If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Liberal Media Elite Dan Rather declares Edwards the debate winner
http://right-thinking.com/index.php/...comments/7963/
Right Thinking From The Left Coast Come on San Andreas... America needs you The Right to Sue The next time you hear some left-wing asshat whining about how poor people can't afford health insurance, tell them to thank Ralph Nader. Democrat John Kerry is getting some advice on his choice for vice president from an unlikely source: rival Ralph Nader. In an open letter sent Wednesday, the independent presidential candidate urged Kerry to choose John Edwards as his running mate, saying the North Carolina senator and former trial lawyer has been thoroughly vetted and is committed to protecting the right of consumers to sue corporations that harm them. "(Edwards) has already gone through a primary campaign and has his rhythm and oratory (the two Americas speech) all well-honed," Nader wrote to Kerry. "After a slow start, Sen. Edwards closed fast and has won praise from the media." Edwards, the last Democrat to bow out after Kerry's series of primary wins, won several large verdicts before he was elected to the Senate. Nader said Edwards is committed to preserving a civil justice system that is under attack by "corporate supremacists." This is one of the main reasons that health care costs are going through the roof. Doctors need to protect themselves against lawsuits to they buy malpractice insurance. Bloodsucking trial lawyers like John Edwards have absolutely no incentive not to sue doctors (or business or individuals or corporations or anyone else with deep pockets) so they file suits over every ridiculous claim. This causes the costs of malpractice insurance to go up, causing doctors to raise their fees. In addition, to protect themselves against trial lawyers, doctors order all kinds of unnecessary tests on the miniscule chance thay they may find something, simply to legally protect themselves from people like John Edwards. For an example of what I am talking about, take a look at this. Klein, the neurosurgeon, said he has a responsibility to his other patients and to his family to turn away litigious patients, because a lawsuit is so destructive and distracting for a doctor. Most doctors he knows feel that way, he said: "Why would you purposefully treat someone you believe is going to sue you?" He recalls his first threat, 20 years ago, from the mother of a girl who had been shot in the head. Klein was in a trauma center, where he had to try to help the girl. He told the mother the wound was life-threatening and that doctors would do their best. "She said, ‘She better be the way she was or you're going to pay,' " Klein recalls. The girl died; the mother sued. Now, when patients or families say things like that, Klein says, he helps them find another doctor, telling them they appear to have a "gross misunderstanding of the nature of surgery," because they're not accepting the fact that there are risks. Malpractice insurance rates have gotten so high in some states that doctors are actually moving their practices across state lines so they can stay in business. This is somehow fair? It is if you're as deluded as Ralph Nader. The costs of doing business are passed on to consumers. When we sue for huge damages, ultimately the only winners are the trial lawyers with their 40% contingency. Everyone loses, especially the poor, who can't afford to pay the price increase. Posted by Lee on 06/23 at 03:49 PM Comments Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at 04:41 PM Lee, this is just wrong on at least two major points, and I don't have a ton of time to go in-depth on this one, but I'll do my best: 1) Malpractice insurance rates have gotten so high in some states that doctors are actually moving their practices across state lines so they can stay in business. Doctors make a TON--well over two times what the average lawyer makes. If they don't want to pay, they do have the option to go bare. If more doctors did that, the insurance rates would go down. Getting sued is a risk when you are dealing with people's well-being: how this blowhard can go on about chiding his patients for surgery having risks while seeking to garner public support to wholly insulate his own profession from marketplace risks are beyond me. Who holds doctors accountable if not for trial lawyers? Disciplinary boards composed of other doctors? Again, that gives them the ability to be entirely self-regulated and insulated from market risks. No other profession enjoys that, and doctors shouldn't, either. 