8/18 More evidence US healthcare system is broken:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/business/19care.html?hp
"Rising Cost of Health Benefits Cited as Factor in Slump of Jobs"
\_ login: csuatroll
pw: csuasucks
\_ Can someone please fix csuamotd's password?
\_ I recently saw some additional evidence that California's
educational system is broken and that the earth is round.
Is anyone arguing these points? -phuqm
\_ Yep. Trail lawyers destroyed it, and now people want to elect
one to fix it. THAT makes sense...
\_ It's been shown that rising HMO and drug company profits (and
marketing expenditures) have a lot more to do with it than rising
malpractice insurance. Also, FWIW, malpractice premiums are
rising faster than the volume of jury awards. Perhaps you should
be blaming greedy corporations in stead.
\_ The malpractice insurance market wouldn't be able to bear
the rising cost if not for the trail lawyers. The fact
that someone with a false claim and an evil lawyer can,
with little cost to themselves, potentially destroy a
doctor's whole life, tends to make doctors a bit nervous.
Hence the rising rates. Would you like some nice
stories about doctor's getting screwed?
\_ I'm saying the insurance companies are raising rates more
than they have to to reap extra profits. Would you like
some nice stories about patients getting screwed?
\_ Ummm.. duh. Ever hear of economics? Charge what
the market will bear? That's a fact of business.
I'm saying that we've created a legal enviornment
that breeds legalized extortion, which results in
a legalized protection racket. Making laws to
fight the symptoms isn't going to fix the problem.
It's not good for doctors OR patients.
\_ Surely you realize the necessity of the possibility
of large court judgements to curtail the rate of
doctor error. If court judgments are not large
enough to make a lawyer want to take the case,
there's not much incentive for a doctor to do a
competant job.
\_ I was concentrating on the "little cost to
themselves" problem. What does it cost
someone to make false accusations? What
is the cost of losing to the accusor? And
are you arguing that the lawyer fees in these
cases AREN'T excessive?
\_ The lawyer fee comes out of the judgement and
is between the lawyer and their client. If
they bring a clearly meritless claim, the
doctor (or their insurance company) can sue for
*their* lawyer fees. The patient has no
disincentive to bring a possibly-meritorius
case, but they still have to convince a lawyer
that is has some chance of winning.
Answer this question: What would the ideal
legal system be for this case. You have an
indigent patient who had an unsatisfactory
outcome to their treatment. They think their
doctor screwed up, but it is a matter of
debate. What would they have to do before they
can sue? If they win, should they recieve just
compensatory damages, or enough to make it
worthwhile for their lawyer. If they lose,
who should have to pay either party's legal
fees?
\_ I'm not sure what you mean by this:
If they win, should they recieve just
compensatory damages, or enough to make it
worthwhile for their lawyer.
\_ Say, $5,000 for being out of work a few
months (which is not enough damages to make
a lawyer interested), or $50,000 for pain
and suffering or punitive damages, which
is enough that the case can procede.
\_ Can't the plantiff sue for Medical
damages, being out of work, and
legal fees?
\_ Well the question is what kind of
damages *should* we let people sue for
should there be a cap, and should
there be another disincentive to sue
too readily.
\_ Ok, niether. All legal fees must be
predifined. Loser automatically pays
legal fees for both parties. Plantiffs
and Defendants must have this
explained to them before any fees are
charged to the "case account." For that
party.
\_ Alright, that might be a sane system, if
contingency lawyers start agree to cover
the fees in the event of a loss. The
current proposed solutions "make it very
hard to sue" and "make the damages small"
ignore the side effect that doctors
would be able to get away with being
major fuckups.
\_ I certainly agree with you there.
\_ Malpractice insurance costs are rising rapidly. My
neighbor is doctor. His insurance went up 5% last year
and just about every year. He can't charge his patients
more, because he has a contracted rate with the HMO/PPO
plan he is a member of. What does he do? See more
patients? Take a 5% cut in salary every year?
\_ Some people blame the lawyers. I think they're a necessary
evil and blame the malpractice insurers and the HMOs.
If we went to a NHS system we wouldn't have malpractice
insurers because the 'defendant' would be the NHS, and we'd
still have buearocrats (sp?) making decsions about levels
of care, but at least they wouldn't be motivated by a
profit motive.
\_ "A centerpiece of Mr. Kerry's plan would be to reduce health
insurance premiums by having the federal government pick up 75
percent of the cost of catastrophic medical care. That would
reduce the cost to employers and employees about 10 percent,
or $1,000 a year, according to campaign officials."
How the heck does this make any sense at all? Where do people
think government money comes from? Money Mines? It's freakin'
taxes! The Employees and Employers will still be paying for
the care, it will just get a percentage taken off by some
bearucrats first! And we all know bearucrats make things
cheaper, right?
\_ And he has said already where he would get that tax revenue
from, and unless you're considerably better off than me, you
won't be touched.
\_ Soak the rich! Oh wait, Kerry IS the rich. Something's
fishy...
\_ Except when I lose my job because Kerry took my venture
capitalist's money.
\_ But what if your venture capitalist is no longer paying
out the ass for HMOs for employees at the companies
he invests in?
\_ Ummm, whatever. You've never been close to venture
funding, have you? |
http://csua.com/feed/