I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
It's unfortunate you have to spell the obvious out, but such are the times.
It's unfortunate you have to spell the obvious out, but such are the times.
And anyway, malpractice is a red herring. Regressives would have us believe that malpractice suits and insurance are solely responsible for the high cost of medical care... but that, of course, is pure BS.
For every greedy patient who sues his doctor, there are a hundred even greedier pharma-corp executives and HMO administrators.
And anyway, malpractice is a red herring. Regressives would have us believe that malpractice suits and insurance are solely responsible for the high cost of medical care... but that, of course, is pure BS.
For every greedy patient who sues his doctor, there are a hundred even greedier pharma-corp executives and HMO administrators.
they should just make a law that says that insurance companies are only responsible for collecting premiums. all this paying of claims is dragging down the economy. how will we ever compete with the japanese insurance industry?
they should just make a law that says that insurance companies are only responsible for collecting premiums. all this paying of claims is dragging down the economy. how will we ever compete with the japanese insurance industry?
If damages for pain and suffering are going to be capped at $250,000, shouldn't the same law also cap the actual pain and suffering inflicted at
the same figure?
Seems like an equal rights issue to me -
the equality of persons with corporations.
The underlying issue here is the unrestricted power and growth of corporate "persons" vs. the inherent rights of people to have access to justice.
If damages for pain and suffering are going to be capped at $250,000, shouldn't the same law also cap the actual pain and suffering inflicted at
the same figure?
Seems like an equal rights issue to me -
the equality of persons with corporations.
The underlying issue here is the unrestricted power and growth of corporate "persons" vs. the inherent rights of people to have access to justice.
The price of unregulated profit is unregulated liability.
The price of unregulated profit is unregulated liability.
It's another Bush Con-job, pure and simple.
It's all explained here: http://www.americanprogress.org/...RJ8OVF&
b=225288
Bon Apetit!
.
It's another Bush Con-job, pure and simple.
It's all explained here: http://www.americanprogress.org/...RJ8OVF&
b=225288
Bon Apetit!
.
And here:
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s04/1006-
22.htm
.
And here:
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s04/1006-
22.htm
.
Little Ricky Santorum wants tort-reform.
Not that he's a hypocrite or anything.
.
Little Ricky Santorum wants tort-reform.
Not that he's a hypocrite or anything.
.
All of this is fair enough; but the tentativeness of "some potential abuses" (why "potential" here?) doesn't necessarily indicate a sober acknowledgement of the real problem that juries are awarding people astonomical sums of money. Is the threat of litigation a break on corporate malfeasance? Absolutely. But as long as juries (and lawyers--yes, they vote blue, but they're still a problem) view lawsuits as potential lottery wins, lawsuits are going to continue to grow in popularity.
I don't have an answer to this problem, but I think that it's a real problem.
All of this is fair enough; but the tentativeness of "some potential abuses" (why "potential" here?) doesn't necessarily indicate a sober acknowledgement of the real problem that juries are awarding people astonomical sums of money. Is the threat of litigation a break on corporate malfeasance? Absolutely. But as long as juries (and lawyers--yes, they vote blue, but they're still a problem) view lawsuits as potential lottery wins, lawsuits are going to continue to grow in popularity.
I don't have an answer to this problem, but I think that it's a real problem.
And money caps: when inflation turns a quarter million into 2,000, you see no more lawyers taking on any more lawsuits.
And money caps: when inflation turns a quarter million into 2,000, you see no more lawyers taking on any more lawsuits.
Eleatic Stranger sez:
[The] real problem that juries are awarding people astonomical sums of money.
Name one case of this where the judge (or an appeals court) didn't reduce the money to something more reasonable.
.
Eleatic Stranger sez:
[The] real problem that juries are awarding people astonomical sums of money.
Name one case of this where the judge (or an appeals court) didn't reduce the money to something more reasonable.
.
Incident: apologies, I can't name specific cases--I'm not a lawyer--but I have friends in the medical profession who have *moved to other states* because their medical liability insurance premiums were all but unsupportable by their practices. I'll repeat, I have no answers here, but to think that we're not looking at a real rat's nest of complications on all sides isn't to give the situation a real look.
Incident: apologies, I can't name specific cases--I'm not a lawyer--but I have friends in the medical profession who have *moved to other states* because their medical liability insurance premiums were all but unsupportable by their practices. I'll repeat, I have no answers here, but to think that we're not looking at a real rat's nest of complications on all sides isn't to give the situation a real look.
Medical liability insurance premiums are taking doctors to the cleaners, using the excuse of "frivolous" lawsuits to justify insurance company greed. It has nothing to do with actual lawsuits, and everything to do with corrupt businesses looking for a scapegoat to rile folks up while their pockets are being picked.
Medical liability insurance premiums are taking doctors to the cleaners, using the excuse of "frivolous" lawsuits to justify insurance company greed. It has nothing to do with actual lawsuits, and everything to do with corrupt businesses looking for a scapegoat to rile folks up while their pockets are being picked.
Eleatic Stranger sez:
I can't name specific cases--I'm not a lawyer--but I have friends in the medical profession who have *moved to other states* because their medical liability insurance premiums were all but unsupportable by their practices. I'll repeat, I have no answers here, but to think that we're not looking at a real rat's nest of complications on all sides isn't to give the situation a real look.
I'm not a lawer m'self. But I will still call "bullshit" on this issue.
You say "but I have friends in the medical profession who have *moved to other states* because their medical liability insurance premiums".
From which state to which state?
I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I hear so much anecdote but few facts.
But I know the insurance co's. are screwing everybody over. Is it about juries? Or is it about profit?
.
Eleatic Stranger sez:
I can't name specific cases--I'm not a lawyer--but I have friends in the medical profession who have *moved to other states* because their medical liability insurance premiums were all but unsupportable by their practices. I'll repeat, I have no answers here, but to think that we're not looking at a real rat's nest of complications on all sides isn't to give the situation a real look.
I'm not a lawer m'self. But I will still call "bullshit" on this issue.
You say "but I have friends in the medical profession who have *moved to other states* because their medical liability insurance premiums".
From which state to which state?
I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I hear so much anecdote but few facts.
But I know the insurance co's. are screwing everybody over. Is it about juries? Or is it about profit?
.
Okay, last comment; Kate, I would only call your attention to your words "nothing" and "everything," words that stake out the strong position (I'm glad that we're on the same side, ultimately), but a position that is not defensible. Meeting Republican hard positions with Democratic hard positions makes for good entertainment, but terrible public policy. Yes, insurance companies make hay out of the phenomenon of "'frivolous' lawsuits" (and why the scare quotes on this? are you implying that there *are* no frivolous lawsuits?), but we will get nowhere if we deny the existence of them; it's an indefensible position. Make this argument, and the insurance companies you want to take down will thank you for it.
Okay, last comment; Kate, I would only call your attention to your words "nothing" and "everything," words that stake out the strong position (I'm glad that we're on the same side, ultimately), but a position that is not defensible. Meeting Republican hard positions with Democratic hard positions makes for good entertainment, but terrible public policy. Yes, insurance companies make hay out of the phenomenon of "'frivolous' lawsuits" (and why the scare quotes on this? are you implying that there *are* no frivolous lawsuits?), but we will get nowhere if we deny the existence of them; it's an indefensible position. Make this argument, and the insurance companies you want to take down will thank you for it.
There are checks and balances in the legal system already to deal with actual frivolous lawsuits. The "frivolous lawsuits" of which Eleatic Stranger speaks are only frivolous in the sense that the insurance company would rather not assume liability in some cases where it clearly is liable. The annual cost of litigation is higher than the costs of paying the settlements, so they go to court. This puts much of the "frivolous" action squarely on the shoulders of the insurance industry, not on the plaintiffs. Call it a strawman or a red herring, either will do. By and large, "tort reform" is not needed - what is sorely needed is insurance reform.
There are checks and balances in the legal system already to deal with actual frivolous lawsuits. The "frivolous lawsuits" of which Eleatic Stranger speaks are only frivolous in the sense that the insurance company would rather not assume liability in some cases where it clearly is liable. The annual cost of litigation is higher than the costs of paying the settlements, so they go to court. This puts much of the "frivolous" action squarely on the shoulders of the insurance industry, not on the plaintiffs. Call it a strawman or a red herring, either will do. By and large, "tort reform" is not needed - what is sorely needed is insurance reform.
I am a lawyer and I have seen some real abuses but they are not as systemic as is claimed. Here in NJ you need an expert (read here doctor) to write a report stating that there was a failure to meet the professional standard (malpractice) that was directly tied to a physical injury within 60 days after filing or your case is dismissed. Also there was less money awarded in the last few years than in previous years but premiums skyrocketed across the board. 2 years ago NJ Doctors protested in Trenton to cap damages without any call for insurance reform. It led to a great quote by one state official who said, "This week the doctors have golf on Wednesday and a protest on Thursday." Being a democrat, he later apologized.
Disclaimer: I am exclusively a criminal defense attorney and have not filed a SINGLE civil law suit in my 13 year carreer.
I am a lawyer and I have seen some real abuses but they are not as systemic as is claimed. Here in NJ you need an expert (read here doctor) to write a report stating that there was a failure to meet the professional standard (malpractice) that was directly tied to a physical injury within 60 days after filing or your case is dismissed. Also there was less money awarded in the last few years than in previous years but premiums skyrocketed across the board. 2 years ago NJ Doctors protested in Trenton to cap damages without any call for insurance reform. It led to a great quote by one state official who said, "This week the doctors have golf on Wednesday and a protest on Thursday." Being a democrat, he later apologized.
Disclaimer: I am exclusively a criminal defense attorney and have not filed a SINGLE civil law suit in my 13 year carreer.
Stranger -- it seems to me that what you're talking about is yet another indicator for a need for insurance reform.
The malpractice insurance premiums in this country are way past outrageous and into outlandish. Why? Borrowing a page from BushCo, they've got doctors afraid... in this case, of hideously out-of-whack lawsuit payoffs, most of which don't actually happen.
The insurance industry is the only business I can think of that gets pissed off at their customers when they try to use its product.
Stranger -- it seems to me that what you're talking about is yet another indicator for a need for insurance reform.
The malpractice insurance premiums in this country are way past outrageous and into outlandish. Why? Borrowing a page from BushCo, they've got doctors afraid... in this case, of hideously out-of-whack lawsuit payoffs, most of which don't actually happen.
The insurance industry is the only business I can think of that gets pissed off at their customers when they try to use its product.
yeah, filkertom, that's always kind of driven me nuts.
As soon as you actually get what you paid for from insurance folk (after they kick and scream and try everything not to give you a dime), then they raise rates.
What is up with that?
yeah, filkertom, that's always kind of driven me nuts.
As soon as you actually get what you paid for from insurance folk (after they kick and scream and try everything not to give you a dime), then they raise rates.
What is up with that?
I recently heard that idiot Mark Hyman editorializing on the local Sinclair TV station, denouncing "our lawsuit-friendly legal system." My head almost exploded. That's like saying "our arrest-friendly police system" or "our debate-friendly Congress." Is this really a BAD thing, that the system does what it was designed to do? I assume Hyman wants the courts to NOT deal with lawsuits?
I recently heard that idiot Mark Hyman editorializing on the local Sinclair TV station, denouncing "our lawsuit-friendly legal system." My head almost exploded. That's like saying "our arrest-friendly police system" or "our debate-friendly Congress." Is this really a BAD thing, that the system does what it was designed to do? I assume Hyman wants the courts to NOT deal with lawsuits?
And my flood insurance agent should be coming out here (finally) in the next couple of days, so look for a whole new rant on that topic.
And my flood insurance agent should be coming out here (finally) in the next couple of days, so look for a whole new rant on that topic.
hey charlie--
But you can rest assured we have put to rest our voter-friendly democratic system.
hey charlie--
But you can rest assured we have put to rest our voter-friendly democratic system.
What's needed is to move malpractice out of the tort system and replace it with a system based on statistical quality control, and which would remove incompetent MDs from practice. Which the current system does not appear to do.
What's needed is to move malpractice out of the tort system and replace it with a system based on statistical quality control, and which would remove incompetent MDs from practice. Which the current system does not appear to do.
Fear and intimidation. A tactic that fundamentalists use to force religion upon the stupid masses.
Why do you think it works?
Jeeze. What are ya... new?
Fear and intimidation. A tactic that fundamentalists use to force religion upon the stupid masses.
Why do you think it works?
Jeeze. What are ya... new?
Here's just a round up of stories I say today that weren't caught here.
Please ignore as you will.
More guerilla attacks in Iraq. Vietnamesque.
The rainforests are dying faster than we thought.
The RNC protesters are levelling a class action suit for being stuck in a toxic hole.
And perhaps most important of all: This Guardian op piece rocks.
Here's just a round up of stories I say today that weren't caught here.
Please ignore as you will.
More guerilla attacks in Iraq. Vietnamesque.
The rainforests are dying faster than we thought.
The RNC protesters are levelling a class action suit for being stuck in a toxic hole.
And perhaps most important of all: This Guardian op piece rocks.
charlie dont surf sez:
I recently heard that idiot Mark Hyman editorializing [...]
What?
Jews = oven?
Mark Hymen is a swell guy.
And that's the point.
.
charlie dont surf sez:
I recently heard that idiot Mark Hyman editorializing [...]
What?
Jews = oven?
Mark Hymen is a swell guy.
And that's the point.
.
"And with this morning's Happy News here's rorschach..."
Eh, I guess I'm not in the mood for the Daily Horrer Show.
Maybe I'm suffering from kittie withdrawel.
.
"And with this morning's Happy News here's rorschach..."
Eh, I guess I'm not in the mood for the Daily Horrer Show.
Maybe I'm suffering from kittie withdrawel.
.
hey spork:
I've done my part:
Have some catblogging on me. They do wonders to reduce my stress.
hey spork:
I've done my part:
Have some catblogging on me. They do wonders to reduce my stress.
250K won't keep a disabled person in nursing for very long. Make the cap a reasonable 5M and it gets a bit better. But the best is to leave it alone unless government is going to do a doggoned better job at patrolling corporations.
Hey, until enough folks are killed, auto manufacturers won't recall or redesign flaws. Wrongful deaths concealed and piled up are a Bad Thing.
250K won't keep a disabled person in nursing for very long. Make the cap a reasonable 5M and it gets a bit better. But the best is to leave it alone unless government is going to do a doggoned better job at patrolling corporations.
Hey, until enough folks are killed, auto manufacturers won't recall or redesign flaws. Wrongful deaths concealed and piled up are a Bad Thing.
Stranger -- it seems to me that what you're talking about is yet another indicator for a need for insurance reform.
Actually what you are all talking about is yet another indicator for a need for a National Healthcare System like civilized countries have.
Stranger -- it seems to me that what you're talking about is yet another indicator for a need for insurance reform.
Actually what you are all talking about is yet another indicator for a need for a National Healthcare System like civilized countries have.
¿Donde estan los gatos?
¿Donde estan los gatos?
Did anybody scroll up alittle further on his blog? Check this out. This means WAR!
Liberal Self-Parody Watch - Eschaton guest-blogger Hecate is exactly the annoying sort of liberal that Eschaton proprietor Atrios says hardly exist. Skim here and here (I won't insist that you read) to see.
Jim Henley, 10:47 AM
Did anybody scroll up alittle further on his blog? Check this out. This means WAR!
Liberal Self-Parody Watch - Eschaton guest-blogger Hecate is exactly the annoying sort of liberal that Eschaton proprietor Atrios says hardly exist. Skim here and here (I won't insist that you read) to see.
Jim Henley, 10:47 AM
It's such a strange figure to use as a cap too. Subtract a third for the lawyer and more for tax and you end up, maybe with $125k - which is, basically pointless.
Oh.
It's such a strange figure to use as a cap too. Subtract a third for the lawyer and more for tax and you end up, maybe with $125k - which is, basically pointless.
Oh.
It seems to me that the insurance companies are getting the free ride in all of this.
