The future of medicine

[medlaw06]

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL MESSAGE, BUT:

When you vote this year for President, please keep this in mind (once again, I am NOT advocating one stance or the other).

For those who do not know, Sen Edwards was a trial attorney before he became senator. Specifically, he was a PLAINTIFFS MALPRACTICE trial attorney. In other words, he supports UNCAPPED damages and such, and generally is more pro plainitff and "anti-"physician.

PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN ELECTIONS COME AROUND!

I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST BUSH!! I realize that, and I am not a big fan of him either, as I personally think that ALL politicians are liars!

I am NOT asking you guys to decide on Bush or Kerry SIMPLY because Kerry is "against" doctors!

I AM asking you guys to keep in mind the fact that Edwards WAS a malpractice trial attorney and is quite pro plainitff when deciding. THAT'S ALL!


KEEP ALL THESE THINGS IN MIND SINCE WE DETERMINE THE FATE OF MEDICINE AND/OR TORT REFORM!


THE DECISION IS YOURS!!


THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE A POLITICAL "PROPAGANDA" BY ANY MEANS!!!

I apologize if I have offended anyone....I did not mean to. All I am saying is to keep that fact in mind when you pull the lever to elect the nect president of the US!

HAve a nice day!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Febrifuge]

Dude, there is no way that is not a political message.

It's like Parcells saying, "no offense meant to anyone, but..."

(Edit to add this: "I'm Febrifuge, and I approve this message.")

 

[medlaw06]

look...ALL I AM SAYING IS TO THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS WHEN YOU DECIDE WHOMEVER IT IS THAT YOU WANT TO ELECT!!!


Do I really have to list the things I don't like about Bush:

1) he lied about WOMD
2) he did the Iraq thing because of: 1) his dad, and 2) oil
3) he is a bumbling *****
4) he made America look rediculous in the UN
5) he lied about Bin Ladin (I personally think Bin Ladin will "miraclously" (sp?) be found come October!)
6) he is placing innocent soldier's lives at stake by sending them off to Iraq


Then there are a slew of things that are attached to being a republican that people MAY find objectionable: their stance on welfare, abortion, tax cuts, etc


I can't stress to you enough that I DON'T GIVE A S**T WHO IT IS THAT YOU VOTE FOR....

ALL I AM SAYING IS TO KEEP ALL THESE THINGS IN MIND WHEN YOU DO VOTE!!!


Keep in mind what the future repercussions are of the person (WHOMEVER THAT MAY BE) that you want in the office.




FINALLY....I KNow that this is NOT the appropriate forum for this....

if someone can tell me where to go for this, then I'll go there instead....

 

[Phil Anthropist]

Ummm Everyone or the Lounge? I don't think the mods are too fond of duplicate postings...

 

[neutropeniaboy]

Well, why don't we make it political?

Senator John Edwards has no intention of changing the current situation with respect to medical malpractice.

Senator John Edwards frequently claims that he is a man of the people and for the people -- the elderly, the children, the "family." What, with $8,707,072 - $36,500,000 in assetts including investments in pharmaceutical and medical firms, it's hard to know just how "of the people" John Edwards really is.

Senator John Edwards is a trial attorney, and as such, he had made his career based on availing himself of the ability to sue wealthy individuals/companies for unlimited sums of money, while collecting for himself a hefty chunk of that profit.

His campaign for presidency was funded by and large by legal firms and individual attorneys: eigth out of the ten top contributors were law firms, and members of the trial lawyers association.

1. Baron & Budd (mesothelioma practice)
2. Girardi & Keese (personal injury attorneys)
3. Motley Rice LLC (health care fraud and MM)
4. Turner & Associates (personal injury, incl $25M for Bronco II rollover)
5. Williams & Bailey (personal injury, MM)
6. Wilkes & McHugh (MM)
7. Law Offices of Wade Byrd [and get this garbage from their offical statements: "Some of the most common birth defects (or injuries) are two very different conditions known as cerebral palsy and Erbs (or brachial) palsy. Both cerebral and Erbs palsy are often the result of complications during child delivery itself, though cerebral palsy can sometimes occur before or some time after delivery."] (emphasis added)
8. Minor & Associates

Senator John Edwards was ranked among the top 100 trial lawyers by Lawyers Weekly in 1996. This was based on his crushing victories involving a young girl in a storm drain and cerebal palsy cases.

