Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
Must be nice to be able to practice your trade, fuck up and kill someone and be immune to your own liability. And have otherwise intelligent citizens favor it.
NO doctor pays over about 10%,if that, for med/mal in any practice UNLESS he has fucked up and had ANOTHER DOCTOR testify their standard of carewas negligent. That is the only way a doctorpays 125K a year in premiums.
Medical malpractice is the 8th leading cause of death in America. Guess why? And you folks want THE INSURANCE companies and politicians, instead of other doctors and citizen juries, to determine the liability and merits of bad doctor's negligence.
And you folks want them to have limits on what they are liable for.
Scary shit there.
Again for the uninformed: It is OTHER DOCTORS that make the case in med/mal cases. NO court in America will accept a med/mal case UNLESS there are other doctors as expert witnesses testifying that the standard of care was NEGLIGENT BY ANOTHER DOCTOR.
No doctor to testufy against the other docor= NO CASE in America. PERIOD. End of story.
THANK GOD there are lawyers out there with the balls to stand up for the injured due to the negligence of doctors and FRONT ALL OF THE EXPENSES before trial or settlement.
Why do you think doctors pay high premiums? Could it possibly be that medical negligence, BAD DOCTORS, is very high? Well DUH.
How about tort reform for auto accidents, home accidents, ALL accidents, bad and inferior construction in buildings.
Now what would happen to the safety on the highways if bridge manufacturers had tort reform? Could it be that doctors have immunity and ARE HARD TO SUE ANYWAY, that they are MORE negligent because of the lax standardsnow in place due to "tort reform"?
You betcha.
Let's just do away with it all and give everyone $1 every time a claim is filed for anything.
Most Americans have no knowledge whatsoever with medical negligence.
You are by far not 100% correct.
It is not other doctors that are EYE witnesses that are crucial to the case.
It is other doctors that are specialists in the practice in question.
They are paid to testify on behalf of the patient or the doctor in the case and their testimony is based on THEIR experiences.
Secondly....no one is saying that those that suffer true malpractice should not be allowed to sue. ANd no one is saying that the insurace companies make the decision.
Tort reform...in a nutshell.....you have the right to sue for anything. However, if the suit fails, the judge uses his/her professionally judgement to determine if it were frivelous...if it is found to be frivelous, the claimant is responsible for the costs incurred by the mal practice insurance company.
You will not see people simply suing for a scar from an incission that was expected to begin with.
Then how come EVERY STATE that has "tort reform" has limits on damages?
Sir, a JURY, not a judge determines the merits of all civil cases.
Your theory is one of appointing a dictator to determine medical liability.
Would YOU award damages for "a scar from an incission that was expected to begin with"?
Or are YOU just like all other Americans and can be a good citizen and sit on a jury and make rational decisions based ON THE EVIDENCE?
Your example does not make court anyway as those cases are NOT worth an attorney's time. Cost too much to hire the expert doctor for that small claim.
And you know that was already next to impossible to sue doctors as it was?
We do not do things that way in America. We arefounded on the JURY system.
I tried to make it clear that the idea is to deter those that know darn well it is frivelous and hope for a quick settlement...which, as you know, is commonplace in the legal world.
Mal practice insurance companies have the burden to determine the cost to win a suit compared to the cost to simply settle....they settle on more frivelous cases than you can iumagine simply becuase to "counter sue" a pateint for punitive damages is next to impossible.