xr7g428 Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Good point Ranger, but shouldn't there be a limit somewhere? Is the well truly bottomless? From a marketing point of view the problem with the current proposal is that it doesn't really focus on what the customer (voter) cares about. It is a social engineering policy wearing a health care reform dress. It is kind of like the cash for clunkers program, a good economic incentive package got all tangled up in environmental BS. (Only the government can call buying cars above market prices, and then crushing them, a really good idea.) The health care reform items listed above, are real reform, to address the real problems. My problem is with all of the social engineering crap that gets boiled into the soup in the name of social engineering. Anybody want to bet that somewhere buried deep in the bill, we will find the hand of ACORN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 14, 2009 Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Good point Ranger, but shouldn't there be a limit somewhere? Is the well truly bottomless? As stupid as it sounds, I'd trust the judge/jury, would the case ever get that far. My guess is that in a "loser pays" situation, you'd find the plaintiffs' attorneys willingness to avoid litigation as much as you would insurance companies, because of the potential for loss. You see, in my "loser pays" system, I'd hold the plaintiffs' attorneys liable for the legal costs every bit as much as the plaintiffs themselves. From a marketing point of view the problem with the current proposal is that it doesn't really focus on what the customer (voter) cares about. It is a social engineering policy wearing a health care reform dress. It is kind of like the cash for clunkers program, a good economic incentive package got all tangled up in environmental BS. (Only the government can call buying cars above market prices, and then crushing them, a really good idea.) The health care reform items listed above, are real reform, to address the real problems. My problem is with all of the social engineering crap that gets boiled into the soup in the name of social engineering. Anybody want to bet that somewhere buried deep in the bill, we will find the hand of ACORN? One thing is for sure, if you peel back the layers of this healthcare negotiation, you'll find more lobbyists than you could shake a stick at. The Democrats are just as desirous of special interest money as the Republicans; probably more so given that they are the ones in power right now. Edited August 14, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 The medical profession looks after their own. They guard their jobs just like we guard ours. There are people on the street that would do our work for half of our wages. There are qualified doctors who are not allowed to practice because of some technicality. There are medical procedures that could be done by a less than full-fledged doctor. This is why there is a shortage of doctors. The problem is a lot worse in countries with socialized health care, unless they are communist and are forced to stay. There are a lot of ways to create efficiencies in the health care system. They would involve a loosening of the rigid rules and regulations. You will not get that under a socialist system. You will get more rules and regulations. In Canada, we all get what you describe in your worst case scenario. I would prefer your system. The only ones who get screwed are the ones foolish enough to not have medical insurance if they are deemed to be able to afford it. If I have a car accident and don't have car insurance, I am screwed as well. If my house burns down and I don't have fire insurance, who is to blame? I don't like laws, but maybe it would be simpler if you just made health insurance mandatory for people in a certain income bracket. That would be better than going Communist like Canada and Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Significantly. Here's why I'm not for capping. Let's pretend you have two men. Both go in for the same surgery to repair a hernia. Now during that surgery, the surgeon (due to malpractice; let's say he's drunk) winds up cutting the vas deferens of the men. Both have been rendered sterile, and will be unable to father children. Both have suffered loss and deserve restitution. Now let's assume one man is 20 years old, and the other is 70 years old. Can you say the 70yo man has suffered the same loss as the 20yo? If not, where do you set the cap; for a man who is 20 or a man who is 70? If 70, then you have denied the 20yo his rights to restitution. If 20, then what is the point of capping, if you assume the maximum loss? What I am for is "loser pays". The loser in a civil lawsuit pays the legal costs of both sides. That should eliminate the abuses and the willingness for insurance companies to quickly settle. Do that, and the tendency to sue and (by extension) the costs of malpractice insurance go down. The problem with "Loser Pays" is that every lawsuit that loses is not by definition frivilous. I have worked as a trial lawyer for the past 21 years, 8 years in