Posted on 08/20/2009 8:18:47 AM PDT by AstralisLux
After I posted this last night, many people had more questions about this story. This article is an update that hopefully answers those questions. Please feel free to comment and I can ask the author to clarify if needed.
(Excerpt) Read more at speroforum.com ...
Where do you get that most of the lawsuits are frivolous? That is what I am fussing about. Some insurance company shill comes out with that and everybody starts parroting it.
Find me some real live proof that most of the suits are frivolous. Tell me why law firms would put tons of their own money into a medmal lawsuit that could get kicked out for being frivolous. Tell me why they would do this in an area of tort that is very very hard to win.
parsy, who still says READ THE DURN LINKS ABOVE!
This has nothing to do with malpractice laws. You keep making that ignorant inference. This is state law allowing hospital policy.
Oh, PLEASE!
STOP ACTING LIKE A LIBERAL!
Baseless name calling doesn't make you crdibile or believable.
“Find me some real live proof that most of the suits are frivolous. Tell me why law firms would put tons of their own money into a medmal lawsuit that could get kicked out for being frivolous. Tell me why they would do this in an area of tort that is very very hard to win.”
Get yourself under control and read the news. You are one of the reasons, frivolous lawsuits have grown. At best you are ignorant. Frivolous lawsuits jack up the liability insurance for ALL doctors. That gets factored into you health care too. There needs to be caps on what is paid out and ONLY on legitimate claims.
I used to work in the insurance industry about 30 years ago. They had a nuisance factor that they'd use to get rid of the scum running up fake claims. It's not worth it to them to fight it in court. Doctor mills are still flourishing and YOU pay for the frivolous lawsuits. They don't get kicked out for being frivolous.
For anyone still following:
While this case centers around money, and the hospital denies it’s about money, Texas law actually says the hospital can terminate care if they believe it’s futile, which means if they believe the care isn’t going to help then they can literally pull the plug against the family’s wishes, even if they pay the bills.
You guys? You guys? You guys? She sure doesn’t have any people skills. What a tool. If this is happening now, wait until obambicare comes. Good lord.
Didn’t the article say they were there every day?
Yes. They were at the hospital every day.
Sorry, thought I was responding on The Case of the Sleeping Freepers thread. I’ll ping you.
parsy, who was in the midst of battle when he sent the reply to you and begs forgiveness
I should have clairified, they abandoned him financially to the hospital.
Oh,gotcha.
In a sense, yes. The family never contributed a dime — they were all very young. The father was only in his 40s and the family was poor.
But remember, this wasn’t really supposed to be about money. This was about futile care. The hospital never considered his care futile until his Medicaid benefits ran out.
How do we know that?
Because they had no problem taking care of him until the moment they discovered his Medicaid benefits were running out. His health condition hadn’t changed from the moment he entered the hospital to the moment he was transferred.
This is not unusual in Texas. Virginia has similar laws.
Even the left-leaning Houston Press wrote an article about this in another shocking case (also represented by the same attorney):
Doctors vs. Parents: Who decided right to life
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-05-01/news/doctors-vs-parents-who-decides-right-to-life/
That’s proof they’re not chumps, it’s not proof that the treatment is futile.
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.