Posted on 07/08/2009 10:26:43 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
OK, my headline is admittedly too simplistic. In fact, the whole medical malpractice milieu is sorely in need of a fix. We have unnecessarily large awards to aggrieved patients, crushing insurance costs to doctors to cover malpractice, a situation where defensive medicine drives up costs, and an entire industry of lawyers whose job it is, apparently, to rape the system and cause it to be burdensome for all of us. On top of that, we have a national party in the Democrats assisting these very destructive lawyers to do just that. This is a part of our medical system that truly needs reform.
We can start by getting Democrats to stop doing everything they can to bend over backwards for the John Edwards' of this world -- ambulance chasers extraordinaire. Democrats are the reason this has gotten so bad. And imagine, we are trusting to Democrats to "fix" what they, themselves broke with the greedy assistance of the trial lawyers.
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
...but he’s not addressing the real problems at all.
:::::
Of course not. It is about power and control and does not have a thing to do with your health care — except getting control over YOU and the medical industry. Socialized medicine is a proven DESTROYER of health care quality. So it is obvious that Obama’s efforts to socialize our medical industry has NOTHING to do with medical care quality and thus, your health.
Power and control. The Obama signature.
If Obama were truly interested in fixing the health care system he'd address this important aspect.
But he isn't and he won't.
OK, my headline is admittedly too simplistic.
No it isn’t. It’s dead on...
The trial lawyers are not in and of themselves the problem, imho. The problem is, when something happens that results in long term needs of the patient, we have no mechanism to ensure those needs are met. We may always have someone who wants to sue out of revenge, but taking the long term needs out of the equation would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of these kind of legal actions.
If I remember, lawyers typically take 33% of the amount of the settlement allocated for long term care up front, correct?
The title didn't go far enough. If you look at how many of the RATS are lawyers, you can understand why America is in the mess it's in. ALL lawyers know how to do is write crappy laws and hold oversight hearings. That's the difference between the DNC and the GOP. The GOP has more business men and women in it than the DNC does. Business makes the country run, and the RATS are constantly putting stumbling blocks in their way.
Michelle Obama would disagree....
It's not really that simplistic...
BTTT! It’s spot on. Until we have Tort reform, everyhting will get more expensive. Whatever happen to doing what’s right for the country?
“One Reason Our Healthcare System Government is in a Mess: Trial Lawyers”
“The title didn’t go far enough. If you look at how many of the RATS are lawyers, you can understand why America is in the mess it’s in.”
An old codger in our town once told me that, “If a trial lawyer was being sued,I would pay money to be in that jury.”
Maybe even an auction type process for seating a jury.
But documentation isn't the only problem. Pricing itself is a huge problem. This has been impacted by insurance companies that routinely demand 70% off standard prices, causing the standard prices to escalate, and raping the uninsured.
And by the cost of indigent care which is mandated by the government, but not reimbursed by the government. Therefore the next sick person has to pay.
So we have...
First of all, you have to realize that Trial Lawyers do not render awards. Juries do. That being the case why is it the Trial Lawyers are responsible for an excessive verdict? We don't need tort reform - we need jury reform.
Secondly, most medical malpractice verdicts are a no cause for action - more than 80%. Most of the high verdicts you see in the paper are thrown out be the Court - they are never paid.
Others that are high accurately reflect the evidence. Let's say a neurosurgeon accidentally severs a patient's spinal cord resulting in quadroplegia. What is the value of that case. I can tell you that you can put together a life care plan that will put $15 million in future costs before the jury. What if it is a baby who will have similar disabilities? What would you as a juror award?
So what is excessive? Can you give me an example?
crushing insurance costs to doctors to cover malpractice
You underestimate the power of the AMA lobby and its success in having the general public accept this fact. This is just an invitation for statists to further regulate the private contractual relationship between insureds and their insurance company. Look - the highest paid doctors command that compensation because they are taking big risks with the health of their patients. So why should they be excused from the consequences when the big risk goes big bad? If adoctor makes alot of big mistakes, then his insurance will skyrocket - and that is good. It is the market forces driving out the bad actors.
an entire industry of lawyers whose job it is, apparently, to rape the system and cause it to be burdensome for all of us.
A crisis that any statist could take advantage of. Use the power of the state to make verdicts lower. Cap them!
