Universal Health Care

[hm0504]

Looks like the topic of universal health care might become a central topic in the next U.S. federal elections (also in some state elections).

[hm0504]

Looks like the topic of universal health care might become a central topic in the next U.S. federal elections (also in some state elections).

[hm0504]

To kick things off, here's a good article here:
"Caring for America's health":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6302043.stm

[usmc1]

This should be interesting.

My position is single-payer, pre-natal to grave coverage for all, and out of the smarmy, sweaty grasp of Insurance, drug and HMOs companies; with no exclusions or means testing, co-pays based on standardized rate tables, taking into consideration family size, income, and regional COL issues with consideration given to catastrophic deductable levels.

The program should put heavy emphasis on disease prevention, life-style education, and healthy living programs.

The adminstrative and delivery infrastructure already exists through V.A., Medicare and Medicaid.

Employers and employees will pay standardized premiums, with the rest coming from taxes.

[DoctorSurferDude]

I like usmc1's position....I'm a fan of putting in place a safety net that would protect all. But there needs to be a cooperation between tax utilization, insurance corporations, and pharmecutical companies....the problem of the uninsurred can be solved, but it will take the bending of govornment and big business....a benevolent resolve....which will likely never happen (forgive my pessimism).

The concept of universal healthcare run by our govornment scares me a little. Our govornment is not exactly as righteous as that of Canada. And Canada's healthcare system is not exactly great. My uncle is a physcian and moved to the USA because of his frustrations with the system, the doctors are frustrated, the patients are frustrated, the equipment is antiquated in many places, and in general....instead of a few people suffering a lot, you have a lot of people sharing the suffering.

For comparisson.....if we all want to be so "FAIR" then why don't we have a socialist society where we pay everybody $30,000 a year regardless of their job. Everything will be fair and equal then, right?

Here is how it works now....the rich pay for the poor. Those who can afford insurance or who get insurance through their employer are paying into a pot of WEALTH. Those companies are SO rich....billions. 15% of America is without insurance....so prices for insurance are raised probably about 25 or 30% above where they should be....15% of that goes to compensate the healthcare costs (to make up for those who don't pay so that hospitals don't go bankrupt) the other 10% goes to the insurance companies to make more money....same as overly elevated gas prices because of war in the middle east. They pay doctors and hospitals as little as possible, and charge patients as much as possible....

The system in place works...sort of. The uninsured are treated, they have surgeries, go through chemotherapy, deliver babies, get treatment for psych disorders or addiction disorders, etc. The hospitals and doctors eat the cost....and charge a little more for other visits to compensate. Again, the only people getting rich of that set up is the HMO's.

True universal healthcare will level the playing field. Everybody will have equal access with equal importance. Hospitals will have little incentive to spend extra capital on new expensive machines. Doctors will get paid less and start working 8 hour days instead of 12. Patients will be put on waiting lists for years if their problem is unimportant. Govornment will be in control. Patients will have little control.

....since the US is used to pampering....HMO's will transform to cater to those who are willing to pay, a lot. Good doctors and staff will go to work for their companies because they will have all the best equipment and best pay. Healthcare will become VERY divided, so that "the poor" will become a larger majority group recieving minimalist healthcare, while the rich will get boutique medicine while staying in medical hotel equivalents and having the best doctors money can buy. Time will divide the differences further....poor people will protest, the rich will get scared and both will go to our govornment to settle the argument.... Is that the solution we are looking for?

....the only way to avoid all that is to place our entire healthcare system in the trusting hands of our govornment....the same govornment who has done such an awsome job with our education system that we are ranked #18 out of 24 nations. We suck. Why would we trust our healthcare system to our govornment?

If the US passes universal healthcare....well....I might as well move to Europe.

[Naturist Mark]

Better yet, lets just extend medicare coverage to everyone.

No country in the world pays more per capita for health care than the USA. The amount of health care dollars per capita paid by government in the US exceeds the total per capital health care expenditures of every other nation on Earth. Yet we rank 37th in the world in the quality of care provided to our population - a ranking that places us firmly amidst the third world.

#1 in the world is France - using a health care system originally set up by the Truman administration. Truman wanted universal health care for Americans, but Congress balked. So he set it up as part of the reconstruction of Europe to be an example.

Medicare is very efficient. Less than 3% of Medicare dollars are spent on administration and overhead. Private systems have overhead that exceed 24%. But I wouldn't exclude private insurance - they can compete just as they do today with medicare - by offering coverage to medicare enrollees, paid by medicare, that provide at least the same level of coverage, plus whatever enhancements people are willing to pay extra for.

Earlier post 1 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/2870009134?r=2300080734#2300080734)
Earlier Post 2 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/9700095093?r=4960005324#4960005324)

-Mark

[DoctorSurferDude]

Yes....expanding Medicare is a reasonable solution.

The "quality of healthcare" ranking is kind of hard to rank, they meausre the measurable things like infant mortality, etc. Third world countries obviously don't keep data as well as we do. The rank is equivilent of a pulse on a much larger body....but it IS a reasonable index.

Considering that we are the MOST UNHEALTHY nation in the world BY FAR.....I think 37th is pretty good http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Why France? .....well, the French aren't battling an obesity/diabetes epidemic.

If America wants to try it's hand at socialistic medicine....well....I'm not staying at #37, I'll move to #1

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If America wants to try it's hand at socialistic medicine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd argue that with US governmental health expenditures per capita being nearly twice as high as France's total per capita expenditures, we already have socialist medicine.*

Just really really incompetent socialism.

-Mark

*OK - not really. Public dollars buying things from private business is not socialism, and that is what happens under single payer systems like Medicare and the French health system. Socialism is when the services are bought from enterprises owned by the state and from professionals employed by the state - such as the British Health Service.

[DoctorSurferDude]

According to Wikipedia's Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care) there are 3 plans.

- Single-payer = govornment assumes all payer rolls and cuts out every existing insurance company, becoming our one and only middle man.

- Hybrid....where govornment joins efforts with private insurance companies to keep prices down.

- Private Universal.... govornment deregulates healthcare, allowing for a free market which would in theory drive down prices due to competition, innovation, etc.

First plan probably won't happen, our legislative branch has far to many padded pockets to allow the HMO kings to die....that would be like asking 100 congressmen and senators to give up their Mercedes....won't happen.

