Ya ever think that the reason our healthcare is so expensive is because of lawsuits?

[sealybobo]

We're the only county in the world that encourages malpractice lawyers to launch predatory lawsuits against our healthcare system.

You ever stop and think that maybe one way to lower Healthcare costs is to institute a "Loser Pays" System, this way a doctor does not have six months of his practice go to pay his malpractice insurance?

So funny how you guys bring up an argument, we debunk it, you move on to another lie, we debunk that, and then eventually you come back to the same lies.

Lawsuits add up to 1/2 of 1% of the total costs of healthcare. Ed Schultz squashed this last night and about a week ago. And consider that most of the lawsuits are legitimate. So what percent are frivilous? Does that add up to $1 billion? Not even worth discussing now. Lets get a great public option in place first, get the costs lowered, and then down the road we can deal with tort reform.

PS. You are only hurting yourself with this. Rich people and corporations will always have access to the best laywers. Secretly, they love lawyers. What they are pushing for with this is they want their doctors and corporations to be able to kill or injure you and pay very little when it happens. Is that wise? How much is your life worth?

Tort reform is needed. Its not just the cost of malpractice insurance. Doctors routinely order expensive and unnecessary tests just to cover their asses. Doctors in nursing homes and those that deliver severely handicapped children use any means possuble to keep vegetables alive in order to avoid lawsuits. If a single payers health system is the way to go why not a single payer legal system? How do you think the pols would feel about that? After.all, legal rep IS guaranteed by the Constitution. Health insurance is not.

Frickin hypocrites.

While all that is true, this is not the problem we have with healthcare. Nice distraction though. Not gonna work.

 

[xotoxi]

So funny how you guys bring up an argument, we debunk it, you move on to another lie, we debunk that, and then eventually you come back to the same lies.

Lawsuits add up to 1/2 of 1% of the total costs of healthcare. Ed Schultz squashed this last night and about a week ago. And consider that most of the lawsuits are legitimate. So what percent are frivilous? Does that add up to $1 billion? Not even worth discussing now. Lets get a great public option in place first, get the costs lowered, and then down the road we can deal with tort reform.

Not quite.

You may be correct that the actual lawsuits may add up to that.

But how about the potentially unnecessary tests that doctors order to make sure that they don't miss something.

For example, when someone comes in with a brand new complaint of a migraine...they never had one before...you are supposed to order an MRI to make sure that they don't have a tumor. In the absence of very severe neurological signs, the actual likelihood that they have a tumor is very very low. But if the MRI was not ordered and they ended up having a tumor, the doc would be sued to poverty.

Practices like above are not based on any specific medical evidence, but on "standard of care", which is "if all the other doctors are doing it, you should too." And in this case, all the other doctors are doing it to avoid getting sued.

Malpractice reform might change some of the "standard of care" of expensive medical conditions, thus decreasing the overall cost of healthcare.

Can't you just offer your patient a choice and if they decide to get the MRI then fine ;they pay for it; and if they don't,get them to sign a waiver that testifies that you offered and they refused and to hold you harmless?

That's all well and good. But there have been numerous cases where doctors have been sued because the patient was able to claim that (even after in depth explanation) they still didn't understand the risks.

And either way, even if the case has no merit or chance of winning, the suit can still be filed which causes aggravation, anxiety, and cost of defense and loss of wages.

When obstetricians pay over $100,000 yearly for malpractice, their fees will go up.

 

[johnrocks]

Not quite.

You may be correct that the actual lawsuits may add up to that.

But how about the potentially unnecessary tests that doctors order to make sure that they don't miss something.

For example, when someone comes in with a brand new complaint of a migraine...they never had one before...you are supposed to order an MRI to make sure that they don't have a tumor. In the absence of very severe neurological signs, the actual likelihood that they have a tumor is very very low. But if the MRI was not ordered and they ended up having a tumor, the doc would be sued to poverty.

Practices like above are not based on any specific medical evidence, but on "standard of care", which is "if all the other doctors are doing it, you should too." And in this case, all the other doctors are doing it to avoid getting sued.

Malpractice reform might change some of the "standard of care" of expensive medical conditions, thus decreasing the overall cost of healthcare.

Can't you just offer your patient a choice and if they decide to get the MRI then fine ;they pay for it; and if they don't,get them to sign a waiver that testifies that you offered and they refused and to hold you harmless?

That's all well and good. But there have been numerous cases where doctors have been sued because the patient was able to claim that (even after in depth explanation) they still didn't understand the risks.

And either way, even if the case has no merit or chance of winning, the suit can still be filed which causes aggravation, anxiety, and cost of defense and loss of wages.

When obstetricians pay over $100,000 yearly for malpractice, their fees will go up.

