Posted on 01/10/2005 4:23:05 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Md. Governor Vetoes Malpractice Bill
Gov. Robert Ehrlich vetoed a bill to hold down big verdicts in medical malpractice cases Monday, saying it does not go far enough to control the skyrocketing cost of insurance for doctors and includes a tax that will be passed on to consumers.
The governor, a Republican, had promised to veto the measure passed during last month's special session of the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
"It's tort reform light and a tax on working families," Ehrlich said. "It's a very small step proceeding in the right direction."
The bill was endorsed by state associations representing doctors and hospitals and is supported by the consumer group Health Care for All. Democratic leaders said they plan to try to override the veto when they meet Tuesday.
The measure would freeze the cap for damages against doctors over pain and suffering at its current level of $650,000. It would lower the cap to $812,500, from $1.6 million, in the event of a patient death.
"The doctors support it. The hospitals support it," said state Sen. Brian Frosh, a Democrat. "I don't think there's anybody in the governor's corner any more."
(Excerpt) Read more at asia.news.yahoo.com ...
""The doctors support it. The hospitals support it," said state Sen. Brian Frosh, a Democrat. "I don't think there's anybody in the governor's corner any more."
"
I live in MD. My Doctor (and everyone he knows) does not support this legislation.
Can this be overturned at the Federal level?
Are you saying your doctor supports caping the malpractice? Or are you saying your doctor supports vetoing the bill?
no
I live in MD too.
I used to work in Silver Spring and my boss knew Ehrlich.
We did a lot of govt. design work (the most boring stuff in the world.) I met him once during a proposal.
He seemed nice.
Nonsense. I know details on dozens of them and 80% of the ones I know of are frivolous.
I don't believe it should be the job of a jury to determine an award with no limitation. The reality is that they have been convinced through emotion and not fact to award millions of other people's money.
(Proceeds from the tax would be used to underwrite the cost of malpractice insurance and increase Medicaid reimbursements to doctors in specialties such as obstetrics, where malpractice costs have been particularly high.)
They call this reform: Ultimately this bill forces tax payers to subsidize lawyers. There is no shame apparently! This also proves that doctors and their unions will easily side with their tormentors as long as they're not the ones who foot the ultimate bill (also based on their breathless support of socialized medicine).
But the bill passed by lawmakers included a 2 percent tax on HMO premiums, adamantly opposed by Ehrlich. Proceeds from the tax would be used to underwrite the cost of malpractice insurance and increase Medicaid reimbursements to doctors in specialties such as obstetrics, where malpractice costs have been particularly high.
Ehrlich said HMOs would pass the tax increase along to consumers.
Let me see if I have this straight. Malpractice insurance and frivolous lawsuits are driving doctors out of the state. The solution is for legislators (mostly lawyers) to raise taxes to pay the insurance. Right. If malpractice is not a revenue generator for lawyers, I suggest that they save all the money they spend advertizing their speciality on tv and in every piece of print including the yellow pages.
(PS) What doctor wouldn't support someone else paying his premium, even if it is gotten by taxing everyone.
Great minds think alike. You sir, type faster than me.
I was at this news conference. Ehrlich also said the legislation was a $430 million tax increase to take care of a $30 million problem. The one quote of his in the posted article does not tell the story.
To those who think there is no medical malpractice crisis in MD (and in a lot of other states as well), consider this: Johns Hopkins University will graduate ZERO (as in NONE) OB-GYNS next year because the med-mal insurance rates are so high. To a great extent, that is due to a lethal combination of fivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awarded payouts.
The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on Ehrlich's Veto in this morning's edition. Further, you can read Ehrlich's Veto message-letter on gov.state.md.us
This crisis is real, folks - and it may be coming your way.
This one wouldn't, especially if the money is going to greedy trial lawyers.
Maryland only has one malpractice carrier, Medical Mutual. I suspect this is part of the problem.
It's not the award, it's the threat of the award, that drives malpractice rates.
The average cost of a tort lawsuit is well over 60 grand. So if someone sues, it is chaper for insurance companies to settle for less than 60 grand than to go to trial.
Lawyers get half.
Easy $30k for them.
If only it were that easy.
The problem is that doctors perform a lot of almost needless tests so that even if the odds are a million to one against, they do not miss something that could have been found with a few to many more tests that mostly show nothing.
The second problem is there are bad medical outcomes that are not the fault of a doctor. Basically, the public often believes that if there is a bad outcome, then it must be someone's fault, and why should not the person who had a bad outcome be compensated for a bad outcome. The answer is that medicine can not cure everything and there are bad outcomes just because that is the way it is.
You seem to think every bad outcome should be compensated so that the "victims" can get on with their lives. Frankly, the patients should buy "bad outcome" insurance, but they don't want to do that, instead they rely on lawyers who provide it for them, but only at a great cost to everyone in society.
The other problem is an overly generous time limit for filing lawsuits. That is, you get operated on, you can still sue 10 years later. This makes it very difficult for insurers to correctly price insurance on an actuarial basis.
It's the dumbest idea I've ever heard, especially coming from the idiot Rats in MD.
That's what I've been saying. These are ideas created by a bunch of people who want to be like their hero Peter Angelos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.