Second plan assumes benevolence on the part of our govornment and big business. Lets just put those two together and make the whole world a better place why don't we http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/tongue.gif

The third plan is my favorite. I really dislike the idea of monopoly type control when it comes to mega sized businesses. So I say disregulate health insurance, and while they are at it....disregulate the pharmecutical companies and the automotive industry. Let us turn this country into a Google nation! The only problem with this plan is....it has never existed before, it's just an idea.

Deregulation doesn't seem to work in this country .... examples, telecommunications were degregulated, the airlines were deregulated and look at the mess they are in!!!

How would deregulation make it better?

Alexis

[naturalmanwa]

I feel there are many people in this country who cannot afford health care, and the medical field is making huge profits from insurance companies. Something needs to be done. Other countries make it work, why can't the USA be a leader and not a follower?

[roadrambler2]

let's get Haliburton in the mix!

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by naturalmanwa:
I feel there are many people in this country who cannot afford health care, and the medical field is making huge profits from insurance companies. Something needs to be done. Other countries make it work, why can't the USA be a leader and not a follower? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the not so old days, medical care was considered a necessity. Doctors made house calls and charged $20 for the visit. The biggest changes to medical care since those days include an exponentially increasing population, numerous and very expensive lawsuits that drive up the cost of malpractice insurance, tremendous increases in medical knowledge that includes new (and very expensive) treatments and medicines, and the introduction of business practices to the medical field (thereby changing medicine from a caring and basic necessity of life to a for profit business that has winners and losers - winners being insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals and losers being the people who can no longer afford insurance). Nothing will ever change until enough people come together and demand a comprehensive reasonable and intelligent medical care program that at least offers some basic medical coverage for everyone. Unfortunately, too many people are selfish and are only interested in whether they have medical coverage. They are not really interested in those who don't. Until we overcome this selfishness, nothing much will change.

[Qikdraw]

Part of the problem with healthcare in the US is that there is virtually no 'preventative care'. Preventative care as shown that it will reduce the cost of healthcare overall. Taking care of somethng while it is just begining is much cheaper than when it becomes a full blown problem.

The other problem is insurance companies. It seems that insurance companies make judgements on what patients care will be, and not doctors. As two quick examples.. My wife's father had a head injury, was mistreated as started having seizures, the insurance company would not allow a corrective proceedure to happen. He later died from a siezure. My wife had an Ulnar Nerve Compression, she was told she needed surgery to correct the problem, it took the insurance company over a year to authorise the surgery, all the while her arm kept getting worse. Now, even after the surgery, she can't hold onto a pen for more than a sentence before the pen drops.

It should be doctors making the decision, and not insurance companies. Its supposed to be 'healthare' not 'profitcare'.

Qikdraw

[hm0504]

FYI, out of 19 votes thus far, 16 (84%) support universal health care and 3 (16%) oppose it.

[usmc1]

One thing everyone needs to prepare for is the very real fact that population growth and the Bush deficit is creating a real challenge to find the dollars to pay for all that needs done.

We all, boomers in particular, are going to be challenged to take more responsibility for our health: eating healthy, exercising regularly, eliminating risky behaviors.

Additionally, people will have to revert back to taking care of their old folks as they did a generation or two ago.

For elders to age in place, they will need access to high-speed internet for medical telemetry. The problem is that many of our older Americans live where there is no high speed available. We need a program similar to the rural electrification programs of the Roosevelt era to accomplish that.

Universal health care is merely a buzz word right now, but there are many, many issues related to it that some of us are utterly unaware of.

[Sanslines]

Those who live or have lived in the UK will know what I am talking about. The modern National Health System came into being in 1947. This year marks the 60th aniversary. The National Health has been propped up over the past 20 years (or more) by band aid fixes. The major problem with the National Health is that far too many people abuse the system. With more and more countries coming into the EC, citizens of those countried head straight to England where they are given free health care, free council housing, and free government stipends. The National Health was never intended to support people from all over the world and yet this is what has become of the system. Many health facilities are in need of modernization and many serious health procedures and tests involve long waiting lists. The major problem right now in England is massive immigration from not only Commonwealth countries but European Community countries as well. Unless the British Parliment wakes up and stops allowing access to the National Health from just about anyone in the world, it is presently anticipated that within 25 years the National Health System will no longer be able to fulfill its primary heath missions.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">numerous and very expensive lawsuits that drive up the cost of malpractice insurance </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The cost of lawsuits is a myth. They add less than 1% to the cost of medical care.

The huge increase in the cost of malpractice insurance - and insurance in general - is not due to lawsuits. It is due to the massive stock market investment losses of the insurance companies from 2000 to 2001. According to Americans for Insurance Reform: (http://insurance-reform.org./pr/MMSOFTMARKET.pdf)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> Contrary to the medical and insurance lobbies’ message — that medical malpractice lawsuits and claims were to blame for the increase in insurance rates — the fact is that in 2001, commercial property insurance rates jumped across the board. In other words, rate hikes for doctors were only a small part of a much larger insurance problem that affected homeowners, motorists and all kinds of policyholders.

....These kinds of volcanic eruptions in insurance premiums have occurred three times in the last 30 years — in the mid 1970s, again in the mid-1980s, and then again following the year 2001. The cause is always the same: a severe drop in investment income for insurers compounded by underpricing in prior years. Each time, insurers and the health care industry have tried to cover up their mismanaged underwriting by blaming lawyers and the legal system. To buy this position, one would have to accept the notion that juries engineered large jury verdicts in the mid-1970s, then stopped for a decade, then engineered large verdicts again in the mid-1980s, stopped for 17 years and then did it again beginning in 2001 — only to stop once again. Of course, this is ludicrous and untrue. [/list]

-Mark

[fred950]

Why not expand military medicine (or something modled after military medicine) to civies? Kind of hard for the neo-cons to scream 'socialism! when the concept has worked quite well (I did NOT say it's perfect!) for over 100 years. In the good old USA. Add the VA hospital system into the picture and you have a large pool of expirience in operating such a nationwide health care system.

Of couse Army, Navy and VA medical corps are not perfect. But niether is our current hodge-podge of for profit, some-are-more-equall- than-you set ups we have now.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Here's my attempt at a more "nitty-gritty" description--compared to the very general Wikipedia definition--of the three types of proposals for health care reform out there right now.
Bush's proposal is to do a little tinkering with the tax structure that links insurance to employment and hope insurance companies will put together cheap (non-comprehensive) insurance plans that people with lower incomes might start buying.
This might be good for health insurance company stocks if not for anything else.

