Those "Poor" Doctors

[blu]

surely someone can explain how tort reform is both constitutional and NOT a license for doctors to act as recklessly as they want?

It's already been done in Texas; if it were unconstitutional, it would have been overturned by now.

has it been challenged?

 

[boedicca]

It's clear you are thoroughly ignorant on the subject.

The search engine is your friend.

Of course, tort lawyers have tried to challenge it. The reforms limit Noneconomic Damages to $250,000. This takes the excessive profit out of the system for ambulance chasers.

The law is still in effect.

 

[boedicca]

And as blu is likely incapable of finding in real information:

A federal magistrate says the medical malpractice caps Texas lawmakers instituted in 2003 should withstand a constitutional challenge — an opinion advocates for tort reform say could have national implications.

In a report and recommendation filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas on Monday, Magistrate Charles Everingham says Texas' Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act of 2003, which capped medical liability for noneconomic damages at $250,000, doesn't violate victims' constitutional rights. He says it doesn't violate victims' right of access to the courts, or the takings clause, which says the government can't confiscate property without compensation. And he recommends that the federal judge presiding over the case grant summary judgment to the defendant — the state of Texas.

"The plaintiffs have not shown that the challenged statute, H.B. 4, violates their constitutional right of access to the courts or the Takings Clause," Everingham wrote.....

Magistrate Says Tort Reform Not Unconstitutional — Health Reform and Texas | The Texas Tribune

 

[blu]

And as blu is likely incapable of finding in real information:

A federal magistrate says the medical malpractice caps Texas lawmakers instituted in 2003 should withstand a constitutional challenge — an opinion advocates for tort reform say could have national implications.

In a report and recommendation filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas on Monday, Magistrate Charles Everingham says Texas' Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform Act of 2003, which capped medical liability for noneconomic damages at $250,000, doesn't violate victims' constitutional rights. He says it doesn't violate victims' right of access to the courts, or the takings clause, which says the government can't confiscate property without compensation. And he recommends that the federal judge presiding over the case grant summary judgment to the defendant — the state of Texas.

"The plaintiffs have not shown that the challenged statute, H.B. 4, violates their constitutional right of access to the courts or the Takings Clause," Everingham wrote.....

Magistrate Says Tort Reform Not Unconstitutional — Health Reform and Texas | The Texas Tribune

uh this is at the state level genius. people wanted tort reform in the health care bill which would have been national

 

[boedicca]

Uh...moron.

I already said it was TEXAS STATE LAW.

State laws also must comply with the U.S. Constitution, something you obviously did not learn in civics class.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MbXcef8JQY[/ame]​

 

[geauxtohell]

surely someone can explain how tort reform is both constitutional and NOT a license for doctors to act as recklessly as they want?

I am not sure it is constitutional and I believe it is in the process of moving to the SCOTUS.

It is certainly a red herring. Most states have tort reform and have capped non-economic damages (pain and suffering) etc and not much has changed.

As for reckless, most physicians want to do the right thing regardless of threat of economic sanction. However, in a world where torts didn't exist, the state board of healing art generally takes care of the reckless.

 

[Gadawg73]

"Physicians are having to make really gut-wrenching decisions about whether they can afford to see as many Medicare patients," said Cecil Wilson, president of the American Medical Association.

But statistics also suggest many doctors have more than made up for the erosion in the value of their Medicare fees by dramatically increasing the volume of services they provide - performing not just a greater number of tests and procedures, but also more complex versions that allow them to charge Medicare more money.

From 2000 to 2008, the volume of services per Medicare patient rose 42 percent. Some of this was because of the increasing availability of sophisticated treatments that undoubtedly save lives. Some was because of doctors practicing "defensive medicine" - ordering every conceivable test to shield themselves from malpractice lawsuits down the line.

A review of physicians' incomes suggests that specialists - who have more opportunities to increase the volume of the services they offer than primary-care doctors - reaped most of the benefit.

On average, primary-care doctors make about $190,000 a year, kidney specialists $300,000, and radiologists close to $500,000, figures that reflect the income doctors receive from both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. The disparity has prompted concern that Medicare is contributing to a growing shortage of primary doctors.

