White House Isn't Concerned by Health-Care Protests (Let them eat Cake!)

[Hugo Chavez]

I guess Rules for Radicals is backfiring on Obama.

would you care to tell me what happened to left leaning protesters that came to political events during the Bush years with the objective of "Be Disruptive Early And Often?"  Don't tell me you don't know, I can show you video after video of them being taken out and sometimes arrested but certainly not allowed to stay.  Now imagine that happening to some of these guys doing that!  hahahaha, you all would be screaming about your first amendment rights.  But what did righties say about lefties when they got hauled off?  Pretty much fuck them.  I'm sure you don't see anything wrong with this picture

[shootfighter1]

I support protests on healthcare and am dissapointed by the administration's actions but I am not in favor of using the old 'community organizer's' way of disrupting and getting in people's faces.
We need an honest debate.  I think many people are pissed at this administration's "we know best attitude and if you disagree, you shouldn't be heard".  That is very disturbing...even more than the protestors IMO.

[shootfighter1]

Sorry to repeat my point, but please ask yourselves why malpractice issues, judicial pre-screenings and tort reform were left completely out of this bill.  Medical practitioners have suggested these things for several years.  These items will reduce healthcare costs and are easy to implement in the current (or new) system.  Leading congressional democrats (and Obama) are in the pockets of trial lawyers.  That is scary.

[Decker]

Sorry to repeat my point, but please ask yourselves why malpractice issues, judicial pre-screenings and tort reform was left completely out of this bill.  These items will reduce healthcare costs and are easy to implement in the current (or new) system.  Leading congressional democrats (and Obama) are in the pockets of trial lawyers.  That is scary.

B/c Tort reform is a non-issue.  It's costs are negligible. 

It's a red herring set up by the Right so that the public can point to a singular reason/bogey man as the source of their health care woes.

Tort reform is complete hogwash.  Not even a little relevant.

[Soul Crusher]

B/c Tort reform is a non-issue.  It's costs are negligible. 

It's a red herring set up by the Right so that the public can point to a singular reason/bogey man as the source of their health care woes.

Tort reform is complete hogwash.  Not even a little relevant.

No its not.  Most docs admit that they perform defensive medicine and order battoeries of tests as CYA to avoid lawsuits. 

Additionally, med mal premiuims are huge for many docs which force them out of the profression and to concentrate in only the most lucrative of areas.   

[shootfighter1]

Almost all medical societies would disagree with you Decker.  Defensive medicine practices are real and are costly.  Jury rewards are often very large and settlements happen all the time (much more prevalent than jury rewards).  Please also address judicial pre-screening, I have yet to hear a good argument against this practice.  I think only a trial lawyer would be against these things.

Most medical malpractice cases never go to trial, large settlements are agreed upon by insurance companies, hospitals and medical groups.  Insurance companies know this and drive up malpractice costs for the practitioner to cover these.  If a practitioner has any malpractice case on their record (win, loose or settled), it is on your record permanently and your malpractice costs go up.  Completely unfair.  You should understand this.

[Soul Crusher]

Almost all medical societies would disagree with you Decker.  Defensive medicine practices are real and are costly.  Jury rewards are often very large and settlements happen all the time (much more prevalent than jury rewards).  Please also address judicial pre-screening, I have yet to hear a good argument against this practice.  I think only a trial lawyer would be against these things.

Most medical malpractice cases never go to trial, large settlements are agreed upon by insurance companies, hospitals and medical groups.  Insurance companies know this and drive up malpractice costs for the practitioner to cover these.  If a practitioner has any malpractice case on their record (win, loose or settled), it is on your record permanently and your malpractice costs go up.  Completely unfair.  You should understand this.

Decker probably also believes that adding 45 million new patients to the system without med mal reform will not result in a huge flood of new cases being filed either and premiuims going up for Docs.

The stupidity in liberal la la land knows no bounds.   

[Decker]

No its not.  Most docs admit that they perform defensive medicine and order battoeries of tests as CYA to avoid lawsuits. 

Additionally, med mal premiuims are huge for many docs which force them out of the profression and to concentrate in only the most lucrative of areas.   

Gee, doctors admitting that they are practicing medicine just above the negligence line is somehow the fault of the threat of legal retribution?

Great, says I.

I'm sick of lazy-ass doctors cutting off the wrong goddam leg or prescribing the wrong medicine or generally doing a less than adequate job.

You should be grateful.

Doctoring is a serious life and death business.  They'd better carry premium malpractice insurance.

[Decker]

Almost all medical societies would disagree with you Decker.  Defensive medicine practices are real and are costly.  Jury rewards are often very large and settlements happen all the time (much more prevalent than jury rewards).  Please also address judicial pre-screening, I have yet to hear a good argument against this practice.  I think only a trial lawyer would be against these things.

Most medical malpractice cases never go to trial, large settlements are agreed upon by insurance companies, hospitals and medical groups.  Insurance companies know this and drive up malpractice costs for the practitioner to cover these.  If a practitioner has any malpractice case on their record (win, loose or settled), it is on your record permanently and your malpractice costs go up.  Completely unfair.  You should understand this.

You are correct about malpractice cases. There was a comprehensive study done by Harvard showing:

The Harvard researchers took a huge sample of 31,000 medical records, dating from the mid-1980s, and had them evaluated by practicing doctors and nurses, the professionals most likely to be sympathetic to the demands of the doctor's office and operating room. The records went through multiple rounds of evaluation, and a finding of negligence was made only if two doctors, working independently, separately reached that conclusion. Even with this conservative methodology, the study found that doctors were injuring one out of every 25 patients—and that only 4 percent of these injured patients sued.  http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

That doesn't seem to be a pressing problem, does it?

