting.

"While your snippy style gives you away, you seem lately to lack the testicular fortitude to SIGN your posts....)"

Is this what you're reduced to simply because I sometimes forget to sign? How sad for you.

"that it takes an average of 4.5 years for a malpractice case to reach settlement or verdict, so your obfuscation about PAYOUTS is ludicrous. "

You continually undercut your own argument. Because you have no way of knowing what the insurers believe their future payouts will be, what their past assessments were and how correct they were, etc. You have to know at least what past payouts were that would have been affected by caps to assess what impact they will have in the future. And you don't know that.

"I DID read the article. There's a tiny, irrelevant reference in the last paragraph about health care costs."

So you agree that it is incorrect, then? Or at least not supported by any evidence cited by the author.

So you won't wonder about my testes,

CJD

"don't post it all over the Internet and in bogus press releases."

"Bogus" is certainly in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

There are certainly a lot of "beholders" who might consider everything CJD and the other apologists for the myriad dysfunctions in our medical justice system say to be "bogus."