In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed a program that is an example of the "Individual Mandate" concept (like the Health Care program that was signed into law by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts). Everyone would be required to have insurance or get subsidised insurance if they can't afford it. This proposal would also eliminate the use of "experience rating" by insurance companies meaning no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, no denial for people in certain high-risk professions. So this would probably be an improvement over the status quo even if there is no attempt to control administrative costs or drug costs as single payer plans are designed to do.

I spent some time pushing the single payer bill SB 840 (which Schwarzenegger vetoed)--tabling at public events, writing letters to the editor of the county newspaper. We usually countered the argument that we would be eliminating peoples' choices if private insurance were eliminated by pointing out that one essential part of the single payer plan would be that people would be guaranteed the right to choose their physician. This is not always a choice you get when you buy insurance plans that will only pay for the physicians they contract with.

Peace,
Kevin

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The cost of lawsuits is a myth. They add less than 1% to the cost of medical care. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why has the Governor of Pennsylvania stated that the extreme high cost of malpractice insurance is driving physicians straight out of Pennsylvania. Why have physicians that I have spoken with stated that they are scared to death of being sued for fear that their malpractice insurance will go through the roof? Why is Pennsylvania taking steps to limit lawsuits in order to bring the cost of malpractice insurance down and keep physicians in Pennsylvania? It is hard enough if not impossible to encourage new physicians to locate their practices in the many small towns of Pennsylvania and the high cost of malpractice insurance is just another nail in the coffin of health care in PA.



Soaring Malpractice Premiums
Bleed Doctors, Rob Consumers


Health Care News
January 2002
Soaring Malpractice Premiums
Bleed Doctors, Rob Consumers


by Vicki Lankarge



Skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums are wreaking havoc in communities throughout the United States.

In Beaumont, Texas, for example, the Texas Medical Liability Trust has increased its medical liability rates for all specialists a whopping 120 percent since 1999. It has become so bad in Beaumont that the Texas Medical Liability Insurance Association--the insurer of last resort for doctors with previous malpractice claims against them--is charging individual neurosurgeons upwards of $176,000 a year for a policy that caps malpractice payments at $1 million per occurrence with an overall total cap of $3 million per policy year.

The result? There is only one practicing neurosurgeon left in Beaumont.

"This is a scary thing," says Kim Ross, vice president of the Texas Medical Association. "What if a patient has a car wreck, needs a neurosurgeon, and there's none available? It's an hour to Houston. That 'golden hour' [when treatment is most beneficial] is lost."

It's not any better in Pennsylvania, where 72 percent of doctors polled by the Pennsylvania Medical Society say they have deferred purchasing new equipment or hiring new staff due to sudden, steep increases in their medical malpractice insurance premiums. After absorbing increases between 21 and 60 percent for those premiums in 2001, doctors fear their rates in 2002 could jump another 70 percent.

The society says the hefty sums awarded in malpractice lawsuits are driving doctors' medical liability premiums through the roof. Pennsylvania ranks second among states in terms of total payouts for medical litigation; New York is No. 1.

"The numbers are off the charts," says Dr. Howard Richter, the Pennsylvania Medical Society's president. "Combined judgments and settlements for fiscal year 2000 amounted to $352 million--roughly $30 per state resident and nearly 10 percent of the U.S. total."


Jump in Jury Awards

Jury awards for medical malpractice claims jumped 76 percent from 1996 to 1999, according to the latest edition of "Current Award Trends in Personal Injury" by Jury Verdict Research.

As a result, many doctors and patient advocates in states that don't have laws to limit the dollar amount of jury awards fear that increasingly large verdicts threaten their health care system by driving up medical malpractice insurance premiums.

To fend off litigation and cope with steep premiums, doctors ultimately are being forced to take defensive measures, such as:

Practicing defensive medicine by ordering additional, sometimes unnecessary, medical tests. Insurers may be reluctant to pay for them, but doctors want them in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. According to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, such "defensive medicine" adds $50 billion per year to the nation's overall health care spending.
Deferring the hiring of new staff, or even downsizing staff, sparking patient backlogs and making it difficult for patients to get timely appointments.
Ceasing to practice certain high-risk specialties, such as obstetricians/gynecologists who stop delivering babies because the threat of patient litigation is so high. Richter cites one obstetrics/gynecology group where insurance premiums nearly tripled in 2001 to $1 million. When two of their seven physicians stopped delivering babies, their rates were cut in half.
Moving their practices to regions with lower medical malpractice insurance costs, or stopping the practice of medicine altogether. Regions with high liability costs may have difficulty attracting new doctors, creating a lack of consumer choice of physicians.


Situation Critical in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is one state reeling from the effects of the rise in jury awards for medical malpractice claims. Although the state does cap punitive damages, it does not limit "non-economic" jury awards, including damages assessed by juries for "pain and suffering," by far the most common type of jury award.

In 2000, Pennsylvania's doctors and other health care practitioners paid $372 million in total lawsuit judgments, according to research conducted by the state's medical society. That figure ranks second only to New York's approximately $633 million in aggregate medical malpractice lawsuit judgments in 2000.

As a result of Pennsylvania's liability crisis, patients are suffering, according to the Pennsylvania Medical Society. A recent survey of the society's member doctors discovered that more than 90 percent of them are practicing defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits.

There seems to be no limit to the skyrocketing jury awards, says Pennsylvania Medical CAT Fund Director John Reed. "There used to be a gentleman's agreement that lawyers wouldn't go after an award larger than a physician's liability coverage," he says. "Now the gloves are off."

But trial lawyers argue that frivolous lawsuits and large jury awards are not to blame for the health care crisis in Pennsylvania--or any other state.

"Medical error is the 8th largest killer in the United States," says Mark Phenicie, legislative counsel for Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers. "Juries award large medical malpractice settlements in only the most egregious cases. These kinds of lawsuits are not frivolous. If there wasn't a malpractice that happened initially, there wouldn't be a malpractice case or malpractice verdict."