2) Bloodsucking trial lawyers like John Edwards have absolutely no incentive not to sue doctors (or business or individuals or corporations or anyone else with deep pockets) so they file suits over every ridiculous claim. Really? No disincentive to file frivolous claims? See Rule 11, which sanctions frivolous claims. Further, a judge may order sanctions sua sponte, which cuts against the trial lawyers, as a fair portion of judges have worked in large firms and are more sympathetic to big business and large corporations. In any event, trial verdicts cannot be increased on appeal, only reduced, and the jury verdicts in huge cases are frequently reversed, because the counsel for hospitals/corporations generally have appellate attorneys as well as trial lawyers (it's difficult to be an expert at both). There are plenty other procedural aspects which prevent frivolous suits and outlandish verdicts, but those two will suffice for now. 3) As far as doctors and corporations go, trial lawyers are necessary checks against the asymetry of information that is present in any transaction, but is more pronounced in product liability/med mal cases because of the serious harm that takes place in such cases. Why shouldn't corporations and doctors act with reasonable care? Alternatively, why should *they* be able to decide just what reasonable care is in their own industry, which is the ultimate result of tort reform. Posted by Eric von Michigan on 06/23 at 04:41 PM How big of a hammer does it take to beat this very logical concept into the heads of my more liberal friends? Posted by Matthew Spence on 06/23 at 04:49 PM Yes, there are bad doctors out there, and the law should protect patients from them. The problem is, the entire medical professsion is being punished because of the bad doctors, while the good doctors are being forced to move or leave their practice altogether. This is why torte reform is so necessary. Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at 04:56 PM Another point: "Malpractice insurance rates have gotten so high in some states that doctors are actually moving their practices across state lines so they can stay in business." And states with low damages caps will draw incompetent doctors like flies. Posted by RepublicanInSF on 06/23 at 05:08 PM "Doctors make a TON--well over two times what the average lawyer makes. If they don't want to pay, they do have the option to go bare. If more doctors did that, the insurance rates would go down." Hey Coase—this is driven by supply and demand. Face it, there are fewer people willing to sacrifice 6-10 years of their lives before getting any income than the 3 that lawyers have to do to get their six-figure income. There are a ton more lawyers, hence more competition, and thus they can't charge higher fees. Gotta love the market economy. Lawyers are getting what they deserve for their laziness compared to doctors. Posted by Laddy on 06/23 at 05:30 PM I live in Illinois one of the more populous states. A recent article in the Decatur Herald pointed out that residents south of Springfield, the state capital, are having to go to St. Louis for treatment by neurosurgeons since all had left the area due to malpractice premiums. If you've ever had a retail business you've probably encountered scum who threaten to sue you or do sue you for the slightest slight. It's likely no different in medicine. Some people suck which makes it harder for people who really are wronged get compensated. The rest of us pay for the scum with higher premiums. Coase sounds like he/she could be a malpractice attorney. Posted by keggin on 06/23 at 05:49 PM Doctors make a TON The operative (no pun intended) word here is Doctors. This is wealth created by doctors practicing medicine, Coase, not lawyers looking for victims. Property rights and all that, i'm sure you studied it in law school. trial lawyers are necessary checks against the asymetry of information And a certain level of bacteria is necessary in the human digestive tract to keep things in balance. Too much bacteria and the whole system shuts down. Posted by macman(Chris' Conservative Commentary) on 06/23 at 06:06 PM Go bare? Go bare?! Doctors don't have any choice but buy malpractive insurance because of the bloodsucking leaches called trail lawyers. Coase, you have obviously never been sued. Even when you are found to not be at fault after going through the whole ordeal, you still have to pay your bloodsucking laywer a ton of money! What a scam! The only way to make our society less litigious would be to make the plantiff pay the legal fees of the wrongfully accused defendant. Even when it's a big corporation like McDonald's (remember the fat kid law suit). I think this would weed out a lot of the frivolous suits-for-profit and the one's based strictly on emotion not fact. Just my 2� Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:08 PM This is one of the main reasons that health care costs are going through the roof. Yeah, it's so high that it amounts to .5% of total health care cost. Try Again. Bloodsucking trial lawyers like John Edwards have absolutely no incentive not to sue doctors The incentive not to sue is not to waste their time. Eight times as many patients are injured by medical malpractice as ever file a claim; 16 times as many suffer injuries as receive any compensation. (same link as above). As the other guy mentioned above, doctors don't always police their own. I can't find the link right now, but a low % of doctors are report to be responible for a majority of malpractice. Posted by Sean M. (also) on 06/23 at 06:08 PM If you've ever had a retail business you've probably encountered scum who threaten to sue you or do sue you for the slightest slight. It's likely no different in medicine. This is exactly the problem. Coase, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. You're looking at this problem as if