Cleverly hidden behind "tort reform" that pits lawyers against doctors against patients is an industry that takes more money from each citizen than taxes yet is lightly regulated and invisible to scrutiny.
If anything needs to be reformed, it is the insurance industry.
Want to retire the debt and keep America in the black for the forseeable future?
Nationalize the insurance companies.
It seems to me that the insurance companies are getting the free ride in all of this.
Cleverly hidden behind "tort reform" that pits lawyers against doctors against patients is an industry that takes more money from each citizen than taxes yet is lightly regulated and invisible to scrutiny.
If anything needs to be reformed, it is the insurance industry.
Want to retire the debt and keep America in the black for the forseeable future?
Nationalize the insurance companies.
Click on my link, Matt. Los gatos are there.
Click on my link, Matt. Los gatos are there.
Tort reform in Texas only means valid lawsuits and justice are stopped. Stupid lawsuits still can go forward.
Tort reform in Texas only means valid lawsuits and justice are stopped. Stupid lawsuits still can go forward.
We have a system for dealing with frivilous lawsuits. It's called judges and/or juries and/or getting your court case dismissed.
We have a system for dealing with frivilous lawsuits. It's called judges and/or juries and/or getting your court case dismissed.
Tort reform should begin with the constant, highly financed, silly, corporate suits over the most rediculous copy right and trade mark infringments. Funny, though, you never hear about those from our big, corporate, name-brand media. Does anyone keep a tally over how many of these the Wall Street Journal or ABC's parent company, the evil mouse, have brought in the past ten years? We could do with an easily referenced list such as the Chickenhawk list.
An estimate of how many hours of court time and how much money this ends up costing the taxpayers and consumers might be useful too.
When they start on this issue, it's just the masters complaining about the slaves getting uppity again. We're supposed to roll over and let them injure and kill us and our children and to thank them for it.
Oh, I do like "regressives", vaara, I'm going to use it if that's all right.
Chartreuse, my young nieces know it as one of my three most hated colors, aqua and fuscia pink being the others. Hate it, hate it.
Tort reform should begin with the constant, highly financed, silly, corporate suits over the most rediculous copy right and trade mark infringments. Funny, though, you never hear about those from our big, corporate, name-brand media. Does anyone keep a tally over how many of these the Wall Street Journal or ABC's parent company, the evil mouse, have brought in the past ten years? We could do with an easily referenced list such as the Chickenhawk list.
An estimate of how many hours of court time and how much money this ends up costing the taxpayers and consumers might be useful too.
When they start on this issue, it's just the masters complaining about the slaves getting uppity again. We're supposed to roll over and let them injure and kill us and our children and to thank them for it.
Oh, I do like "regressives", vaara, I'm going to use it if that's all right.
Chartreuse, my young nieces know it as one of my three most hated colors, aqua and fuscia pink being the others. Hate it, hate it.
"We have a system for dealing with frivilous lawsuits. It's called judges and/or juries and/or getting your court case dismissed."
Oh, it's a system, is it? I was told that my case was dismissed because the judge's clerk felt it was unreasonably complex and would be difficult and time-consuming.... Which is why we ended up in appellate court .... which is why we'll end up right back where we were three years ago (but with luck, not in front of that judge or with that clerk). The courts may have a system, but it's not a very good one and it seldom has any direct connexion to anything you'd recognise as involving the law.
"We have a system for dealing with frivilous lawsuits. It's called judges and/or juries and/or getting your court case dismissed."
Oh, it's a system, is it? I was told that my case was dismissed because the judge's clerk felt it was unreasonably complex and would be difficult and time-consuming.... Which is why we ended up in appellate court .... which is why we'll end up right back where we were three years ago (but with luck, not in front of that judge or with that clerk). The courts may have a system, but it's not a very good one and it seldom has any direct connexion to anything you'd recognise as involving the law.
Biloxi SunHerald from Feb 2003 on tort reform in Mississippi failed to solve the insurance crisis in that wonderful Red State.
Biloxi SunHerald from Feb 2003 on tort reform in Mississippi failed to solve the insurance crisis in that wonderful Red State.
Oh, can someone give "tort reform" a more appropriate buzz-phrase, like "rights denial" or "seeing to it that crooks and sleazebags and wrongdoers get away with it" or something. The term tort reform is so Orwellian, like tax reform for giving tax breaks to the rich or regulatory reform for gutting environmental protections.
Oh, can someone give "tort reform" a more appropriate buzz-phrase, like "rights denial" or "seeing to it that crooks and sleazebags and wrongdoers get away with it" or something. The term tort reform is so Orwellian, like tax reform for giving tax breaks to the rich or regulatory reform for gutting environmental protections.
I don't a cap is the answer so that's why they're proposing it. There could be a panel of experts to decide if a lawsuit has merit. They would be experts in the medical field, copyright laws, Etc. Some of these suits are becoming too complex for the average judge.
I don't a cap is the answer so that's why they're proposing it. There could be a panel of experts to decide if a lawsuit has merit. They would be experts in the medical field, copyright laws, Etc. Some of these suits are becoming too complex for the average judge.
don't think a cap is the answer
don't think a cap is the answer
OT: but the Chia Pets commercials haven't started yet. Is anyone else as horrified as I am over the Febreeze Scentstories "player"? It could be that I've got serious allergies to the class of chemicals known as "fragrance" but it reminds me uncomfortably of the Dr. Who series, The Sun Makers.
Why aren't there a raft of jokes about it in our popular culture? Why aren't there paranoid ravings in the conspiracy world?
Till the latest Chia comes out it should be fun.
OT: but the Chia Pets commercials haven't started yet. Is anyone else as horrified as I am over the Febreeze Scentstories "player"? It could be that I've got serious allergies to the class of chemicals known as "fragrance" but it reminds me uncomfortably of the Dr. Who series, The Sun Makers.
Why aren't there a raft of jokes about it in our popular culture? Why aren't there paranoid ravings in the conspiracy world?
Till the latest Chia comes out it should be fun.
I don't a cap is the answer so that's why they're proposing it. There could be a panel of experts to decide if a lawsuit has merit. They would be experts in the medical field, copyright laws, Etc. Some of these suits are becoming too complex for the average judge.
Nah, they aren't all that complex. The notion of "tort reform" us just another way of shutting down the rights of the individual as opposed to the rights of the individual.
Bullshit lawsuits are dismissed all the time. There's nothing that needs to be changed.
Except from corporate perspective. Because they want to be able to do whatever they wish, with impunity.
I don't a cap is the answer so that's why they're proposing it. There could be a panel of experts to decide if a lawsuit has merit. They would be experts in the medical field, copyright laws, Etc. Some of these suits are becoming too complex for the average judge.
Nah, they aren't all that complex. The notion of "tort reform" us just another way of shutting down the rights of the individual as opposed to the rights of the individual.
Bullshit lawsuits are dismissed all the time. There's nothing that needs to be changed.
Except from corporate perspective. Because they want to be able to do whatever they wish, with impunity.
the Dr. Who series, The Sun Makers.
Run! It's The Gatherer!!
the Dr. Who series, The Sun Makers.
Run! It's The Gatherer!!
Doctors and hospitals both started getting rich (and only recently; say, within my nearly 50-year old lifetime) because a third party started picking up the tab: health insurance.
By rich, I mean the "big money." Doctors always made a living, but never much of one. Until health insurance.
Hospitals are now temples to wealth. Step into one, and you are drenched in the trappings of money. Ditto Dr.'s offices.
"Malpractice abuse" is a variation on the Southern rich white man's class warfare ploy. The rich white man always kept the poor white's in line by telling them it was the blacks who were their enemies, not the rich whites who exploited all the poor. The argument has just shifted to lawyers as the enemy. Not that they don't make a fine target.
But it's got nothing to do with the source of the problem.
Doctors and hospitals both started getting rich (and only recently; say, within my nearly 50-year old lifetime) because a third party started picking up the tab: health insurance.
By rich, I mean the "big money." Doctors always made a living, but never much of one. Until health insurance.
Hospitals are now temples to wealth. Step into one, and you are drenched in the trappings of money. Ditto Dr.'s offices.
"Malpractice abuse" is a variation on the Southern rich white man's class warfare ploy. The rich white man always kept the poor white's in line by telling them it was the blacks who were their enemies, not the rich whites who exploited all the poor. The argument has just shifted to lawyers as the enemy. Not that they don't make a fine target.
But it's got nothing to do with the source of the problem.
Ahhh...kitty.
With scary glowy eyes.
.
Ahhh...kitty.
With scary glowy eyes.
.
Run! It's The Gatherer!!
BlakNo1
And we'll do the same to The Colletctor when we find him, won't we Citizens!
Run! It's The Gatherer!!
BlakNo1
And we'll do the same to The Colletctor when we find him, won't we Citizens!
spork--Yes, but she is much more scared than scary, when it comes down to it.
In fact, everything in the entire universe scares her, including myself.
But--excepting any cat who comes near our house. She has come near to breaking our windows trying to get through them to defend our house against interlopers...
spork--Yes, but she is much more scared than scary, when it comes down to it.
In fact, everything in the entire universe scares her, including myself.
But--excepting any cat who comes near our house. She has come near to breaking our windows trying to get through them to defend our house against interlopers...
Make that Collector, it's an eye-po not a typo.
Make that Collector, it's an eye-po not a typo.
Oh, and it's money that matters.
A multi-million dollar judgment usually means money to pay healthcare bills for the rest of someone's life. Not vacations on the Riviera, a new Mercedes every year, and the latest electronic toys every Xmas.
But to the corporation, it's cash. Not human suffering, chronic pain, and all the attendant services and needs of a profoundly and permanently injured human being. Money. $$$$.
Which is more important? People? Or $$$$$?
Which one makes the world go a-round?
Oh, and it's money that matters.
A multi-million dollar judgment usually means money to pay healthcare bills for the rest of someone's life. Not vacations on the Riviera, a new Mercedes every year, and the latest electronic toys every Xmas.
But to the corporation, it's cash. Not human suffering, chronic pain, and all the attendant services and needs of a profoundly and permanently injured human being. Money. $$$$.
Which is more important? People? Or $$$$$?
Which one makes the world go a-round?
Yes, Robert. The insurance companies have "bought off" the doctors and lawyers who now shill and sell for, guess who, the insurance companies.
"Big massah" now has a corporate name and lives in the "banking and insurance" industry house.
Do I sound bitter?
I don't mean to.
But I am, kinda.
Yes, Robert. The insurance companies have "bought off" the doctors and lawyers who now shill and sell for, guess who, the insurance companies.
"Big massah" now has a corporate name and lives in the "banking and insurance" industry house.
Do I sound bitter?
I don't mean to.
But I am, kinda.
There will never be a cap on damages. Tort Reform is a politcal tool. There are as many Republican lawyers as Democratic ones. Would you put a cap on your potential earnings? Or be part of party that would?
This is just a ploy (like many other supposed "platform" issues), to get people riled up, then on the left people appear to be defending, gasp!, lawyers. But nothing will ever happen. Just watch.
There will never be a cap on damages. Tort Reform is a politcal tool. There are as many Republican lawyers as Democratic ones. Would you put a cap on your potential earnings? Or be part of party that would?
This is just a ploy (like many other supposed "platform" issues), to get people riled up, then on the left people appear to be defending, gasp!, lawyers. But nothing will ever happen. Just watch.
Tort reform, insurance caps...
The problem began when the Supreme Court declared corporations to be "people".
Somehow ExxonMobil is the equivelent of me.
Does this mean I'm worth billions of dollars and can get fat government contracts?
.
Tort reform, insurance caps...
The problem began when the Supreme Court declared corporations to be "people".
Somehow ExxonMobil is the equivelent of me.
Does this mean I'm worth billions of dollars and can get fat government contracts?
.
There will never be a cap on damages. Tort Reform is a politcal tool. There are as many Republican lawyers as Democratic ones. Would you put a cap on your potential earnings? Or be part of party that would?
That is vastly optimistic, and for bad reasons.
Sure there are GOP lawyers and Dem lawyers. That is not the point.
THe point is that "tort reform" has to do with personal injury cases. The cases that matter to the GOP and its supporters are corporate cases, not personal injury.
There will never be a cap on damages. Tort Reform is a politcal tool. There are as many Republican lawyers as Democratic ones. Would you put a cap on your potential earnings? Or be part of party that would?
That is vastly optimistic, and for bad reasons.
Sure there are GOP lawyers and Dem lawyers. That is not the point.
THe point is that "tort reform" has to do with personal injury cases. The cases that matter to the GOP and its supporters are corporate cases, not personal injury.
Did anybody scroll up alittle further on his blog? Check this out. This means WAR!
The rest of us can only aspire to be worthy of such notoreity....
Did anybody scroll up alittle further on his blog? Check this out. This means WAR!
The rest of us can only aspire to be worthy of such notoreity....
I hear about "oppressive" malpractice premiums - my friend's husband had to pay $40,000 last year - but he took home over $300,000. Doesn't sound to me like he's suffering. Of course they always fall back on the "high student loan" argument - how long does it take to pay them back at their salaries? Here in NC, we already have strict limits on med mal suits, a punitive damages cap, and conservative juries - but the doctors are still screaming for tort reform!
I hear about "oppressive" malpractice premiums - my friend's husband had to pay $40,000 last year - but he took home over $300,000. Doesn't sound to me like he's suffering. Of course they always fall back on the "high student loan" argument - how long does it take to pay them back at their salaries? Here in NC, we already have strict limits on med mal suits, a punitive damages cap, and conservative juries - but the doctors are still screaming for tort reform!
The problem began when the Supreme Court declared corporations to be "people".
spork--I am so with you.
To my mind, the problems now are the combination of two things:
corporations=people
money=speech.
Put those two together, and kiss democracy goodbye,
The problem began when the Supreme Court declared corporations to be "people".
spork--I am so with you.
To my mind, the problems now are the combination of two things:
corporations=people
money=speech.
Put those two together, and kiss democracy goodbye,
Is this Supreme Court thing of corporations = people worthy of a street-level revolution?
'Seems to me it is.
Is this Supreme Court thing of corporations = people worthy of a street-level revolution?
'Seems to me it is.
Is there only one definition of malpractice when it comes to caps? Not that I'm an expert, but it seems as though the large judgements are awarded in the case of willful negligence. For instance, if I absentmindedly run a red light and t-bone a car injuring all the occupants, it's an "accident" and my insurance pays. If the same thing happens when I'm rip-roaring drunk, it's an accident AND a crime. Would a doctor who was boinking a nurse ignoring his pager (as happened in this area awhile ago) a criminal to be brought up on charges? Would the AMA prefer doctors who are negligent to go to jail? An error in judgement is not the same as dereliction.
Is there only one definition of malpractice when it comes to caps? Not that I'm an expert, but it seems as though the large judgements are awarded in the case of willful negligence. For instance, if I absentmindedly run a red light and t-bone a car injuring all the occupants, it's an "accident" and my insurance pays. If the same thing happens when I'm rip-roaring drunk, it's an accident AND a crime. Would a doctor who was boinking a nurse ignoring his pager (as happened in this area awhile ago) a criminal to be brought up on charges? Would the AMA prefer doctors who are negligent to go to jail? An error in judgement is not the same as dereliction.
Sorta OT, but I saw The Incredibles yesterday, where the superhero gets in trouble at his job for explaining to his customers how to get the insurance company to pay their policyholders what they're owed.
Sorta OT, but I saw The Incredibles yesterday, where the superhero gets in trouble at his job for explaining to his customers how to get the insurance company to pay their policyholders what they're owed.
One thing that this presidential campaign did--or rather, should have done, had the media done its job--is to have illuminated the true evil behind "tort reform"
These people called Edwards a "jacuzzi lawyer" when talking of his defense of a young girl gutted by defective technology to the extent that she's fed by tubes from now till she dies.
One thing that this presidential campaign did--or rather, should have done, had the media done its job--is to have illuminated the true evil behind "tort reform"
These people called Edwards a "jacuzzi lawyer" when talking of his defense of a young girl gutted by defective technology to the extent that she's fed by tubes from now till she dies.
