Trial lawyers protected by health care bill...

[asaratis]

If states pass laws that put caps on malpractice settlements, they lose federal funding. If that don't beat all.


Pelosi Health-Care Bill Lacks Malpractice Reform - WSJ.com

Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."

 

[ba1614]

If states pass laws that put caps on malpractice settlements, they lose federal funding. If that don't beat all.


Pelosi Health-Care Bill Lacks Malpractice Reform - WSJ.com

Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."

LOL, gotta protect their own ya know.

 

[goldcatt]

Fees should be capped, costs should not. But as far as caps on damages, it depends what kind. Are we talking actual present and reasonably projected future medical costs? Lost earnings? God forbid, what some States have tried which is only allowing bills already paid to be reimbursed? No, actual compensatory damages should not be limited - ever. Real harm costs real money. Pain and suffering awards or the rare punitive award? Sure, limit it to a percentage of the actual compensatory damages.

And how about severing the organizational and financial ties between the health insurance companies, the medical liability insurance companies, the trial attorney lobby, the AMA, the expert witness pool and the defense lobby while we're at it? Talk about conflicts of interest!

Like all of the rags that call themselves newspapers these days, I don't trust their sound bite to condense what should, if done right, be extremely complicated into a one-sentence easy to swallow little bite. Time to get reading, I guess.

 

[jillian]

If states pass laws that put caps on malpractice settlements, they lose federal funding. If that don't beat all.


Pelosi Health-Care Bill Lacks Malpractice Reform - WSJ.com

Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."

Given that the whole "tort reform" argument is nothing but a red herring and a means by which to gift the insurance companies, I'm not sure it really matters much.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, in many, if not most, states, before a malpractice action can be filed, the case has to be presented to a merit panel. Only if it gets past the panel, can the case proceed. Additionally, a malpractice case costs about $50,000 to pursue properly. It is unlikely that anyone files a case without any merit under such circumstances because there is no return.

When doctors can limit the damage they do to people, I'll be all for limiting their liability.

And no... I don't do either personal injury or medical malpractice work (just to cut off any specious allegation that I in any way benefit from these cases -- not from you, but generally).

 

[WillowTree]

If states pass laws that put caps on malpractice settlements, they lose federal funding. If that don't beat all.


Pelosi Health-Care Bill Lacks Malpractice Reform - WSJ.com

Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging. Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."

Did you expect anything different from this bunch of slimeballs?

 

[ihopehefails]

Fees should be capped, costs should not. But as far as caps on damages, it depends what kind. Are we talking actual present and reasonably projected future medical costs? Lost earnings? God forbid, what some States have tried which is only allowing bills already paid to be reimbursed? No, actual compensatory damages should not be limited - ever. Real harm costs real money. Pain and suffering awards or the rare punitive award? Sure, limit it to a percentage of the actual compensatory damages.

And how about severing the organizational and financial ties between the health insurance companies, the medical liability insurance companies, the trial attorney lobby, the AMA, the expert witness pool and the defense lobby while we're at it? Talk about conflicts of interest!

Like all of the rags that call themselves newspapers these days, I don't trust their sound bite to condense what should, if done right, be extremely complicated into a one-sentence easy to swallow little bite. Time to get reading, I guess.

Where does the money come from to pay those payouts? It does not come from a magic source it comes from the customer because that is where all money comes from for any business and if expenses go up then the cost of doing business goes up and the customer's rates go up to compensate for the increased expenses.

 

[goldcatt]

Fees should be capped, costs should not. But as far as caps on damages, it depends what kind. Are we talking actual present and reasonably projected future medical costs? Lost earnings? God forbid, what some States have tried which is only allowing bills already paid to be reimbursed? No, actual compensatory damages should not be limited - ever. Real harm costs real money. Pain and suffering awards or the rare punitive award? Sure, limit it to a percentage of the actual compensatory damages.

And how about severing the organizational and financial ties between the health insurance companies, the medical liability insurance companies, the trial attorney lobby, the AMA, the expert witness pool and the defense lobby while we're at it? Talk about conflicts of interest!

Like all of the rags that call themselves newspapers these days, I don't trust their sound bite to condense what should, if done right, be extremely complicated into a one-sentence easy to swallow little bite. Time to get reading, I guess.

Where does the money come from to pay those payouts? It does not come from a magic source it comes from the customer because that is where all money comes from for any business and if expenses go up then the cost of doing business goes up and the customer's rates go up to compensate for the increased expenses.

So you're saying that a person truly harmed due to another's negligence, reckalessness or incompetence should have to pay for their own injuries? There is a happy medium between just compensation for real harm and feeding the current self-perpetuating iron triangle making its living off the tort system.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Not very surprising. Trial Lawyers & Democrats have always been in bed together. I know they're claiming victory with their massive Socialist Boondoggle but it really isn't anything to celebrate. Rationing of Health Care and increased costs are going to be the end-result for this awful piece of Legislation. They should have taken my earlier advice. They should have tackled each problem with Health Care on an individual basis. Tackle each problem individually and with small pieces of Legislation rather than this monstrous bureaucratic nightmare. This bill does nothing to improve Health Care or reduce costs. It's a real shame.