Plaintiff's Civil Litigation. If Plaintiff's with meritorious were forced to pay for the Doctor's legal team everytime a Doctor convinced a jury that it wasn't his negligence that harmed the Plaintiff but God's Will, No pPlaintiff would ever risk bringing a suit. I have seen good solid legitimate cases lose. I have seen some i thought were a stretch win. I am wholeheartedly for reforming the system to eliminate frivilous suits with no merit. In Pennsylvania, we have a pre-certification process that requires Plaintiff's counsel to have an expert witness on the case before suit is filed. We also have mandatory pre-trial mediation to try to settle cases without trial. The whole idea of lawyers filing suit over nothing is simply nonsense. For more than a decade, Doctors have had the right to refuse to consent to settle. There isn't any case inwhich an insurance company will just write a check to get rid of a case in Medical Malpractice. I have been involved in several cases where the Insurance company and hospital desperately wanted to settle a claim. One of these involved a young woman whose obstertrician botched an episiotomy which resulted in this mother having to have a colostomy. During trial, it was proved that the doctor forged his medical records to make it appear that he had advised the woman to come in when he did the opposite. On the 5th day of trial, the doctor finally consented to settle the case. What would it be worth to you to have to go through the rest of your life with a colostomy bag due to a doctor's carelessness? I worked on another case where a woman who was 8 months pregnant started to hemmorage and was rushed to the emergency room. The obstitrician on call ignored the fetal monitoring strips showing it was the fetus not the mother that was bleeding out and did nothing for over an hour. Finally he performed an emergency C-Section. The child was born with profound disabilities that will require care for the rest of her life. Again, the doctor refused to consent to settle. After 4 days of trial with some of the country's pre-eminent doctors as witnesses, at a cost of over $100,000.00 in expense to Plaintiff's counsel, the doctor gave his consent. All of the net settlement is in trust for the child's lifetime care. The families in these cases were both middle class. Neither could have been able to foot the bill for the lawyers for the doctors who bill out at over $450.00 per hour. The docs didn't have just one lawyer BTW. If the plaintiff's lawyer loses he gets nothing. No Fee, No Costs, Nothing. Few plaintiff's lawyers will take on a frivilous med mal case. The costs are just too great. There are already sanctions available for frivilous filings. In Federal Court it is a system of compensating the winner in a frivilous claim with fees. In Pennsylvania there are several forms of sanction on parties and their counsel for purgery and other forms of vexatious behavior, including professional disciplinary sanctions and disbarrment. There are also delay damages imposed on a losing Defendant for failing to make an offer to settle prior to a verdict in plaintiff's favor. If you want to suggest a way to lessen the cost and to compensate the victims of malpractice, I'm happy to hear your plan. We apparently agree that punishing the victims by placing artificial caps on their loss isn't the way. The upshot is that litigation costs are a tiny part of what is driving health care expenses up at several times the rate of inflation. It is a convenient target for conservatives including some hypocrits who rail against med mal suits and then sue like hell when their family is involved like Rick Santorum. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1300271 Edited August 17, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 The problem with "Loser Pays" is that every lawsuit that loses is not by definition frivilous. -deleted for space- I don't disagree with that sentiment. While I can agree with a lot of what you've said in your post, I'm not sure if we're looking at this from the same side. Of course, me not being a lawyer hurts my perspective, however my reasoning behind a "loser pays" system is more function (desire) of reducing malpractice premiums. Last I heard OBGYN malp. ins. can run into the hundreds of thousands per year. It seems to me that in order to make it possible for patients to lower their costs, the doctors will too. I have no desire to prevent anyone from pursuing restitution, however there needs to be some tempering between the truly malpractice cases, and the mere misfortunate outcome. I understand that medical questions are often best answered by medical professionals. Problem is, I'm not terribly trusting of a medical board anymore than I am the government; too much potential for "taking care of one of their own". On the other hand, it seems to be awfully easy to get a jury to be sympathetic to a "victim", whether they be one of circumstance or negligence. It sounds like PA may have some safeguards in place to weed out the misfortune from the malpractice, although I am aware that every state is different. "Loser pays" seems to me to be the best