Did I forget to mention that he's an insurance agent? I think so.
Did I forget to mention that he's an insurance agent? I think so.
This has got to be the most boring thread since the stolen election. I want to get back to the fundie fat-ass Jerry Falwell trashing to filth.
This has got to be the most boring thread since the stolen election. I want to get back to the fundie fat-ass Jerry Falwell trashing to filth.
there are only two ways to deter corporate malfeasance: regulation and litigation. the powers that be in this country are opposed to both and seem to want us to rely on the good will of the corporate entities to protect us.
there are only two ways to deter corporate malfeasance: regulation and litigation. the powers that be in this country are opposed to both and seem to want us to rely on the good will of the corporate entities to protect us.
rorschach sez:
To my mind, the problems now are the combination of two things:
corporations=people
money=speech.
That's the thing. It's Cisco Johonny busting hookers in N'orleens but leaving the "Hlliburtrins" alone.
And WalMart
And Viacom
And Boeing
And...
Thay're better than us.
To echo Jeffers, "I think I'll retire to Bedlam".
.
rorschach sez:
To my mind, the problems now are the combination of two things:
corporations=people
money=speech.
That's the thing. It's Cisco Johonny busting hookers in N'orleens but leaving the "Hlliburtrins" alone.
And WalMart
And Viacom
And Boeing
And...
Thay're better than us.
To echo Jeffers, "I think I'll retire to Bedlam".
.
Ever notice how fat-asses like Jerry Falwell, who weight a ton of lard, always seem to be walking on tipey-toes? What's that about?
Ever notice how fat-asses like Jerry Falwell, who weight a ton of lard, always seem to be walking on tipey-toes? What's that about?
The ironic thing about the malpractice issue is that less than 1 in 10 patients who are injured by negligent medical practices ever excercise their right to seek a legal remedy.
More people are killed by physician-inflicted injury than automobiles or handguns. I'm not suggesting that the solution is that they should all sue, I am only trying to illustrate how fallacious is the argument that there is "too much" litigation. Most people decide that they do not want to sue a physician who was trying to help them or their family. But most want to preserve that right in the face of egregious behaviour resulting in harm.
The goal of the Bush Administration, however, is not to solve the problem of malpractice. This is not about lawyers as they say it is. It is about juries.
Lawyers don't award damages, people on juries do. Everyday, ordinary, people act throught their constitutional right to sit on a panel and decide matters of law. This is really what Bush is trying to undermine.
It should be obvious that they are interested in the steady, methodical installation of a crypto-fascist regime and as such are invested in degrading our civil rights and undermining any empowerment that we have. They are consolidating power through the melding of the governmental branches, and one part of that process is attacking the access of individuals to the courts. One of the hallmarks of a true democracy is the people's access to due process through a legal advocate. Absent that, we are just like China or any other country with sham courts.
The ironic thing about the malpractice issue is that less than 1 in 10 patients who are injured by negligent medical practices ever excercise their right to seek a legal remedy.
More people are killed by physician-inflicted injury than automobiles or handguns. I'm not suggesting that the solution is that they should all sue, I am only trying to illustrate how fallacious is the argument that there is "too much" litigation. Most people decide that they do not want to sue a physician who was trying to help them or their family. But most want to preserve that right in the face of egregious behaviour resulting in harm.
The goal of the Bush Administration, however, is not to solve the problem of malpractice. This is not about lawyers as they say it is. It is about juries.
Lawyers don't award damages, people on juries do. Everyday, ordinary, people act throught their constitutional right to sit on a panel and decide matters of law. This is really what Bush is trying to undermine.
It should be obvious that they are interested in the steady, methodical installation of a crypto-fascist regime and as such are invested in degrading our civil rights and undermining any empowerment that we have. They are consolidating power through the melding of the governmental branches, and one part of that process is attacking the access of individuals to the courts. One of the hallmarks of a true democracy is the people's access to due process through a legal advocate. Absent that, we are just like China or any other country with sham courts.
I guess the fat ass things believe if they walk around like they're light as a cloud, that makes it so. More fantasy-based delusions.
I guess the fat ass things believe if they walk around like they're light as a cloud, that makes it so. More fantasy-based delusions.
Yet again we've let the fatcats frame the argument with ridiculous ease, with nothing more than a few lurid anecdotes (McDonald's coffee, anyone? See snopes.com on this one.)
Gee, I wonder where Brokaw and Blitzer will be on this one?
Yet again we've let the fatcats frame the argument with ridiculous ease, with nothing more than a few lurid anecdotes (McDonald's coffee, anyone? See snopes.com on this one.)
Gee, I wonder where Brokaw and Blitzer will be on this one?
This country is literally choking to death on its own now-systemic mass ignorance machine.
This country is literally choking to death on its own now-systemic mass ignorance machine.
Did I forget to mention that he's an insurance agent?
And I'm guessing the insurance agent wasn't even a middling poet like Wallace Stevens...
Did I forget to mention that he's an insurance agent?
And I'm guessing the insurance agent wasn't even a middling poet like Wallace Stevens...
(By the by: some late catblogging.)
(By the by: some late catblogging.)
Here's a question worth asking:
What percentage of doctors in a given state are getting sued for malpractice in a given year?
How many of them are repeat offenders?
There are some bad doctors out there. Would it not benefit the good doctors (in terms of liability and trust) to GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF MEDICINE???????
Where are the state medical boards on this?
Here's a question worth asking:
What percentage of doctors in a given state are getting sued for malpractice in a given year?
How many of them are repeat offenders?
There are some bad doctors out there. Would it not benefit the good doctors (in terms of liability and trust) to GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF MEDICINE???????
Where are the state medical boards on this?
rorschach,
Nope, but Wallace Shawn did the voice of the itty bitty Jetsons/Flintstone boss.... if that helps, which it probably doesn't.
rorschach,
Nope, but Wallace Shawn did the voice of the itty bitty Jetsons/Flintstone boss.... if that helps, which it probably doesn't.
NYMary--I guess that's why I love "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Black Pterodactyl"
NYMary--I guess that's why I love "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Black Pterodactyl"
I've never understood why the best way to deter frivolous law suits is to limit the awards paid to meritorious ones.
I've never understood why the best way to deter frivolous law suits is to limit the awards paid to meritorious ones.
OT: The Ukranian parliament ha declared their election invalid.
OT: The Ukranian parliament ha declared their election invalid.
Set the possible malpractice awards at $250K and the insurance companies can establish an acceptable number for the "cost of doing business." Rather than trying to fix the problems, the insurance firms and the doctors and whatever other industry involved will just decide that the patients were damn fools for trusting them in the first place and build the penalty into their cost structure. It's the principal reason that immortal limited liability companies should be outlawed after a century of trying to deal with them and learning that they can't be trusted. The Trusts don't deserve any trust.
Set the possible malpractice awards at $250K and the insurance companies can establish an acceptable number for the "cost of doing business." Rather than trying to fix the problems, the insurance firms and the doctors and whatever other industry involved will just decide that the patients were damn fools for trusting them in the first place and build the penalty into their cost structure. It's the principal reason that immortal limited liability companies should be outlawed after a century of trying to deal with them and learning that they can't be trusted. The Trusts don't deserve any trust.
OT: The Ukranian parliament ha declared their election invalid
All we can say is UKR > US.
OT: The Ukranian parliament ha declared their election invalid
All we can say is UKR > US.
NYMary sez:
Wallace Shawn did the voice of the itty bitty Jetsons/Flintstone boss
Wallace Shawn is that old?
Inconceivable!
.
NYMary sez:
Wallace Shawn did the voice of the itty bitty Jetsons/Flintstone boss
Wallace Shawn is that old?
Inconceivable!
.
Incog, you're funny this morning.
Incog, you're funny this morning.
what is the percent of gross income that a doctor pays for insurance? is it one percent, 4 four percent ???
if a doctor take in a million dollars a year in gross income, so 20k for insurance is probably lrss than other overhead items, but the AMA never talks in terms of percenage of gross income. Wjat percent of gross do other businesses like plumbers pay for thier liability insurance? If a plumbing business grosses 100,000 and pays 1500 for liability insurance, what's the difference?
what is the percent of gross income that a doctor pays for insurance? is it one percent, 4 four percent ???
if a doctor take in a million dollars a year in gross income, so 20k for insurance is probably lrss than other overhead items, but the AMA never talks in terms of percenage of gross income. Wjat percent of gross do other businesses like plumbers pay for thier liability insurance? If a plumbing business grosses 100,000 and pays 1500 for liability insurance, what's the difference?
THe point of this and every other item on the GOPuke agenda is to deprive "We, the People" of their ability to use the institutions of government to seek redress against the capitalist, corporate abusers. The end in view of these items is to 'drown government in the bathtub,' according to the ever-repellant Grover Norquist, whom I dearly hope to encounter on the platform of the Metro someday...and to drive citizens upon the tender mercies of of the Boardroom and the executive suites, where they will be ignored at best, or ground up into cat-food, at worst...
The US turned an irreversible corner when the citizens acceded to being thought consumers first...
THe point of this and every other item on the GOPuke agenda is to deprive "We, the People" of their ability to use the institutions of government to seek redress against the capitalist, corporate abusers. The end in view of these items is to 'drown government in the bathtub,' according to the ever-repellant Grover Norquist, whom I dearly hope to encounter on the platform of the Metro someday...and to drive citizens upon the tender mercies of of the Boardroom and the executive suites, where they will be ignored at best, or ground up into cat-food, at worst...
The US turned an irreversible corner when the citizens acceded to being thought consumers first...
silly spork.
I meant an itty bitty boss in the mode of a Flintstones'/Jetson's boss. Mike Nelson, in referring to the stock character of the petty middle-management tyrant, called the figure "refreshinly true-to-life". (This from one of his post-MST3K books on film & television.)
silly spork.
I meant an itty bitty boss in the mode of a Flintstones'/Jetson's boss. Mike Nelson, in referring to the stock character of the petty middle-management tyrant, called the figure "refreshinly true-to-life". (This from one of his post-MST3K books on film & television.)
potential lottery wins, lawsuits are going to continue to grow in popularity.
The "litigation lawsuit" theory is bullshit. Verdicts have been down for years as well as the number of cases that get filed as well and the number of cases trial lawyers can win. These lawyers don't get paid unless they win, for each case they take time, expenses, experts, you name it are out of pocket. Most states require "proof" in the form of experts (doctors who testify against another doctor are getting blacklisted) before a case gets to a jury.
Imagine doctors with a "you only pay if you get cured" policy. Think they'd consider that a windfall, a medical lottery?
potential lottery wins, lawsuits are going to continue to grow in popularity.
The "litigation lawsuit" theory is bullshit. Verdicts have been down for years as well as the number of cases that get filed as well and the number of cases trial lawyers can win. These lawyers don't get paid unless they win, for each case they take time, expenses, experts, you name it are out of pocket. Most states require "proof" in the form of experts (doctors who testify against another doctor are getting blacklisted) before a case gets to a jury.
Imagine doctors with a "you only pay if you get cured" policy. Think they'd consider that a windfall, a medical lottery?
The US turned an irreversible corner when the citizens acceded to being thought consumers first...
This is pretty damn close to the thesis of my dissertation.
Disgusting how we've been changed from active participants to mere consumers of goods.
The US turned an irreversible corner when the citizens acceded to being thought consumers first...
This is pretty damn close to the thesis of my dissertation.
Disgusting how we've been changed from active participants to mere consumers of goods.
rorschach - "Disgusting how we've been changed from active participants to mere consumers of goods."
Pretty much what was being discussed yesterday, in fine.
rorschach - "Disgusting how we've been changed from active participants to mere consumers of goods."
Pretty much what was being discussed yesterday, in fine.
There are some bad doctors out there. Would it not benefit the good doctors (in terms of liability and trust) to GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF MEDICINE???????
You'd think so.
My (limited) experience was that lawyers are much tougher on each other than doctors, though not for reasons you might expect.
Want to lose your law license in a hurry? You won't do it through incompetence (even sleeping through a capital murder trial is not quite enough; it may be the last straw, but it won't be the silver bullet). The silver bullet for lawyers, at least in Texas, is breach of fiduciary duty.
Take $100 in retainer from your client. Fail to properly account for it. You'll be suspended in no time, and disbarred if you do it once too often.
Doctors can kill, maim, and injure a lot of patients before losing their right to practice medicine (it's rare as hen's teeth, at least, again, in Texas). But a lawyer who messes with the client's money, even small change, walks the plank.
Doctors, of course, never get put in that position.
It's money that matters.
There are some bad doctors out there. Would it not benefit the good doctors (in terms of liability and trust) to GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF MEDICINE???????
You'd think so.
My (limited) experience was that lawyers are much tougher on each other than doctors, though not for reasons you might expect.
Want to lose your law license in a hurry? You won't do it through incompetence (even sleeping through a capital murder trial is not quite enough; it may be the last straw, but it won't be the silver bullet). The silver bullet for lawyers, at least in Texas, is breach of fiduciary duty.
Take $100 in retainer from your client. Fail to properly account for it. You'll be suspended in no time, and disbarred if you do it once too often.
Doctors can kill, maim, and injure a lot of patients before losing their right to practice medicine (it's rare as hen's teeth, at least, again, in Texas). But a lawyer who messes with the client's money, even small change, walks the plank.
Doctors, of course, never get put in that position.
It's money that matters.
"Speak truth to power"
Banging head on desk, who is this originally attributed to?
This is an old Quaker/Friends saying. I believe it came from George Fox, the founder of the Society of Friends.
"Speak truth to power"
Banging head on desk, who is this originally attributed to?
This is an old Quaker/Friends saying. I believe it came from George Fox, the founder of the Society of Friends.
Reading this will explain the difference between the Canadian medical system and that of the US and explain absolutely why matters of malpractice of the type being discussed here exist on the back of and as a result of the US insurance system....
Thus: "The six concessions the Liberals made are:
To satisfy older doctors, a $1 fee increase for family practice physicians from $28.50 a visit to $29.50 retroactive to Oct. 1, rising by a total of $3.75 over the four-year agreement for a 13 per cent increase.
Greater flexibility for solo practising doctors by replacing a provision that would have forced them to make provisions for 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week care for their patients. Instead, they will only have to commit to three hours a week of after-hours care.
Fee increases totalling $30 million for family doctors and specialists will be retroactive to Oct. 1 rather than in effect as of next year. There will be an additional $15 million in 2006-07.
More specialists will be eligible for exemptions from the $455,000 billing cap, which would still be phased out by the final year of the agreement. This move will mainly benefit cataract surgeons and other specialists who work in the areas with the longest waiting lists.
The scrapping of a controversial $50-million bonus if doctors save $200 million by prescribing fewer prescriptions to low-income and elderly patients covered by the Ontario Drug Benefit plan. Doctors will still get the money, but there will be no strings attached.
Eliminating a planned $30-million re-evaluation of the deal after two years and using that money to expedite the raises."
Reading this will explain the difference between the Canadian medical system and that of the US and explain absolutely why matters of malpractice of the type being discussed here exist on the back of and as a result of the US insurance system....
Thus: "The six concessions the Liberals made are:
To satisfy older doctors, a $1 fee increase for family practice physicians from $28.50 a visit to $29.50 retroactive to Oct. 1, rising by a total of $3.75 over the four-year agreement for a 13 per cent increase.
Greater flexibility for solo practising doctors by replacing a provision that would have forced them to make provisions for 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week care for their patients. Instead, they will only have to commit to three hours a week of after-hours care.
Fee increases totalling $30 million for family doctors and specialists will be retroactive to Oct. 1 rather than in effect as of next year. There will be an additional $15 million in 2006-07.
More specialists will be eligible for exemptions from the $455,000 billing cap, which would still be phased out by the final year of the agreement. This move will mainly benefit cataract surgeons and other specialists who work in the areas with the longest waiting lists.
The scrapping of a controversial $50-million bonus if doctors save $200 million by prescribing fewer prescriptions to low-income and elderly patients covered by the Ontario Drug Benefit plan. Doctors will still get the money, but there will be no strings attached.