The consequences of the take-no-prisoners approach to jury awards has caused malpractice insurance premiums to shoot up, particularly in the Philadelphia area, where Reed says trial lawyers are deeply entrenched and juries generous. The average annual practice insurance premium for a Pennsylvania physician in 1998 was about $35,000, according to the American Medical Association; Reed says a Philadelphia-area obstetrician is now paying upward of $87,000.

[Sanslines]

More going without health care

Americans are paying more for medical insurance than they did a year ago, and many are avoiding important doctor visits simply because of the cost, an MSN-Zogby poll reports.


More than a quarter of Americans have skipped or postponed an essential visit to a doctor because it was too expensive, a new MSN-Zogby poll says.

Nearly half (48%) say they pay more in health-insurance premiums than a year ago, and 37% say they pay more out of pocket for medical services or prescriptions.

The results of the poll of 9,765 adults suggest that medical expenses are becoming a heavier burden on household finances, even for middle-income Americans. They underscore the findings of other recent studies that the cost of health care is becoming a more widespread problem.

The ranks of the nation's uninsured have grown by 11.2% since 2000, according to a study by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Tens of millions of Americans lack insurance, and millions more are underinsured, with gaps in their coverage that leave them exposed to catastrophic medical bills.

Medical bills pile up
A recent Harvard University study said medical bills are a factor in about half of all consumer bankruptcies. Another study reported that more Americans are turning to credit cards to cover rising medical expenses, often leading to crippling debts.

"Too many working people are piling up debt on high-interest credit cards and risking financial security simply because they have the misfortune of getting sick," says Mark Rukavina, one of the authors of a study by nonpartisan public-policy group Demos, according to Bankrate.com.

Nearly three in 10 participants in the survey from low- and middle-income households with credit card debt say medical expenses contributed to their current credit card balances, according to the Demos report. The majority had a major medical expense within the past three years.

More families are struggling in the aftermath of a serious medical problem, and many try to repay debts by taking out second mortgages or cashing in their retirement accounts, says Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor. "Many will still end up in bankruptcy, but only after they have run up even more debt and their last meager resources have been exhausted," she told Bankrate.com.

Squeeze for middle-income people
According to the MSN-Zogby poll, 91% say they have health insurance, and 73% say they're happy with their coverage. Yet household income has a major influence on coverage. About 30% of households with incomes below $25,000 go without coverage, compared with 3% of those with household income exceeding $100,000.

The interactive MSN-Zogby poll took place Jan. 17-22 and contains a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point.

The poll suggests an increasing squeeze for middle-income Americans. People with household income of $25,000 to $75,000 report the highest level of dissatisfaction, with approximately one in four dissatisfied with their benefits.

Those in the $50,000-to-$75,000 range were most likely (51%) to say their premiums have climbed. Married adults say they've been hit especially hard: 51% are facing higher premiums over the past year, compared with 37% of single adults.

When it comes to out-of-pocket expenses, households with $25,000 to $35,000 in income say they are hardest hit, with 40% paying more.

Though 16% of Americans say they have a health savings account, the popularity of the high-deductible plans increases as a person's income rises. Nearly a quarter (24%) of people with more than $100,000 in household income say they have a health savings account, compared with just 5% of those making less than $25,000. Such plans allow consumers to save money tax-free to pay for health services.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The cost of lawsuits is a myth. They add less than 1% to the cost of medical care. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Then why has the Governor of Pennsylvania stated that the extreme high cost of malpractice insurance is driving physicians straight out of Pennsylvania. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You quoted my statement about lawsuits, then responed with a quote from a governor about the cost of insurance. If you had read the rest of the post you quoted me from you would have your answer: Insurance companies have jacked up their prices to recover money lost in bad investments - not due to lawsuits. That doesn't mean that malpractice insurance cost isn't a problem, especially in some particular specialties where the insurance industry gets away with outrageously high premiums. But the so called 'cure' of tort reform - which essentially strips the right of victims to sue for full compensatory and punitive damages has not resulted in meaningful reductions in insurance costs anywhere it has been adopted - such a George W. Bush's Texas.

The Effects of Tort Reform: Evidence from the States (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5549&sequence=0)
Congressional Budget Office<UL TYPE=SQUARE>As a whole, the studies provided little systematic evidence that any one type of reform had a significant impact on any of the various outcome measures studied. Few of the findings--except for a reduction in the losses experienced by insurers--were independently corroborated by other studies. [/list]

Tort Reform will Magnify Victims' Pain (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0401-04.htm)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>While the nonpartisan General Accounting Office has found that the average malpractice verdict has been rising by about 8 percent a year above inflation, that is nowhere near large enough to account for the 200 or even 300 percent rate increases reported in medical-industry horror stories.

Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that doctors are being forced out of the medical industry by malpractice insurance rates. The GAO's investigation found that even in so-called "crisis states" designated by the American Medical Association, the number of doctors has stayed steady or even increased on a per capita basis in recent years. [/list]

Malpractice Mythology (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/opinion/9sun1.html?ex=1263013200&en=60394c26a592d828&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)
New York Times editorial.
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>The genius of tort reform, which focuses on putting a cap on the awards from malpractice suits, is that it offends only one big-money lobbying group: trial lawyers, who are important financial supporters of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, it helps or holds harmless Republican special interests in the insurance, drug and health care industries. The only problem is that it hurts the hapless patients who suffer grievous harm at the hands of incompetent doctors.

Politicians endorsing tort reform say a crisis of escalating malpractice insurance premiums is forcing doctors out of business. The extent to which this is an actual problem is murky. Insurance companies have substantially raised premiums for malpractice coverage for doctors in high-risk specialties like obstetrics and neurosurgery in some states, leading at least some doctors to curtail their services, retire or move. The White House laments that patients in some areas are thus forced to travel long distances to find, for example, obstetrical care. But when the Government Accountability Office visited five of the hardest hit states in 2003, it found only scattered problems and was unable to document wide-scale lack of access to medical care. [/list]

The Facts About So-Called Tort Reform (http://www.nypirg.org/health/medical/tortreform0503.html)

-Mark

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

As soon as people start discussing medical malpractice reform I can't help visualizing myself as the victim of a botched operation.
Yikes!! No way!
Peace
Kevin

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

OK, to show there's a little more to the discussion of malpractice than just tort reform--which gets all the attention-- other ideas are of the "no-fault" type of reform, instead of simply placing caps on the awards given out in the courts.
Basically, under this concept the patient receives compensation simply for being injured while receiving medical care. A lawyer doesn't have to prove negligence, so there are no expensive legal costs or court costs.

www.acponline.org/journals/news/nov97/malpract.htm (http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/nov97/malpract.htm)

Another elaboration of "no-fault" reform is
called "Enterprise Liability" where institutions --hospitals, HMOs--would be required to pay more of the cost of injuries rather than doctors.