If we assume that conservatism is based upon individual rights and responsibilities, how is statist solution like capping verdicts in any manner conservative? So what is a solution like capping verdicts in any manner conservative. Take one of the examples I cited before - a catasprophic injury that will rack up $20 million in future medical costs. Well - all a cap does is transfer those costs away from those who are responsible for causing the damage. How is that assuming personal responsibility? How is using public dollars to pay for errors that could be paid for privately in any manner conservative?
Wrong.
The last thing we need is "jury reform" - that's a stupid liberal idea that is one more way for the "elites" to take power away from the people.
I would always trust justice to a jury of my peers over a jury of liberal one-sided bigots chosen by the likes of Alcee Hastings. No the trial lawyers have cooked the legal books so much - to make their job easier - that we have a system that gives the freest of rides to democrat crooks. And you want to make it worse?
The system is bad enough without "jury of elite liberals" making it hell on earth.
Taking the highest risk? NO these are doctors who are treating people who are most likly to sue them. There's not a lot of risk in delivering babies - but those doctors pay through the nose - because a damaged child - even if it has nothing to do with the doctor - can bring in lotto like awards. And no, not all of them are "knocked down"... Doctors have to live with the risk of being sued for years. And the same people who milk the system for everything else are the same one who are usually front and center to sue doctors. There is an answer here - but it's not "liberal elite juries" or doctors bullied by lawyers and lowlifes.
We are on the same page. My point is that wacky verdicts are rendered by wacky jurrors.
If we assume that conservatism is based upon individual rights and responsibilities, how is statist solution like capping verdicts in any manner conservative? So what is a solution like capping verdicts in any manner conservative. Take one of the examples I cited before - a catasprophic injury that will rack up $20 million in future medical costs. Well - all a cap does is transfer those costs away from those who are responsible for causing the damage. How is that assuming personal responsibility? How is using public dollars to pay for errors that could be paid for privately in any manner conservative?
And if the costs come to 5 million? Keep the change? How is that assuming personal responsibility? The insurer of the person responsible pays damages, if the person has no insurance, they are, if they don’t have the money, it is tough luck, but life isn’t fair. It REALLY isn’t fair when you watch some asshole lawyer walk off with more than the client might.
Gross oversimplification. Actually, according to the studies, the doctors who are most likely to be sued are the ones who refuse to admit thay may have made a mistake.
There's not a lot of risk in delivering babies -
Just not true.
but those doctors pay through the nose - because a damaged child - even if it has nothing to do with the doctor - can bring in lotto like awards.
Anything is possible, but that does not mean you need to protect against a possibility. Certainly, when you have a damaged baby, jurors will bend over backward to see that he or she is taken care of. That is human nature. Confronting this human nature is part of the high risk that Ob/Gyn's take on in practicing their profession.
The point is that it is up to JURIES and nobody else to decide whether a particular doctor deviated from a professional standard of care. Do you propose to take this right away from juries? Who would you give the power to make this decision to?
And no, not all of them are "knocked down"...
True - just the ones that are so disproportionate to the evidence that they shock the judicial conscience.
Doctors have to live with the risk of being sued for years. And the same people who milk the system for everything else are the same one who are usually front and center to sue doctors.
Not true. It generally takes an investment of $20,000 minimum to bring a medical malpractice case to trial. The Plaintiff's medical malpractice bar is therefore VERY selective in the cases they will take. If the case is worth less than $200,000, they generally will not take the risk of taking on the case. Mediacal malpractice claims bear absolutely no resemblance to the old fashioned wiplash cases.
There is an answer here - but it's not "liberal elite juries" or doctors bullied by lawyers and lowlifes.
So what is the answer? What is the reform you propose?
What you are missing is that doctors often make mistakes - for whjatever reason. However, they can be sued only where their mistake falls below a standard of care - what a similarly situated doctor would do under like circumstances. But if they make a judgment based upon good information about what course has the least risk for the patient, they cannot be successfully sued. Yes - there is a labaranthine set of ruls surrounding medical care as a result. But as I see it, it makes medical care better.
If doctors were absolved of the consequences of their mistakes, what would the state of medical care be? You can look to Cuba for the answer to that one.
If you had to undergo a risky life saving treatment, where if they made a slight mistake you would be crippled for life, where would you go for the treatment - a place where the doctor who makes a mistake wuill be sued or a place where they are immune from the consequences of their mistakes?
You must be talking bout GUBMINT employees---?
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.