Eliminating a planned $30-million re-evaluation of the deal after two years and using that money to expedite the raises."
Disgusting how we've been changed from active participants to mere consumers of goods.
Interesting article in the newsstand Harper's (i.e., not online yet) about this. Follows from (without attribution, but in the same vein) an observation by Bill McKibben (of "$100 Holiday" fame), that the consumer culture makes each of us the moral center of the universe. "This Bud's for you!" "We deliver for you!"
Once you start seeing it, it's everywhere. The thesis of the Harper's article, in part, is that we can't have heroes anymore because every individual is a hero; is, in McKibben's words, the moral center of the universe; which crowds everyone else out.
We have raised selfishness to a cultural icon. Personally, I blame the Industrial Revolution. The inevitable outcome of that, culturally, was Romanticism, which in turn gave us the notion that individuals must stand unique against the "mass."
I'd post on this and elaborate, but that would be WAY too dense and serious for Saturday morning.....
Disgusting how we've been changed from active participants to mere consumers of goods.
Interesting article in the newsstand Harper's (i.e., not online yet) about this. Follows from (without attribution, but in the same vein) an observation by Bill McKibben (of "$100 Holiday" fame), that the consumer culture makes each of us the moral center of the universe. "This Bud's for you!" "We deliver for you!"
Once you start seeing it, it's everywhere. The thesis of the Harper's article, in part, is that we can't have heroes anymore because every individual is a hero; is, in McKibben's words, the moral center of the universe; which crowds everyone else out.
We have raised selfishness to a cultural icon. Personally, I blame the Industrial Revolution. The inevitable outcome of that, culturally, was Romanticism, which in turn gave us the notion that individuals must stand unique against the "mass."
I'd post on this and elaborate, but that would be WAY too dense and serious for Saturday morning.....
I hate pulling personal melodrama into political discussions, and especially hate revealing myself, but when it comes to this bullshit called "tort reform" I feel I should.
When I was four, my brother died of asthma. When I was five, I almost died of asthma. My parents still hate the doctor in charge. I don't blame them. And I completely support their right to sue for whatever they think could have been done different.
Guess what. They never did. Because of common sense.
If there was a tort issue to be made, they'd have made it
Their son died. They didn't sue. This whole tort reform thing is a bullshit way to prevent wronged individuals from doing something against the corporations who did them wrong.
That's my take.
I hate pulling personal melodrama into political discussions, and especially hate revealing myself, but when it comes to this bullshit called "tort reform" I feel I should.
When I was four, my brother died of asthma. When I was five, I almost died of asthma. My parents still hate the doctor in charge. I don't blame them. And I completely support their right to sue for whatever they think could have been done different.
Guess what. They never did. Because of common sense.
If there was a tort issue to be made, they'd have made it
Their son died. They didn't sue. This whole tort reform thing is a bullshit way to prevent wronged individuals from doing something against the corporations who did them wrong.
That's my take.
We have raised selfishness to a cultural icon. Personally, I blame the Industrial Revolution. The inevitable outcome of that, culturally, was Romanticism, which in turn gave us the notion that individuals must stand unique against the "mass."
I agree to an extent. Romanticism is one strand of the Enlightenment. And the Romantic cult of the Individual is certainly one of the most persistent products of the Industrial Revolution.
Isolating the artist from everyone else was a key move by the bourgeoisie is preventing imagination from disturbing the status quo.
We have raised selfishness to a cultural icon. Personally, I blame the Industrial Revolution. The inevitable outcome of that, culturally, was Romanticism, which in turn gave us the notion that individuals must stand unique against the "mass."
I agree to an extent. Romanticism is one strand of the Enlightenment. And the Romantic cult of the Individual is certainly one of the most persistent products of the Industrial Revolution.
Isolating the artist from everyone else was a key move by the bourgeoisie is preventing imagination from disturbing the status quo.
OT, Robert M. Jeffers, I was tickled to see you were a guest blogger last night! Your always-insightful posts are a big reason that I read these comments every now and again!
OT, Robert M. Jeffers, I was tickled to see you were a guest blogger last night! Your always-insightful posts are a big reason that I read these comments every now and again!
Their son died. They didn't sue. This whole tort reform thing is a bullshit way to prevent wronged individuals from doing something against the corporations who did them wrong.
Well, of course it is.
The controversy didn't exist until the Supreme Court of California applied the concept of strict liability to products liability (and I am really reaching into the far past of my law school memory for this, so any corrections will be appreciated). That is when torts took off with a vengeance, and manufacturers suddenly became responsible for what they put on the market.
It's been a pitched battle ever since. And it gave rise, slowly, to medical malpractice suits. Those were always available, but it was next to impossible to get a doctor to testify against another doctor (the expert testimony being an essential part of the evidence of the case). Once that changed (too many doctors, finally, for all of them to be "chummy" with each other), the suits began to appear more regularly.
But the real driving force is products liability. That's what opened the courthouse doors. The problems of medical malpractice and insurance have a great deal more to do with insurance investments than with "rapacious lawyers."
After all, you can't go to court without an injured plaintiff. And despite the misconceptions, fake injuries don't get into court, or get very far, or get the awards that make the headlines.
Their son died. They didn't sue. This whole tort reform thing is a bullshit way to prevent wronged individuals from doing something against the corporations who did them wrong.
Well, of course it is.
The controversy didn't exist until the Supreme Court of California applied the concept of strict liability to products liability (and I am really reaching into the far past of my law school memory for this, so any corrections will be appreciated). That is when torts took off with a vengeance, and manufacturers suddenly became responsible for what they put on the market.
It's been a pitched battle ever since. And it gave rise, slowly, to medical malpractice suits. Those were always available, but it was next to impossible to get a doctor to testify against another doctor (the expert testimony being an essential part of the evidence of the case). Once that changed (too many doctors, finally, for all of them to be "chummy" with each other), the suits began to appear more regularly.
But the real driving force is products liability. That's what opened the courthouse doors. The problems of medical malpractice and insurance have a great deal more to do with insurance investments than with "rapacious lawyers."
After all, you can't go to court without an injured plaintiff. And despite the misconceptions, fake injuries don't get into court, or get very far, or get the awards that make the headlines.
NYMary-
Gotcha.
I've been in a bad mood since I woke up.
You just cheered me up!
.
NYMary-
Gotcha.
I've been in a bad mood since I woke up.
You just cheered me up!
.
RMJ--That is what I was trying to say, but you said it, again, much better.
RMJ--That is what I was trying to say, but you said it, again, much better.
Isolating the artist from everyone else was a key move by the bourgeoisie is preventing imagination from disturbing the status quo.
Except, I think (and this is the point of the Harper's essay, now that you bring this up and clarify my murky thinking) that imagination, thanks to Romanticism, became the status quo. Combined with technology (the Harper's essays thesis), it creates an imaginary world more real than reality. So we imagine ourselves, each and everyone, the hero of our own fantasy.
Isolating the artist from everyone else was a key move by the bourgeoisie is preventing imagination from disturbing the status quo.
Except, I think (and this is the point of the Harper's essay, now that you bring this up and clarify my murky thinking) that imagination, thanks to Romanticism, became the status quo. Combined with technology (the Harper's essays thesis), it creates an imaginary world more real than reality. So we imagine ourselves, each and everyone, the hero of our own fantasy.
Sometimes it's hard to think clearly about the issue, given my brother's death and my own near-death.
But, still.
"Tort reform"? What a massive load of shit!
Not to be crass.
Sometimes it's hard to think clearly about the issue, given my brother's death and my own near-death.
But, still.
"Tort reform"? What a massive load of shit!
Not to be crass.
EPT - I watch very little television, mostly when visiting relatives who all have this thing about having the TV on as background noise. But I did see that Febreze "Scentstories" machine on Thursday when visiting my cousin for Thanksgiving and I thought, "Our country has jumped the shark on useless consumer crap." At least Chia Pets grow sprouts, which are edible.
EPT - I watch very little television, mostly when visiting relatives who all have this thing about having the TV on as background noise. But I did see that Febreze "Scentstories" machine on Thursday when visiting my cousin for Thanksgiving and I thought, "Our country has jumped the shark on useless consumer crap." At least Chia Pets grow sprouts, which are edible.
Ican tell you one variety of legal action that we'll never see restrained in any way:
SLAPP suits..They will, in fact, grow more prominent as the ability of citizens to hold corporations accountable for their actions is diminished by the People's representatives.
THis is a litmus test if there ever were one: Any Senator of Rep who supports these versions of 'tort reform' deserve to be necklaced when they come home...
Ican tell you one variety of legal action that we'll never see restrained in any way:
SLAPP suits..They will, in fact, grow more prominent as the ability of citizens to hold corporations accountable for their actions is diminished by the People's representatives.
THis is a litmus test if there ever were one: Any Senator of Rep who supports these versions of 'tort reform' deserve to be necklaced when they come home...
Rorschach & RMJ,
Weeeeeellllll..... yes and no. In an Ideal sense, maybe, but plenty of Romantics were caught in an ethical bind of how to help humanity. Though true, they often did so out of a sense of noblesse oblige, or individual heroism, which I take to be your general point. The Romantics did idealize the individual, but few were conservative, except for freakin' Wordsworth. (Shorter Prelude: "Sorry I supported freedom. I must have been in a hurry.")
Rorschach & RMJ,
Weeeeeellllll..... yes and no. In an Ideal sense, maybe, but plenty of Romantics were caught in an ethical bind of how to help humanity. Though true, they often did so out of a sense of noblesse oblige, or individual heroism, which I take to be your general point. The Romantics did idealize the individual, but few were conservative, except for freakin' Wordsworth. (Shorter Prelude: "Sorry I supported freedom. I must have been in a hurry.")
Given that I have revealed personal information and that I've been awake for perhaps 36 hours and that my house is flooded, I ought to get out of here...
Given that I have revealed personal information and that I've been awake for perhaps 36 hours and that my house is flooded, I ought to get out of here...
NYMary--I never claimed that Romantics were actively conservative.
I do, however, think that they were perfectly functional within the nascent bourgeois capitalist hegemony.
The cult of the Individual was perfect for the new dehumanized factory system.
NYMary--I never claimed that Romantics were actively conservative.
I do, however, think that they were perfectly functional within the nascent bourgeois capitalist hegemony.
The cult of the Individual was perfect for the new dehumanized factory system.
What gets lost in all of this is that our tort system is how costs are allocated to those providers that are not providing the services they have agreed to provide -- in other words, without tort law, the cost of the problems created by incompetent Doctors is paid by the victem or society at large. This represents a subsidy to incompetent doctors. I have a problem with people that proclaim the benefits of "free-markets" but will not accept mechanisms that are designed to more fully ensure that businesses (in this case, doctors) actually pay the full-costs of doing business. It isn't that I am such a strong believer in American style capitalism -- the hypocracy of denying that doctors should pay the full cost of doing business is offensive.
What gets lost in all of this is that our tort system is how costs are allocated to those providers that are not providing the services they have agreed to provide -- in other words, without tort law, the cost of the problems created by incompetent Doctors is paid by the victem or society at large. This represents a subsidy to incompetent doctors. I have a problem with people that proclaim the benefits of "free-markets" but will not accept mechanisms that are designed to more fully ensure that businesses (in this case, doctors) actually pay the full-costs of doing business. It isn't that I am such a strong believer in American style capitalism -- the hypocracy of denying that doctors should pay the full cost of doing business is offensive.
RMJ sez:
We have raised selfishness to a cultural icon. Personally, I blame the Industrial Revolution.
Gonna disagree with that. I blame TeeVee. Who needs friends and neighbors when Donald Trump is firing someone?
Newton Minnow called television a "vast wasteland." Think about when he said that. Then think about where we are now.
.
RMJ sez:
We have raised selfishness to a cultural icon. Personally, I blame the Industrial Revolution.
Gonna disagree with that. I blame TeeVee. Who needs friends and neighbors when Donald Trump is firing someone?
Newton Minnow called television a "vast wasteland." Think about when he said that. Then think about where we are now.
.
The WSJ is laying the groundwork for our lives without health insurance.
On Wednesday's front page they had a story about a Amish-like guy named Curtis Selby who has not health insurance.
The article goes on to romanticize Mr. Selby's exploits in "bargaining" for his health care . . . like the deal he got on his gallbladder surgery . . . and how he goes out and scouts for the best deals when he needs a hospital. Yeah, he scouts for deals when he's ailing.
Sick fucks. Welcome to GOPwastelandUSA.
The WSJ is laying the groundwork for our lives without health insurance.
On Wednesday's front page they had a story about a Amish-like guy named Curtis Selby who has not health insurance.
The article goes on to romanticize Mr. Selby's exploits in "bargaining" for his health care . . . like the deal he got on his gallbladder surgery . . . and how he goes out and scouts for the best deals when he needs a hospital. Yeah, he scouts for deals when he's ailing.
Sick fucks. Welcome to GOPwastelandUSA.
I see Bruce Willis is getting in his frivolous lawsuit before the opportunity passes. I sure wish that man would toe the Republican line.
There is another way of improving our tort system--better education. Is there any coincidence that Alabama is considered a tort lawyer's paradise, and Alabama ranks in the bottom 5 in education?
I see Bruce Willis is getting in his frivolous lawsuit before the opportunity passes. I sure wish that man would toe the Republican line.
There is another way of improving our tort system--better education. Is there any coincidence that Alabama is considered a tort lawyer's paradise, and Alabama ranks in the bottom 5 in education?
Our "Representatives" will never respond to the legitimate concerns of the citizenry as long as there is no disincentive for ignoring us, and such attractive incentives in place to fuck us...
Simply not being re-elected is not enough, if the former 'Representatives' can simply move over to their corporate masters and join the pigs at the through...
If they screw with the people, it should cost 'em something; until there is are REAL sanctions in place, they'll fuck us and fuck us and fuck us...
Our "Representatives" will never respond to the legitimate concerns of the citizenry as long as there is no disincentive for ignoring us, and such attractive incentives in place to fuck us...
Simply not being re-elected is not enough, if the former 'Representatives' can simply move over to their corporate masters and join the pigs at the through...
If they screw with the people, it should cost 'em something; until there is are REAL sanctions in place, they'll fuck us and fuck us and fuck us...
Cap non-econ. med. malpractice damages, and you'll wind up with high income patients getting much higher malpractice payouts than do regular and low-income patients.
Two things.
One. You gotta wonder if the health care system will pay more attention to the high-income patient 'cause that's where the big malpractice money is at risk.
Two. If high-income patients will receive higher malpractice payouts, who ultimately pays for this higher level of insured risk?
All else held equal, both of these situations suggest that the high-income patient will receive extra care and extra insurance paid for by the rest of us.
Example. A doctor and a janitor sit next to one another on a flight. Each has paid the same price for her ticket. The plane crashes. Airline held liable. Doctor gets huge payout; janitor gets much smaller payout. SO, the janitor subsidized the doctor's insurance payout.
Cap non-econ. med. malpractice damages, and you'll wind up with high income patients getting much higher malpractice payouts than do regular and low-income patients.
Two things.
One. You gotta wonder if the health care system will pay more attention to the high-income patient 'cause that's where the big malpractice money is at risk.
Two. If high-income patients will receive higher malpractice payouts, who ultimately pays for this higher level of insured risk?
All else held equal, both of these situations suggest that the high-income patient will receive extra care and extra insurance paid for by the rest of us.
Example. A doctor and a janitor sit next to one another on a flight. Each has paid the same price for her ticket. The plane crashes. Airline held liable. Doctor gets huge payout; janitor gets much smaller payout. SO, the janitor subsidized the doctor's insurance payout.
Weeeeeellllll..... yes and no. In an Ideal sense, maybe, but plenty of Romantics were caught in an ethical bind of how to help humanity. Though true, they often did so out of a sense of noblesse oblige, or individual heroism, which I take to be your general point. The Romantics did idealize the individual, but few were conservative, except for freakin' Wordsworth. (Shorter Prelude: "Sorry I supported freedom. I must have been in a hurry.")