choice in a list of bad choices (including the part about plaintiff's attorneys being partially-liable for loss). How that system would be structured (in practice) is probably best left up to those more qualified than me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I don't disagree with that sentiment. While I can agree with a lot of what you've said in your post, I'm not sure if we're looking at this from the same side. Of course, me not being a lawyer hurts my perspective, however my reasoning behind a "loser pays" system is more function (desire) of reducing malpractice premiums. Last I heard OBGYN malp. ins. can run into the hundreds of thousands per year. It seems to me that in order to make it possible for patients to lower their costs, the doctors will too. I have no desire to prevent anyone from pursuing restitution, however there needs to be some tempering between the truly malpractice cases, and the mere misfortunate outcome. I understand that medical questions are often best answered by medical professionals. Problem is, I'm not terribly trusting of a medical board anymore than I am the government; too much potential for "taking care of one of their own". On the other hand, it seems to be awfully easy to get a jury to be sympathetic to a "victim", whether they be one of circumstance or negligence. It sounds like PA may have some safeguards in place to weed out the misfortune from the malpractice, although I am aware that every state is different. "Loser pays" seems to me to be the best choice in a list of bad choices (including the part about plaintiff's attorneys being partially-liable for loss). How that system would be structured (in practice) is probably best left up to those more qualified than me. Many of the problems we have in cost for HC ins. is due to law suits. Just because they were won does not make them non frivolous either. Doctors that C-section everything so they do not get sued. Doctors that prescribe everything so they do not get sued. Doctors that bump up to specialists if they even get a hint that the person is a problem. This is why you sign a document saying what you are having done is dangerous. But as soon as something happens certain people will sue because its all about the money. A doctor that delivers a healthy baby is fine. But any doctor that delivers an unhealthy baby or one with complications is already behind the bulls eye. It is very very sad. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Many of the problems we have in cost for HC ins. is due to law suits. Just because they were won does not make them non frivolous either. Doctors that C-section everything so they do not get sued. Doctors that prescribe everything so they do not get sued. Doctors that bump up to specialists if they even get a hint that the person is a problem. This is why you sign a document saying what you are having done is dangerous. But as soon as something happens certain people will sue because its all about the money. A doctor that delivers a healthy baby is fine. But any doctor that delivers an unhealthy baby or one with complications is already behind the bulls eye. It is very very sad. Peace and Blessings The biggest driver of lawsuits is doctors who should not be practising. Most of the med-mal cases I was involved with were repeat offenders who had been sued several times before. Every doctor can tell you about the ones they wouldn't send their dog to for treatment. Yet the medical profession has done a lousy job of policing itself. It is a very small percentage of doctors who are responsible for the great percentage of suits. It is the few bad apples that are costing the good docs. Again, lawyers working on a contingent fee basis have little to gain and plenty to lose by filing frivolous claims in this age where even good cases are very hard to win at trial. I'm all for subsidizing a non-profit medical malpractice insurance program that doesn't have to make a profit and that eliminates the doctor's right to refuse to consent to settle within the policy limits. Edited August 18, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The biggest driver of lawsuits is doctors who should not be practising. Most of the med-mal cases I was involved with were repeat offenders who had been sued several times before. Every doctor can tell you about the ones they wouldn't send their dog to for treatment. Yet the medical profession has done a lousy job of policing itself. It is a very small percentage of doctors who are responsible for the great percentage of suits. It is the few bad apples that are costing the good docs. Again, lawyers working on a contingent fee basis have little to gain and plenty to lose by filing frivolous claims in this age where even good cases are very hard to win at trial. I'm all for subsidizing a non-profit medical malpractice insurance program that doesn't have to make a profit and that eliminates the doctor's right to refuse to consent to settle within the policy limits. No argument there. The AMA is 1/3 of the problem. We know that Ins is part of it and that this really came about from the Feds. So 2/3 to the Feds, and 1/3 to the AMA. Now, lets bust up the AMA and remove the feds from our health system. Not give them feds more power which in turn does the same to the AMA. Why no law suits against the AMA for protecting their own, over and over, since they are the governing body for this? Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 No argument there. The AMA is 1/3 of the problem. We know that Ins is part of it and that this really came about from the Feds. So 2/3 to the Feds, and 1/3 to the AMA. Now, lets bust up the AMA and remove the feds from our health system. Not give them feds more power which in turn does the same to the AMA. Why no law suits against the AMA for protecting their own, over and over, since they are the governing body for this? Peace and Blessings The AMA doesn't determine who gets a license to practice medicine. The individual states do. You don't have to be a member of the AMA which is really more of a lobbying group and service organization for doctors. Doctors have historically been unwilling to police their own and weed out the bad ones. Doctors make up the medical licensing boards. One of the effects of this brotherhood is that very few doctors are willing to testify against a local doctor in malpractice suits or before medical boards. Experts are usually retained from outside the area to testify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The AMA doesn't determine who gets a license to practice medicine. The individual states do. You don't have to be a member of the AMA which is really more of a lobbying group and service organization for doctors. Doctors have historically been unwilling to police their own and weed out the bad ones. Doctors make up the medical licensing boards. One of the effects of this brotherhood is that very few doctors are willing to testify against a local doctor in malpractice suits or before medical boards. Experts are usually retained from outside the area to testify. I am sorry. Yes. I know it is state licensing. Just sloppy on my part. My point is simply that the AMA wields huge power because Drs. wield huge power. And having Drs in charge of their own is like having politicians in charge of their own or Bank CEOs in charge of their own. Doctors can not police their own. They can not testify against one in their own hospital or even state and then expect to rise up through the ranks. Its amazing how much authority doctors have. And it is a dog kick dog world from top down. Which is why it stays the way it is. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I am sorry. Yes. I know it is state licensing. Just sloppy on my part. My point is simply that the AMA wields huge power because Drs. wield huge power. And having Drs in charge of their own is like having politicians in charge of their own or Bank CEOs in charge of their own. Doctors can not police their own. They can not testify against one in their own hospital or even state and then expect to rise up through the ranks. Its amazing how much authority doctors have. And it is a dog kick dog world from top down. Which is why it stays the way it is. Peace and Blessings Mac, You and I have finally found something we agree on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Mac, You and I have finally found something we agree on. :happy feet: :happy feet: :happy feet: Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 :happy feet: :happy feet: :happy feet: Peace and Blessings From factcheck.com http://factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-ins...e-not-everyone/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaZor Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Until such time as state licensing boards get their stuff together . . . and either expand to a nationwide licensing board (or are mandated in sharing of information) . . . to thwart bad doctors that loose their license (rare) in one state and then just pack up and move to another state . . . to bring their havoc upon a whole new set of victims, well let's just say if you need surgery . . . let's say knee surgery . . . it is wise to take a magic marker and mark both your knees. On the good knee, mark it "Not this one" and on the knee that needs surgery . . . "yes, this one" Tort reform does not fix the problem . . . eradicating bad doctors (esp repeat offenders) is the first step . . . and that is coming from one that has been victim to a surgeon who screwed up big time (in my youth) at Mass General (only afterward did we find out that he had an alcohol problem). Bus drivers, pilots, and train operators are required to have drug/alcohol tests in most jurisdictions . . . but I doubt that there is a single state that requires them for a person that takes a scalpel and opens up the human body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Tort reform does not fix the problem . . . Not true. In Pennsylvania the state Supreme Court instituted new rules that prevented plaintiffs from venue shopping. (Meaning, the plaintiffs had to file the case in the jurisdiction where the alleged injury happened. The plaintiffs could not search for a venue that had a tenuous connection to the