09-08-2005 13:05									#1
	Who's side do you take in the malpractice problem in the U.S.? Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I've been meaning to do this. As some people think it's okay to sue for millions of dollars for minor mishaps.

	09-08-2005 13:09									#2
	Tired of ads?

the most obvious choice is to take the patient's side. That's why I didn't include it in the poll.

	09-08-2005 13:44									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sue for millions?? In California, it's impermissible to even specify a dollar amount in a complaint for personal injury or wrongful death. There's also a $250,000 limit on paid and suffering in malpractice award -- which is insufficient to compensate maimed babies.

People may have -signs in their eyes if they suffer a minor-injury, but first, they have to find a lawyer who's willing to invest time in the case, get a judge who let the case go to the jury and then convince a jury to make an award. These things aren't handed out like candy, no matter what the defense bar tries to make out. BTW - Juries love doctors. More than 95% of cases don't go to trial and in those cases that do, doctors ususally prevail.

50% of the medical malpractice actions are voluntarily dismissed once plaintiffs' attorney obtain the medical records and find out there was no malpractice.

With the exceptions of obstetrics and anestheology, there is no malpractice problem in America.

A few years back, there was a major malpractice insurance problem when insurance companies jacked up their premiums to make up for stock-market losses, but that does mean there was a malpractice problem.

	09-08-2005 14:14									#4
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler Sue for millions?? In California, it's impermissible to even specify a dollar amount in a complaint for personal injury or wrongful death. There's also a $250,000 limit on paid and suffering in malpractice award -- which is insufficient to compensate maimed babies. People may have -signs in their eyes if they suffer a minor-injury, but first, they have to find a lawyer who's willing to invest time in the case, get a judge who let the case go to the jury and then convince a jury to make an award. These things aren't handed out like candy, no matter what the defense bar tries to make out. BTW - Juries love doctors. More than 95% of cases don't go to trial and in those cases that do, doctors ususally prevail. 50% of the medical malpractice actions are voluntarily dismissed once plaintiffs' attorney obtain the medical records and find out there was no malpractice. With the exceptions of obstetrics and anestheology, there is no malpractice problem in America. A few years back, there was a major malpractice insurance problem when insurance companies jacked up their premiums to make up for stock-market losses, but that does mean there was a malpractice problem.

maybe it's just my city then. We can't find enough doctors to deliver babies where I live supposedly because of the malpractice problem.

I believe the doctors exaggerated the problem. I blame all sides in this. They are all scumbags. Including the patients.

Or perhaps there is no problem at all and the media is blowing it out of proportion. . That is the most likely case.

	09-08-2005 16:44									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler Sue for millions?? In California, it's impermissible to even specify a dollar amount in a complaint for personal injury or wrongful death. There's also a $250,000 limit on paid and suffering in malpractice award -- which is insufficient to compensate maimed babies.

Don't you have damages for future care, thats what we have in the UK, if a baby is hurt through negligence and needs alot of care in the future then the award can be very high, although the amount fo actual pain and suffering wouldn't be anywhere near as much.

	09-08-2005 17:35									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The main problem is the assumption that somehow it's possible for someone to fix everything with money. While this is convenient for those who do this sort of thing for a living (law firms and insurance companies) it is rarely the case. Either no amount of money in the world can compensate someone for what they have lost, or the amount of money that could do so is so out of proportion to the economy that it creates crippling effects downstream. Las Vegas medical delivery system isn't the first that has collapsed under the strain (however temporarily). Limiting pain and suffering serves as a brake to the jury shopping manipulators who take advantage of the lotto mentality in order to enrich themselves while making everyone else poorer. They produce no goods or services and add a lot less value than they take. They are in a word parasites.

	09-08-2005 18:59									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The only side I take is the one that is against insurance companies.

Nothing like taking a personal injury (a serious one) and playing three way snail-mail tag between the hospital, insurance company and victim. And then putting it all into an impersonal numbers game just so a profit could be made.

Hmm... I usually don't like to complain about something and not give a possible solution to the problem, but I just never had a solution to the problem with evil corprate insurance companies. But I just came up with a possible answer.

Not sure how it would work, but what if insurance companies were somehow required to be non-profit? Would something like this be possible?

	09-08-2005 19:04									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

the whole thing is a farce.

Banana all the way

	09-08-2005 19:49									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'm with Donegeal...

I choose the side against insurance companies.

As my hero Bill Maher said, "If a surgeon leaves an Altoid's box in my chest cavity, I want to see him in debtor's prison".

	09-08-2005 19:51									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

problem is that doctors are damned if they do and damned if they don't

requried by law to work on someone, required by law not to mess up

	09-08-2005 21:21									#11
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dis maybe it's just my city then. We can't find enough doctors to deliver babies where I live supposedly because of the malpractice problem.

I agree. See the exceptions I mentioned for obstetrics and anesthesiolgists.

