quote:

I'm 42 and remember health care and health insurance being just fine prior to heavy government involvement and every other do-gooder telling us all what's best for us.

I remember my father having a policy that kicked in at several tens of thousands of dollars. Catastrophic coverage if you will. When we went to the doctor, we paid the doctor. It was really quite simple.

As do I and the best approaches are usually the simplest. The government (politicians) solutions will never be the best (simplest) answer. Insurance companies and their lobbyists have contributed to the mess we have now as well though.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Why?

Because the number of BS lawsuits greatly increase the cost of medical care.

That’s an urban myth. It’s very difficult to take legal action against a doctor or hospital and actually end up with a settlement.

Where do you get this so-called myth? Do you know the time and effort (translation, money) it takes to prepare a case to defend a doctor who has been sued. It ain't cheap. It's huge. As a physician, I've been sued twice, both ridiculous lawsuits. Both times, my sides fought back, and the plaintiffs eventually dropped the cases. There were zero settlements. Still, the costs were great, with all the time prepping the cases, coaching, interviewing so many involved, and those not involved, paying for expert testimonies, etc...

And, one in 14 doctors faces a malpractice suit every year, and almost every physician should expect to be sued at least once in the career.
https://www.insurancejournal.c...011/08/19/211634.htm

And, the huge indirect cost, as a result, is that most docs will order a gazillion tests and unnecessary medical therapies to cover their asses, despite medical guidelines recommending otherwise.

I’m still throwing the bullshit flag. Doctors are not being sued into poverty unless they suck real bad. I don’t even know any lawyers who would take a case unless a doctor, clinic, or hospital really fucked up. The anti-tort crowd would love to see the system of checks and balances disappear because of their hatred of lawyers.

You're right. Doctors aren't sued into poverty. It's the insurance companies paying the cost of defending and settling cases. The doctors just pay the monstrous premiums that result. I don't think there is currently a shortage of attorneys that will take on a possibly dubious case. The potential payoff is too good to pass up.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
I’m still throwing the bullshit flag. Doctors are not being sued into poverty unless they suck real bad. I don’t even know any lawyers who would take a case unless a doctor, clinic, or hospital really fucked up. The anti-tort crowd would love to see the system of checks and balances disappear because of their hatred of lawyers.

So, you're basically just talking out of your ass. It's funny, when I hear people say, "I've never seen this or that", I laughed and said, "You haven't been around long enough to see everything." I just gave you facts. I just gave you example from one doctor who experienced 2 frivolous lawsuits. And, that's just one doctor.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
I’m still throwing the bullshit flag. Doctors are not being sued into poverty unless they suck real bad. I don’t even know any lawyers who would take a case unless a doctor, clinic, or hospital really fucked up. The anti-tort crowd would love to see the system of checks and balances disappear because of their hatred of lawyers.

So, you're basically just talking out of your ass. It's funny, when I hear people say, "I've never seen this or that", I laughed and said, "You haven't been around long enough to see everything." I just gave you facts. I just gave you example from one doctor who experiences 2 frivolous lawsuits. And, that's just one doctor.

You gave me anecdotal stories. I get it. You’re a doctor and you hate lawyers. I could give you stories of doctors and hospitals that have no right to be licensed and we could argue all night over anecdotal stories. I’m sure you’re the best in your field but there are doctors, nurses, x-ray techs, administrators, etc who do not belong in the medical business. Malpractice law is the the best system we have to keep everyone honest. If you have a better way of making whole the errors of your colleagues, I’m all ears.

quote:

Originally posted by car541:
While I think that Obamacare is a terrible system and deserves to go, I do not think that it is the place of a federal court to declare it unconstitutional on the basis that a regulatory scheme passed by Congress is not economically sound.

The ACA was passed under the Commerce Clause. When it got to SCOTUS, the Surpremes agreed that it was unconstitutional. Justice Robert then took a massive leap and said the ACA was a “tax” and was legal under the “Tax and Spend” clause.
However, Congress Did Not pass ACA under the “Tax and Spend” clause. The ACA was clearly sold as not being a tax. So we have one branch of the government dictating to another branch.
The judge in this case clearly understands this. The “fix” is for Congress to pass the ACA under the “Tax and Spend” clause. That is, if they wan5 to take the heat for such a tax increase.