case, but was more likely to contain jurors sympathetic to the plaintiff.) The number of malpractice cases filed declined, total awards paid out declined, and malpractice insurance premiums declined as a result. Tort reform isn't THE solution, but it can help. It virtually every country with nationalized health care, for example, it is harder for plaintiffs to sue health care providers. Great Britain, for example, has adopted the "loser pays" rule, which means that an unsuccessful plaintiff can end up paying court costs. In the U.S., an unsuccessful plaintiff can still have the defendant pay court costs. This discourages plaintiffs from filing marginal suits. Edited August 20, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 From factcheck.com http://factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-ins...e-not-everyone/ Why does FC not mention Obama stating he is for single payer and how long it will take to get rid of Private Ins? Horrible fact checking. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Why does FC not mention Obama stating he is for single payer and how long it will take to get rid of Private Ins? Horrible fact checking. Peace and Blessings Why don't you list where and when Obama said that, and where he said "how long"? It's not "Horrible fact checking" if he didn't say those things. Intelligence and Perspective Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Why don't you list where and when Obama said that, and where he said "how long"? It's not "Horrible fact checking" if he didn't say those things. Intelligence and Perspective Just listen carefully to what HE says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Why don't you list where and when Obama said that, and where he said "how long"? It's not "Horrible fact checking" if he didn't say those things. Intelligence and Perspective Here you go. I think its the 2nd or 3rd time I have posted it. Maybe the 4th or 5th time its been posted in the last couple weeks if not more. ---- Know what Ed. This mirrors another response you have to one of my posts. You will be able to respond to this one? ---- (Edstock @ Aug 11 2009, 08:19 PM) *Please cite sources. Of course, you're aware that Obama's kin were on the wrong side of the continent. The slave trade to the US was primarily from West Africa. Knowledge and Comprehension Those were primarily for trade to the West. Arabs came into Africa and created hostile environments between tribes or what not and then bought the slaves that resulted from it. Zanzibar slave trade Do a search on Muslim Slave Trade, Arab Slave Trade, Eastern Slave Trade. Peace and Blessings ---- Is there something going on with the Blue Underlined that I should know about? I just don't see it on your other posts so it must be some message just for me? But I find that so odd since you are usually so forward? Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Interesting comments by Dr. Brian Day, past Director of the Canadian Medical Association....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Canadians visit U.S. to get health care Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Sorry, I've been away. That's isn't what the story says at all. OHIP is paying for Ontario citizens to get the care they need when they can't have it provided in province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Okay, so Canada has figured out that it is less expensive to send patients to the US for treatment than to build the facilities it would require to provide the service in Canada. Good for Canada. Hmm... less expensive to send them to the US. How could that be? I thought our care was poor and expensive? Could it be that the way to spend less per patient is to not offer certain expensive procedures? Now here is an idea: reduce costs by reducing the level and type of service offered, like the DMV, or the VA hospitals. When the US begins to ration care, then where will the Canadians go, or for that matter, the Americans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 26, 2009 Author Share Posted August 26, 2009 Now here is an idea: reduce costs by reducing the level and type of service offered, like the DMV, or the VA hospitals. When the US begins to ration care, then where will the Canadians go, or for that matter, the Americans? When your HMO is operated like the DMV, you're SOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joihan777 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 When your HMO is operated like the DMV, you're SOL. To add to that: There are already TWO federally run healthcare agencies that I am aware of. 1. The VA 2. Indian Health Services Sorry to all pro-socialized healthcare folks, but neither one of these institutions are known as "the best". Although I would say, for the actual percentage of Americans unable to get access to healthcare ( 3 million, NOT that phony 40million number), the VA should be improved to accept them.... NO OTHER CHNAGES to our system. Also, all federal employees (incl. President, Congresspeople, Supreme Justices) should get free healthcare ONLY at the VA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.