And if they didn't pay $100000 yearly, how much would their fees go down,assuming it went from $100000 to zero?

 

[sealybobo]

Not quite.

You may be correct that the actual lawsuits may add up to that.

But how about the potentially unnecessary tests that doctors order to make sure that they don't miss something.

For example, when someone comes in with a brand new complaint of a migraine...they never had one before...you are supposed to order an MRI to make sure that they don't have a tumor. In the absence of very severe neurological signs, the actual likelihood that they have a tumor is very very low. But if the MRI was not ordered and they ended up having a tumor, the doc would be sued to poverty.

Practices like above are not based on any specific medical evidence, but on "standard of care", which is "if all the other doctors are doing it, you should too." And in this case, all the other doctors are doing it to avoid getting sued.

Malpractice reform might change some of the "standard of care" of expensive medical conditions, thus decreasing the overall cost of healthcare.

Can't you just offer your patient a choice and if they decide to get the MRI then fine ;they pay for it; and if they don't,get them to sign a waiver that testifies that you offered and they refused and to hold you harmless?

That's all well and good. But there have been numerous cases where doctors have been sued because the patient was able to claim that (even after in depth explanation) they still didn't understand the risks.

And either way, even if the case has no merit or chance of winning, the suit can still be filed which causes aggravation, anxiety, and cost of defense and loss of wages.

When obstetricians pay over $100,000 yearly for malpractice, their fees will go up.

Anyone can sue anyone in this country for any reason. That will never go away because the rich use this more than anyone.

They just want to limit how much your broke ass can get if a doctor wrongs you.

Can you tell me who the doctors get malpractice insurance from? Is it Blue Cross? Because that would be really funny. Maybe we have to socialize that too.

I wonder how much those insurance companies are gouging the doctors. Ever think of that?

 

[xotoxi]

Can't you just offer your patient a choice and if they decide to get the MRI then fine ;they pay for it; and if they don't,get them to sign a waiver that testifies that you offered and they refused and to hold you harmless?

That's all well and good. But there have been numerous cases where doctors have been sued because the patient was able to claim that (even after in depth explanation) they still didn't understand the risks.

And either way, even if the case has no merit or chance of winning, the suit can still be filed which causes aggravation, anxiety, and cost of defense and loss of wages.

When obstetricians pay over $100,000 yearly for malpractice, their fees will go up.

And if they didn't pay $100000 yearly, how much would their fees go down,assuming it went from $100000 to zero?

I'll answer your question with a question...if taxes went down to zero, how much do you think the cost of merchandise would go down at Walmart?

 

[xotoxi]

Can't you just offer your patient a choice and if they decide to get the MRI then fine ;they pay for it; and if they don't,get them to sign a waiver that testifies that you offered and they refused and to hold you harmless?

That's all well and good. But there have been numerous cases where doctors have been sued because the patient was able to claim that (even after in depth explanation) they still didn't understand the risks.

And either way, even if the case has no merit or chance of winning, the suit can still be filed which causes aggravation, anxiety, and cost of defense and loss of wages.

When obstetricians pay over $100,000 yearly for malpractice, their fees will go up.

Anyone can sue anyone in this country for any reason. That will never go away because the rich use this more than anyone.

They just want to limit how much your broke ass can get if a doctor wrongs you.

Can you tell me who the doctors get malpractice insurance from? Is it Blue Cross? Because that would be really funny. Maybe we have to socialize that too.

I wonder how much those insurance companies are gouging the doctors. Ever think of that?

We get malpractice insurance from malpractice insurance companies.

And we are probably getting gouged as much as you are gouged for homeowners or car insurance.

I would be interested in how many malpractice cases out of 100 are found that the doctor actually "wronged you".

 

[johnrocks]

That's all well and good. But there have been numerous cases where doctors have been sued because the patient was able to claim that (even after in depth explanation) they still didn't understand the risks.

And either way, even if the case has no merit or chance of winning, the suit can still be filed which causes aggravation, anxiety, and cost of defense and loss of wages.

When obstetricians pay over $100,000 yearly for malpractice, their fees will go up.

And if they didn't pay $100000 yearly, how much would their fees go down,assuming it went from $100000 to zero?

I'll answer your question with a question...if taxes went down to zero, how much do you think the cost of merchandise would go down at Walmart?

Probably not much at all but why should I as a consumer be restricted in my rights to file suit yet your not going to reduce rates? I can always go to Target if I'm dissatisfied with Wal Mart but tort restrictions would be restricting me regardless of which Doctor I went to.

So the answer is, it wouldn't effect my costs much,if any?

 

[xotoxi]

And if they didn't pay $100000 yearly, how much would their fees go down,assuming it went from $100000 to zero?