Senator John Edwards has sued the American Red Cross 3 times accusing them of distrbuting HIV-tainted blood.

Senator John Edwards has led fierce opposition to any measure that would limit claims against insurance firms that are accused of denying patients "necessary" care.

Senator John Edwards has proposed measures to force pharmaceutical companies to permit more rapid delivery of generic drugs into the market system (interesting, since Edwards invests in multiple pharmaceutical companies).

Senator John Edwards voted against Medicare reform.

Senator John Edwards has voted against limiting malpractice claims.

Lastly, Senator John Edwards is now part of the team that will raise your income tax another 3-6%.

 

[Febrifuge]

...things I don't like about Bush:

1) he lied about WOMD
2) he did the Iraq thing because of: 1) his dad, and 2) oil
3) he is a bumbling *****
4) he made America look rediculous in the UN
5) he lied about Bin Ladin (I personally think Bin Ladin will "miraclously" (sp?) be found come October!)
6) he is placing innocent soldier's lives at stake by sending them off to Iraq

I'm still Febrifuge, and I also endorse this message.

 

[Gleevec]

OK neutropeniaboy, what exactly have the lying Republican scum done to help out doctors? Why is it that when the majority leader of the self-proclaimed "party of doctors" is a doctor absolutely nothing has changed.

If Republicans really cared about doctors, they could have passed legislation seeing as how they majorities in Congress and a Republican president.

But the fact is Republicans cater to business/insurance/HMOs. They could care less about doctors. Democrats cater to trial lawyers. Doctors truly have no one representing their interests now. And to think Republicans give a crap about doctors is to be foolish considering how bad things have gotten in the past four years for docs.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

OK neutropeniaboy, what exactly have the lying Republican scum done to help out doctors? Why is it that when the majority leader of the self-proclaimed "party of doctors" is a doctor absolutely nothing has changed.

My diatribe was about Edwards, specifically. I said nothing about what Republicans have done.

But, since you inquired...

Senator John Ensign, (R) of Nevada, has sponsored legislation that would limit noneconomic damages to $250,000. Earlier efforts were blocked by Nevada democrats 49-48.

Senator Judd Gregg, (R) of New Hampshire, proposed legislation to specifically protect OB/GYN physicians.

James Greenwood, (R) of Pennsylvania, tried in 2002 to cap noneconomic damages at $250,000 and impose no limit on economic losses (wages, etc.).

Senator Mitch McConnell, (R) of Kentucky, attempted to attach an amendment limiting malpractice lawsuits to the generic drugs bill in the Senate.

JoAnn D. Osmond, (R) of Antioch, Ill, proposes legislation capping noneconomic damages, reporting of physician errors, and insurance reform.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist, (R) of Tenn, and Senator Mike Enzi, (R) of Wyoming, proposed legislation (S. 2207) backed by the American Medical Association and opposed by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, tried for a third time in the Senate to curb medical malpractice awards. 60 votes were needed; 48 were obtained. Denied. That's why nothing has changed.

--

Now, I'm no Bush fanatic. As a matter of fact, I love to make fun of the guy and I probably would have voted for Kerry -- before he picked Edwards. But the fact of the matter is that the Republicans are "more on the side" of doctors than Democrats are. I'm not proclaiming that they are the "party of the doctors" as you (or they) have suggested. However, there's more sponsored legislation favoring physicians coming from Republicans than Democrats.

But back to my original thoughts: John Edwards is a snake and has made a fortune by ruining the reputation of physicians and playing a key role in preventing any positive change in the area of malpractice.

 

[Voxel]

Voting for Kerry/Edwards is a bad decision for physicians interested in malpractice reform and keeping income taxes low.

 

[Gleevec]

I understand your concerns, but the fact is insurance companies and HMOs are generally benefiting from caps rather than doctors. My state has recently adopted caps, but insurance premiums have not changed one bit in the high premium specialties (ob/gyn, CT surgery, neurosurgery). The insurance companies simply pocket the difference as profit. Ideally in a full market there would be competition, but it turns out there is a lot of collusion in the insurance industry to keep premiums high so they can all profit.

I would really like to think that SOME party actually cared about doctors (ie... caps just help insurance companies directly, but if a party proposed limiting PREMIUMS then I would be much more inclined to vote for them).

I just get the feeling that neither party is looking out for us right now, and that insurance companies and HMOs can count on Republicans, and trial lawyers can count on Democrats. If a party did something directly about PREMIUMS, I would definitely be influenced towards that direction.

