- Joined
- Jun 1, 2004
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
any thoughts? is it all talk or do you think we'll get some serious change accomplished in the next 4 years?
GO Florida.Seaglass said:
amuse said:any thoughts? is it all talk or do you think we'll get some serious change accomplished in the next 4 years?
Sledge2005 said:It was already blocked by the dems once during bush's last term. I hope it gets brought up again during this term. I think Bush will definitely at least push for some sort of regulations on trial lawyers.
Be careful what you wish for.amuse said:with GOP control of both the senate and house, one would think Bush will get things moving. i hope they pass the 250K limit on non-economic awards.
fuegorama said:Kerry's professional panel and arbitration ideas actually could go somewhere. There's no reason this congress couldn't put that package together. It would be an esier sell, and better for docs in the future.
fuegorama said:Some aggressive litigation for time lost to frivolous suits/slander would do a bit of good as well.
psuketu said:setting a limit isn't the answer...as long as insurance companies go unchecked. Lawyers obviously aren't free of the blame, but to think that capping damages is going to fix anything is crazy. Furthermore, when you see some of the stuff docs have done out of idiocy, incompetence and ignorance...l I think there should be a punitive monetary fine.
buddym said:When it comes to things like malpractice, abortion, taxes, etc it is mostly decided by individual states. Who is president does not really matter. THe states will decide for themselves.
psuketu said:setting a limit isn't the answer...as long as insurance companies go unchecked. Lawyers obviously aren't free of the blame, but to think that capping damages is going to fix anything is crazy. Furthermore, when you see some of the stuff docs have done out of idiocy, incompetence and ignorance...l I think there should be a punitive monetary fine.
lakerjock said:psuketu has obviously not practiced medicine to make comments as ignorant as above. his comments and lack of experience are exactly what lawyers try to accentuate in presenting to highschool dropout juries.
psuketu said:Please enlighten me oh glorious one. I may be uniformed as you suggest...but as far as I know insurance premiums are better predicted by the economy than malpractice suits. Furthermore, to claim ignorance on my part without providing evidence to back it up suggests something quite the opposite. But of course my high school education didn't learn me good enough I guess.
psuketu said:Furthermore, when you see some of the stuff docs have done out of idiocy, incompetence and ignorance...l I think there should be a punitive monetary fine.
Sledge2005 said:The market forces are all that is needed to keep insurance companies in check, it's a very competitive area. I'm always amazed at how easily supposedly educated people fall for the dnc's line that med mal insurance companies are behind the crisis. Since med mal insurance companies pay out the same amount they collect (this is a fact), how can you fault them? The only thing they did was keep med mal costs artificially low in the 90's thanks to making lots of cash off of investments. But it's not their fault that the stock market hasn't been doing well lately.
SteadyEddy said:gunshot
Idiopathic said:Shotgun? Just checking...
Idiopathic said:Are you completely ******ed? This discussion is not even about med mal insurance,
Idiopathic said:but about the general lack of regulation of insurance companies and the intense struggle to regulate the legal profession and something that actually affect civil rights.
Idiopathic said:Gee, I wonder why the Rep's are so eager to limit trial lawyers income...hmm, could it be because of who they support with that money? Would that be like an attempt by the Dems to limit the amount of money Big Oil could take in? Naah...it couldnt be that simple.
psuketu said:http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/medmal.php
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/pr/pr004698.php3
http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/605/#tr4
http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/vf_medical_malpractice_fairness.pdf
Here are just a couple sources if you have time (esp the one from the Pew Trusts...you may just want to scan it for some choice info). As you will note, the sources suggest that there is a problem, however to say that blame should be focused solely on the lawyers is nuts. That was the point of my initial post ("setting a limit isn't the answer...as long as insurance companies go unchecked. Lawyers obviously aren't free of the blame"). I would have posted more sources...but I figured this was enough.
Regarding my feelings on capping damages....that's based on personal experience with coworkers and relatives (both malpractice lawyers and doctors). I've seen far too many examples of gross negligence to think that limiting non-economic damages to 250,000 is fair. I favor caps somewhere in the 2-3 million dollar range personally. Of course that may seem just as random as setting a 250,000 limit, but I think its more fair.