When malpractice occurs in the delivery of a baby, huge damages are awarded (1) because the injury to the baby usually occurs over the entire lifetime and (2) because babies are so darn cute, it's easy to give them big awards. This is reflected in malpractice insurance rates, which is driving future obstetricians into other fields of medicine.

Anesthesiolgists always get sued whenever anything goes wrong in surgery. Their insurance rates are far higher then the surgeons, who are usually the people who've messed up.

quote: Originally posted by TheStringer Don't you have damages for future care,

Yes we do. It just that no dollar amount can be set out in the Complaint. The jury in deciding the amount of damages, if any, to award never sees the Complaint. The sole purpose for setting out big dollar amounts there was to scare the defend. "Ohhh, I'm suing you for a gazillion dollars...no, make that ten gazillion dollars. Ohhh, are you scared??"

	10-08-2005 13:11									#12
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Donegeal The only side I take is the one that is against insurance companies. Nothing like taking a personal injury (a serious one) and playing three way snail-mail tag between the hospital, insurance company and victim. And then putting it all into an impersonal numbers game just so a profit could be made. Hmm... I usually don't like to complain about something and not give a possible solution to the problem, but I just never had a solution to the problem with evil corprate insurance companies. But I just came up with a possible answer. Not sure how it would work, but what if insurance companies were somehow required to be non-profit? Would something like this be possible?

We could form not for profit insurance companies (like credit unions, but for insurance), though I'd bet that there would be an immense amount of resistance from the insurance industry and their legions of bought and paid for legislators.

	10-08-2005 13:15									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

that's probably the only reason we don't have universal health care. I can't see doing non profit health insurance companies unless they are goverment run. And if we are going to do that, we should provide health coverage to everyone.

but everyone is so resistant to change.... I guess that's why they are called conservatives.

	10-08-2005 14:04									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dis that's probably the only reason we don't have universal health care. I can't see doing non profit health insurance companies unless they are goverment run. And if we are going to do that, we should provide health coverage to everyone. but everyone is so resistant to change.... I guess that's why they are called conservatives.

My credit union does a much better job of serving my needs than any bank or government entity has ever done. We probably will have to eventually provide universal coverage for competitive reasons, but I'd personally prefer to go with a decentralized model where individuals would have more control over what their slice of the pie goes for.

	10-08-2005 18:00									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The lawyers side is the patients side, thus I chose lawyers.

	10-08-2005 18:27									#16
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Dis that's probably the only reason we don't have universal health care. I can't see doing non profit health insurance companies unless they are goverment run. And if we are going to do that, we should provide health coverage to everyone.

I was kinda thinking the same thing. I don't see how an insurance company could be non-profit, unless it was Govenment subsidized. But then you'd have the government looking over your medical bill and deciding what they were going to pay. Not a good thing.

How would a non-profit Health Insurance Company work? Stick with the same type of rates but give "dividend" type credits/checks to all policy holders? I don't know enough about non-profit or insurance.

	10-08-2005 19:13									#17
	Blue Cross Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Is an association of health insurance/care providers. I know that Blue Shield (the CA member that I use) is non-profit. I'm pretty sure many other member organizations are non-profit too. However, these guys are not cheap (my membership is heavily subsidized by my employer). I do not think these guys contribute in any way to universal health coverage.

	10-08-2005 20:52									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kaiser-Permanente is also non-profit but it looks like it will be supporting our bill in California to provide universal healthcare.

The problem with healthcare in America is the insurance-caused bureaucracy. Most countries spend 5-10% of their healthcare dollars on administration. Depending on who's study you look at, America spends 20-50% of its healthcare on administration. (Most studies put the percentage at 25-33%)

There are 10,000 health insurance plans in California. When you go into a doctor's office, they have to check to see if which plan you're in, whether you're still in that plan, what coverage is unually provided by that plan and if the plan still covers the procedure in question.

Currently, SB 840 is making its way through the California Legislature. It would provide for comprehensive universal coverage for California residents.

Although SB 840 provides far more coverage than insurance plans, and although SB 840 covers everyone in California included the 7 million currently uninsured, SB 840 would cost Californians $7 billion less that the current system because administration costs would drop down to 5% of each heath caredollar.

Kaiser Permanente is leaning towards supporting the bill. The Permanente portion of the company -- which is the insurance half -- would take it in the neck. However, the Kaiser portion -- which provides medical care -- would have a crack at 7 million more potential patients.

	10-08-2005 22:41									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I am on the side of public healthcare, whether state or federal.

	11-08-2005 04:42									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Go California!

	11-08-2005 05:03									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Donegeal The only side I take is the one that is against insurance companies. Nothing like taking a personal injury (a serious one) and playing three way snail-mail tag between the hospital, insurance company and victim. And then putting it all into an impersonal numbers game just so a profit could be made. Hmm... I usually don't like to complain about something and not give a possible solution to the problem, but I just never had a solution to the problem with evil corprate insurance companies. But I just came up with a possible answer. Not sure how it would work, but what if insurance companies were somehow required to be non-profit? Would something like this be possible?

That would be the single-payer option that Clinton and the '93 congress didn't bother with.