My diatribe was about Edwards, specifically. I said nothing about what Republicans have done.

But, since you inquired...

Senator John Ensign, (R) of Nevada, has sponsored legislation that would limit noneconomic damages to $250,000. Earlier efforts were blocked by Nevada democrats 49-48.

Senator Judd Gregg, (R) of New Hampshire, proposed legislation to specifically protect OB/GYN physicians.

James Greenwood, (R) of Pennsylvania, tried in 2002 to cap noneconomic damages at $250,000 and impose no limit on economic losses (wages, etc.).

Senator Mitch McConnell, (R) of Kentucky, attempted to attach an amendment limiting malpractice lawsuits to the generic drugs bill in the Senate.

JoAnn D. Osmond, (R) of Antioch, Ill, proposes legislation capping noneconomic damages, reporting of physician errors, and insurance reform.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist, (R) of Tenn, and Senator Mike Enzi, (R) of Wyoming, proposed legislation (S. 2207) backed by the American Medical Association and opposed by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, tried for a third time in the Senate to curb medical malpractice awards. 60 votes were needed; 48 were obtained. Denied. That's why nothing has changed.

--

Now, I'm no Bush fanatic. As a matter of fact, I love to make fun of the guy and I probably would have voted for Kerry -- before he picked Edwards. But the fact of the matter is that the Republicans are "more on the side" of doctors than Democrats are. I'm not proclaiming that they are the "party of the doctors" as you (or they) have suggested. However, there's more sponsored legislation favoring physicians coming from Republicans than Democrats.

But back to my original thoughts: John Edwards is a snake and has made a fortune by ruining the reputation of physicians and playing a key role in preventing any positive change in the area of malpractice.

 

[neutropeniaboy]

I understand your concerns, but the fact is insurance companies and HMOs are generally benefiting from caps rather than doctors.

I'm sure this is true; it would seem that way empirically, but I have no way of verifying it.

We can agree on one thing: some doctors, especially specialists (and I'll include OBGYN as a "specialist" field) are paying disproportionately higher medical malpractice premiums than generalists. Regardless, insurance premiums for all physicians have increased over the years, and much of that has been as a result of legal action against physicians and insurance companies.

If noneconomic damages are capped, yes, the insurance companies may benefit tremendously; however, so may doctors in the long run.

The next issue is to tackle the insurance firms.

But, I think you're right when you say that no party has us as a top priority. Nevertheless, I just think that the Republicans have shown greater interest in our well-being.

 

[Sanman]

I'm with gleevec on this one. Republicans are in it to help the insurance companies, not the doctors. The truth is that most insurance companies took all of your money and invested it. When the economy tanked and they lost their shirts, they decided to take it out on doctors because they could. Nowadays, even if there are malpractice capse the insurance companies will simply pocket the extra cash for a rainy day. Its a business, why decrease profits if you don't have to. Same as at the gas pump.

 

[pockey]

as wary i am of edwards, and i am very wary. His policies could f$% me in the future.

but right now, i gotta still vote for kerry. this craziness has got to end.

 

[bobbigboote]

Well given that the Republicans haven't done anything useful for healthcare and they control both houses and the presidency, it's pretty clear they are not going to do jack for us. Especially when they're much more interested in blowing our money on unnecessary wars, leaving us with far less for actual problems like healthcare affordability, Medicare, etc.

 

[doctalaughs]

I know that trial lawyers claim that premiums rise because of bad investments of the insurance companies but is this true?

I heard an interesting talk by a top MA malpractice insurance executive. He claimed that by federal regulation, they cannot invest more than 10% of their portfolio in stock market equities, that the other 90% has to be in govt bonds, money markets, and other low risk ventures. He also said that in the past 20 years his company has never had a negative annual return on investments.

Whos telling the truth and who's lying?

 

[HamOnWholeWheat]

I can't stress to you enough that I DON'T GIVE A S**T WHO IT IS THAT YOU VOTE FOR....

ALL I AM SAYING IS TO KEEP ALL THESE THINGS IN MIND WHEN YOU DO VOTE!!!

Not to nitpick, but if you didn't care who we vote for, then why do you care what's on our mind's while voting? That's like saying you don't care if I want to go jump off a bridge, but then try to sell me a parachute.