This case is heading to the Surpreme Court. Which means a ruling no earlier then next summer or more likely 2020. For all the democrat whining, nothing is going to change before then. A rational approach would be to fix the health care insurance now and make the decision moot.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
I’m still throwing the bullshit flag. Doctors are not being sued into poverty unless they suck real bad. I don’t even know any lawyers who would take a case unless a doctor, clinic, or hospital really fucked up. The anti-tort crowd would love to see the system of checks and balances disappear because of their hatred of lawyers.

So, you're basically just talking out of your ass. It's funny, when I hear people say, "I've never seen this or that", I laughed and said, "You haven't been around long enough to see everything." I just gave you facts. I just gave you example from one doctor who experiences 2 frivolous lawsuits. And, that's just one doctor.

You gave me anecdotal stories. I get it. You’re a doctor and you hate lawyers. I could give you stories of doctors and hospitals that have no right to be licensed and we could argue all night over anecdotal stories. I’m sure you’re the best in your field but there are doctors, nurses, x-ray techs, administrators, etc who do not belong in the medical business. Malpractice law is the the best system we have to keep everyone honest. If you have a better way of making whole the errors of your colleagues, I’m all ears.

Man, just throwing out generalization and assumption makes you look ridiculous.

First, generalization, "The anti-tort crowd would love to see the system of checks and balances disappear because of their hatred of lawyers." Where do you get this generalization crap?

Second, assumption, "You’re a doctor and you hate lawyers." I only hate the shady ones, just like I hate any shady doctors. And, I respect good ones.
You don't need to tell me any "stories". I know plenty.
Oh, btw, my youngest sis is a lawyer, and her husband is a med mal attorney, and they are highly ethical. Yeah, I hate lawyers.

"Malpractice law is the the best system we have to keep everyone honest." - Let me ask you this simple question. Are you in favor of the loser pay system? Or, is the status quo the best system?

quote:

Originally posted by nasig:
You're right. Doctors aren't sued into poverty. It's the insurance companies paying the cost of defending and settling cases. The doctors just pay the monstrous premiums that result. I don't think there is currently a shortage of attorneys that will take on a possibly dubious case. The potential payoff is too good to pass up.

Your facts aren’t welcome here. Labels have already been thrown out. Anyone who sees abuse in the courts day in and day out is now “anti tort” and hates America. Or some such something.

Well, here's a fact you can check with any insurance company serving any part of the medical industry.

One lawsuit gets filed - somewhere in the US, it honestly doesn't matter where - and is extremely expensive to defend against. That's whether the lawsuit is valid or not and whether a plaintiff wins, gets a settlement, gets diddly-squat or walks away with nothing. Everyone in the industry then spends whatever time and money they have to in order to avoid being sued because even if the lawsuit is settled or goes away, it's expensive, time-consuming and a big bucket of mental anguish given that no one ever knows which way a jury will jump. End result? Prices go up for everyone.

Think I'm kidding or just talking BS? Go ahead - ask someone in the insurance industry that knows about insuring the medical industry. That way you don't have to just take one random person's word (online, no less) for it, and you'll never even have to worry about labels getting slapped on anything.

quote:

Go ahead - ask someone in the insurance industry

or any doctor or hospital administrator

quote:

Originally posted by nasig:

quote:

Why does it have to be affordable to someone who lead a high risk life style? Why should I have to pay for someone like that so their healthcare can be "affordable"?

I agree that doesn't make sense and is not the answer. However, it reminds me of the old argument; why should I pay for schools when I don't have kids? Somewhere in the mix is a reasonable answer because we all benefit from a society that finds the answers.

I for one do not think that you should pay for schools if you don't have kids. I paid for my kids to go to school. I think other people should pay for their own kids to go to school.

I happen to think that education is too important to turn over to the government and you get better education without government schools. Healthcare should also be too important to turn over to the government.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
I for one do not think that you should pay for schools if you don't have kids. I paid for my kids to go to school. I think other people should pay for their own kids to go to school.