Peace,
Kevin

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You quoted my statement about lawsuits, then responed with a quote from a governor about the cost of insurance. If you had read the rest of the post you quoted me from you would have your answer: Insurance companies have jacked up their prices to recover money lost in bad investments - not due to lawsuits. That doesn't mean that malpractice insurance cost isn't a problem, especially in some particular specialties where the insurance industry gets away with outrageously high premiums. But the so called 'cure' of tort reform - which essentially strips the right of victims to sue for full compensatory and punitive damages has not resulted in meaningful reductions in insurance costs anywhere it has been adopted - such a George W. Bush's Texas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trust me, I read your entire reply. However, skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance is NO myth or fantasy in Pennsylvania. Just ask any physician. I'll elaborate on two points. First point is this: If the high cost of malpractice insurance is primarily due to money lost in bad investments, they why is Pennsylvania hit especially hard when there are 50 states (or however many states that a specific insurance company writes policies for)? Insurance companies are greedy and will raise premiums anywhere and everywhere that they can. So why has not malpractice insurance gone through the roof in all states?

Second point is this: if a doctor is sued in Pennsylvania, it is guaranteed that his or her malpractice insurance will skyrocket (for whatever reason). If the skyrocketing premium is primarily due to bad investments, then where is the state legislature in stopping this (and only this) open abuse and fraud of the medical establishment in Pennsylvania? As far as the physician is concerned, he or she really doesn't care why the premium is going up. All he or she knows is that it is and will do anything and everything to prevent it such as practicing defensive medicine.

You claim that the high cost of premiums is primarily due to bad investments. The article that I posted above addresses the issues of skyrocketing malpractice premiums in Pennsylvania AND the problems of lawsuit judgements. Common sense dictates that lawsuit judgements drive up the cost of malpractice insurance and these costs are passed on to the consumer in terms of higher medical costs. As a supporting argument, why are our televsion programs ful of lawyers asking for new clients and advertising how they were awarded multi million dollar lawsuits for medical malpractice? Are they all lying or are they actually winning huge settlements? Are some people sue happy and will sue for anything in the USA if there is a chance to make money? Are the physicians lying in Pennsylvania when it comes to the extra time and documentation that they need to do in order to protect themselves in case of medical malpractice lawsuits? TV portrays physicians as some kind of heroic lifesaving individuals who will do anything to save a life. In reality, physicians follow established medical protocols and will not deviate from these protocols for tremedous fear of being sued. Physicians will practice defensive medicine by ordering tests and some of these tests are used only to establish a record in the event of a lawsuit.

In conclusion, there is a serious problem with skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance AND lawsuit jury awards in Pennsylvania. This is NOT myth. The governor is highly aware of this problem as well as the problem of attracting physicians to rural areas (most of Pennsylvania is composed of small town rural areas). There already is a shortage of physicians in Pennsylvania and this problem will get worse unless the state legislature continues to address this issue. The problem is not as simple as stopping insurance companies from abusing physicians in order to compensate for past bad investements. This may be one of the reasons for the problem of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance but it surely is not the major problem or the only problem. The problem is creating a system that will allow those who were honestly damaged by incompetent medical care to seek reasonable damage awards and yet stop those lawyers and patients from fraudently trying to claim awards that they are not due.

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the so called 'cure' of tort reform - which essentially strips the right of victims to sue for full compensatory and punitive damages has not resulted in meaningful reductions in insurance costs anywhere it has been adopted </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true. Take Pennsylvania as an example. Tort reform was established in the automobile insurance area as a way to force down premiums. The consumer has the option of signing away some of his rights to sue with resulting lower premiums. The consumer also has the right to sue without constraints but will pay higher premiums for this right. This model has been successful in bringing down automobile insurance premiums and it is used as an example of how to drive down the cost of medical malpractice insurance. It may yet come to the point where nationally, in order to receive reduced medical insurance premium rates, individuals will have the option of signing away some of their rights to sue their physician for open ended amounts of money. Who knows where this all will go as it is a complex problem. On one hand, nobody wants to restrict the rights of those who were honestly injured by openly incompetent medical malpractice and yet on the other hand nobody wants to see greedy people and their lawyers cash in by abusing doctors with nonsense lawsuits.

[Sanslines]

Pennsylvania Medical Tort Reform:\

Pennsylvania:

Tort reform and caps on economic damages in medical liability cases cannot be voted on in Pennsylvania until 2007. Doctor’s Advocate has met with state senators to discuss other laws that can be passed to help the physician community.

The following nine pieces of legislation could provide immediate relief to the BELEAGURED medical community in Pennsylvania :

Amend the Dragonetti Act to make it easier for a doctor to sue a lawyer who brings a frivolous lawsuit.

Introduce legislation to restore the joint and several liability reform that was recently struck down by the Commonwealth Court on technical grounds.

Introduce legislation to require compulsory arbitration that existed prior to the Supreme Court striking it down in 1980.
Introduce legislation granting emergency room personnel immunity from suit except in cases of gross negligence.

Introduce legislation that prohibits a medical malpractice insurance carrier from applying a surcharge when the lawsuit is dropped or dismissed within 180 days.

Introduce legislation to require medical malpractice insurance carriers to identify any surcharge caused by a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Introduce legislation to institute “loser pays” in a civil lawsuit.

Introduce a Resolution in the Senate calling upon the Pennsylvania delegation in the U.S. Congress to support the pending “caps” legislation.

Introduce legislation to require the Medical Board to count the number of actively practicing doctors in Pennsylvania by specialty.

Doctor’s Advocate will carefully monitor what the legislature does or doesn’t do and keep the doctors in Pennsylvania informed. In the meantime, we urge all doctors to contact your legislator in both the House and Senate and call for these reforms.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Amend the Dragonetti Act to make it easier for a doctor to sue a lawyer who brings a frivolous lawsuit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Heck, there ought to be severe penalties for bringing frivolous lawsuits anyway, whether anybody sues the lawyer or not! How about this for a radical idea... whenever a judge rules a lawsuit to be frivolous, the automatic penalty would be a fine equal to the damage amount being asked in the original lawsuit. (That would be in addition to paying all the costs, including those of the defendant.)