I'm so confused I think I'll vote Nader. So keep that in mind the next time you're busy caring but simultaneously not caring about things.

HamOn

 

[juddson]

I know that trial lawyers claim that premiums rise because of bad investments of the insurance companies but is this true?

I heard an interesting talk by a top MA malpractice insurance executive. He claimed that by federal regulation, they cannot invest more than 10% of their portfolio in stock market equities, that the other 90% has to be in govt bonds, money markets, and other low risk ventures. He also said that in the past 20 years his company has never had a negative annual return on investments.

Whos telling the truth and who's lying?

This is true more or less depending on the insurance regulations of the state the company operates in. Some limit investment in higher risk activies to 10%, others to 20% - but the overall statement is correct. This, however, ignores the fundamental reality, which is DESPITE regulations that generally limit investments to low risk vehicles, investment income over the last 5 years is substantially down for insurance carriers. That is, even though insurance companies have not seen negative returns in 35 years, returns have been substantially lower, which deflates claims reserves, which means that the revenues must be made up in premiums. This very same thing happened in the mid-1980's and has again happened over the last five years - reserves track the general economy and claims track the medical services inflation market.

http://www.insurance-reform.org/StableLosses2003F.pdf

The jury is still out on this.

judd

 

[DrDre']

Haven't seen reference to DeadMIlkmen in forever. Des Moines or IC?

Good luck with humidity of late

 

[HamOnWholeWheat]

.

 

[doctalaughs]

This is true more or less depending on the insurance regulations of the state the company operates in. Some limit investment in higher risk activies to 10%, others to 20% - but the overall statement is correct. This, however, ignores the fundamental reality, which is DESPITE regulations that generally limit investments to low risk vehicles, investment income over the last 5 years is substantially down for insurance carriers. That is, even though insurance companies have not seen negative returns in 35 years, returns have been substantially lower, which deflates claims reserves, which means that the revenues must be made up in premiums. This very same thing happened in the mid-1980's and has again happened over the last five years - reserves track the general economy and claims track the medical services inflation market.

http://www.insurance-reform.org/StableLosses2003F.pdf

The jury is still out on this.

judd

That data is pretty convincing although it obviously comes from a biased group. How could this trend be prevented? Doesn't almost every company invest in the market to remain competitive?

The one thing I'm not sure about - they keep saying that claims track to medical inflation. Unless I'm wrong, medical inflation is much much higher than regular inflation, so it would be a major problem even if premiums tracked to medical inflation since they would be rising much more than doctor's incomes.

 

[devildoc2]

OK neutropeniaboy, what exactly have the lying Republican scum done to help out doctors? Why is it that when the majority leader of the self-proclaimed "party of doctors" is a doctor absolutely nothing has changed.

If Republicans really cared about doctors, they could have passed legislation seeing as how they majorities in Congress and a Republican president.

But the fact is Republicans cater to business/insurance/HMOs. They could care less about doctors. Democrats cater to trial lawyers. Doctors truly have no one representing their interests now. And to think Republicans give a crap about doctors is to be foolish considering how bad things have gotten in the past four years for docs.

This argument doesnt make any sense. Democrats are openly ANTAGONISTIC to doctors. Therefore, they are WORSE than republicans who dont hold a view one way or the other.

Your argument is like me saying that its preferable to have a tiger chasing me thru the jungle, as opposed to a tiger who is just sitting there doing nothing.

 

[devildoc2]

This is true more or less depending on the insurance regulations of the state the company operates in. Some limit investment in higher risk activies to 10%, others to 20% - but the overall statement is correct. This, however, ignores the fundamental reality, which is DESPITE regulations that generally limit investments to low risk vehicles, investment income over the last 5 years is substantially down for insurance carriers. That is, even though insurance companies have not seen negative returns in 35 years, returns have been substantially lower, which deflates claims reserves, which means that the revenues must be made up in premiums. This very same thing happened in the mid-1980's and has again happened over the last five years - reserves track the general economy and claims track the medical services inflation market.

http://www.insurance-reform.org/StableLosses2003F.pdf

The jury is still out on this.

judd

Judd, the GAO report SPECIFICALLY concluded that less than 7% of the premium increase that med mal insurance companies charge is due to investment losses. 93% of it is due to OTHER causes (increased profit, increased losses on claims, etc) but its clear that its A FALSEHOOD to imply or state that the bulk of insurance premiums are related to investment losses. Thats simply not accurate.