Still, even if primary-care doctors had to rely exclusively on Medicare's lower payment rates their incomes would only drop about 9 percent, according to a recent study co-authored by Berenson, who is also a fellow at the non-partisan Urban Institute.

"The argument that doctors literally can't afford to feed their kids [if they take Medicare's rates] is absurd," said Berenson. "It's just that doctors have gotten used to a certain income and lifestyle."

Maybe the whining-doctors need to consider career-changes....to WALL $TREET.....and, make-ROOM for REAL-doctors!!!!!

​

Throwing Doctors under the bus is about the most idiotic direction people can take in the health care debate.

Americans seem to be offended that physicians, who train for at least 12 years after high school and incur close to $200,000 in debt, make a decent income.

If you don't compensate highly skilled labor, regardless of vocation, then you get sub-par results.

In other words, do you really want a person with the same degree of motivation as a burger flipper in McDs removing your gallbladder?

You are right on it.
However, what does that have to do with doctors and the medical community NOW, and for the last 30 years, lobbying for and receiving full support for their disease care model industry which now compromises over 60% of all health care dollars spent on 4% of the population?
BigMed is the problem and their lobby needs to be brought under control. YOU and I are the customer and that has long been forgotten and ignored by who?
DOCTORS.

 

[editec]

Here's a thought...free education to those who are qualified to be MDs.

Good idea?

the American Medical Association won't be on board for that, I think.

If you don't limit the number of doctors, then doctors might be poor LIKE THEY USED TO BE before the AMA (and third party HC insurance companies) took over control of that profession.

I find it odd that people who hate unions, seldom have any problem with organizations like the AMA.

I have to assume that those union hating people really haven't given the AMA much thought.

 

[Trajan]

so 190k after all they went through makes them some robber baron scum? then again, thats what the disconnected lefties like you think it appears, merit excellence and working your ass off on the way to earnings 5 times what they make is crime....

 

[Gadawg73]

so 190k after all they went through makes them some robber baron scum? then again, thats what the disconnected lefties like you think it appears, merit excellence and working your ass off on the way to earnings 5 times what they make is crime....

I vote Republican since 1972.
192K is the average and factored into that are many interns out of med school making zero profit for the first 2-3 years.
Median and Mean income is far higher than that.
I have no problem with what anyone makes as long as I, the customer, knows what I am paying for.
My son goes for major ACL surgery in a few weeks. He blew it out in a game a few weeks ago at GSU. Can I get a cost of the surgery? Can ANYONE get a cost of a surgery these days?
No.
Why is that and who controls that?
DOCTORS.

 

[geauxtohell]

Doctors earn and deserve every penny they get.

It's hard and sometimes disgusting work and they should be very well compensated for it.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong.

On that note, back to studying.

Did I get to spend Thanksgiving with my family? No.

....And, you were forced-into your present-situation????

​

Of course not. I choose this profession with the reasonable expectation that I would be compensated for my time and efforts. Which includes studying over the holidays while most people are watching football. Hence, one more reason why this profession pays more then most.

 

[geauxtohell]

Here's a thought...free education to those who are qualified to be MDs.

Good idea?

the American Medical Association won't be on board for that, I think.

If you don't limit the number of doctors, then doctors might be poor LIKE THEY USED TO BE before the AMA (and third party HC insurance companies) took over control of that profession.

I find it odd that people who hate unions, seldom have any problem with organizations like the AMA.

I have to assume that those union hating people really haven't given the AMA much thought.

The AMA has little, if any power. Only about 20% of physicians belong to it and they certainly haven't "taken control of the profession".

The number of Doctors are limited by a very pragmatic factor that most people outside of the profession don't understand: the number of residency slots. Unlike the legal profession, where a person can practice after passing law school and the bar, the medical profession requires at least three additional years of post-graduate training before they are fully licensed.

The number of "Med School slots" for MD students (different situation for DO students) hasn't increased in recent years because there already aren't enough residency slots to fit everyone. The AMA has absolutely nothing to do with this.

If you want a good example of what you are talking about, look at what happened in the field of Anesthesia. The Anesthesiologists tried to limit the residency slots to inflate their own salaries. What happened? The advent of the nurse anesthetist who know are taking a lot of work from the anesthesiologists. So that plan back-fired (as I understand it). The bottom line is this: this isn't some academic exercise. This involves real people with real problems and if some group tries to pull some monkey-shines, they ultimately get screwed in the end.