As always (and Romanticism played this up better than anyone before or since; Kierkegaard is the exemplar of this paradox/dichotomy), the distinction is between the particular individual, and the "mass" (both terms of Romantic philosophy).
And the sore point in the Harper's essay. Per that essay, we have all become obsessed with our own fantasy lives. Yet while that description seems to describe American culture, I spent the holiday with people who in no way fit that mold. Nothing unique about them, either. But lost in their own fantasy lives where they are the heroes, they are not.
Romanticism worked against the machine view of labor and human beings imposed by the Industrial Revolution and its apologists (the "ethical bind of how to help humanity"). But as the Romantics themselves so well understood, every blossom carries the seed of its destruction ("O Rose, thou art sick..."). What started out as the salvation of the individual, keeping him/her from being subsumed into mere widgets for the factory, soon became it's own worst nightmare.
Which is what we see today, with Romanticism triumphant, and every man his own Lord Byron (in his imagination, anyway). Cut from the moorings of revelation (themselves cut from the moorings of tradition, always, IMHO, a necessary tie, be those traditions Catholic, or Episcopalian, or Native American, or what have you), imagination becomes mere personal fantasy land, where everyone is a hero.
Which means no one is a hero.
Weeeeeellllll..... yes and no. In an Ideal sense, maybe, but plenty of Romantics were caught in an ethical bind of how to help humanity. Though true, they often did so out of a sense of noblesse oblige, or individual heroism, which I take to be your general point. The Romantics did idealize the individual, but few were conservative, except for freakin' Wordsworth. (Shorter Prelude: "Sorry I supported freedom. I must have been in a hurry.")
As always (and Romanticism played this up better than anyone before or since; Kierkegaard is the exemplar of this paradox/dichotomy), the distinction is between the particular individual, and the "mass" (both terms of Romantic philosophy).
And the sore point in the Harper's essay. Per that essay, we have all become obsessed with our own fantasy lives. Yet while that description seems to describe American culture, I spent the holiday with people who in no way fit that mold. Nothing unique about them, either. But lost in their own fantasy lives where they are the heroes, they are not.
Romanticism worked against the machine view of labor and human beings imposed by the Industrial Revolution and its apologists (the "ethical bind of how to help humanity"). But as the Romantics themselves so well understood, every blossom carries the seed of its destruction ("O Rose, thou art sick..."). What started out as the salvation of the individual, keeping him/her from being subsumed into mere widgets for the factory, soon became it's own worst nightmare.
Which is what we see today, with Romanticism triumphant, and every man his own Lord Byron (in his imagination, anyway). Cut from the moorings of revelation (themselves cut from the moorings of tradition, always, IMHO, a necessary tie, be those traditions Catholic, or Episcopalian, or Native American, or what have you), imagination becomes mere personal fantasy land, where everyone is a hero.
Which means no one is a hero.
OT, but anyone hear about Hastert's promise to block ANY bill that isn't supported by 'the majority of the majority'?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...hcmodule&
sub=AR
OT, but anyone hear about Hastert's promise to block ANY bill that isn't supported by 'the majority of the majority'?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...hcmodule&
sub=AR
The cult of the Individual was perfect for the new dehumanized factory system.
The irony being, it was meant to be a reaction to it. As Kierkegaard understood, the concept of irony is to undercut everything, and leave you (the individual) with nothing. (Romanticism sometimes defends itself as being the re-birth of Socrates; Kierkegaard's model for irony run amok, was...Socrates).
The factory, of course, won. Which is why Wendell Berry and Dom Crossan (from very different perspectives and starting points) both argue against any system or movement at all.
A neo-Romanticism, I suppose. A return to the roots.
Boy, I gotta start a new post.....
The cult of the Individual was perfect for the new dehumanized factory system.
The irony being, it was meant to be a reaction to it. As Kierkegaard understood, the concept of irony is to undercut everything, and leave you (the individual) with nothing. (Romanticism sometimes defends itself as being the re-birth of Socrates; Kierkegaard's model for irony run amok, was...Socrates).
The factory, of course, won. Which is why Wendell Berry and Dom Crossan (from very different perspectives and starting points) both argue against any system or movement at all.
A neo-Romanticism, I suppose. A return to the roots.
Boy, I gotta start a new post.....
Here's what always amazes me: Everyone of those "riduculously" high damage awards was voted on by a jury of the defendant's peers. If the awards were truly so insane, you'd kind of expect one American out of the twelve to refuse to vote for it. Proposals such as this one are just an attempted end-run around our jury system.
Here's what always amazes me: Everyone of those "riduculously" high damage awards was voted on by a jury of the defendant's peers. If the awards were truly so insane, you'd kind of expect one American out of the twelve to refuse to vote for it. Proposals such as this one are just an attempted end-run around our jury system.
I have a nice, used truck-tire that should fit Rep. Hastert, even in his heroic girth...Necklace, necklace, necklace...
I have a nice, used truck-tire that should fit Rep. Hastert, even in his heroic girth...Necklace, necklace, necklace...
rorscach sez:
I have revealed personal information and that I've been awake for perhaps 36 hours and that my house is flooded
Well get some sleep! ya rat!
We'll help with the books. Promise.
.
rorscach sez:
I have revealed personal information and that I've been awake for perhaps 36 hours and that my house is flooded
Well get some sleep! ya rat!
We'll help with the books. Promise.
.
Hecate:
That's the problem: if things get to trial, juries usually recognize the merits of the suit and the complicity of the corporations in the injuries they cause. Corporations hate juries.
Hecate:
That's the problem: if things get to trial, juries usually recognize the merits of the suit and the complicity of the corporations in the injuries they cause. Corporations hate juries.
The other day I passed a doctor's office, and on the door he had a large poster featuring four doctors who had been forced to leave Ohio because of the "runaway trial system."
They were a pretty sleazy looking bunch; the male doctors had those pencil thin porno mustaches!
I whipped out my sharpie and wrote, "only bad doctors get sued" in a corner of the poster.
I wonder how long it stayed up.
The other day I passed a doctor's office, and on the door he had a large poster featuring four doctors who had been forced to leave Ohio because of the "runaway trial system."
They were a pretty sleazy looking bunch; the male doctors had those pencil thin porno mustaches!
I whipped out my sharpie and wrote, "only bad doctors get sued" in a corner of the poster.
I wonder how long it stayed up.
It's really interesting because thoughtful people know they're right to support us but look at what they're up against. It is overwhelming. I hope it doesn't take the ashes of 6 million gays for us to have equal rights. Hopefully the "Jesus Factor" aging Rapturist crowd doesn't have their way, all of us wont suffer that. Those like me are not going away. I hope they don't go nuclear before they'll 'lose their religion' for what they done to us for thousands of years.
It's really interesting because thoughtful people know they're right to support us but look at what they're up against. It is overwhelming. I hope it doesn't take the ashes of 6 million gays for us to have equal rights. Hopefully the "Jesus Factor" aging Rapturist crowd doesn't have their way, all of us wont suffer that. Those like me are not going away. I hope they don't go nuclear before they'll 'lose their religion' for what they done to us for thousands of years.
Hi, Mr. Bill! I called your store yesterday and ordered a book on fishing in north GA. Sorry you weren't there. Good luck.
Hi, Mr. Bill! I called your store yesterday and ordered a book on fishing in north GA. Sorry you weren't there. Good luck.
I do, however, think that they were perfectly functional within the nascent bourgeois capitalist hegemony.
The cult of the Individual was perfect for the new dehumanized factory system.
rorschach
Read William Blake, the greatest of the Romantic poets who aren't named Keats. Crabbe, too. Though he isn't exactly great or a romantic. There was plenty of horror in the romantic writers in witness to the factory system.
By the way, William Bolcom's setting of "The Chimney Sweeper" is a masterpiece of satire. It makes the poem clear to me after decades of scratching my head and being horrified about it.
I do, however, think that they were perfectly functional within the nascent bourgeois capitalist hegemony.
The cult of the Individual was perfect for the new dehumanized factory system.
rorschach
Read William Blake, the greatest of the Romantic poets who aren't named Keats. Crabbe, too. Though he isn't exactly great or a romantic. There was plenty of horror in the romantic writers in witness to the factory system.
By the way, William Bolcom's setting of "The Chimney Sweeper" is a masterpiece of satire. It makes the poem clear to me after decades of scratching my head and being horrified about it.
My gyn had a big sign up lamenting the runaway cost of malpractice insurance and how they were going to charge everyone and extra $9 "fee" to help cover that. An obvious ploy to get us to write our representatives about this "pressing" issue--our Republican governor (in MD) is making a big issue out of "tort reform."
I feel it's the insurance companies that are driving rising rates because of declining profits, not because of malpractice awards but because of their investments in the stock market, which of course have tanked as the stock market's declined (thank you, Mr. Bush).
And let's not forget the doctors who basically refuse to police themselves and let quacks continue to practice.
My gyn had a big sign up lamenting the runaway cost of malpractice insurance and how they were going to charge everyone and extra $9 "fee" to help cover that. An obvious ploy to get us to write our representatives about this "pressing" issue--our Republican governor (in MD) is making a big issue out of "tort reform."
I feel it's the insurance companies that are driving rising rates because of declining profits, not because of malpractice awards but because of their investments in the stock market, which of course have tanked as the stock market's declined (thank you, Mr. Bush).
And let's not forget the doctors who basically refuse to police themselves and let quacks continue to practice.
Does anyone know of a good site to find a breakdown of medical costs in the US? And a watchdog group that keeps track of profits for some of the more heinous offenders of the system? Quick Googling didn't turn up anything useful.
Does anyone know of a good site to find a breakdown of medical costs in the US? And a watchdog group that keeps track of profits for some of the more heinous offenders of the system? Quick Googling didn't turn up anything useful.
.
The Repukes just want to return the Courts to their proper, 19th Century function of protecting the rich from the poor. That's what you voted for, right?
.
.
The Repukes just want to return the Courts to their proper, 19th Century function of protecting the rich from the poor. That's what you voted for, right?
.
Konopelli,
I agree; they hate juries. Of course, a beloved corporation that employed lots of locals and did all kinds of good in the community would, one supposes, have an advantage going into a jury trial. Other kinds of corporations . . . not so much.
Konopelli,
I agree; they hate juries. Of course, a beloved corporation that employed lots of locals and did all kinds of good in the community would, one supposes, have an advantage going into a jury trial. Other kinds of corporations . . . not so much.
Wow. As a doctor and a passionate democrat, this has got to beone of the most depressing comment sections I've read in a while. I mean the antipathy for doctors expressed and implied here is kind of hard to read. But I'll try to stay on topic. Okay, where to start?
1. Common and pernicious misconception: A cap on damages will prevent injured patients from receiving compenstation for their injuries. Untrue. The caps discussed are universally caps on non-economic damages. This means that any monetary losses such as lost wages and cost of past and ongoing medical care are paid in full and are not subject to caps. Now we can debate all day whether a cap on pain and sufferring is appropriate; that's fair. But let's make sure that we all understand what "caps" really mean.
2. "Frivolous" lawsuits either don't happen or can be effectively screeened by judges ro juries. Sadly, this is not the case. Bear in mind that we are not talking about faked injuries or people who spilled coffee on themself. Those cases probably are screened effectively. However, the problem is that any patient with a bad outcome, irrespective of the physician's performance, is able to allege malpractice. Juries tend to assume that the fact of the bad outcome implies negligence and the onus is transferred upon the doc to prove adherence to the standard of care. Only problem is that there generally is no codified, agreed upon "standard" which means that the defense expert will say the doc did a good job and a plaintiff expert will say the doc is incompetent. How on earth can a lay jury expect to decide which if the dueling experts is correct? So the problem is no frivolousness per se, but rather that non-medically educated juries are not very good at accurately establishing causation. this means that a doc going into a case where s/he feels the standard of care was met may have to settle because they know that the plaintiff is sympathetic (say, a brain damaged baby) and that they are liable for huge damages if they lose. It's pretty galling to have to admit guilt and pay when you don't feel you did wrong.
3. I have heard it alleged that large awards/payouts "do not happen." Bullshit. In Washington State, payouts from judgements and settlements are up 50% over two years and the median payout is now over $1 Million.
4. "It's not the juries, it's the insurers." Well, I won't really argue this one much. As I mentioned, payouts are up 50% but insurance rates are up 300% in Washington. However, both the insurance market and the liability system need to be examined.
There's a lot more I could say, but I am at work and there are patients for me to go see. Hope none of them sue me.
lty
Wow. As a doctor and a passionate democrat, this has got to beone of the most depressing comment sections I've read in a while. I mean the antipathy for doctors expressed and implied here is kind of hard to read. But I'll try to stay on topic. Okay, where to start?
1. Common and pernicious misconception: A cap on damages will prevent injured patients from receiving compenstation for their injuries. Untrue. The caps discussed are universally caps on non-economic damages. This means that any monetary losses such as lost wages and cost of past and ongoing medical care are paid in full and are not subject to caps. Now we can debate all day whether a cap on pain and sufferring is appropriate; that's fair. But let's make sure that we all understand what "caps" really mean.
2. "Frivolous" lawsuits either don't happen or can be effectively screeened by judges ro juries. Sadly, this is not the case. Bear in mind that we are not talking about faked injuries or people who spilled coffee on themself. Those cases probably are screened effectively. However, the problem is that any patient with a bad outcome, irrespective of the physician's performance, is able to allege malpractice. Juries tend to assume that the fact of the bad outcome implies negligence and the onus is transferred upon the doc to prove adherence to the standard of care. Only problem is that there generally is no codified, agreed upon "standard" which means that the defense expert will say the doc did a good job and a plaintiff expert will say the doc is incompetent. How on earth can a lay jury expect to decide which if the dueling experts is correct? So the problem is no frivolousness per se, but rather that non-medically educated juries are not very good at accurately establishing causation. this means that a doc going into a case where s/he feels the standard of care was met may have to settle because they know that the plaintiff is sympathetic (say, a brain damaged baby) and that they are liable for huge damages if they lose. It's pretty galling to have to admit guilt and pay when you don't feel you did wrong.
3. I have heard it alleged that large awards/payouts "do not happen." Bullshit. In Washington State, payouts from judgements and settlements are up 50% over two years and the median payout is now over $1 Million.
4. "It's not the juries, it's the insurers." Well, I won't really argue this one much. As I mentioned, payouts are up 50% but insurance rates are up 300% in Washington. However, both the insurance market and the liability system need to be examined.
There's a lot more I could say, but I am at work and there are patients for me to go see. Hope none of them sue me.
lty
The best lawyers are bought up by the biggest money, and those without money get the dregs.
Simply capping non-economic damages takes away the last hope a non-rich person has of financing an effective legal team to challenge the insurance and medical Goliaths.
And, don't forget, the medical profession kills LOTS of patients every year. Go look at the National Academy of Science's Nov. 29, 1999 report. It concludes that, each year in America, 44,000 to 98,000 patients are killed by medical mistakes, IN HOSPITALS ALONE. This figure doesn't take into account wrongul deaths at day-surgery and outpatient clinics, nursing homes, home care, etc.
And that's just DEATHS. Think how high the numbers must be for wrongful injury!
So, yeah, reform the crazy court crap-shoot method of awarding damages to the legions of wrongfully injured or killed patients and their families. But don't do it in a way that further tilts our already rich-friendly courts.
The best lawyers are bought up by the biggest money, and those without money get the dregs.
Simply capping non-economic damages takes away the last hope a non-rich person has of financing an effective legal team to challenge the insurance and medical Goliaths.
And, don't forget, the medical profession kills LOTS of patients every year. Go look at the National Academy of Science's Nov. 29, 1999 report. It concludes that, each year in America, 44,000 to 98,000 patients are killed by medical mistakes, IN HOSPITALS ALONE. This figure doesn't take into account wrongul deaths at day-surgery and outpatient clinics, nursing homes, home care, etc.
And that's just DEATHS. Think how high the numbers must be for wrongful injury!
So, yeah, reform the crazy court crap-shoot method of awarding damages to the legions of wrongfully injured or killed patients and their families. But don't do it in a way that further tilts our already rich-friendly courts.