 

[uscitizen]

Fees should be capped, costs should not. But as far as caps on damages, it depends what kind. Are we talking actual present and reasonably projected future medical costs? Lost earnings? God forbid, what some States have tried which is only allowing bills already paid to be reimbursed? No, actual compensatory damages should not be limited - ever. Real harm costs real money. Pain and suffering awards or the rare punitive award? Sure, limit it to a percentage of the actual compensatory damages.

And how about severing the organizational and financial ties between the health insurance companies, the medical liability insurance companies, the trial attorney lobby, the AMA, the expert witness pool and the defense lobby while we're at it? Talk about conflicts of interest!

Like all of the rags that call themselves newspapers these days, I don't trust their sound bite to condense what should, if done right, be extremely complicated into a one-sentence easy to swallow little bite. Time to get reading, I guess.

Where does the money come from to pay those payouts? It does not come from a magic source it comes from the customer because that is where all money comes from for any business and if expenses go up then the cost of doing business goes up and the customer's rates go up to compensate for the increased expenses.

So you want to be the patient of a DR involved in a malpractice suit?

 

[ihopehefails]

Fees should be capped, costs should not. But as far as caps on damages, it depends what kind. Are we talking actual present and reasonably projected future medical costs? Lost earnings? God forbid, what some States have tried which is only allowing bills already paid to be reimbursed? No, actual compensatory damages should not be limited - ever. Real harm costs real money. Pain and suffering awards or the rare punitive award? Sure, limit it to a percentage of the actual compensatory damages.

And how about severing the organizational and financial ties between the health insurance companies, the medical liability insurance companies, the trial attorney lobby, the AMA, the expert witness pool and the defense lobby while we're at it? Talk about conflicts of interest!

Like all of the rags that call themselves newspapers these days, I don't trust their sound bite to condense what should, if done right, be extremely complicated into a one-sentence easy to swallow little bite. Time to get reading, I guess.

Where does the money come from to pay those payouts? It does not come from a magic source it comes from the customer because that is where all money comes from for any business and if expenses go up then the cost of doing business goes up and the customer's rates go up to compensate for the increased expenses.

So you're saying that a person truly harmed due to another's negligence, reckalessness or incompetence should have to pay for their own injuries? There is a happy medium between just compensation for real harm and feeding the current self-perpetuating iron triangle making its living off the tort system.

No. I'm talking about things like emotional damage and punitive damages that go way beyond the actual financial cost of the victims damage. That usually ain't the problem because those are measurable cost that should be paid for by the doctor but why should the doctor have to give the victim any more money than the financial damage he actually caused?

 

[ihopehefails]

Fees should be capped, costs should not. But as far as caps on damages, it depends what kind. Are we talking actual present and reasonably projected future medical costs? Lost earnings? God forbid, what some States have tried which is only allowing bills already paid to be reimbursed? No, actual compensatory damages should not be limited - ever. Real harm costs real money. Pain and suffering awards or the rare punitive award? Sure, limit it to a percentage of the actual compensatory damages.

And how about severing the organizational and financial ties between the health insurance companies, the medical liability insurance companies, the trial attorney lobby, the AMA, the expert witness pool and the defense lobby while we're at it? Talk about conflicts of interest!

Like all of the rags that call themselves newspapers these days, I don't trust their sound bite to condense what should, if done right, be extremely complicated into a one-sentence easy to swallow little bite. Time to get reading, I guess.

Where does the money come from to pay those payouts? It does not come from a magic source it comes from the customer because that is where all money comes from for any business and if expenses go up then the cost of doing business goes up and the customer's rates go up to compensate for the increased expenses.

So you want to be the patient of a DR involved in a malpractice suit?

No but how does rewarding punative damages stop doctors from acquiring new patience when the insurance just covers the cost anyways?

 

[goldcatt]

Where does the money come from to pay those payouts? It does not come from a magic source it comes from the customer because that is where all money comes from for any business and if expenses go up then the cost of doing business goes up and the customer's rates go up to compensate for the increased expenses.

So you want to be the patient of a DR involved in a malpractice suit?

No but how does rewarding punative damages stop doctors from acquiring new patience when the insurance just covers the cost anyways?

Punitive damages are incredibly rare in any tort, med mal even more so. And if wrongdoing rises to the level where punis are awarded, insurance shouldn't cover it. Any of it.

But the majority of money put out is a result of settling questionable cases. And that can be traced straight back to the relationships between the various industries involved. Medical malpractice is actually pretty hard to win if it's fought.

 

[Xenophon]

A bill for Democrats by Democrats.

What a shock.