the majority of cases have merit. They don't. Oh sure, there are cases in which the doctor legitimately screwed up, and deserves to have an attorney and jury nail his hide to the wall. The real problem is the frivolous lawsuits. Yes, doctors make tons of money. But so do attorneys (at least the partners do, the grunts don't make close to the amount they're "billed out" at). It is the slew of smaller, meritless, cases that shreds a doctors insurance. Insurance is limited. Usually to something like $1,000,000 per occurrence/$5,000,000 aggregate. That sounds like a lot, but that amount needs to cover both settlement/verdict amounts as well as attorney fees and costs. Get several cases piled up and you can burn through a typical policy in no time. Insurers, seeing they aren't making as much money off these policies, jack up the premiums so they can make all these payments and not go bankrupt. (construction defect litigation is an area that has bankrupted several insurance companies in California). A better solution, in my opinion, would be a "loser pays" system. If a plaintiff brings a lawsuit, and loses, he must pay the defendant's legal fees. This would discourage frivolous lawsuits. Of course, to encourage defendants to settle meritorious claims, all caps should be taken off jury awards. Posted by Paul on 06/23 at 06:11 PM Doctors can safely "go bare" in FL and other similar states. Your primary home is protected from creditors in a chapter 13 or 7 bankruptcy. You can also shuffle assets around with a little work to keep them safe (doesn't require any illegal offshore crap). Then when the parasites show up, you just whisper "bankruptcy" and they shuffle off to find another victim. The WSJ had an article about this a month or so ago. Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 06:12 PM Doctors make a TON--well over two times what the average lawyer makes. If they don't want to pay, they do have the option to go bare. If more doctors did that, the insurance rates would go down. Source? This really is a supply and demand problem on two fronts: 1) The AMA and universities restrict the number of doctors that are out there. There are a lot of qualified students that don't get into medical school due to very low enrollment limits. If these were increased and more doctors were produced, then the costs of seeing a doctor would decrease due to increased competition. 2) The product of lawyers—litigation—is not constrained by finite demand. Rather, lawyers create their own demand by running commercials telling people that they should be able to get more and that they're getting screwed by the insurance company, their employer, ephedra manufacturers, Wal-Mart, Santa Claus, etc. There is little if any costs to the plaintiffs (the customers of these lawyers) if they don't win the case as the lawyers claim that if they (the lawyers) don't win the case then they don't get paid. This just encourages increased meaningless litigation and discourages people that have legitimate claims from pursuing them as they will be looked down on as being money-hungry and as the illegitimate claims have backed up the legal system. Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:13 PM From St. Ralph himself: If physicians would total the entire amount of premiums they paid last year and divide it evenly by all the physicians practicing in the United States, the average premium is less than $10,000 per doctor per year. Very manageable. So why are some doctors paying $50,000 or $100,000 a year to their malpractice insurers? Because the companies have learned in the past thirty years to over-classify their risk pools... Posted by Sean M. (also) on 06/23 at 06:14 PM Really? No disincentive to file frivolous claims? See Rule 11, which sanctions frivolous claims. BTW, this only applies to federal lawsuits. Medmal claims brought in state court aren't affected by this rule, and sanctions for frivolous cases in state courts aren't exactly easy to get. Posted by RagePundit on 06/23 at 06:15 PM I love the fact that Doctors are refraining from treating lawyers. Let them die… Posted by Sean M. (also) on 06/23 at 06:17 PM I love the fact that Doctors are refraining from treating lawyers. Let them die… Actually, doctors tend to be over conciliatory with lawyer-patients. Lawyer-patients tend to get very thorough check ups and lots of extra tests. Posted by Kevin Travis Ballie on 06/23 at 06:21 PM This was very insightful… Besides this, I also believe that Edwards lacks the proper experience to be a Vice- President… I need to see him with more experience first. Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:22 PM Here's one example for the Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at 06:23 PM Sean: Yeah, Rule 11 is a federal rule, but there are analogs in every state I've practiced in. In fact, most states pretty much adopt 99% of the FRCP completely. Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 06:31 PM Does anyone else see the irony in someone misspelling the word "incompetent"? Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:31 PM I found a better link. � Only 5 percent of doctors (1 out of 20) are responsible for 54 percent of malpractice payouts. (National Practitioner Data Bank, Sept. 1, 1990 � Sept. 30, 2002.) � Only 5 percent of doctors (1 out of 20) are responsible for 54 percent of malpractice payouts. (National Practitioner Data Bank, Sept. 1, 1990 � Sept. 30, 2002.) � Only 17 percent of doctors (1 out of 6) who have made 5 or more malpractice payouts have been disciplined by their state medical board. (National Practitioner Data Bank, Sept. 1, 1990 � Sept. 30, 2002.) Clearly tort reform isn't the best solution… Posted by Sean M. (also) on 06/23 at 06:31 PM That may be, but it isn't exactly easy to get sanctions for frivolous lawsuits in a state court. That's been my experience in California anyway. Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:35 PM Does anyone else see the irony in someone misspelling the word "incompetent"? Oh so sorry! Does anyone see the irony in focusing on misspelled words instead of actually debating? Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at 06:39 PM "This is wealth created by doctors practicing medicine, Coase, not lawyers looking for victims." Ah. So any wrongfully gotten wealth should remain in the hands of its nominal creator. "Lawyers create their own demand through advertising." To a degree, perhaps, but they're also providing information to people who don't know the law. For instance, some people don't pursue negligence claims because they think they're at fault partially, but what they think is "fault" might not be legally recognizable. I'd rather have somewhat artificially stimulated demand for legal services than people unable to obtain any recourse after being negligently treated. "Oh sure, there are cases in which the doctor legitimately screwed up, and deserves to have an attorney and jury nail his hide to the wall. The real problem is the frivolous lawsuits." Agreed. But how can you draw the line, except on a case-by-case basis? And how can you even begin to evaluate on a case-by-case basis until litigation commences? Is litigation always frivolous because if there is only minor injury? If the damages pled for are too high? If it's the doctor's first mistake? Hey, if you can come up with a better measure of "frivolous" than the size of the damage award or the fact that it takes time and money to defend against a suit, I'd love to hear it. Until then, anecdotal evidence doesn't work. Find a line that works across the board, for all cases, from the clear gross negligence case to the barely negligent case. "Coase sounds like he/she could be a malpractice attorney." No, I spend my time kicking the **** out of trial lawyers, some of whom bring very tenuous claims, so I understand your frustration. However, legal communities are small, and litigation is a matter of public record, so I disagree that there's no incentive to not litigate for plaintiff's lawyers. I'm not proud of this, but I've hit trial lawyers with large, large sanction fees that pretty much made it impossible for them to practice. Some of them are crooks. However, too many of my hospital clients try to do the bare minimum, and are appalled that someone would have the audacity to sue them for not doing their job right. In sum, I'm for people doing their ****ing jobs right: lawyers, doctors, 7-11 clerks, whatever. And when they don't do it well, they shouldn't be allowed to judge the job they did. That's the basic problem with letting doctors set the standard for medical care. Additionally, what about the insurance companies? They're rolling in it, and they don't produce much that is tangible, either. Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 06:44 PM Thededalus: Debating you would be as about as entertaining and enjoyable as watching two octogenarians screw. I'm not here to debate. I know that I'm right, you're wrong, and that I won't be able to change your mind. I'm here to discuss topics with like-minded (and right-minded) individuals and to mock people like you. Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:46 PM Debating you would be as about as entertaining and enjoyable as watching two octogenarians screw. That's okay. I didn't really expect you to make a good argument anyways. Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 06:47 PM Thededalus: It should be "anyway" not "anyways". People will take you more seriously if you learn to spell and if you use correct grammar. Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at 06:51 PM And since someone mentioned it, I thought the ephedra ban was a travesty. Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 06:56 PM People will take you more seriously if you learn to spell and if you use correct grammar. Oh, the pedantic wit! Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 07:00 PM Additionally, what about the insurance companies? They're rolling in it, and they don't produce much that is tangible, either. It depends on what you mean by tangible. In a literal sense, most service providers don't produce anything tangible. However, people in general tend to be risk-averse and wanting to insure against losses is consistent with human nature. However, if the premiums for health insurance or non-liability auto insurance exceed the level of risk aversion for an individual, then the individual won't insure. The problem with medical malpractice insurance is that the consumer never gets to directly see these costs. These are passed through the doctor's income, (possibly) through the cost of that doctor to a hospital or a medical group, through an insurance company, and finally to you. Doctors will choose to insure because they too are risk averse and can easily pass these costs on as the consumer doesn't directly see them. The easiest way to lower health insurance costs would be to eliminate health insurance. Consumers will demand accountability if they are paying out of their pockets. Posted by svandals on 06/23 at 07:03 PM Thededalus: Only pedantic if you consider third grade grammar "bookish". Posted by Zinger on 06/23 at 07:24 PM Coase, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The "evidence" of the problem of frivilous lawsuits is largely anecdotal. The truth is that there are not nearly as many frivilous lawsuits as most people believe, its just that you hear about each and every one of them. Vastly more common are meritorious lawsuits. By meritiorious I do not mean that the plaintiff will always win, I mean a case where it is a close enough call that a jury (or judge) should decide it after the presentation of evidence. I should admit to some bias here. I am an attorney (though not a trial attorney - tax is my field) and I really dislike doctors. My dislike of doctors stems from my perception that many of them have god-complexes (i.e. they think they're god or at least god-like) and I probably got that perception from (1) being a patient and (2) from stories my mother would tell me of her work and her interactions with docotrs (she was an RN). Personally, although I know many doctors, none of them have been so affected by this "plague of lawsuits" that they would be considered poor. All of them own their own (very nice) homes. At worst, some of them might have to consider settling for a six disc CD changer in their BMW rather than taking the upgrade to the twelve disc CD changer. Also, I don't think that Coase was comparing doctors make to what lawyers make in an effort to say that they should make the same. I think that he was making the comparison to demonstrate that, while we hear so much about these "poor doctors that can't afford to practice" in certain areas, the fact is that doctors are really making a lot more than other professionals that have been traditionally percieved as high income individuals. It also lays bare the lie that "greedy trial lawyers" are picking on "those poor unfortunate doctors." If a doctor did nothing wrong, no attorney is going to waste their time pursuing a loser of a case ... well maybe those sleazy ones on TV, but that is a very small portion of the attorneys out there, probably similar to the portion of bad doctors that was listed earlier in this thread. Posted by Ian Mac on 06/23 at 08:13 PM My parents run a sucessful oil and gas business, and they are sued at least once a year. Do not tell me that frivolous lawsuits are not that common. That is an utter crock. Many physicians may have god-complexes, but that is no reason that they should be sued. There is a vast difference between imcopetence and a mistake, and people need to stop being so dman ed greddy and let things go! Posted by Jentle Jiant on 06/23 at 08:20 PM svandals said: I'm not here to debate. I know that I'm right, you're wrong, and that I won't be able to change your mind. I'm here to discuss topics with like-minded (and right-minded) individuals and to mock people like you. Must be a fascinating "discussion". The convinced convincing the convinced. A perfect match-up between closed minds. Careful. All that self congratulatory back slapping may cause bruising. Posted by winky on 06/23 at 08:22 PM Three years ago, I was ready to sit down and apply to med school. After taking the MCATs and working a brutal weekend shift in surgery for years, I opted out. This has MUCH to do with why I didn't want any part of the business of practicing medicine. Now I am working on a MS in Molecular Biology so I can hang behind the scenes and out of a lawyer's reach. And now, being between jobs, I just got my COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconcilliation Act) papers and they want $415 a month for extended medical coverage. Yikes! Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at 08:24 PM "My parents run a sucessful oil and gas business, and they are sued at least once a year. Do not tell me that frivolous lawsuits are not that common. That is an utter crock. Many physicians may have god-complexes, but that is no reason that they should be sued. There is a vast difference between imcopetence and a mistake, and people need to stop being so dman ed greddy and let things go!" Ah. So, you say "stop being greedy!" while advocating a position directly supporting your family's economic interest. I sincerely hope you don't think it's logical to say frivolous="whenever it happens to someone/some cause I like." Posted by winky on 06/23 at 08:25 PM And who ever said above that docs make more than lawyers made me laugh. Wrong on the whole about that. I knew a doctor who would tell people that he had to marry a lawyer so he could support himself. True that. Posted by Cracker on 06/23 at 08:33 PM BULL ****ING ****!Anyone