Oh, one other thing. Spork-incident called Bullshit earlier. He needs to retract it. Our physician group is an ER group in a high-risk state, Washington, and we have had three physicians leave for jobs in lower-risk states. Were they purely motivated by the malpractice climate? Hard to say and probably not. But they were all fairly clear that it played a role. So I can attest that the phenomenon is real.
For those who wonder what the impact is, our group had our malpractice insurance increase from about 2% of gross revenue to 12% of gross revenue over a four-year period. Our business employs 45 people, including docs, PAs, and administrative persons. We currently bring in about $10 million a year gross; malpractice has increased, in raw dollars, from $150K to $1.2M. I don't know of too many industries that can absorb a hit like that without layoffs or cutting corners or the like. Couple that with the increased numbers of uninsured patients we see free of charge, declining reimbursements from Medicare, and flat/declining reimbursements from insurers, and you can see why docs have been screaming. It's hard to run a business in a climate like this.
lty
Oh, one other thing. Spork-incident called Bullshit earlier. He needs to retract it. Our physician group is an ER group in a high-risk state, Washington, and we have had three physicians leave for jobs in lower-risk states. Were they purely motivated by the malpractice climate? Hard to say and probably not. But they were all fairly clear that it played a role. So I can attest that the phenomenon is real.
For those who wonder what the impact is, our group had our malpractice insurance increase from about 2% of gross revenue to 12% of gross revenue over a four-year period. Our business employs 45 people, including docs, PAs, and administrative persons. We currently bring in about $10 million a year gross; malpractice has increased, in raw dollars, from $150K to $1.2M. I don't know of too many industries that can absorb a hit like that without layoffs or cutting corners or the like. Couple that with the increased numbers of uninsured patients we see free of charge, declining reimbursements from Medicare, and flat/declining reimbursements from insurers, and you can see why docs have been screaming. It's hard to run a business in a climate like this.
lty
The medical profession (like other professions) protects itself. Once admitted to medical school, the guild (faculty in the training years) closes to protect its new members. Every effort is usually made to see that those on the bottom of the competency bell-shaped curve make it through graduation. Only a very few fail to made the grade. Later, the guild (medical boards) seeks to permit continued practice if possible.
The medical profession (like other professions) protects itself. Once admitted to medical school, the guild (faculty in the training years) closes to protect its new members. Every effort is usually made to see that those on the bottom of the competency bell-shaped curve make it through graduation. Only a very few fail to made the grade. Later, the guild (medical boards) seeks to permit continued practice if possible.
Yesh,
You shouldn't bring up the IOM study if you are looking for credibility. That study has been so thoroughly discredited that nobody takes it seriously (except as a valuable and important kick-in-the-ass to make safety standards priority #1). The methodologic flaws in that study were legion. For example, they assumed that if an error occured (say wrong drug, wrong dose, etc) and the patient ultimately died, that the death was resultant to the error! No attempt was made to correlate the magnitude of the error with the outcome. So if you got a dose of tylenol instead of ibuprofen, and ultimately died of soemthign else, you are counted as a death due to medical error. It's a ridiculously inaccurate study, and I wish people would stop bringing it up.
Having said that, your point about preserving the access of common folks to legal remedy is valid and important. I suggest that even under caps, the economic damage awards are likely to persist in sizes large enough to attract reasonable attention from attorneys.
lty
Yesh,
You shouldn't bring up the IOM study if you are looking for credibility. That study has been so thoroughly discredited that nobody takes it seriously (except as a valuable and important kick-in-the-ass to make safety standards priority #1). The methodologic flaws in that study were legion. For example, they assumed that if an error occured (say wrong drug, wrong dose, etc) and the patient ultimately died, that the death was resultant to the error! No attempt was made to correlate the magnitude of the error with the outcome. So if you got a dose of tylenol instead of ibuprofen, and ultimately died of soemthign else, you are counted as a death due to medical error. It's a ridiculously inaccurate study, and I wish people would stop bringing it up.
Having said that, your point about preserving the access of common folks to legal remedy is valid and important. I suggest that even under caps, the economic damage awards are likely to persist in sizes large enough to attract reasonable attention from attorneys.
lty
Tort reform is anti-free market. I've always felt that if the courts were truly the arbiters of right and wronge then they would be able to set the pace for determining when someone has a legitimate case against someone and when they are just crooks perpetrating fraud.
I've also felt that only the threat of massive penalties in the form of lawsuit awards to plaintiffs who win their suits can truly scare a company or person into doing the right thing and ensuring their product is safe for use and worth the price. Tort reform would simply reward fraud on the part of companies committing it rather than the individual bringing suit.
But as long as congress is filled with rightwingers who think it is the corporations and the market that make up this country rather than it's people, we will never see this policy implemented the way it should be.
MYOB'
.
Tort reform is anti-free market. I've always felt that if the courts were truly the arbiters of right and wronge then they would be able to set the pace for determining when someone has a legitimate case against someone and when they are just crooks perpetrating fraud.
I've also felt that only the threat of massive penalties in the form of lawsuit awards to plaintiffs who win their suits can truly scare a company or person into doing the right thing and ensuring their product is safe for use and worth the price. Tort reform would simply reward fraud on the part of companies committing it rather than the individual bringing suit.
But as long as congress is filled with rightwingers who think it is the corporations and the market that make up this country rather than it's people, we will never see this policy implemented the way it should be.
MYOB'
.
The last time I went to my (former)gynecologist, the woman at the front desk informed me that there would be a thirty dollar surcharge as well as a twenty dollar co-pay for my annual visit. That was fifty dollars out of pocket for a yearly pap smear and a two minute chat.
The secretary explained that this charge was necessitated by insurance premiums and increased paperwork.
Meanwhile their parking lot is chock a block with Jaguars and Mercedes Benzes.
Floyd Loop, the head heart surgeon of the Cleveland Clinic, lamented a couple of years ago that medicine was no longer the wealth generating profession it once was.
I think that's where we've gone wrong; no one would deny a doctor the right to make a very good living; but I thought that medicine was about healing the sick, not generating wealth.
The last time I went to my (former)gynecologist, the woman at the front desk informed me that there would be a thirty dollar surcharge as well as a twenty dollar co-pay for my annual visit. That was fifty dollars out of pocket for a yearly pap smear and a two minute chat.
The secretary explained that this charge was necessitated by insurance premiums and increased paperwork.
Meanwhile their parking lot is chock a block with Jaguars and Mercedes Benzes.
Floyd Loop, the head heart surgeon of the Cleveland Clinic, lamented a couple of years ago that medicine was no longer the wealth generating profession it once was.
I think that's where we've gone wrong; no one would deny a doctor the right to make a very good living; but I thought that medicine was about healing the sick, not generating wealth.
Per Lakoff, reframe the issue by referring to tort lawyers as "public protection attorneys."
Per Lakoff, reframe the issue by referring to tort lawyers as "public protection attorneys."
Imagine the cognitive dissonance going on right now in the head of someone licensed to practice both medicine and law...
Imagine the cognitive dissonance going on right now in the head of someone licensed to practice both medicine and law...
Yep, tort reform is just a "keep the peasants in check" strategy.
Whether or not tort reform is likely is not the point. The point is we should fight on all fronts whenever our rights are in jeopardy. Concede nothing, because concessions of this type are a slippery slope.
Keep the masses in the dark, encourage them to hate each other, limit their rights...Alexis De Tocqueville would be having a field day with this.
Yep, tort reform is just a "keep the peasants in check" strategy.
Whether or not tort reform is likely is not the point. The point is we should fight on all fronts whenever our rights are in jeopardy. Concede nothing, because concessions of this type are a slippery slope.
Keep the masses in the dark, encourage them to hate each other, limit their rights...Alexis De Tocqueville would be having a field day with this.
Over a hundrend comments in before someone mentions what should have been obvious from the post.The cap being discussed is for "pain and suffering." A non-economic measure of damage. i.e. if the cost of future care is $5 mill, and you can prove that, that is what you will get. Pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life etc. while clearly are a form of loss are very difficult to quantify in terms of dollars.
Interstingly, in Canada, it was the Courts that imposed a cap on non-pecuniary damages back in the late 1970's. At the time the courts set a figure of $100,000 Cnd which with inflation has now increased to $250,000, again in Cnd.
And slighty off topic, the Cnd dollar is now over 85 cents U.S. At the time when GWB took office the Cnd dollar was at 62 cents U.S. It hasn't been this high since, well, the last time a Bush was in office.
Over a hundrend comments in before someone mentions what should have been obvious from the post.The cap being discussed is for "pain and suffering." A non-economic measure of damage. i.e. if the cost of future care is $5 mill, and you can prove that, that is what you will get. Pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life etc. while clearly are a form of loss are very difficult to quantify in terms of dollars.
Interstingly, in Canada, it was the Courts that imposed a cap on non-pecuniary damages back in the late 1970's. At the time the courts set a figure of $100,000 Cnd which with inflation has now increased to $250,000, again in Cnd.
And slighty off topic, the Cnd dollar is now over 85 cents U.S. At the time when GWB took office the Cnd dollar was at 62 cents U.S. It hasn't been this high since, well, the last time a Bush was in office.
Dr. Yore, you say:
1) (i)A cap on damages will prevent injured patients from receiving compenstation for their injuries. Untrue.(/i)
As a doctor you put yourself in an awkward spot telling a 34 y/o patient who can no longer walk, urinate, move her own bowels without assistance or bear children because of medical malpractice that she's been fully compensated by economic damages. What's your independance worth to you doc?
2) on-medically educated juries are not very good at accurately establishing causation.
This usually works to a doctor's advantage, not the patients. Maybe it's societal, maybe it's our unwillingness to believe that our doctors will hurt us and they lie about it, but it goes along way in explaining why juries side with doctors 80% of the time.
3) Washinton state.
Here's what Scott Jarvis, deputy commissioner of consumer protection with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner’s Office, said: "Washington is not a state in crisis, that the number of malpractice claims has remained constant", and that he believes there were only about half a dozen verdicts that were in excess of $1 million. Even the CEO of Physicians Insurance Company, which provides malpractice insurance to 75 percent of practicing doctors in Washington State, admits that tort reform may not lower the tab on premiums.
5) You shouldn't bring up the IOM study if you are looking for credibility. That study has been so thoroughly discredited that nobody takes it seriously.
Oh really? The AMA posts the IOM study on their website with cautions on the study's limitations. More startling, is that 95% of doctors admit having witnessed a major medical error during their career, yet so few are actually reported, making research like the IOM's more difficult.
If you have not read the book "Wall of Silence" I highly recommend it. You may be interested to know that may patients want nothing more from their doc than an admission and an apology.
Dr. Yore, you say:
1) (i)A cap on damages will prevent injured patients from receiving compenstation for their injuries. Untrue.(/i)
As a doctor you put yourself in an awkward spot telling a 34 y/o patient who can no longer walk, urinate, move her own bowels without assistance or bear children because of medical malpractice that she's been fully compensated by economic damages. What's your independance worth to you doc?
2) on-medically educated juries are not very good at accurately establishing causation.
This usually works to a doctor's advantage, not the patients. Maybe it's societal, maybe it's our unwillingness to believe that our doctors will hurt us and they lie about it, but it goes along way in explaining why juries side with doctors 80% of the time.
3) Washinton state.
Here's what Scott Jarvis, deputy commissioner of consumer protection with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner’s Office, said: "Washington is not a state in crisis, that the number of malpractice claims has remained constant", and that he believes there were only about half a dozen verdicts that were in excess of $1 million. Even the CEO of Physicians Insurance Company, which provides malpractice insurance to 75 percent of practicing doctors in Washington State, admits that tort reform may not lower the tab on premiums.
5) You shouldn't bring up the IOM study if you are looking for credibility. That study has been so thoroughly discredited that nobody takes it seriously.
Oh really? The AMA posts the IOM study on their website with cautions on the study's limitations. More startling, is that 95% of doctors admit having witnessed a major medical error during their career, yet so few are actually reported, making research like the IOM's more difficult.
If you have not read the book "Wall of Silence" I highly recommend it. You may be interested to know that may patients want nothing more from their doc than an admission and an apology.
The IOM study said that the problem was systemic, not a "bad doctor" problem and that the tort system was not the answer to reducing the system error. Furthermore, the Harvard study cited above that found that only about 10% of bad care resulted in law suits also found that about the same percentage of malpractice lawsuits were the result of actual bad care. Meaning that whatever the quality of care provided in our health system, the current tort system is doing a woeful job of compensating for or deterring bad care.
The IOM study said that the problem was systemic, not a "bad doctor" problem and that the tort system was not the answer to reducing the system error. Furthermore, the Harvard study cited above that found that only about 10% of bad care resulted in law suits also found that about the same percentage of malpractice lawsuits were the result of actual bad care. Meaning that whatever the quality of care provided in our health system, the current tort system is doing a woeful job of compensating for or deterring bad care.
Well, almost nobody ever accused Henley of being very bright.
It's hardly surprising that he would intentionally misinterpret something in order to pretend that someone was supporting his ridiculous notion of tort reform.
Well, almost nobody ever accused Henley of being very bright.
It's hardly surprising that he would intentionally misinterpret something in order to pretend that someone was supporting his ridiculous notion of tort reform.
For a more balanced look at real malpractice premium costs, take a look at
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?Ar.../?
ArticleID=241
which claims median premiums of $11K/yr. Quite a distance from the $200/yr on the AMA site. 8K for a GP, 12K for an anesthesiolgist and 35K for OB/GYN.
For a more balanced look at real malpractice premium costs, take a look at
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?Ar.../?
ArticleID=241
which claims median premiums of $11K/yr. Quite a distance from the $200/yr on the AMA site. 8K for a GP, 12K for an anesthesiolgist and 35K for OB/GYN.
It is one thing to seek a limit on paid/suffering malpractice claims to ensure doctors can afford to practice and patients have access to care. Think aout it. and imagine you are a doc paying $250 grand just for malpractice insurance, the going rate for OB/Gyns in Fla.
But it is quite another, as the Bushies want and provide in their "reform" proposals, to also protect big pharma, HMOs and medical equipment makers from paying damages for unjuries that reflect conscious corporate decisions to save money. I have never heard of these corporate folks closing up shop because of slim profits.
The GOPs use physicians as shock troops in this argument and hide the fact that billions in benefits fromn tort reform would go to their corporate sponsors. A pure cap on pain/suffering damages, which helps docs, is quite different from the "liability reform" the GOPs want to pay back their corporate campaign supporters.
It is one thing to seek a limit on paid/suffering malpractice claims to ensure doctors can afford to practice and patients have access to care. Think aout it. and imagine you are a doc paying $250 grand just for malpractice insurance, the going rate for OB/Gyns in Fla.
But it is quite another, as the Bushies want and provide in their "reform" proposals, to also protect big pharma, HMOs and medical equipment makers from paying damages for unjuries that reflect conscious corporate decisions to save money. I have never heard of these corporate folks closing up shop because of slim profits.
The GOPs use physicians as shock troops in this argument and hide the fact that billions in benefits fromn tort reform would go to their corporate sponsors. A pure cap on pain/suffering damages, which helps docs, is quite different from the "liability reform" the GOPs want to pay back their corporate campaign supporters.
The 250k or the 500k cap is on pain/suffering awards--what are also called non-economic damages. There is no cap proposed for economic damages, whic cover the cost of medical care, nursing, psychiatry, rehabilitiation or any other costs to make the patient/victim whole.
The 250k or the 500k cap is on pain/suffering awards--what are also called non-economic damages. There is no cap proposed for economic damages, whic cover the cost of medical care, nursing, psychiatry, rehabilitiation or any other costs to make the patient/victim whole.
After surveying TV ads, it appears that conservative men need a variety of erectile dysfunction drugs. Now, let's say one of those drugs causes their dick to fall off. Now there is no economic loss unless they are a gigolo so the most they will get is $250,000. Worthless dicks.
