- 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?
malpractice reform now that bush reelected?
- Thread starter amuse
- Start date
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 23
amuse 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.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 1
Be careful what you wish for.amuse said:
The cap could be a short term g-send, but it will quickly get stale. Reform with this solution hasn't passed basically because the public doesn't want it.
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.
Some aggressive litigation for time lost to frivolous suits/slander would do a bit of good as well.
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 23
fuegorama said:
Actually, the professional panel doesn't do jack ****. They've been institued in some states haven't affected med mal whatsoever. Lawyers can still take the frivilous cases to court and usually dupe the jury full of high school drop-outs just as easily. Edwards knows this, which is why he made professional panel as a big part of his plan.
fuegorama said:
agreed
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.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 23
psuketu 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.
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 23
buddym said:
This is true. I don't know if a federally mandated tort reform would hold up in state courts (it probably wouldn't). However, it could very likely serve as a model for state governments to adopt.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2004
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 1
Ill be skeptical until I see some concrete results. Bush talks a great game on curbing malpractice suits on the campaign trail by imposing caps on nonecon damages and I appreciated him bringing the issue to a national stage while Kerry always gave some garbage answers on the malpractice crisis but its all about results or lack of. ATLA is incredibly powerful with the money they spend and they have their stooges in both parties including some senate republicans like Hatch. We'll have to see if they can get enough votes in the senate where med mal legislation has always died.
The thing about places like California that has succesfully stabilized malpratice rates is that they didnt allow insurers to raise double digit rates until they opened their books to the state insurance regulators to justify the rate increases. Yeah the caps on nonecon damages always get the main attention but its the two pronged approach we need: make it financially unfeasible for trial lawyers to sue docs without a strong case and prevent the insurers from gouging us. Ill take one or the other over nothing.
The thing about places like California that has succesfully stabilized malpratice rates is that they didnt allow insurers to raise double digit rates until they opened their books to the state insurance regulators to justify the rate increases. Yeah the caps on nonecon damages always get the main attention but its the two pronged approach we need: make it financially unfeasible for trial lawyers to sue docs without a strong case and prevent the insurers from gouging us. Ill take one or the other over nothing.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2004
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 0
psuketu said:
We'll see if you're singing the same song when they gunshot you into a lawsuit that lasts for a year.
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.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually the big thing is that the senate is now 55:45 republican. A major bill that in addition to putting caps, also put a uniform statute of limitations, placed limits on attorney contingency fees, and a few other things was killed in the senate last year. It had already passed easily in the house and Pres Bush said he would have signed it. Hopefully with a few more conservatives, they can rally behind something.
I'm curious about the states issue. What would federal tort reform mean for individual states?
lar
I'm curious about the states issue. What would federal tort reform mean for individual states?
lar
lakerjock 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.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 23,815
- Reaction score
- 12,455
psuketu said:
Speaking of...
psuketu said:
Your evidence, please?
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,362
- Reaction score
- 18
Sledge2005 said:
Are you completely ******ed? This discussion is not even about med mal insurance, 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. 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.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,362
- Reaction score
- 18
SteadyEddy said:
Shotgun? Just checking...
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2004
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 0
yeah...you're right 
I think it is the shotgun approach.
I think it is the shotgun approach. Idiopathic said:
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 23
Idiopathic said:
maybe you should read the title of thread *****
Idiopathic said:
Uh, maybe you're having your own discussion? Once again, if the med mal insurance companies have been shown to be paying out the same amount of money that they're taking in, then I don't see why you can fault them. And how would demanding more regulation help, if they're paying out the same amount that they're collecting? Oh that's right, you just can't stand to accept that the dnc's big friend, ATLA, may really be the bad guys on this issue.
Idiopathic said:
I'm sure that's a motive, but then you have to ask, why are the dems bothering to protect the scumbag trial lawyers? And another question . . . if ATLA really wasn't doing anything wrong, why do they have to donate such large amounts of money to the government???
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.
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.
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 7,527
- Reaction score
- 23
psuketu said:
1) Please explain exactly how the med mal insurance companies are responsible. Dems always toss that idea around, but can never back it up with statistics. As I said before, you can't hold the med mal insurance companies responsible for a slow stock market.
2) You are aware that the 250k only applies to pain and suffering right? Plus, it can usually be doubled with punitive damages to 500k. That's not so shabby in my opinion. BTW, I think if a doctor makes a mistake, then it makes a lot more sense to punish the doctor. But why does every victim of a medical mistake suddenly deserve millions of dollars? Yes it's unfortunate that the doctor screwed up (and the doc deserves some sort of punishment). But does it really make sense to screw over the whole health care system to make a few victims fabulously wealthy? Heck, I know a lot of people that had tragic things happen to them, they don't suddenly deserve to be rich though! It would be nice if we could give every victim of any sort of tragedy millions of dollars. But unfortunately that money has to come from somewhere. And right now it's draining the healthcare system and basically screwing over a lot of people.
