Skip to comments.
Bush: $250,000 Cap Needed For Medical Malpractice Suits
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 1/16/03
| Christine Hall
Posted on 01/16/2003 12:30:10 PM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-179 next last
To: luckystarmom
The proposed cap is for non-economic damages. The case you outline seems to be for economic damages, namely the huge cost of care you will incur in helping your daughter live a normal life. I wish you and yours the best and you will be in my prayers.
21
posted on
01/16/2003 1:19:57 PM PST
by
free me
To: Shermy
In your scenario, insurance companies wouldn't be going out of business nor doctors losing coverage entirely...under your scenario, premiums alone would be the problem, and they would be low enough to afford because the market would bear them. That is NOT the case anymore.
Either the docs can't get insurance, or the premiums are approaching their total yearly salary.
Your line is the typical one of the lawyers, interestingly enough. "It's always the insurance company's fault."
Well, who knows? Insurance is about risk pools, and there has to be some sense of safety about what you can expect when you walk into court. If all bets are off and all the courtroom presents is a lottery, no one with sense will write policies.
Fact is, there's gonna be no more booty for patients or lawyers. No matter WHOSE fault it is. And, knowing lawyers, I have a pretty good idea who got us where we are.
The first malpractice insurance companies were created by doctors to protect patients, but it's gotten out of hand.
You cannot have your doctor and eat him, too. Or, you can't have your doctor and feed him to the lawyers, too.
22
posted on
01/16/2003 1:22:32 PM PST
by
Mamzelle
To: kattracks
Don't limit the settlements.
Limit the amount the lawyers get.
Make the surgeon's records available to patients.
To: kattracks; mtngrl@vrwc; ohioWfan; MJY1288
President Bush on Thursday called for Congress to pass a law limiting non-economic, punitive damages in medical malpractice suits to $250,000. I am in love with this man.
24
posted on
01/16/2003 1:25:28 PM PST
by
lawgirl
(FREEP Congress--we need Bush's judicial nominees approved!)
To: kattracks
This is a bold proposal by President Bush, and I applaud him for making it.
25
posted on
01/16/2003 1:27:24 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: luckystarmom
Hmmm.....if no lawyer is willing to take the case, then I have to say you probably don't have a good one.
I am an attorney and just got done with a stint with a plaintiff's firm--if there's ANY way to get almost anything they will. I am wondering about proof issues, etc?
26
posted on
01/16/2003 1:31:25 PM PST
by
lawgirl
(FREEP Congress--we need Bush's judicial nominees approved!)
To: The Irishman
A much more typical case is the child, whose doctor did everything he could, that suffers a serious result from illness or injury. The parents are solicited by an attorney. The parents are convinced to sue the doctor, "Since he won't pay anyway, the insurance company will. Nothing personal, you understand.". And the insurance company does settle because the cost of litigation exceeds the the amount of settlement. The attorney gets 30-50% of the settlement.Your attitude is so typical of FReepers...actually, your "typical case" is atypical. In medmal cases, parents are not "talked into" suing....wanna know why? Because medmal cases are very, very, very expensive to work up and try...$25k for the smallest of them. As a plaintiff lawyer, I routinely rejected cases that I valued under $100k...to much risk, not enough reward....if I am putting up $25k of my money, I want reasonable assurances that I will make some money back.
Here in PA, an insurance company can not settle without consent of the doctors, so small cases are tried at exorbant costs.
And I still do not see why FReepers are so hung up on contingent fee agreements. First, it is bargained for....if you don't want to pay that much, then find a lawyer that will charge less (just remember, you get what you pay for). Second, the fee is not that much when you figure that the lawyer has the most at risk going into trial.
Tort reform is not a "conservative" position.....tort reform exists in the courts with judges and juries...they are merely doing what the Founding Fathers have told them to do. Having government step in to "protect" the insurance companies is just absurd.
To: All
Before some posters burst a vein over their personal griefs, this is for:
NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES ONLY
28
posted on
01/16/2003 1:37:25 PM PST
by
FreeTally
(If someone with a multiple personality disorder tries to kill himself, is it a hostage situation?)
To: kattracks
Maybe this should be done through constitutional amendment? Does the federal government really have the power, under the unamended Constitution, to limit damages in state courts in this way? I know the way the courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause, they would almost certainly uphold an Act of Congress that said what Bush wants. But I don't think they should.
To: ContemptofCourt
With respect..just try to find a lawyer that will negotiate or acept a lower %.....no such animal exists.....
30
posted on
01/16/2003 1:48:29 PM PST
by
ken5050
To: Larry Lucido
LOL! You got that just right, Larry!
31
posted on
01/16/2003 1:48:50 PM PST
by
ohioWfan
(President Bush - PRAY for him.)
To: Southack
Did you see the speech....the applause was thunderous, and sustained......+
32
posted on
01/16/2003 1:49:26 PM PST
by
ken5050
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Is that justice?Is this a joke?
33
posted on
01/16/2003 1:50:40 PM PST
by
ohioWfan
(President Bush - PRAY for him.)
To: lawgirl; kattracks
I am in love with this man.So is my husband. :o)
He's a hospital adminstrator..........if the general public had any idea how much higher medical costs are because of frivolous lawsuits (the hospital is always included when the doctor is sued), they would be appalled.
IMO, the American people will support the President's position on this.
(He's on a roll, lawgirl!!)
34
posted on
01/16/2003 1:54:17 PM PST
by
ohioWfan
(President Bush - PRAY for him.)
To: ContemptofCourt
The "founding fathers" were not lawyers in our twentieth-century understanding of the term. They "read for the law" because it was the educated and upper-class-bourgeois thing to do. It also put them in line for positions with administration for the King.
I hear this claim from lawyers, that signers to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were lawyers, but the reality is that they were merchants, plantation owners, yeomen farmers, craftsmen, businessmen...with some who had read for the law. I recall one prominent Texas "king of torts" mocking doctors with this brag in a public interview, saying that when lawyers were creating our country doctors were still using leeches and bleeding patients.
Had I been there, I would have returned to this King of Torts, "And look who are the bloodsuckers, now--"
35
posted on
01/16/2003 1:56:19 PM PST
by
Mamzelle
To: luckystarmom
An adult getting burned by hot coffee is frivolous. A baby getting brain damage from a lazy doctor is not.
I couldn't agree more. I detest useless litigation and all the money it costs all of us but I have mixed emotions on this one. Especially after hearing about your little girl. I wish you luck finding a lawyer who CARES about his clients. Pray for strength for yourself and your child.
36
posted on
01/16/2003 1:56:50 PM PST
by
Moleman
To: ken5050
re: With respect..just try to find a lawyer that will negotiate or acept a lower %.....no such animal exists.....)))
And watch the boilerplate about expenses...
37
posted on
01/16/2003 1:57:48 PM PST
by
Mamzelle
To: luckystarmom
This is about frivolous lawsuits.......not legitimate ones. Yours is
more than legitimate.
I'm very sorry about your baby. You have my prayers.
38
posted on
01/16/2003 2:00:55 PM PST
by
ohioWfan
(President Bush - PRAY for him.)
To: ohioWfan
I think their ought to be $250,000 on all lawsuits. Unless it is for an ablolute grevius circumstance.Like a crooked ass lawyer abscounding with a trusts money. Then I think a death penalty and a 20billion fine is in order.
39
posted on
01/16/2003 2:01:14 PM PST
by
cksharks
Comment #40 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-179 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson