Curing America's Health Care Ills

[jillian]

Medical malpractice insurance is expensive because when doctors screw up the damage they cause is huge.

 

[jillian]

Do you think this doctor should be shielded from liability for giving patients HIV and Hepatitis C?

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...ctor_reused_syringes_while_injecting_p-1.html

By the by, I'm also informed that he had a malpractice settlement in the area of a million dollars because he paralyzed someone while giving them an epidural.

If it were someone in your family, G-d forbid, and the cost of caring for them for the rest of their lives was a result of the doctor's negligence, would you want to see damages limited to $250,000?

*Edit* Just to add a final note, lawyers don't bring friviolous malpractice suits as a general rule. The cost of running a med mal case is about $50,000, and you have to get through a medical panel before you can proceed. Lawyers aren't in the business of losing money.

 

[Bern80]

Do you think this doctor should be shielded from liability for giving patients HIV and Hepatitis C?

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...ctor_reused_syringes_while_injecting_p-1.html

By the by, I'm also informed that he had a malpractice settlement in the area of a million dollars because he paralyzed someone while giving them an epidural.

If it were someone in your family, G-d forbid, and the cost of caring for them for the rest of their lives was a result of the doctor's negligence, would you want to see damages limited to $250,000?

I refer you to the word 'frivilous'. That should give you your answer as to what would be my opinion on the above.

 

[jillian]

See my edit. Sorry. Was an afterthought.

Back to my work...

Laterz.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Idiocy. I do wish you'd actually raise a point now and then. Go on... I'm rooting for you.

That example was a point - in more ways than one - but per usual it shussed right over your head - on purpose I'm guessing. Merry Christmas anyways jillian

 

[iamwill]

I believe quality is more important than quality and accessibility, but it useless if not everyone is able to receive health care (i think i just confused myself there)

 

[Adam's Apple]

Idiocy. I do wish you'd actually raise a point now and then.

Oh, his post was about as idiotic as one I read on this board not too long ago wherein the poster claimed that embryonic stem cell research was the only research that produced results but yet was unaware that the biggest problem researchers have encountered with ESCR is the formation of cancers and tumors. Could ScreamingEagle's post possibly top that blooper?

 

[jillian]

Oh, his post was about as idiotic as one I read on this board not too long ago wherein the poster claimed that embryonic stem cell research was the only research that produced results but yet was unaware that the biggest problem researchers have encountered with ESCR is the formation of cancers and tumors. Could ScreamingEagle's post possibly top that blooper?

It is the only research that's produced results so far. Adult stem cells can't do the same thing. And we could offtrck this thread into yet another religion versus science thread, but that would be pretty stupid, no?

BTW, it's a lie that ESCR causes cancers and tumors. If embryonic stem cells weren't tumorous, they wouldn't be growing into the body parts they're supposed to end up being. I actually checked that out. Perhaps you should, too. Another one of those pithy little lies the radical religious right likes to tell about science.

Pretty stupid, huh? Disingenuous, too, you know, like the rabid stuff likening gays to pedophiles, and right wing sites that like to pretend that D&E is somehow a birth control choice for people who decide last minute that they don't want a baby, oh, you know how that goes, right?

 

[Adam's Apple]

First, let me compliment you, Jillian. You can dish out the b.s. pretty good.

It is the only research that's produced results so far. Adult stem cells can't do the same thing.

Is this your liberal opinion, or do you have some proof to post? What are these amazing results that have been produced by ESCR that overshadow the multitude of results that have been produced with adult stem cells?

BTW, it's a lie that ESCR causes cancers and tumors.

Again, provide your proof. What is your source? The New England Journal of Medicine? The Center for Bioethics at the U. of PA? The International Society for Stem Cell Research? Others? Probably not. Please don’t tell me your source is wikipedia.

If embryonic stem cells weren't tumorous, they wouldn't be growing into the body parts they're supposed to end up being. I actually checked that out.

The clue here, Jillian, is that they are not doing it in stem cell research, and that’s where it counts. How about sharing with us what you actually checked out on this one?

I know you actually think that only Republicans are against embryonic stem cell research. Read this report Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak (MI) made to his constituents this year. Pay close attention to what he says about stem cell research. "Not a single therapy has been developed from embryonic stem cell research. Instead of cures, embryonic stem cell research has led to tumors and deaths in animal studies. There have been no published treatments in human patients using embryonic stem cells." I am assuming he would have all the latest research at his fingertips to enable him to vote intelligently on issues such as this.
www.house.gov/stupak/issues_stemcell.shtml

 

[jillian]

ESCR isn't so much a function of what's been produced yet. It's about the possibilities. But much of the world is already ahead of us on this issue because the radical religious right doesn't much like science.

And, if you don't mind, I'd really prefer not to get into some deep discussion about this stuff with you, not because I can't, but because no one's ever changed their mind about these issues; it's a waste of my time. I'd much rather spend it in other ways.

But a Merry Christmas to you anyway.

by the by, when you assert something causes cancer, i'd suggest it's up to you to provide CREDIBLE proof of that, not for me to disprove. Cheers.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I will accept your response as a cop-out, Jillian.

ESCR isn't so much a function of what's been produced yet. It's about the possibilities.

The “possibilities” doesn’t count when adult stem cell research is producing lots of results NOW. You’re the one who said positively that ESCR has produced results. Even your fellow Democrat, Rep. Stupak, states that not a single therapy has been produced from ESCR.

…when you assert something causes cancer, i'd suggest it's up to you to provide CREDIBLE proof of that, not for me to disprove.

Now you’ve called into action your lawyer skills. I asserted nothing. What I stated comes from the authoritative literature and research. I am sure that what Rep. Stupak stated in his letter to his constituents comes from the authoritative literature and research as well. You stated boldly that it’s a lie that ESCR causes cancer/tumors. The literature and research contradict what you said, and I simply asked you for proof from an authoritative source that ESCR does not cause cancer/tumors.

Although we disagree on practically everything—except Israel and the Jewish people and maybe that Hillary Clinton is a divisive force in this country—I wish you a heartfelt Merry Christmas as well.