After surveying TV ads, it appears that conservative men need a variety of erectile dysfunction drugs. Now, let's say one of those drugs causes their dick to fall off. Now there is no economic loss unless they are a gigolo so the most they will get is $250,000. Worthless dicks.
"The 250k or the 500k cap is on pain/suffering awards--what are also called non-economic damages...other costs to make the patient/victim whole."
Whole is the legal premise to balance the harm and not all harm is economic. Think about it. The man in Texas who had his penis and testicles removed by medical mistake gets what? The cost of that hospital stay comped? Most guys I know don't consider that "whole". Picture a big sign on your local hospital "Free Penis and Testicle Removal Today!" Any takers?
"The 250k or the 500k cap is on pain/suffering awards--what are also called non-economic damages...other costs to make the patient/victim whole."
Whole is the legal premise to balance the harm and not all harm is economic. Think about it. The man in Texas who had his penis and testicles removed by medical mistake gets what? The cost of that hospital stay comped? Most guys I know don't consider that "whole". Picture a big sign on your local hospital "Free Penis and Testicle Removal Today!" Any takers?
There was a terrific article in the 'Nation' last month on Tort Reform. According to the article its a win/win for the GOP - Money pours in from corporation who want to reduce liability suits and by putting a cap on suits reduce income to lawyers - big contributors to the Dems. Also, malpractice suits compromis something like 1.5% of suits
There was a terrific article in the 'Nation' last month on Tort Reform. According to the article its a win/win for the GOP - Money pours in from corporation who want to reduce liability suits and by putting a cap on suits reduce income to lawyers - big contributors to the Dems. Also, malpractice suits compromis something like 1.5% of suits
A cap on damages will prevent injured patients from receiving compenstation for their injuries.
As a doctor you put yourself in an awkward spot telling a 34 y/o patient who can no longer walk, urinate, move her own bowels without assistance or bear children because of medical malpractice that she's been fully compensated by economic damages. What's your independance worth to you doc?
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I view non-economic damages as a fair subject for debate and discussion. However, it's an important distinction to make since many or most posters in this thread are unclear regarding the disctinction and the fact that the proposed caps only cover non-economic damages.
In general, I would be content if there were some sort of consistent standardization, whether it be a fee schedule or what-not. That's tricky, though, because there are so many variations and it seems like few cases would fit the models. Also, it seems very cold to try to put a statutory price on a life. But how else do we quantify the loss incurred in a wrongful death? Why do juries consistently value the life of a white person higher than than of a black person? A man's higher than a woman's? Standardization would go a long way towards remedying the inconsistencies but still seems inadequate. There's also a fair question regarding the costs the system can bear. I would much rather have this discussion than the "Doctors are evil greedy callous bastards" discussion.
non-medically educated juries are not very good at accurately establishing causation.
This usually works to a doctor's advantage, not the patients. Maybe it's societal, maybe it's our unwillingness to believe that our doctors will hurt us and they lie about it, but it goes along way in explaining why juries side with doctors 80% of the time.
Probably that has to do with the fact that the docs settle the vast majority of the sure losers rather than proceed to trial. The problem is that when faced with historical evidence of juries' sympathetic and
extravagant awards, a lot of meritorious cases get settled (read: paid) as well. (By meritorious, I mean cases where the standard of care was likely met)
3) Washinton state.
Here's what Scott Jarvis, deputy commissioner of consumer protection with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner’s Office, said: "Washington is not a state in crisis, that the number of malpractice claims has remained constant"
He may be right that the caselaod is constant; the median awards (and settlements -- a number he excludes) have inarguably increased.
Even the CEO of Physicians Insurance Company, which provides malpractice insurance to 75 percent of practicing doctors in Washington State, admits that tort reform may not lower the tab on premiums.
Nobody thinks tort reform is a panacea. Evidence from CA and TX *suggest* that it will help reduce caseloads and payouts, wh
A cap on damages will prevent injured patients from receiving compenstation for their injuries.
As a doctor you put yourself in an awkward spot telling a 34 y/o patient who can no longer walk, urinate, move her own bowels without assistance or bear children because of medical malpractice that she's been fully compensated by economic damages. What's your independance worth to you doc?
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I view non-economic damages as a fair subject for debate and discussion. However, it's an important distinction to make since many or most posters in this thread are unclear regarding the disctinction and the fact that the proposed caps only cover non-economic damages.
In general, I would be content if there were some sort of consistent standardization, whether it be a fee schedule or what-not. That's tricky, though, because there are so many variations and it seems like few cases would fit the models. Also, it seems very cold to try to put a statutory price on a life. But how else do we quantify the loss incurred in a wrongful death? Why do juries consistently value the life of a white person higher than than of a black person? A man's higher than a woman's? Standardization would go a long way towards remedying the inconsistencies but still seems inadequate. There's also a fair question regarding the costs the system can bear. I would much rather have this discussion than the "Doctors are evil greedy callous bastards" discussion.
non-medically educated juries are not very good at accurately establishing causation.
This usually works to a doctor's advantage, not the patients. Maybe it's societal, maybe it's our unwillingness to believe that our doctors will hurt us and they lie about it, but it goes along way in explaining why juries side with doctors 80% of the time.
Probably that has to do with the fact that the docs settle the vast majority of the sure losers rather than proceed to trial. The problem is that when faced with historical evidence of juries' sympathetic and
extravagant awards, a lot of meritorious cases get settled (read: paid) as well. (By meritorious, I mean cases where the standard of care was likely met)
3) Washinton state.
Here's what Scott Jarvis, deputy commissioner of consumer protection with the Washington State Insurance Commissioner’s Office, said: "Washington is not a state in crisis, that the number of malpractice claims has remained constant"
He may be right that the caselaod is constant; the median awards (and settlements -- a number he excludes) have inarguably increased.
Even the CEO of Physicians Insurance Company, which provides malpractice insurance to 75 percent of practicing doctors in Washington State, admits that tort reform may not lower the tab on premiums.
Nobody thinks tort reform is a panacea. Evidence from CA and TX *suggest* that it will help reduce caseloads and payouts, wh
ZME--I agree. Not all 'harm' is economic. Your 34 y/o who lost freedom is one prime example.
But how do you quantify the loss? Is it worth 200k? 300k? 1M?10M?
I think society should choose and get a real idea on whether high liability premiums for docs causes Yore's practice to close or just requires that he save less money.
We could have a debate and choose:
1)access to docs and lower premiums vs. access to courts and higher non-economic awards.
But in this corporate-media controlled climate, how do we get the truth out? I mean the GOPs dont even say that most of their tort reform is for HMOs, medical equipment folks and pharma--not docs.
ZME--I agree. Not all 'harm' is economic. Your 34 y/o who lost freedom is one prime example.
But how do you quantify the loss? Is it worth 200k? 300k? 1M?10M?
I think society should choose and get a real idea on whether high liability premiums for docs causes Yore's practice to close or just requires that he save less money.
We could have a debate and choose:
1)access to docs and lower premiums vs. access to courts and higher non-economic awards.
But in this corporate-media controlled climate, how do we get the truth out? I mean the GOPs dont even say that most of their tort reform is for HMOs, medical equipment folks and pharma--not docs.
Whie it is widely considered that are right to vote is the most powerful govrnmental tool that a citizen owns , the dilution of thet power by the two party system greatly reduces that power. Our right to air our grievences in a court of law is our most powerful tool. We need permission from no
one to proceed. For the people it is the most accesible and pwerful part of the tripod upon which our democracy is built,
executive, legislative, and judiciary. Giving up any of that power is extremely unwise.
I cannot image a legislative bill that would give us enough in return to make relinqishing any of our judicial rights a good deal for the people.
Whie it is widely considered that are right to vote is the most powerful govrnmental tool that a citizen owns , the dilution of thet power by the two party system greatly reduces that power. Our right to air our grievences in a court of law is our most powerful tool. We need permission from no
one to proceed. For the people it is the most accesible and pwerful part of the tripod upon which our democracy is built,
executive, legislative, and judiciary. Giving up any of that power is extremely unwise.
I cannot image a legislative bill that would give us enough in return to make relinqishing any of our judicial rights a good deal for the people.
Sorry for all the spelling errors in the post above. In a hurry, have go out. Have fun.
Sorry for all the spelling errors in the post above. In a hurry, have go out. Have fun.
If your doctor insists on collecting a "surcharge" for whatever, check with your insurance company. In many cases, the doctor's contract with the insurance company forbids them from collecting fees like this.
If your doctor insists on collecting a "surcharge" for whatever, check with your insurance company. In many cases, the doctor's contract with the insurance company forbids them from collecting fees like this.
And that will be the end of your doctor's relationship with your insurance company. Have fun paying the out-of-network charges. A surcharge might be the fairest way of accomodating the public's interest in having both a high-compensation tort system and a large number of doctors from whom to choose.
And that will be the end of your doctor's relationship with your insurance company. Have fun paying the out-of-network charges. A surcharge might be the fairest way of accomodating the public's interest in having both a high-compensation tort system and a large number of doctors from whom to choose.
Dr. Yore:
Concerning your "theory" that there is no cap on economic damages: my sister was killed by a doctor. It's true that the lawsuit reimbursed the costs of her hospital stay in full (bully bully). But then there was the question of "future earnings"--my sister was earning $125,000/yr and had 12 more years to work; however, "future earnings" capped at $250,000. (Pain/suffering of the family was another aspect of the lawsuit.) So--sorry--economic damages are also capped, at least in some states.
The doctor in question had previously harmed other patients and (considering comments made during depositions) harmed other patients after my sister's death. So, explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do anything about multiple-offender doctors? Explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do any risk management? If the medical profession were willing to police itself even a little bit, I might be a little more sympathic with all the statements that doctors can't possibly pay out reasonable sums in connection with the people they kill.
Dr. Yore:
Concerning your "theory" that there is no cap on economic damages: my sister was killed by a doctor. It's true that the lawsuit reimbursed the costs of her hospital stay in full (bully bully). But then there was the question of "future earnings"--my sister was earning $125,000/yr and had 12 more years to work; however, "future earnings" capped at $250,000. (Pain/suffering of the family was another aspect of the lawsuit.) So--sorry--economic damages are also capped, at least in some states.
The doctor in question had previously harmed other patients and (considering comments made during depositions) harmed other patients after my sister's death. So, explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do anything about multiple-offender doctors? Explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do any risk management? If the medical profession were willing to police itself even a little bit, I might be a little more sympathic with all the statements that doctors can't possibly pay out reasonable sums in connection with the people they kill.
Dr. Yore:
Concerning your "theory" that there is no cap on economic damages: my sister was killed by a doctor. It's true that the lawsuit reimbursed the costs of her hospital stay in full (bully bully). But then there was the question of "future earnings"--my sister was earning $125,000/yr and had 12 more years to work; however, "future earnings" capped at $250,000. (Pain/suffering of the family was another aspect of the lawsuit.) So--sorry--economic damages are also capped, at least in some states.
The doctor in question had previously harmed other patients and (considering comments made during depositions) harmed other patients after my sister's death. So, explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do anything about multiple-offender doctors? Explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do any risk management? If the medical profession were willing to police itself even a little bit, I might be a little more sympathic with all the statements that doctors can't possibly pay out reasonable sums in connection with the people they kill.
Dr. Yore:
Concerning your "theory" that there is no cap on economic damages: my sister was killed by a doctor. It's true that the lawsuit reimbursed the costs of her hospital stay in full (bully bully). But then there was the question of "future earnings"--my sister was earning $125,000/yr and had 12 more years to work; however, "future earnings" capped at $250,000. (Pain/suffering of the family was another aspect of the lawsuit.) So--sorry--economic damages are also capped, at least in some states.
The doctor in question had previously harmed other patients and (considering comments made during depositions) harmed other patients after my sister's death. So, explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do anything about multiple-offender doctors? Explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do any risk management? If the medical profession were willing to police itself even a little bit, I might be a little more sympathic with all the statements that doctors can't possibly pay out reasonable sums in connection with the people they kill.
test
test
Actually (my site still says I am "banned by webmaster") the whole tort damages issue is misdirection, like almost all of Republican politics. It is merely raised as a smokescreen to hide the major drug and insurance companies driving up costs -- as is known and noted.
But this pattern of misdirection is almost customary, like the deference to a pretext in social life when someone gives an excuse for being 'too busy' to meet at a certain time. This equation, and the defense of this "privilege of hate" is fundamental to the politics of the right -- along with the 'god-given' "right" to give a phony reason when going to war, in Kosovo as in Iraq, tho the latter is much more dangerous. To really address this issue, as so many others, it is essential to address the underlying template described above, as well as its PRIVILEGEDNESS in the vertical 'playing field' of American politics. And the privilegedness is getting worse all the time, as the stealing of TWO presidential elections in a row, the media lockdown of this issue, reported around the world, and the banning both times of the winning (or at least in the face of the machine, embarassing) lawsuit -- in this case the systematic deprivation of adequate voting machines from Democratic districts in Ohio.
WHY SO LITTLE AT THIS SITE ABOUT VOTERGATE AND THE MEDIA LOCKDOWN? SHOULDN'T A SITE LIKE THIS HIGHLIGHT SUCH STONEWALLED ISSUES?
Actually (my site still says I am "banned by webmaster") the whole tort damages issue is misdirection, like almost all of Republican politics. It is merely raised as a smokescreen to hide the major drug and insurance companies driving up costs -- as is known and noted.
But this pattern of misdirection is almost customary, like the deference to a pretext in social life when someone gives an excuse for being 'too busy' to meet at a certain time. This equation, and the defense of this "privilege of hate" is fundamental to the politics of the right -- along with the 'god-given' "right" to give a phony reason when going to war, in Kosovo as in Iraq, tho the latter is much more dangerous. To really address this issue, as so many others, it is essential to address the underlying template described above, as well as its PRIVILEGEDNESS in the vertical 'playing field' of American politics. And the privilegedness is getting worse all the time, as the stealing of TWO presidential elections in a row, the media lockdown of this issue, reported around the world, and the banning both times of the winning (or at least in the face of the machine, embarassing) lawsuit -- in this case the systematic deprivation of adequate voting machines from Democratic districts in Ohio.
WHY SO LITTLE AT THIS SITE ABOUT VOTERGATE AND THE MEDIA LOCKDOWN? SHOULDN'T A SITE LIKE THIS HIGHLIGHT SUCH STONEWALLED ISSUES?
Dr. Yore you say:
Probably that has to do with the fact that the docs settle the vast majority of the sure losers rather than proceed to trial.
Not anymore doc although it is far too often not the doctor's choice. Insurance companies have vast data on verdict probablity as well as the same lawyers trying their cases - they settle less because they know the odds are in heavily in their favor.
Especially since the AMA has thrown in with the like of health concious companies - Exxon, Dow, Weyerhaeuser, Monsanto who pimp the medical profession for their own profit purposes. Medical legal reform is the front for "you can't hold us responsible" corporate profiteering.
On CA and TX, you'd be wrong again doc. Many consider the quality of care in both states at an all time low. If you like the Pres want to hold up Texas as a health care model, we're are in deep trouble.
Eonomic damages, not money for loss of independance, life long pain, etc. do favor white men because white men make more money. Children, blacks, women, latinos, etc. will get less economic compensation. Non-economic damages are not gender / race biased unless your community is. Why would it matter if it's a black man or a white woman will never walk again? Are you suggesting that independance is somehow tied to race or ethnicity? One size fits all damages means one size actually fits no one.
Dr. Yore you say:
Probably that has to do with the fact that the docs settle the vast majority of the sure losers rather than proceed to trial.
Not anymore doc although it is far too often not the doctor's choice. Insurance companies have vast data on verdict probablity as well as the same lawyers trying their cases - they settle less because they know the odds are in heavily in their favor.
Especially since the AMA has thrown in with the like of health concious companies - Exxon, Dow, Weyerhaeuser, Monsanto who pimp the medical profession for their own profit purposes. Medical legal reform is the front for "you can't hold us responsible" corporate profiteering.
On CA and TX, you'd be wrong again doc. Many consider the quality of care in both states at an all time low. If you like the Pres want to hold up Texas as a health care model, we're are in deep trouble.
