You're right. I overstated it. But there were still counties without an OB-GYN and the AMA declared MS a medical catastrophe.
Mississippi's Tort Reform Triumph - WSJ.com
Tort Reform Failure
- Thread starter Joe Steel
- Start date
You're right. I overstated it. But there were still counties without an OB-GYN and the AMA declared MS a medical catastrophe.
Mississippi's Tort Reform Triumph - WSJ.com
jillian
Princess
Hi Navy.
I just wanted to comment on this part of your post. Attorneys who do personal injury and medical malpractice cases are willing to risk the costs of the action because THEY control the costs. They know how many doctors they're going to have to call, how many depositions they are going to have to pay for; what the cost of the court filings is going to be, etc. They make an assessment as to how good the plaintiff's case is an sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong, but that's what juries are for.
they are not ever, under any set of circumstances going to risk the cost of legal fees for a white shoe, by the hour insurance company defense firm which puts two, three and four attorneys on every aspect of the case. the loss of one case would mean the end of the firm.
why should any attorney risk that... especially when you have no idea how well your witnesses are going to perform under stress... or what rulings the court will make.
if you take a look at this link, which i also included in my post above, it's intention is to dispel the myths surrounding malpractice actions.
Powered by Google Docs
Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
I suppose only people who are confident in their skills?
Who would wanna be a cop?
Who would wanna captain a supertanker?
Who would wanna design a bridge?
Who would wanna be a teacher?
Who wants to be an airline pilot?
AWWWWWWWwwwwwwww....POOOR ******* DOCTORS: any other licesed professional ***** up, and they get their liceses suspended or revolked; but phycisians are "special?"
You're saying that physicians are a little sloppy and that their work is inherently error prone, and the public had better just accept the premium on healthcare that allows this instead of holding Medical Doctors to the same standards every other professional must have.
Bullshit.
Last edited:
So plaintiffs attorneys can control costs but defense attorneys cannot? Hello?
And not every defendent is a white shoe insurance firm. Many are physicians, who get named to the suit for virtually no reason other than their name appears somewhere in the chart.
Joe Steel
Class Warrior
- Thread starter
- #66
Insurance companies pay the damage awards they claim are excessive but they never claimed limiting the awards would lead to lower premium levels. Assuming lower premiums lead to lower physician fees, why should we support tort reform if the insurance companies won't lower the premiums?
Joe Steel
Class Warrior
- Thread starter
- #67
Everything but the last sentence makes sense.
Presumably, in a contingency based system, all winning plaintiffs would see something. Losers wouldn't seen anything but their cases should never, or rarely, be accepted by prudent malpractice lawyers so we shouldn't see many losers.
As usual facts are not your friends here:
Here's your 'demonstration project,' Mr. President -- it's called Mississippi | Washington Examiner
jillian
Princess
once again, in order to bring a malpractice suit, something had to have happened to the patient which wasn't an anticipated risk of the procedure or treatment. that lapse had to rsult in significant DAMAGE to the person injured or no one is taking the case.
There isn't anything "suit happy" about it. As has also been pointed out, the amount of money spent by insurance companies on malpractice cases is not even a half of one percent of their overall expenses. it is a fabrication.
if it were about "high premiums", the insurance companies wouldn't be asking for pretend tort reform. it's about windfalls ...
do you think the family whose daughter's intestines were sucked out through her body because of a badly designed and constructed product should be limited in the damages they could get?
THAT is what tort reform is... giving doctors and corporations a pass and sticking it to people who were injured by them.
this is just more of the heck with human beings, caveat emptor, randian garbage that the extremists on the right love pushing.
jillian
Princess
that isn't FACT. that's an opinion piece....ostensibly based on statements made by Haley Barbour to the heritage foundation.
the fact that you can't tell the difference explains so much.
Last edited:
jillian
Princess
and on the subject of haley barbour, just so we know whose "opinion" we're talking about:
A harder look at Haley Barbour's post-Katrina miracle - Salon.com
funny though... i didn't hear any of the rightwingers making noises about "equal protection" when the repubs tossed money at their former GOP boss... while ignoring the folks in NOLA.
A harder look at Haley Barbour's post-Katrina miracle - Salon.com
funny though... i didn't hear any of the rightwingers making noises about "equal protection" when the repubs tossed money at their former GOP boss... while ignoring the folks in NOLA.
jillian
Princess
I realize that you have issues, but nooooo, plaintiffs attorneys cannot control the costs incurred by the DEFENSE. Can you control the costs of a competitor's operaton?
I don't know if you really don't understand this or if you're being intentionally obtuse.
And if someone is "named", pre-discovery, due to statute of limitations issues (remembering that doctors are already protected by abbreviated S/L's) that is dealt with early on. It's certainly not an issue the "tort reform" crowd is concerned with.
Nice changing the goal posts though. I really do understand. It must be very frustrating for you to keep totally missing the boat.
You realize your response is not in the least responsive to what I posted, right? It is typical of the responses I've seen from you when confronted with obvious facts: change the subject, and blame Bush.
Please post something to refute the obvious fact that tort reform worked in MS.
Did you need spell check to get his name right?