I'll answer your question with a question...if taxes went down to zero, how much do you think the cost of merchandise would go down at Walmart?

Probably not much at all but why should I as a consumer be restricted in my rights to file suit yet your not going to reduce rates? I can always go to Target if I'm dissatisfied with Wal Mart but tort restrictions would be restricting me regardless of which Doctor I went to.

So the answer is, it wouldn't effect my costs much,if any?

How much do you think you are entitled to if you end up with a brain tumor when you were treated for a migraine?

$1,000,000? $5,000,000? $10,000,000?

 

[johnrocks]

I'll answer your question with a question...if taxes went down to zero, how much do you think the cost of merchandise would go down at Walmart?

Probably not much at all but why should I as a consumer be restricted in my rights to file suit yet your not going to reduce rates? I can always go to Target if I'm dissatisfied with Wal Mart but tort restrictions would be restricting me regardless of which Doctor I went to.

So the answer is, it wouldn't effect my costs much,if any?

How much do you think you are entitled to if you end up with a brain tumor when you were treated for a migraine?

$1,000,000? $5,000,000? $10,000,000?

I tell you what, all you people who want restrictions placed on my rights as a consumer can sign this waiver(James Ostrowski thought of it) and then I'll consider tort reform...

"I, Joe T. Reformer, being of sound mind and incapable of suffering or feeling pain, do hereby waive and relinquish forever, any right, claim, or benefit, to monetary damages for pain and suffering of any kind, arising out of a personal injury done to me, and I hereby release any future tortfeasor from such liability, and I consent that this document may be introduced into evidence at any court proceeding brought by me against any tortfeasor. This release applies to personal injury actions of any kind, including but limited to negligence, intentional torts (e.g., rape, assault, battery, live burial), medical malpractice, civil rights, constitutional torts, and defamation."

I personally don't want a bureaucrat or some board deciding how much my eyesight is worth due to a neurologist fucking up when extracting a tumor anymore than I want a bureaucrat involved in my healthcare decisions.

 

[xotoxi]

I personally don't want a bureaucrat or some board deciding how much my eyesight is worth due to a neurologist fucking up when extracting a tumor anymore than I want a bureaucrat involved in my healthcare decisions.

Then the cost of healthcare will remain high.

 

[johnrocks]

I personally don't want a bureaucrat or some board deciding how much my eyesight is worth due to a neurologist fucking up when extracting a tumor anymore than I want a bureaucrat involved in my healthcare decisions.

Then the cost of healthcare will remain high.

So you think healthcare is high due to this,seriously. What about HMO's,regulations,mandates,not any competition,third party payors etc.?

 

[PixieStix]

We're the only county in the world that encourages malpractice lawyers to launch predatory lawsuits against our healthcare system.

You ever stop and think that maybe one way to lower Healthcare costs is to institute a "Loser Pays" System, this way a doctor does not have six months of his practice go to pay his malpractice insurance?

In answer to the question:

Ya ever think that the reason our healthcare is so expensive is because of lawsuits?

Yes

 

[Angel Heart]

We're the only county in the world that encourages malpractice lawyers to launch predatory lawsuits against our healthcare system.

You ever stop and think that maybe one way to lower Healthcare costs is to institute a "Loser Pays" System, this way a doctor does not have six months of his practice go to pay his malpractice insurance?

So funny how you guys bring up an argument, we debunk it, you move on to another lie, we debunk that, and then eventually you come back to the same lies.

Lawsuits add up to 1/2 of 1% of the total costs of healthcare. Ed Schultz squashed this last night and about a week ago. And consider that most of the lawsuits are legitimate. So what percent are frivilous? Does that add up to $1 billion? Not even worth discussing now. Lets get a great public option in place first, get the costs lowered, and then down the road we can deal with tort reform.

PS. You are only hurting yourself with this. Rich people and corporations will always have access to the best laywers. Secretly, they love lawyers. What they are pushing for with this is they want their doctors and corporations to be able to kill or injure you and pay very little when it happens. Is that wise? How much is your life worth?

Sealy,

Do you have a link to back that up?

Also, is that including the cost of Malpractice Insurance? I am fairly certain that malpractice insurance is a large part of the budget for most doctors especially the ones in private practice. The protection against lawsuits (frivolous or otherwise) should be included in that calculation.

Frivolous malpractice suits are only one part of the puzzle of healthcare costs, but a part that should be dealt with rather than swept under the liberal rug in order to promote the need for a bigger government.

Immie

I know several midwives who have stopped delivering babies due to the cost of their malpractice insurance. OB/GYNs are doing the same thing or limiting the number of babies they deliver.