I happened to think that education is too important to turn over to the government and you get better education without government schools. Healthcare should also be too important to turn over to the government.

That is a really interesting one. We’ve paid for our kids schooling so far (son is a junior, daughter a freshman, both in high school) and I doubt that will change before undergraduate degrees. I wonder if some parents wouldn’t pay for their kids schooling though? And if not, are we better off as a society if they are miseducated / indoctrinated by government schools or just uneducated? I don’t have any answers, but thanks for making me think about the question!

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Why?

Because the number of BS lawsuits greatly increase the cost of medical care.

That’s an urban myth. It’s very difficult to take legal action against a doctor or hospital and actually end up with a settlement.

Where do you get this so-called myth? Do you know the time and effort (translation, money) it takes to prepare a case to defend a doctor who has been sued. It ain't cheap. It's huge. As a physician, I've been sued twice, both ridiculous lawsuits. Both times, my sides fought back, and the plaintiffs eventually dropped the cases. There were zero settlements. Still, the costs were great, with all the time prepping the cases, coaching, interviewing so many involved, and those not involved, paying for expert testimonies, etc...

...

My wife was a plantiff in a major malpractice suit. It was a very valid suit, but of course, I am biased. I can also tell you that it also takes a HUGE amount of resources as a plaintiff to sue a doctor for malpractice. In our case, it cost us about $85,000, NOT INCLUDING legal expenses, to sue. We did receive a significant amount in the end, but not enough to really cover a lifetime of disability, loss of income, and loss of quality of life, due to an inept surgeon. The injury occurred during a surgical operation in 1996, and my wife is still on disability and unable to work to this day, is on serious pain meds (morphine, methadone, and Gabapentin). A medical malpractice suit is one of the most expensive suits a plaintiff can bring, and your attorney CANNOT legally pay the costs up front, except for the legal costs. We were lucky that we could afford to fund the suit.

Our attorneys told us right up front that we have an 80% chance of losing our suit, because of the perception that plaintiffs are out to make a fast buck. In addition, try getting other doctors to testify in your behalf against another doctor. They don't want to do it.

12131, I sympathize with your situation, as I know there are indeed BS lawsuits out there. I am simply saying there are two sides of the coin, and not all lawsuits are frivolous. Regarding tort reform, how do you separate the frivolous suits from the ones with merit? There are physicians out there that shouldn't be practicing. Nothing is done about them unless complaints are raised, which typically is in the form of lawsuits. I am not saying that is a good system, but it is the way things work now.

In my state (Virginia) there is a cap on the amount of funds a plaintiff can recover. This actually makes things worse. Since the defendant knows the worst possible loss they could incur, there is no incentive for them to settle quickly out of court. As a result, more cases end up in the court system, and more legal expenses are incurred by the defendant.

I have no answer on how to fix all this in a way that is reasonable for both sides, I am just saying not all suits are frivolous, some suits are quite valid, and any medical malpractice suit is very tough for both sides.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
So, you're basically just talking out of your ass.

You haven't been around long enough to see everything.

Man, just throwing out generalization and assumption makes you look ridiculous.

I have my opinion. You have yours. Apparently, I struck a nerve. I was having a civil conversation with you and the rest of the members in this thread and you go straight to rude and belligerent. Is this any indication of your bedside manners?

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
Is this any indication of your bedside manners?

No need to be a dick here PD.

You clearly don't understand the pressure that even the best of providers are under with regard to malpractice. Charges, usually, are entirely subjective, very common, and very costly (both emotionally and financially). That is a huge burden to carry.

Even if you do everything right, your career and your life can be ruined by overzealous plaintiffs and attorneys. Are there any other professions where that occurs?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
Is this any indication of your bedside manners?

No need to be a dick here PD.

You too? I’m not the one who has resorted to rude and crude.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Your facts aren’t welcome here.

Explain this remark, please.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
So, you're basically just talking out of your ass.

Moderated Status awaits you if I see this again. Be nice. You can argue your point without this kind of stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by PD:
Is this any indication of your bedside manners?

No need to be a dick here PD.

I beg to differ. Who fired first?

Manners, gentlemen. You have them. Let's see them.