who has read any of my post will know that iam as far from the libs as can be( except bane who banned me)But i cannot and will not agree with this.My wife and i were rear ended a year and a half ago sitting at a dead stop.Saw the bitch (on her cell phone) coming and not slowing down.My wife suffered a ruptured disk in the C-4 and C-5 vertabre as well as nerve damage to her elbow from the impact.My wife is 34. Her left hand is now permantly numb for the rest of her life.Her neck will never, ever, be the same and she suffers from PAIN in the way that none of you,hopefully, will ever know.The first doctor(nuero) after taking $150 every time for ( in which he directed her to physical therapy 1 hour 3 times a week for 6 months,twice ,never helped for $80 a visit) for no more than 15 min., finally said that she was in no pain and that her back pain came from smoking.This is the same recovering addict that had a "DOCTOR" stick 47 electrified needles into her arm in a nerve conductivity test to determine nerve damage but never commented on it.In case you don't know, if a nerve is damaged and pinched for more than 6 months it DIES. It can never be healed , it dies.So when we go for a second opinion , we get ordered for more nerve conductivity test and moreMRI'S they are worse but yet again they never comment on them, and when our lawyer ask for a definitive report he replies with a 3 sentance statement that he can't tell if the damage is from a car wreck or age.SHE IS 34.He can't, or won't, remember the MRI's that he was first brought only comments on what he ordered but won't order any new ones. .These people don't know ****. But according to most of the posters here, we should have no right to sue these DOCTORS for incompatance. Or if we do we are entiled to a set cap?As i have said, My wife is 34 and she shuffles around like a 70 year old woman.The damage she recieved from the wreck as well as indifferance from the DOCTORS has come close to destroying the dream of sailing away.This is all we have ever planned for, to sail the world, to live in the ultimate dream of freedom, and now there is a huge chance that will never happen.But accordining to most of the posters here i should not be able to sue. And if i do i should accept what ?200,00.00? What is the price of a persons health for the rest of their life? You know what , as many people here that bitch about propaganda,i would have never have thougt that so many would have fallen on the side of the insurance companies.Insurance companies are the most EVIL sum bitches on the face of this earth.And come the RIGHT revoulotion, they will be the first sum' bitches i put up against the god damn wall. I was going to add more to this post but have deleated it in respect to Lee. But what would any of you do if a DOCTOR guessed wrong.If the one you cared for suffered?What is the vaule of the life that is harmed? Posted by Sean Galbraith on 06/23 at 08:49 PM Lee: The who malpractice insurance scam was laid bare in Florida recently when the representatives of the insurance lobby were forced to testify before the state senate under oath and admit that they had basically lied in every one of their claims made in public… basically, the cost of malpractice insurance (at least in Florida) has nothing to do with lawsuits and tort reform would do nothing for the premiums. It is worth reading up on. Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/23 at 08:58 PM Winky: The Bureau of Labor Statistics says it: Physicians and Surgeons: The lowest salary is $150K. The highest averages 300K. Lawyers: The range is 67K to 143K. I'm sorry that facts make you laugh. Posted by Bunkergurl on 06/23 at 10:19 PM I'm in nursing school and I have to have malpractice insurance. Sure there are doctors that think they're the ****, but there are more patients that assume that the doctors/nurses/staff are there to be at their beck and call, and if something doesn't go the way they assumed it would (like, say developing lung cancer from puffing 4 packs of unfiltered Luckys/day for 40 years), it's not their fault, it's the fault of the doctor/nurse/staff. It goes BOTH WAYS Coarsy. In the three rotations I've done so far, I've seen my share of both, and in my opinion, these cases come about because some patient (or their family) had unrealistic expectations of their treatment. At the 2 hospitals I rotated in, patients have to read and sign and form that states that they realize that medicine is an inexact science, and things may go wrong. Now lawyers, now there's a group that needs to be reined in, especially trial lawyers like Blow-Dry-Boy. Posted by Bunkergurl on 06/23 at 10:23 PM Oh,and Cracker: If you sue and win, say $1 million, what would you say to that doctor's family about how they won't EAT and won't have a HOME once you've decimated their savings? Think about THAT. Why not go after the dummy that rear-ended you anyway? She's at fault, not the medical profession. I think there's more here to the story than you're letting on. Posted by Thededalus on 06/23 at 11:01 PM The easiest way to lower health insurance costs would be to eliminate health insurance. Consumers will demand accountability if they are paying out of their pockets. Good point. If we eliminate health insurance, then health insurance costs will lower to...zero! Then doctors will charge less and we all save money! Oh wait, what happens if something really bad (and expensive) happens? Oh, damn, maybe we should get insurance for that (just in case)... Thededalus: Only pedantic if you consider third grade grammar "bookish". Another good point. I guess you didn't make it to 4th grade where they taught us to put the "period" inside the quotation marks. Oops! Oh, and Cracker: If you sue and win, say $1 million, what would you say to that doctor's family about how they won't EAT and won't have a HOME once you've decimated their savings? Thus, malpractice *insurance.