 

[ozzmdj]

The state of Mississippi has had a Doctor shortage for over a decade the reason being the cost of malpractice insurance. Even students that graduate from their own states medical schools leave for other states. But malpractice is not the only reason GOVERMENT involvement raises the cost like they do in everything else they get in. You can google the topic of doctor shortages in this state and read many articles of this.

 

[KittenKoder]

The state of Mississippi has had a Doctor shortage for over a decade the reason being the cost of malpractice insurance. Even students that graduate from their own states medical schools leave for other states. But malpractice is not the only reason GOVERMENT involvement raises the cost like they do everything else they get in. You can google the topic of doctor shortages in this state and read many articles of this.

The thing is, people are forgetting that lately most of the lawsuits these days are not against doctors either, but they are still the ones paying the price for it.

 

[Douger]

I just can't get behind tort control,it goes against my free market beliefs,it shifts the restriction from one sector to another and restricts my right as a consumer of redress of grievances. How about some type of negative outcomes type insurance I could get before surgery ,sort of like insurance I might get when flying to insure my outcome of the procedure? That would be free markets at work.

There's an idiot at your keyboard.
If you went into an insurance office telling them you were having...say....an abdominal aneurysm repaired, it'd cost you an absolute fortune for a policy for something like that.

Free market at work stealing from you as usual.
Like my 10 grand a year homeowners policy back when I was stupid enough to live in Floridastan.
Free market at work !

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Perfect time for Palin or whoever speaks for Republicans to introduce tort reform.

They can highlight Sen John Edwards (D) channeling the spirit of the young girl in his closing arguments as Exhibit A in how us MedMal has inflated the costs of Health Care in the USA

They can have my fathers Heart doctor testify as well: his specialty is geriatrics and his insurance premiums take 6 months of his work year to pay. I dont know why the guy still practices medicine at all

 

[Immanuel]

So funny how you guys bring up an argument, we debunk it, you move on to another lie, we debunk that, and then eventually you come back to the same lies.

Lawsuits add up to 1/2 of 1% of the total costs of healthcare. Ed Schultz squashed this last night and about a week ago. And consider that most of the lawsuits are legitimate. So what percent are frivilous? Does that add up to $1 billion? Not even worth discussing now. Lets get a great public option in place first, get the costs lowered, and then down the road we can deal with tort reform.

PS. You are only hurting yourself with this. Rich people and corporations will always have access to the best laywers. Secretly, they love lawyers. What they are pushing for with this is they want their doctors and corporations to be able to kill or injure you and pay very little when it happens. Is that wise? How much is your life worth?

Sealy,

Do you have a link to back that up?

Also, is that including the cost of Malpractice Insurance? I am fairly certain that malpractice insurance is a large part of the budget for most doctors especially the ones in private practice. The protection against lawsuits (frivolous or otherwise) should be included in that calculation.

Frivolous malpractice suits are only one part of the puzzle of healthcare costs, but a part that should be dealt with rather than swept under the liberal rug in order to promote the need for a bigger government.

Immie

No I don't. Do you have a number that contradicts my numbers?

Ed Schultz asked if Bobbi Gindal knows what the total cost of lawsuits are. Call Bobbi Gindal and see if he knows. Or find it yourself.

And no, this should not be dealt with now. This is just a distraction from solving the real problems and I believe you know it.

They'll throw every right wing talking point at us before they agree to discuss the real issues. Don't get distracted. This is not even an issue right now.

Yes, it includes malpractice insurance.

No, I don't have anything to contradict your numbers. Nor am I saying you are wrong. Just wondering where you got your info. Nor am I positive I am correct. Just asking.

Why should I trust Ed Schultz?

You and I disagree on whether or not this should be dealt with now.

I am not so sure based on your statement about not having a link that you know for sure that it includes malpractice insurance. Also, basing something on the fact that it is .5% of total healthcare costs nationwide is a fallacious argument. You don't base the cost of something by comparing it to total industry costs. The cost of something is based upon its value. Simply because the healthcare industry may be overcharging their costs does not justify the cost of frivolous lawsuits.

And once again, give me a good reason to trust Ed Schultz?

Immie

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do you think Specialists order "redundant" tests? It's to cover their ass when Democrat Senator John Edwards sues them!

 

[sealybobo]

Perfect time for Palin or whoever speaks for Republicans to introduce tort reform.

They can highlight Sen John Edwards (D) channeling the spirit of the young girl in his closing arguments as Exhibit A in how us MedMal has inflated the costs of Health Care in the USA

They can have my fathers Heart doctor testify as well: his specialty is geriatrics and his insurance premiums take 6 months of his work year to pay. I dont know why the guy still practices medicine at all

Because he still makes a million dollars?