[McGavin999]

Tort reform WOULD be actual costs and elimination of punitive damages. What would have to be a part of tort reform would be that a doctor who is guilty of negligence has his license pulled. If you eliminate those who are drunk or drugged or incompetent, there will be fewer reasons to sue.

A doctor making a simple mistake is another matter altogether. It would be up to the medical profession to determine whether or not a doctor was incompetent or merely made a mistake.

If your costs are covered, with a reasonable amount for "pain and suffering". Doctors are human beings and people have to stop demanding that a doctor make them well or they'll sue.

[Jesse]

Just a few thoughts. Simple mistakes that result in adverse patient outcomes are not really simple mistakes.

One is not guilty of malpractice...it is a civil matter, and one is judged negligent. On occassion, physicians who have committed egregious wrongs have been criminally prosecuted, but it is rare because of the fear that to do this much, and nobody would practice medicine.

I do not argue that there should be no malpractice or suits. But despite what Viva la lottery says, the system is unbalanced. The trial lawyers gloss over the very real problems in the system, and never offer any meaningful solutions, so I no longer pay any attention to them.

Malpractice insurance is a pass through cost. If the reimbursment system weren't so screwed up, it would be a lot easier to calculate and pass this cost through. But consider, in some states it is estimated that malpractice insurance costs for some procedures may be from 300-1000 dollars...certain orthopedic and neurosurgical cases, or high risk ob. But the reimbursement for these cases by Medicare, Medicaid or no pay patients is often less than the malpractice costs or nothing at all.