Wouldn't something like that go a long ways toward stopping those ambulance-chaser lawyers fishing for huge jury settlements?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Trust me, I read your entire reply. However, skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance is NO myth or fantasy in Pennsylvania. Just ask any physician.

...

The problem is creating a system that will allow those who were honestly damaged by incompetent medical care to seek reasonable damage awards and yet stop those lawyers and patients from fraudently trying to claim awards that they are not due. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pennsylvania passed medical malpractice tort reform in 2002.

How's it doing?

-Mark

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pennsylvania passed medical malpractice tort reform in 2002.

How's it doing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all depends who you ask..........lawyers..........doctors.........poli ticians. Each group has their own vested interests in either supporting it or destroying it. My above post outlines nine additional pieces of legislation that addresses numerous problems and that will be voted on this year. Did you read it? The bottom line with all of this is that medical malpractice insurance rates reached a crisis level in Pennsylvania. Don't you agree that something had to be done? The problem was very complex and the entire problem did not solely consist of insurance companies trying to make up for past bad investments. With what the insurance companies charged, they have made up for their past bad investements many times over and continue to bring in enormous amounts of money. Why would insurance companies stop gouging once they made up for their past bad investments?
Tort reform in the automobile industry is doing well in Pennsylvania. Those who chose to limit their rights to sue enjoy much lower premiums. Those who wish to retain full right to sue pay higher rights and that is their choice. Everyone has choices. Automobile insurance tort reform developed over time and was improved. You immediately discount tort reform as a failure without acknowledging the severity or complexity of the medical malpractice insurance problems in Pennsylvania. There is no quick or easy solution to this problem. Something had to be done. Tort reform (as with everything else) will be challenged, improved, or replaced with something better as it applies and this will be done over time. There are many competing interests and each will try to manipulate to protect their own best interests. The real losers were (and still are) those individuals who have to pay for this mess. You know, the ones who are priced out of the market and can't afford insurance or have the ability to pay their bills. Let's not forget them.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My above post outlines nine additional pieces of legislation that addresses numerous problems and that will be voted on this year. Did you read it? The bottom line with all of this is that medical malpractice insurance rates reached a crisis level in Pennsylvania. Don't you agree that something had to be done? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Something WAS done, and it was a resounding failure. And just like the misbegotten war in Iraq you are suggesting the answer is a surge of the same failed strategy. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem was very complex and the entire problem did not solely consist of insurance companies trying to make up for past bad investments. With what the insurance companies charged, they have made up for their past bad investements many times over and continue to bring in enormous amounts of money. Why would insurance companies stop gouging once they made up for their past bad investments?
Tort reform in the automobile industry is doing well in Pennsylvania. Those who chose to limit their rights to sue enjoy much lower premiums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> According to the CBO - who has the best record in economic analysis of any organization out there - tort reform is ineffective at anything except increasing insurance company profits - there is no consistent result of lower premiums.

Tort reform has FAILED in PA, why do you think MORE TORT REFORM is the magic bullet?

Do you remember the discussion recently on these boards about the definition of insanity?

-Mark

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Something WAS done, and it was a resounding failure. And just like the misbegotten war in Iraq you are suggesting the answer is a surge of the same failed strategy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you support lawyers, whose ability to sue without constraints was jepordized, then yes it is a resounding failure. If you support physicians who were being charged ever increasing amounts of money, then you would not consider it a failure. If you research how tort reform works in Pennsylvania and see how it did bring down premiums for state mandated liability insurance as well as comprehensive coverage, then you will see how it was not a failure (FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE). If such a model can work for automobile insurance, then it was reasonable to modify the model and apply it for the medical field. This is ONE of the reasons why they tried it in Pennsylvania. When a new program is tried, there is NO guarantee of success (however success is defined). As I stated above (I guess you didn't read this part) tort reform will be constantly ANALYZED, MODIFIED, ENHANCED, or REPLACED with something better. Is there some part of this that you didn't understand???

Iraq has nothing to do with this topic so why even bring it up? It is entirely different. Also, no one is advocating any 'surge' of tort reform. Did you not read or understand my points from above?

"Tort reform has FAILED in PA, why do you think MORE TORT REFORM is the magic bullet?

Do you remember the discussion recently on these boards about the definition of insanity?"

As repeatedly stated above, tort reform HAS worked in the area of AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE in Pennsylvania. If you don't want to accept this, then that is your choice. I have given clear examples of the nine points of modification that will be voted upon in Pennsylvania this year. If you don't agree with those points, then that again is your choice. I have also repeated numerous times now that medical malpractice tort reform was introduced as a means to help in stopping the exodus of physicians from Pennsylvania (especially specialties such as Ob/Gyn). It was an attempt and is not the cure all for all of Pennslyvania's medical problems. It was a trial. If it didn't work as planned then it will be MODIFIED, ENHANCED, OR REPLACED WITH SOMETHING BETTER!

This is clearly NOT advocating the promotion of policies that do not work. You must be reading something entirely different here.

[Sanslines]

The opinion of a Pennsylvania Medical doctor:


Wilkes Barre Times Leader (PA), June 7, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pennsylvania still badly in need of serious tort reform

Again Pennsylvania finds itself in the news by ranking at the bottom in the 2006 U.S. Tort Liability Index reported by the Pacific Research Institute.

PRI is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization described as "one of the most innovative and effective think tanks in the world" by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. This index analyzed 39 objective factors in the civil-justice systems of the 50 states.

Only New York, Rhode Island and Vermont fared worse than Pennsylvania. The report also describes Pennsylvania as one of the states that is poised to fall in future rankings or stay at the bottom thanks to Gov. Rendell. A healthy, fair state legal system is a vital indicator of a state's economic vitality and growth.

A healthy, fair state legal system is also vital for Pennsylvanians' health care. No wonder why Pennsylvania remains on the medical crisis list by the AMA with malpractice rates increasing 250 percent since 2000 and why 92 percent of doctors that are trained in Pennsylvania leave as compared to less than 50 percent leaving just 10 years ago.