As for supply and demand. The demand is for Primary Care Providers. The issue isn't lack of supply out of the gate. It's the fact that many primary care providers, especially general internists, sub-specialize into cardiology, GI, or their organ system of choice. Being a PCP is tough as hell and you are under-compensated and under-appreciated.

Ironically, this is exactly the type of doctors we need and exactly the type of doctor the OP shits on.

 

[geauxtohell]

You are right on it.
However, what does that have to do with doctors and the medical community NOW, and for the last 30 years, lobbying for and receiving full support for their disease care model industry which now compromises over 60% of all health care dollars spent on 4% of the population?
BigMed is the problem and their lobby needs to be brought under control. YOU and I are the customer and that has long been forgotten and ignored by who?
DOCTORS.

Physicians, especially clinicians, have no say over what the pharmaceutical companies do. You think a physician gets a kick-back for recommended a certain type of drug? Most of the doctors I deal with feel extremely frustrated and hampered by the fact that a lot of drugs aren't generic yet and covered by Medicaid and the "Wal Mart $4 drug List" is something that every single person carries in their pocket.

I am not sure what you are talking about "disease care model industry". If you are suggesting that the medical community has no interest in curing diseases in order to drum up profits, that's just absurd.

America should "heal thyself first'.

That means stop eating at fucking McDonalds and smoking a pack/day.

 

[daveman]

Bit of dishonest reporting here. Income as receipts for services (which includes is a gross number, businesswise) out of which comes office rent, salaries for staff and other business related costs is confused with net income which gets spent on swimming pools, german cars and golf.

Doctors put in 20 hour days while they were in school, learned a very hard skill, and are fulfill a dire need. they should get compensated for what the do, what they went through ,and their skill set.

Ragging on doctors and their net incomes as an excuse to rob them of the fruits of their labor shows what kind of itsy bitsy teeny weeny shriveled little soul you are.

For what they do, they are entitled to live high.

Board rules prohibit REP at this time.

I tagged him.

 

[daveman]

"Physicians are having to make really gut-wrenching decisions about whether they can afford to see as many Medicare patients," said Cecil Wilson, president of the American Medical Association.

But statistics also suggest many doctors have more than made up for the erosion in the value of their Medicare fees by dramatically increasing the volume of services they provide - performing not just a greater number of tests and procedures, but also more complex versions that allow them to charge Medicare more money.

From 2000 to 2008, the volume of services per Medicare patient rose 42 percent. Some of this was because of the increasing availability of sophisticated treatments that undoubtedly save lives. Some was because of doctors practicing "defensive medicine" - ordering every conceivable test to shield themselves from malpractice lawsuits down the line.

A review of physicians' incomes suggests that specialists - who have more opportunities to increase the volume of the services they offer than primary-care doctors - reaped most of the benefit.

On average, primary-care doctors make about $190,000 a year, kidney specialists $300,000, and radiologists close to $500,000, figures that reflect the income doctors receive from both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. The disparity has prompted concern that Medicare is contributing to a growing shortage of primary doctors.

Still, even if primary-care doctors had to rely exclusively on Medicare's lower payment rates their incomes would only drop about 9 percent, according to a recent study co-authored by Berenson, who is also a fellow at the non-partisan Urban Institute.

"The argument that doctors literally can't afford to feed their kids [if they take Medicare's rates] is absurd," said Berenson. "It's just that doctors have gotten used to a certain income and lifestyle."

Maybe the whining-doctors need to consider career-changes....to WALL $TREET.....and, make-ROOM for REAL-doctors!!!!!

​

Sure, drive more doctors out of practice, when we're already facing a huge shortage.

Good job, asshat.

 

[daveman]

Doctors earn and deserve every penny they get.

It's hard and sometimes disgusting work and they should be very well compensated for it.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong.

Next up in the discourse that was never discussed in Obamacare is TORT REFORM.

as a proclaimed small government Conservative how the fuck can you support letting the government decide how much people's lawsutis are worth?

you want an unconstitutional action to save 1% of medical spending

Funny how you start paying attention to the Consititution when it's a Democrat special interest group under scrutiny. Where were you when the White House was dictating what CEOs should be paid?