Eonomic damages, not money for loss of independance, life long pain, etc. do favor white men because white men make more money. Children, blacks, women, latinos, etc. will get less economic compensation. Non-economic damages are not gender / race biased unless your community is. Why would it matter if it's a black man or a white woman will never walk again? Are you suggesting that independance is somehow tied to race or ethnicity? One size fits all damages means one size actually fits no one.
Forgot to add, if you're a member of the AMA you know that caps on non-economic damages are NOT open for discussion. Caps on non-economic damages are the AMA's sanctioned position and one they've pumped a lot of time and money into. Not much discussion in states where that legislation is in place. So, what's the discussion? Let's talk about why my medical malpractice insurance will only pay $250 k for screwing your life?
Forgot to add, if you're a member of the AMA you know that caps on non-economic damages are NOT open for discussion. Caps on non-economic damages are the AMA's sanctioned position and one they've pumped a lot of time and money into. Not much discussion in states where that legislation is in place. So, what's the discussion? Let's talk about why my medical malpractice insurance will only pay $250 k for screwing your life?
So remember, everyone:
The next time your HMO jacks your rates up another 300%, it's all the fault of "The Trial Lawyers". Pay no attention to that corrupt relationship between the GOP and the HMO industry. Nope, it's just the fault of the Evil Trial Lawyers. They're the ones who are twisting the arms of all those poor, honest, hardworking HMO executives. They're the ones behind it all. The HMOs love you. Really. And George W. Bush loves you. And they're only robbing you blind because the Big Bad Trial Lawyers *made* them do it. Yep, it's all THEIR fault. So don't blame anyone else. Nope, don't even think of blaming anyone else. And in closing, let me just say : all is well, God Bless America, Support The Troops, and They Only Hate Us For Our Freedoms. Onward Christian Soldiers, and Amen.
MDN
So remember, everyone:
The next time your HMO jacks your rates up another 300%, it's all the fault of "The Trial Lawyers". Pay no attention to that corrupt relationship between the GOP and the HMO industry. Nope, it's just the fault of the Evil Trial Lawyers. They're the ones who are twisting the arms of all those poor, honest, hardworking HMO executives. They're the ones behind it all. The HMOs love you. Really. And George W. Bush loves you. And they're only robbing you blind because the Big Bad Trial Lawyers *made* them do it. Yep, it's all THEIR fault. So don't blame anyone else. Nope, don't even think of blaming anyone else. And in closing, let me just say : all is well, God Bless America, Support The Troops, and They Only Hate Us For Our Freedoms. Onward Christian Soldiers, and Amen.
MDN
States that have passed state-level caps on non-economic damages have seen no real benefit in regard to malpractice insurance rates, or physician availability.
States that have passed state-level caps on non-economic damages have seen no real benefit in regard to malpractice insurance rates, or physician availability.
Hey! Did you hear? Atrios believes that driving should be outlawed!
Hey! Did you hear? Atrios believes that driving should be outlawed!
BTW, economic loss calculations were why some WTC victims' families got millions while others got $400,000 for the reported 1.8 million average.
BTW, economic loss calculations were why some WTC victims' families got millions while others got $400,000 for the reported 1.8 million average.
And that will be the end of your doctor's relationship with your insurance company. Have fun paying the out-of-network charges. A surcharge might be the fairest way of accomodating the public's interest in having both a high-compensation tort system and a large number of doctors from whom to choose.
What a funny thing to say-in that case, I would change doctors and hire a new one who accepts my insurance. Physicians aren't the only ones who can vote with their feet.
And that will be the end of your doctor's relationship with your insurance company. Have fun paying the out-of-network charges. A surcharge might be the fairest way of accomodating the public's interest in having both a high-compensation tort system and a large number of doctors from whom to choose.
What a funny thing to say-in that case, I would change doctors and hire a new one who accepts my insurance. Physicians aren't the only ones who can vote with their feet.
Probably that has to do with the fact that the docs settle the vast majority of the sure losers rather than proceed to trial.
. . . Not anymore doc although it is far too often not the doctor's choice. Insurance companies have vast data on verdict probablity as well as the same lawyers trying their cases - they settle less because they know the odds are in heavily in their favor.
From experience, it's probably as well it's not exclusively the doc's choice -- the insurance co's have tons more data regarding whether a case is defensible, and once you have already been sued it is time to make the cold-blooded decision regarding whether to stand and fight or cut your losses. However, what I meant was that the cases which are likely to lose are almost all settled before trial. That's a small fraction of all cases filed. IIRC, 85% of cases filed are dismissed pre-trial and of those that proceed to trial the great majority result in a verdict for the defense. But the win-loss ratio is not what's important, especially if, as it seems, the number of meritless cases filed is so high.
A more important question (especially to physicians, who face the sharp end of the stick) is whether the cases settled/trials lost were actual failures on their part or simple bad outcomes. The scary thing from the docs' position is that whenever I read the literature about cases, it seems like if I had been in the defendant doc's position I might well have done the same thing; that his actions were exactly what is taught in the textbooks -- and he lost! There but for the grace of god go I. Sure, there are cases you read, and say to yourself, "boy he f*cked it up." But there are so many cases which seem like routine episodes which went bad, and the doc just loses. Every time I discharge a baby with a fever I hope to God that this isn't one of the 0.2% which will come back with meningitis, because if it does I will lose and that's gonna suck.
lty
Probably that has to do with the fact that the docs settle the vast majority of the sure losers rather than proceed to trial.
. . . Not anymore doc although it is far too often not the doctor's choice. Insurance companies have vast data on verdict probablity as well as the same lawyers trying their cases - they settle less because they know the odds are in heavily in their favor.
From experience, it's probably as well it's not exclusively the doc's choice -- the insurance co's have tons more data regarding whether a case is defensible, and once you have already been sued it is time to make the cold-blooded decision regarding whether to stand and fight or cut your losses. However, what I meant was that the cases which are likely to lose are almost all settled before trial. That's a small fraction of all cases filed. IIRC, 85% of cases filed are dismissed pre-trial and of those that proceed to trial the great majority result in a verdict for the defense. But the win-loss ratio is not what's important, especially if, as it seems, the number of meritless cases filed is so high.
A more important question (especially to physicians, who face the sharp end of the stick) is whether the cases settled/trials lost were actual failures on their part or simple bad outcomes. The scary thing from the docs' position is that whenever I read the literature about cases, it seems like if I had been in the defendant doc's position I might well have done the same thing; that his actions were exactly what is taught in the textbooks -- and he lost! There but for the grace of god go I. Sure, there are cases you read, and say to yourself, "boy he f*cked it up." But there are so many cases which seem like routine episodes which went bad, and the doc just loses. Every time I discharge a baby with a fever I hope to God that this isn't one of the 0.2% which will come back with meningitis, because if it does I will lose and that's gonna suck.
lty
States that have passed state-level caps on non-economic damages have seen no real benefit in regard to malpractice insurance rates, or physician availability.
CA has had a very favorable experience since MICRA was passed in the '80s. IIRC, their rates are up something like 200% over 15 years; in WA our rates are up 700% over four years. Some say that more aggressive insurance regulation is to credit in CA -- I don't disagree; don't know enough, really. In NV, TX and FL, the experience is pretty recent but the early results are that after an initial rush to the courthouse to beat the deadline, the number of cases filed is down by two thirds and payouts have declined. This favorable experience has not yet been reflected in insurance rates -- will it? I don't know, but we'll be watching closely.
lty
States that have passed state-level caps on non-economic damages have seen no real benefit in regard to malpractice insurance rates, or physician availability.
CA has had a very favorable experience since MICRA was passed in the '80s. IIRC, their rates are up something like 200% over 15 years; in WA our rates are up 700% over four years. Some say that more aggressive insurance regulation is to credit in CA -- I don't disagree; don't know enough, really. In NV, TX and FL, the experience is pretty recent but the early results are that after an initial rush to the courthouse to beat the deadline, the number of cases filed is down by two thirds and payouts have declined. This favorable experience has not yet been reflected in insurance rates -- will it? I don't know, but we'll be watching closely.
lty
Concerning your "theory" that there is no cap on economic damages: my sister was killed by a doctor. It's true that the lawsuit reimbursed the costs of her hospital stay in full (bully bully). But then there was the question of "future earnings"--my sister was earning $125,000/yr and had 12 more years to work; however, "future earnings" capped at $250,000. (Pain/suffering of the family was another aspect of the lawsuit.) So--sorry--economic damages are also capped, at least in some states.
I was referring to the limits which are currently being advocated in Congress as well as in multiple state legislatures. Obviously the extant laws may vary from state to state.
The doctor in question had previously harmed other patients and (considering comments made during depositions) harmed other patients after my sister's death. So, explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do anything about multiple-offender doctors? Explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do any risk management? If the medical profession were willing to police itself even a little bit, I might be a little more sympathic with all the statements that doctors can't possibly pay out reasonable sums in connection with the people they kill.
First of all, my condolences on the loss of your sister. I hope your painful experience with her poor care does not lead to you tar all doctors with the same brushstroke. For every semi-competent or inconsiderate lout of a physician I know, I also know dozens who are caring and strongly motivated patient advocates. It would, however, be incorrect to say that the profession does no risk management. In fact, quite the opposite. Our hospital's Quality Committee, for example, reviews every bad event, whether it results in death or the patient escapes uninjured; we track the errors we catch, we trend them, we counsel practitioners who seem to need it, we compel some to seek further training, and we fire those whose efforts at improving their quality of care are inadequate. We are not a state license board and cannot revoke licenses. However, the WA State Board aggressively investigates every complaint received from the public. We put a huge amount in effort into quality of care efforts, both retrospective and proactive, trying to develop best practice policies and prevent future errors.
And I wish it were as simple as eliminating the "bad apples." They're hard to identify. I've made mistakes. I'm human, and I am going to make mistakes in the future. I can't do much about that. One mistake I know of led to a patient's death. I didn't get sued because I was honest and open in my interaction with the family and because they knew that I did my very best and they didn't want to "punish" me. I know a guy who's been sued several times though he is a better doctor than most, because his communication skills are not good (read: he's a jerk). I knew one
Concerning your "theory" that there is no cap on economic damages: my sister was killed by a doctor. It's true that the lawsuit reimbursed the costs of her hospital stay in full (bully bully). But then there was the question of "future earnings"--my sister was earning $125,000/yr and had 12 more years to work; however, "future earnings" capped at $250,000. (Pain/suffering of the family was another aspect of the lawsuit.) So--sorry--economic damages are also capped, at least in some states.
I was referring to the limits which are currently being advocated in Congress as well as in multiple state legislatures. Obviously the extant laws may vary from state to state.
The doctor in question had previously harmed other patients and (considering comments made during depositions) harmed other patients after my sister's death. So, explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do anything about multiple-offender doctors? Explain to me again why the medical profession refuses to do any risk management? If the medical profession were willing to police itself even a little bit, I might be a little more sympathic with all the statements that doctors can't possibly pay out reasonable sums in connection with the people they kill.
First of all, my condolences on the loss of your sister. I hope your painful experience with her poor care does not lead to you tar all doctors with the same brushstroke. For every semi-competent or inconsiderate lout of a physician I know, I also know dozens who are caring and strongly motivated patient advocates. It would, however, be incorrect to say that the profession does no risk management. In fact, quite the opposite. Our hospital's Quality Committee, for example, reviews every bad event, whether it results in death or the patient escapes uninjured; we track the errors we catch, we trend them, we counsel practitioners who seem to need it, we compel some to seek further training, and we fire those whose efforts at improving their quality of care are inadequate. We are not a state license board and cannot revoke licenses. However, the WA State Board aggressively investigates every complaint received from the public. We put a huge amount in effort into quality of care efforts, both retrospective and proactive, trying to develop best practice policies and prevent future errors.
And I wish it were as simple as eliminating the "bad apples." They're hard to identify. I've made mistakes. I'm human, and I am going to make mistakes in the future. I can't do much about that. One mistake I know of led to a patient's death. I didn't get sued because I was honest and open in my interaction with the family and because they knew that I did my very best and they didn't want to "punish" me. I know a guy who's been sued several times though he is a better doctor than most, because his communication skills are not good (read: he's a jerk). I knew one
Hmph. Got truncated. Probably as well; I was rambling. To wrap up:
All I'm saying is that it's not a simple matter, except in rare cases, to find the one in ten or twenty or fifty docs who wear the black hat of "Bad Doctor," and fire them. The filters of patient complaints and lawsuits are both insensitive and inaccurate.
lty
Hmph. Got truncated. Probably as well; I was rambling. To wrap up:
All I'm saying is that it's not a simple matter, except in rare cases, to find the one in ten or twenty or fifty docs who wear the black hat of "Bad Doctor," and fire them. The filters of patient complaints and lawsuits are both insensitive and inaccurate.
lty
A typical episode of 'West Wing' will provide you with more information and better argumentation on just about any issue I've read about in the press or webs.
A typical episode of 'West Wing' will provide you with more information and better argumentation on just about any issue I've read about in the press or webs.
But the win-loss ratio is not what's important, especially if, as it seems, the number of meritless cases filed is so high.
The economics behind that statement won't hold water. The number of "meritless cases" is incredibly low.
1) Plaintiff's lawyers have a 20% chance of winning with cases brimming with merit and they pay 100% of expenses on the 80% they lose.
2) Lawyers must prove the merits of every case to make it into a court room to begin with. This means doctors who are willing at great risk to their professional careers have to testify in advance on the medical merits.
3) Insurance companies are driven by risk, meaning $$$, management. They settle only the cases where they can get out on the cheap. The rest they'll fight to the death because it takes money out of the other guy's pocket. Insurance companies can afford to out wait and out spend, win, lose or draw.
The scary thing from the docs' position is that whenever I read the literature about cases... Whose literature are you reading? With the AMA adopting tort reform and making patient safety its red headed stepchild, what interest does your profession have in objective data? If you can't prove it, it never happened.
But the win-loss ratio is not what's important, especially if, as it seems, the number of meritless cases filed is so high.
The economics behind that statement won't hold water. The number of "meritless cases" is incredibly low.
1) Plaintiff's lawyers have a 20% chance of winning with cases brimming with merit and they pay 100% of expenses on the 80% they lose.
2) Lawyers must prove the merits of every case to make it into a court room to begin with. This means doctors who are willing at great risk to their professional careers have to testify in advance on the medical merits.
3) Insurance companies are driven by risk, meaning $$$, management. They settle only the cases where they can get out on the cheap. The rest they'll fight to the death because it takes money out of the other guy's pocket. Insurance companies can afford to out wait and out spend, win, lose or draw.
The scary thing from the docs' position is that whenever I read the literature about cases... Whose literature are you reading? With the AMA adopting tort reform and making patient safety its red headed stepchild, what interest does your profession have in objective data? If you can't prove it, it never happened.
Nobody is now talking about BAD doctors. How many botched operations or hospital stays happen a year. I have heard of 200,000 or so a year. And also, how much is your Sight worth to you. $250,000 according to this bill. Who is willing to sell me their eyes for $250,000. I need a better set. Do anything for money.
Nobody is now talking about BAD doctors. How many botched operations or hospital stays happen a year. I have heard of 200,000 or so a year. And also, how much is your Sight worth to you. $250,000 according to this bill. Who is willing to sell me their eyes for $250,000. I need a better set. Do anything for money.
Browse our online slots where you can play slots online and jackpot progressives for real money.
Browse our online slots where you can play slots online and jackpot progressives for real money.
Does anybody else like dogs better than cats? How about a little dogblogging? I will post a picture of my little sweetiekins puppy that will blow you away and leave all thoughts of cats behind. (Not that I am bitter about being allergic to cats.) Sometime soon. Cats are cute from far away.
Does anybody else like dogs better than cats? How about a little dogblogging? I will post a picture of my little sweetiekins puppy that will blow you away and leave all thoughts of cats behind. (Not that I am bitter about being allergic to cats.) Sometime soon. Cats are cute from far away.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