Why would a young obstetrician finishing her training in Pennsylvania decide to stay and pay $170,000 a year for malpractice insurance when she could go to a state like Minnesota, Wisconsin or Idaho and pay $20,000 a year? Or let me state it another way, would you want to fill up your tank at a gas station that charges $2.80 per gallon or $23.80 per gallon?

Gov. Rendell is responsible for Pennsylvania's continued health care crisis, continual stagnant job and business growth, the brain drain to other states seen in his recent veto of the Fair Share Act in March, and his continued support of the flawed tort system in Pennsylvania.

Millions of dollars flow into his campaign coffers from special-interest groups like personal injury lawyers and the "consumer groups" they fund who continue to prosper in Pennsylvania's flawed tort system environment at the expense of health care for all Pennsylvanians.

We Pennsylvanians demonstrated our power in the recent primary elections in response to the midnight pay raise fiasco supported by Gov. Rendell. During a recent speech, Gov. Rendell was asked why he supported this blunder. He was quoted as saying "to kiss a little butt," referring to the state Legislature.

What Pennsylvanians need from their governor is more "butt kicking" and less "butt kissing" of the status quo state Legislature and the dismally ranked Pennsylvania tort system.

Michael J. O'Donnell M.D.
Clarks Summit

[Sanslines]

From Pennsylvania Town Hall:

Politically Active Physicians Association Newsletter Journal of the Fighting Docs January 22 2007

in this issue

Pittsburgh Tribune Review Calls Governor's "Rx for PA" Malpractice!

From the desk of Founding Member James Tayoun, D.O.

Medical Justice Provides Crucial Short Term Solutions for Pennsylvania's Physicians

Pittsburgh Tribune Review Calls Governor's "Rx for PA" Malpractice! What a pity you can't sue a politician for malpractice.

The more one dissects Gov. Ed Rendell's "Prescription for Pennsylvania," the more convinced you are of this administration's ignorance of basic economics.

Find out more....

Governor Rendell preempted his "prescription for Pennsylvania" declaring it would result in "widespread squawking."

While his plan may have caused widespread "Squawk and Awe" throughout the health care delivery sector and business community, trial lawyers and insurance interests have been uncharacteristically silent...

...We wonder why...

From the desk of Founding Member James Tayoun, D.O. GOVERNOR'S PRESCRIPTION FOR PENNSYLVANIA MISDIAGNOSES THE REAL PROBLEM

While unveiling his health care plan, Governor Rendell indicated "Pennsylvanians use emergency rooms far too much, often because they don't have access to doctors."

Although the governor admits Pennsylvanians have lost access to adequate physician care, his plan fails to provide an effective remedy that will lower health care costs because it avoids the real issue: Pennsylvania needs medical liability tort reform.

Pennsylvania has lost thousand of doctors because many can no longer afford to practice here, which is why patients are often forced to use emergency rooms for care. Medical liability insurance premiums cost individual doctors between tens of thousands dollars per year to well over $300,000 annually. The reason behind these costs is the amount of frivolous lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania and outrageous jury awards in medical liability cases.

During Governor Rendell's first term in office:

- Approximately 3,000 physicians were forced to leave Pennsylvania, curtail services, or take early retirements.

- At least nine deaths occurred in suburban Philadelphia due to a lack of neurosurgeons. This may be the tip of the iceberg as the Politically Active Physicians Association is investigating reports of a number of other deaths.

- Northeast Philadelphia lost its last hospital maternity unit, leaving mothers with obstetrical emergencies in grave danger.

- Pennsylvania's medical student retention rate plummeted to 4%.

- In response to physician shortage he denies exists, Governor Rendell recently sent letters to all Pennsylvania medical students urging them to stay after graduation.

A clear solution that has worked in other states that experienced similar crises is to place a sensible cap on non-economic damages in medical liability cases. Doing so, will allow plaintiffs fair compensation for damages, yet provide a strong disincentive for trial lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits as they are paid on contingency.

The Politically Active Physicians Association has time and again asked Governor Rendell to support placing caps on non-economic damages. Instead, the governor has offered ridiculous solutions such as expanding the roles of our already overburdened nurse practitioners to fill the gap of Pennsylvania's physician shortages.

Governor Rendell has enacted tort reforms for the equine industry, moved to protect domestic pets, and acted as the key driver in bringing casinos to Pennsylvania. Yet, he consistently resists taking effective and meaningful actions that will provide Pennsylvanians with access to adequate heath care delivery services. It is time the governor put aside special interests of the trial bar and act in the interests of the children and families of Pennsylvania. The governor must work with the legislature to enact medical liability tort reform through placing sensible caps on non-economic jury awards and caps on attorney contingency fees. His failure to do so will result in more unnecessary deaths throughout the Commonwealth.

There clearly is a heated debate with physicians asking for enormous medical malpractice insurance cost relief on one side and trial lawyers fighting any and all caps on their lawsuits.

[Sanslines]

To be fair...Governor Rendell's reply to tort reform:

Pennsylvania Governor Vetoes Tort Reform Bill
Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell vetoed SB 435, a tort reform bill sponsored by Senator Jake Corman which was designed to reduce the obligation of defendants to pay for damages in some civil lawsuits. Governor Rendell explained his veto by saying that the bill was unbalanced—appropriately limiting joint and several liability but not protecting the rights of victims in cases of negligence. The bill would prevent victims from suing multiple defendants with one lawsuit and mandates that defendants pay only the portion of the damages proportionate to their liability, unless their actions were intentional or they were at least 60 percent liable. The governor urged legislators to join him in creating a better bill that strikes the appropriate balance.

This better bill is what many refer to as an INPROVEMENT or ENHANCEMENT of existing Tort Laws. This is exactly what I was referring to in my above posts.

[Sanslines]

Now for a lawyer's argument against Tort Reform:

When people go to their doctor, take a prescribed medication, drive their car, or take a walk through a park, they trust that they will be safe. They trust that their doctor knows the best way to help them heal, and that the pills they swallow will make them feel better. They trust that other drivers will use standard safety rules and caution on the road. They trust that the park they walk through will not harbor dangerous hazards that could cause them serious injury.

Our attorneys believe that people should continue to place trust in the world they live in. But the fact of the matter is that everyday, all around us, people are injured by medical negligence, reckless driving, preventable premises hazards, and so much more. That is why we support tort litigation, and why we work tirelessly to secure the highest compensation possible for our clients.



Maybe the only tort reform that we need is to limit the amounts that lawyers can change their clients.