Hi Jillian,
Thank you for the article it was very informative , however I my position really is quite simple. While it's true that for the most part that under most states current law, and I tend to think this is a state matter and cannot see how on a national basis something like this can be implemented, other than to compel states to act , such as with the speed limilt laws. However, currently under most states laws attorneys absorb a vast majority of the fee's associated with the cost of litigation and it's my contention that in doing so, it encourages those attorneys that are not so ethical to seek out and fill court dockets with needless malpractice littigation. You and I both know that the cost of this litigation is passed on in the form of higher malpractice insurance, which is skyrocketing and leading to some Doctors not even willing to practice in some fields of medicine. Those costs are passed on to the consumer, you and I and thus is just one factor not the only factor in the rising cost of healthcare. My position is that without a "loser pays" type of law, the current system is self promoting, in that a plaintiff has no consequences for bringing litigation. In other words there is no down side for doing so and it promotes an atmosphere that some in out society have and do take advantage of which has had consequences in the form of costs in healthcare. While I believe that the vast majority of lawyers are well meaning, and ethical and have nothing but the best intentions for their clients surely you cannot deny that this frivolous litigation has led to some of the things that I have listed above. While I do agree to some degree that "loser pays" tends to make it more difficult for the poor to seek redress from the courts, I have a bit more faith that legislation can be crafted so that the poor can have the ability to seek redress like anyone else. You know and I know though , the nature of our legal system is one in which that the amount of money you have is directly related to the type of representation you get. So knowing that if someone has a good case, then any "loser pays" legislation can be crafted to make sure that the poor are protected.
One more thing of note here, I do think that malpractice reform, tort reform, whatever you wish to call it , is but one part of many parts needed to actually reform healthcare. If anyone proposes this as a singular solution then of course it won't work.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
You have no common sense, understanding of human nature or sense of justice. You are an enabler apologizing for people you fawn over...
Doctors are a HUGE cause of the health care cost problem. It is called greed. They don't get a free pass.
Tort reform is another example of the right's love for punishment of those they don't fawn over or care one lick about, the victim.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
This is a long article, but it is a worthwhile read...
Op-Ed Columnist
The Sidney Awards
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: December 24, 2009
Every year, I give out Sidney Awards to the best magazine essays of the year...
This year, magazines had a powerful effect on the health care debate. Atul Gawande’s piece, “The Cost Conundrum,” in The New Yorker, was the most influential essay of 2009.
Excerpt:
The Cost Conundrum
What a Texas town can teach us about health care.
It is spring in McAllen, Texas. The morning sun is warm. The streets are lined with palm trees and pickup trucks. McAllen is in Hidalgo County, which has the lowest household income in the country, but it’s a border town, and a thriving foreign-trade zone has kept the unemployment rate below ten per cent. McAllen calls itself the Square Dance Capital of the World. “Lonesome Dove” was set around here.
McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country.
One night, I went to dinner with six McAllen doctors. All were what you would call bread-and-butter physicians: busy, full-time, private-practice doctors who work from seven in the morning to seven at night and sometimes later, their waiting rooms teeming and their desks stacked with medical charts to review.
Some were dubious when I told them that McAllen was the countryÂ’s most expensive place for health care. I gave them the spending data from Medicare. In 1992, in the McAllen market, the average cost per Medicare enrollee was $4,891, almost exactly the national average. But since then, year after year, McAllenÂ’s health costs have grown faster than any other market in the country, ultimately soaring by more than ten thousand dollars per person.
“Maybe the service is better here,” the cardiologist suggested. People can be seen faster and get their tests more readily, he said.
Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.
“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.
“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.
That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. DidnÂ’t lawsuits go down?
“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.
“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.
The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”
Everyone agreed that something fundamental had changed since the days when health-care costs in McAllen were the same as those in El Paso and elsewhere. Yes, they had more technology. “But young doctors don’t think anymore,” the family physician said.
Op-Ed Columnist
The Sidney Awards
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: December 24, 2009
Every year, I give out Sidney Awards to the best magazine essays of the year...
This year, magazines had a powerful effect on the health care debate. Atul Gawande’s piece, “The Cost Conundrum,” in The New Yorker, was the most influential essay of 2009.
Excerpt:
The Cost Conundrum
What a Texas town can teach us about health care.
It is spring in McAllen, Texas. The morning sun is warm. The streets are lined with palm trees and pickup trucks. McAllen is in Hidalgo County, which has the lowest household income in the country, but it’s a border town, and a thriving foreign-trade zone has kept the unemployment rate below ten per cent. McAllen calls itself the Square Dance Capital of the World. “Lonesome Dove” was set around here.
McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country.
One night, I went to dinner with six McAllen doctors. All were what you would call bread-and-butter physicians: busy, full-time, private-practice doctors who work from seven in the morning to seven at night and sometimes later, their waiting rooms teeming and their desks stacked with medical charts to review.
Some were dubious when I told them that McAllen was the countryÂ’s most expensive place for health care. I gave them the spending data from Medicare. In 1992, in the McAllen market, the average cost per Medicare enrollee was $4,891, almost exactly the national average. But since then, year after year, McAllenÂ’s health costs have grown faster than any other market in the country, ultimately soaring by more than ten thousand dollars per person.
“Maybe the service is better here,” the cardiologist suggested. People can be seen faster and get their tests more readily, he said.
Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.
“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.
“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.
That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. DidnÂ’t lawsuits go down?
“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.
“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.
The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”
Everyone agreed that something fundamental had changed since the days when health-care costs in McAllen were the same as those in El Paso and elsewhere. Yes, they had more technology. “But young doctors don’t think anymore,” the family physician said.
Joe Steel
Class Warrior
- Thread starter
- #80
No.
Barbour is a public person. I've seen his name in print numerous times. In fact, familiarity with Barbour's reputation is the basis of my incredulity. This guy is a charlatan. No one who has any respect for for the truth would believe a word of what he says.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Peter Thiel ditches US for Argentina. What does he know that we don't?
- Started by joey_from_cali
- Replies: 7