* Posted by my name is coase, pronounced with a co-e on 06/24 at 05:19 AM I'm in nursing school and I have to have malpractice insurance. Sure there are doctors that think they're the ****, but there are more patients that assume that the doctors/nurses/staff are there to be at their beck and call, and if something doesn't go the way they assumed it would (like, say developing lung cancer from puffing 4 packs of unfiltered Luckys/day for 40 years), it's not their fault, it's the fault of the doctor/nurse/staff. It goes BOTH WAYS Coarsy. Who said it didn't? Effective tort reform has to fit both of those ways, and that's why damage caps don't fit. You can't just scream "frivolous lawsuit" every time you feel that someone should have been more responsible for themselves. A definition of "frivolous" like that is subjective and malleable, and therefore no definition at all. Now lawyers, now there's a group that needs to be reined in, especially trial lawyers like Blow-Dry-Boy. Logical argument. Could we argue from something *other* than feelings and ad hominem, please? Posted by svandals on 06/24 at 07:31 AM Another good point. I guess you didn't make it to 4th grade where they taught us to put the "period" inside the quotation marks. Oops! Actually Thededalus you are incorrect. If I were quoting a sentence the period would be inside the quotation marks, but since I was just emphasizing a word, the period is outside of the quotation marks. As for my other quote, you are correct. What I meant to say is that the way to lower medical costs is to eliminate health insurance. Posted by Thededalus on 06/24 at 01:59 PM What I meant to say is that the way to lower medical costs is to eliminate health insurance. Fair enough, but what do you propose as an alternative? Are you proposing that we eliminate health insurance entirely? I agree there are weaknesses and excesses to our current system. We probably insure too much (office visits, prescription cold medicine, etc.), but what about catastrophic injuries? Nobody but the most wealthily can pay for this. Posted by Sirveri on 06/24 at 06:21 PM Well duh, the poor don't deserve health care. **** those free loading assholes. Posted by Will on 06/24 at 06:30 PM It is much worse than you have said. I happen to know (and know of) several doctors who have left their practices because of the cost of liability insurance. They feel they are really shorting their families to work such long hours and bring home so little for it when they can make more and work a lot less at something else. These are mainly surgeons and obstetricians. Those I know are outstanding practitioners and human beings. Posted by Cracker on 06/24 at 09:04 PM Bunkergirl, There is not much more to the story.We are suing the bitch who hit us.They have the minumum coverage which is 25k.We have already spent close to 30k in medical bills.Not a damn thing the doctors have ordered has helped my wife.As to your million dollar comment.Which family should be the one to eat, the one who was hurt or the one who did the hurting? Besides there is nothing in the law that says(in arkansas ) that they can't turn around and file bankruptcy to cover their ass so they get to keep the house and cars while the people who are hurting just get screwed. You must be registered and logged in to post comments. Login here or Register here. Next entry: Remembering the Gipper Previous entry: Seven Minutes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Not my post. Check headers.
Lord Valve The Genuine Article Some asshole using my screen name slobbered: (snip) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
So...the lies started before he even started the post? Well...they lied to
get where they are and leopards don't change their spots. "Lord Valve" wrote in message ... Not my post. Check headers. Lord Valve The Genuine Article Some asshole using my screen name slobbered: (snip) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Lord Valve" wrote in message
om... http://right-thinking.com/index.php/...comments/7963/ Lord Valve? You mean like that flapper I have in my toilet? Right Thinking From The Left Coast Come on San Andreas... America needs you The Right to Sue The next time you hear some left-wing asshat whining about how poor people can't afford health insurance, tell them to thank Ralph Nader. Yo! Dip****! The SMALLEST reason for people being unable to afford health insurance is the lawsuits filed. The LARGEST reason is nothing more than corporate greed. * Flush Lord Flapper |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|