[Decker]

Decker probably also believes that adding 45 million new patients to the system without med mal reform will not result in a huge flood of new cases being filed either and premiuims going up for Docs.

The stupidity in liberal la la land knows no bounds.   

Do you know what a frivolous lawsuit is?

Do you know the procedural mechanism in place for dealing with frivolous lawsuits?

Do you believe that we should relax the standards for negligence by doctors b/c gosh darn it, medical malpractice is just too expensive?

[Soul Crusher]

Do you know what a frivolous lawsuit is?

Do you know the procedural mechanism in place for dealing with frivolous lawsuits?

Do you believe that we should relax the standards for negligence by doctors b/c gosh darn it, medical malpractice is just too expensive?

Decker, dont patronize me, I have a JD and know the system far better than you do. 

[Decker]

Decker, dont patronize me, I have a JD and know the system far better than you do. 

Then you must know about frivolous lawsuits...the motion for directed verdict...the sanctions and penalties.  So it's fairly certain that malpractice cases generally have merit.

Or are you complaining that negligent doctors should get a lighter ride for cutting of the wrong goddam leg or botching you child's surgery killing him/her?

I want to see where your heart is at?

[Soul Crusher]

Then you must know about frivolous lawsuits...the motion for directed verdict...the sanctions and penalties.  So it's fairly certain that malpractice cases generally have merit.

Or are you complaining that negligent doctors should get a lighter ride for cutting of the wrong goddam leg or botching you child's surgery killing him/her?

I want to see where your heart is at?

Absolutely not, I believe there should be special med mal courts like there are for no-fault claims in NYC concerning medical bills. 

I think the cases should go to non-binding mediation before a panel before they can file in court.  A person can get an idea of what they can expect and then decide to go to court or not before tying up the system ,experts, witnesses, etc. 

No one should ever be denied their right to sue, but I believe there should be a process to resolve these cases prior to formal litigation being initiated.

[Decker]

Absolutely not, I believe there should be special med mal courts like there are for no-fault claims in NYC concerning medical bills. 

I think the cases should go to non-binding mediation before a panel before they can file in court.  A person can get an idea of what they can expect and then decide to go to court or not before tying up the system ,experts, witnesses, etc. 

No one should ever be denied their right to sue, but I believe there should be a process to resolve these cases prior to formal litigation being initiated.

So you want to create another level of bureaucracy to handle medical malpractice claims?

The core claims for Tort Reform are:

1.  There are too many frivolous malpractice suits

2.  Damages are out of control.

1+2 = the demise of our healthcare system.

That's just untrue.

Look at the Harvard study I referenced showing that over some 20+ year period, only 4% of malpractice victims sued.

[Soul Crusher]

So you want to create another level of bureaucracy to handle medical malpractice claims?

The core claims for Tort Reform are:

1.  There are too many frivolous malpractice suits

2.  Damages are out of control.

1+2 = the demise of our healthcare system.

That's just untrue.

Look at the Harvard study I referenced showing that over some 20+ year period, only 4% of malpractice victims sued.

I also dont believe in casino verdicts. 

Why should one injured patient get 100k for a screw up and the other get 1 million for the same thing? 

I know about the verdicts sheets etc, but it seems to me that there is little consistency in verdicts, settlements, etc.

[George Whorewell]

4% of malpractice victims sued- How many settled out of court, how many never had to file a complaint and for how many hundreds of millions of dollars do you think these cases went away?

How many others had incompatent attorneys that either missed the statute of limitations or that applied the wrong toll, or thought they had a foreign object action when it was plain old med mal?

and FYI how many products liability cases do you want to throw into this mix? Pharmaceudical companies sued for medicines with side effects, equipment malfunctioning, and on and on.

When you factor in treble damages, pain and suffering, plaintiff friendly jurisdictions, jury verdicts and attorneys fees, you have enough money to build a pyramid out of thousand dollar bills. And who ends up paying for that shit in the end? We do.

[Decker]

I also dont believe in casino verdicts. 

Why should one injured patient get 100k for a screw up and the other get 1 million for the same thing? 

I know about the verdicts sheets etc, but it seems to me that there is little consistency in verdicts, settlements, etc.

You know it depends on the facts of the case, the law and the judge (sometimes).  I would think that any fidelity to stare decisis would also apply to damages.  It depends.

[Soul Crusher]

You know it depends on the facts of the case, the law and the judge (sometimes).  I would think that any fidelity to stare decisis would also apply to damages.  It depends.

I understand that, but to me, compensation for a certain injury by med mal should not depend on the luck of jury selection, venue, etc.   

[Decker]

4% of malpractice victims sued- How many settled out of court, how many never had to file a complaint and for how many hundreds of millions of dollars do you think these cases went away?

How many of those cases that were settled were b/c some drunk or high doctor killed his patient?  I think the study does address the settlement number.

How many others had incompatent attorneys that either missed the statute of limitations or that applied the wrong toll, or thought they had a foreign object action when it was plain old med mal?

I don't know.  We are talking about medical malpractice lawsuits (frivolous or otherwise) as the basis for the deterioration of our healthcare system.

and FYI how many products liability cases do you want to throw into this mix? Pharmaceudical companies sued for medicines with side effects, equipment malfunctioning, and on and on.

Why should I be upset with a Pharmacuetical company sued for distributing a dangerous medicine?

When you factor in treble damages, pain and suffering, plaintiff friendly jurisdictions, jury verdicts and attorneys fees, you have enough money to build a pyramid out of thousand dollar bills. And who ends up paying for that shit in the end? We do.

The median cost of medical malpractice cases is $139,000.  With that #, your pyramid would fit a key chain.  The number of million dollar awards is less than one half of one percent of all annual awards.

44,000 to 98,000 people die from medical malpractice each year.

Here's a pretty good compendium on the issue of medical malpractice.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB%20Report_Final.pdf