Oh, yeah...you were cheerleading it, weren't you?

 

[daveman]

Here's a thought...free education to those who are qualified to be MDs.

Good idea?

the American Medical Association won't be on board for that, I think.

If you don't limit the number of doctors, then doctors might be poor LIKE THEY USED TO BE before the AMA (and third party HC insurance companies) took over control of that profession.

I find it odd that people who hate unions, seldom have any problem with organizations like the AMA.

I have to assume that those union hating people really haven't given the AMA much thought.

Who pays for this "free" education?

 

[Gadawg73]

It's clear you are thoroughly ignorant on the subject.

The search engine is your friend.

Of course, tort lawyers have tried to challenge it. The reforms limit Noneconomic Damages to $250,000. This takes the excessive profit out of the system for ambulance chasers.

The law is still in effect.

Ambulance chasers do not practice med/mal law dude. They handle fender bender accident cases. Medical malpractice is for top trial lawyers ONLY that have the trial experience, medical expertise as you always need a doctor in your case as your expert and 100-200K to fight the doctor's insurance lawyers.
No doctor to state that his opinion is THERE IS medical malpractice, the standard of care was not to guidelines and that he would have done the care totally different BECAUSE the doctor did was negligent then there IS NO CASE.
You can not even file a medical malpractice case without a doctor's affidavit and study of findings that there is malpractice.
You need to get your information correct.
So if your wife did not work and a doctor was negligent and she died:
ALL you would get is 250K MAX for the value of her life.
Minus the 1/3 to the attorney and ALL of the expert witness fees, transcripts, depositions and expenses to file your claim and fight the insurance lawyers for the insurance companies.
You may end up with 125k MAX for the value of your wife's life.
See how it works?
I bet you have just changed your mind. You didn't know any of that, did you?

 

[Gadawg73]

"Physicians are having to make really gut-wrenching decisions about whether they can afford to see as many Medicare patients," said Cecil Wilson, president of the American Medical Association.

But statistics also suggest many doctors have more than made up for the erosion in the value of their Medicare fees by dramatically increasing the volume of services they provide - performing not just a greater number of tests and procedures, but also more complex versions that allow them to charge Medicare more money.

From 2000 to 2008, the volume of services per Medicare patient rose 42 percent. Some of this was because of the increasing availability of sophisticated treatments that undoubtedly save lives. Some was because of doctors practicing "defensive medicine" - ordering every conceivable test to shield themselves from malpractice lawsuits down the line.

A review of physicians' incomes suggests that specialists - who have more opportunities to increase the volume of the services they offer than primary-care doctors - reaped most of the benefit.

On average, primary-care doctors make about $190,000 a year, kidney specialists $300,000, and radiologists close to $500,000, figures that reflect the income doctors receive from both Medicare and non-Medicare patients. The disparity has prompted concern that Medicare is contributing to a growing shortage of primary doctors.

Still, even if primary-care doctors had to rely exclusively on Medicare's lower payment rates their incomes would only drop about 9 percent, according to a recent study co-authored by Berenson, who is also a fellow at the non-partisan Urban Institute.

"The argument that doctors literally can't afford to feed their kids [if they take Medicare's rates] is absurd," said Berenson. "It's just that doctors have gotten used to a certain income and lifestyle."

Maybe the whining-doctors need to consider career-changes....to WALL $TREET.....and, make-ROOM for REAL-doctors!!!!!

​

Sure, drive more doctors out of practice, when we're already facing a huge shortage.

Good job, asshat.

We are facing a shortage of doctors?
Well no shit Sherlock.
If you were a doctor would you do family care or disease care when the model that the AMA, hospitals, dope peddlers and everyone else associated with American "health care" rewards disease care specialists with 60% of ALL health care dollars spent in the Us to treat only 4 % of the population, which would you choose?
And guess where there is the shortage of doctors Moe?
It ain't in the disease care sector. Doctors CHOOSE not to practice family care because the "health care" sector for that in this country has 40% of all of the remaining dollars left to treat 96% of the population.
Get it now?