[DoctorSurferDude]

Compensation is important.....I won't argue that attorneys play an important role in securing compensation for claims found to be due to malpractice in the court of law.

But the issue is the price tag....holy moses....it gets high.

There was a lawsuit a year or two ago where a baby was born with severe brain damage. The delivery was a difficult one that required the use of obstetric clamps to be applied to the baby's head (not an uncommon practice), but alas....despite the efforts on the part of the physician to save a baby's and mother's life during a complicated pregancy....the baby came out with brain damage. It might have had brain damage prior to delivery, but that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, SO....the plaintiff recieved a settlement in the sum of $63 MILLION dollars.....$63,000,0000.00 What does money fix?? The baby is still brain damaged, the mom is still heartbroken and the physicians are still sorry....but the litigation lawyers are probaby happy since their frim recieves a substantial portion for their services....a lottery portion. And who pays for that? The insurance companies are no dummies....the cost is spread evenly over all Obstetricians in the state of who purchase insurance. Obstetricians in Miami pay $277,000 a year just for INSURANCE....increasing at about 11% per year. Kind of a bummer when the average income of an obstetrician nationally is only $217,000 and the maximum reported income is $417,000....kind of sad that some of the hardest working most trained physicians are earning as much as a pediatrician because they are paying between 2/3 or virtually all of their income to compensate insurnace companies for litigation claims. OB is the most sued of all the specialties, because birthing is a tricky thing and despite our best efforts things can go wrong.... Obstetricians are fleeing the state of FL (worst place to be OB), leaving who to deliver the babies?

Thanks to the very keen efforts of litigation lawyers, the very best Obstetricians have left the state of FL. What remains is...well...me. I'll be on hand in a few months to deliver the babies on behalf of the hospital I'm training at. Do I plan on incorporating OB into my practice? Heck no! Are you kidding me? That would be retarded. But I'll do my best to deliver the babies even though I'm far less experienced than the single in house OB or the midwives who come through on occasion....

There is a tremendous pressure to be perfect in healthcare. Not because of patients, but because of the lawyers. Occasionally what seems like the right call at the time turns out to be less than perfect in retrospect. I don't think litigation is the answer..... probably it would be more useful for doctors to slow down and listen more, but alas....gotta pay the ever increasing malpractice bill. Vicious circle.

Doctors go into their profession to help others....and Malpractice Attorneys I'm sure do the same. I just think the "most money possible" approach is, well, more about money than solving a problem.

Why don't clients start suing lawyers for not winning every case? Shouldn't lawyers be perfect too?

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doctors go into their profession to help others....and Malpractice Attorneys I'm sure do the same. I just think the "most money possible" approach is, well, more about money than solving a problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The doctors that I know are caring individuals who do try to help people. It is very frustrating for them when they are micromanaged by HMO's and Medical Services. Doctors are humans and as such will make mistakes. Some of these mistakes will kill people. This is one lesson that all Premed students learn. If they cannot accept this fact, then they won't last in medicine. The medical establishment has many safety nets to prevent accidents that result in injury and death. Just think of the established medical protocols and procedures that are to be followed by physicians. Even with all of these safeguards, mistakes do happen.
Some malpractice attorneys may have pure intentions when it comes to helping others. However, many have no problems with helping themselves in the process. Just watch any daytime tv program and you will be bombarded with lawyer's advertisements showing how much money they can get for you. They never tell you how much they get for themselves. Here is the problem. Earning a reasonable amount of money for services rendered is one thing. Making huge and excessive amounts of money from the suffering of others is another.

[DoctorSurferDude]

Sue the HMO! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

I agree.....I believe reasonable settlements are reasonable. Somebody who is mamed should not have to live in financial hardship for the rest of their lives....but they also shouldn't be able to buy a jet plane either.

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Sue the HMO! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

I agree.....I believe reasonable settlements are reasonable. Somebody who is mamed should not have to live in financial hardship for the rest of their lives....but they also shouldn't be able to buy a jet plane either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is determining what is a reasonable settlement. Lawyers are opposed to any caps for settlement caps also place a cap on their portion too. An appropriate settlement amout for the injured is one issue. The amounts that lawyers receive for their services is another.

[fred950]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Amend the Dragonetti Act to make it easier for a doctor to sue a lawyer who brings a frivolous lawsuit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Heck, there ought to be severe penalties for bringing frivolous lawsuits anyway, whether anybody sues the lawyer or not! How about this for a radical idea... whenever a judge rules a lawsuit to be frivolous, the automatic penalty would be a fine equal to the damage amount being asked in the original lawsuit. (That would be in addition to paying all the costs, including those of the defendant.)

Wouldn't something like that go a long ways toward stopping those ambulance-chaser lawyers fishing for huge jury settlements? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I may expand on that. There has been talk of 'capping' the amount a person can sue for malpractice. NONSENSE!!! Don't limit the amount one can sue for... limit the amount lawyers can grab!

This may sound odd to our Euro and Aussie cousins, but a lawyer tyoically takes 25% of the settlement IF THE CASE IS NEGOTIATED OUT-OF COURT. If the case goes to trial, the lawyers' take is more like 40 to 60%. So in the case of the $63million that Surfer Doc mentioned, anywhere between 25 to 38 million goes to the law firms!

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

If there's going to be caps for plaintiffs' attorneys wouldn't it simply be fair to also place caps on the lawyers who represent the other side?
And how about salary caps on all of the corporate lawyers who help write insurance policies for those of us who can't hire lawyers to help us read them?!

Peace,
Kevin

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If there's going to be caps for plaintiffs' attorneys wouldn't it simply be fair to also place caps on the lawyers who represent the other side? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you daft?

it isn't about being fair, its about stacking the deck.

-Mark

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big-Thinker:
I am absolutely opposed to universal coverage and mandatory health insurance. This will hurt the most those poor who are trying the hardest to do well for themselves. I do not believe in punishing people for working hard! How lucky are some of you that have wealth before an era that our country is making it harder and harder to become financially comfortable. How lucky!

Do we really think that our inefficient government and the extremely inefficient and faulty feedback system that universal coverage would create is somehow magically going to work out?

Medical care costs money. No matter what kind of messed up system we create, that reality is going to catch up with us eventually. Tort reform and many other reforms can reduce that cost, but good health care does, and should cost money. We should adjust laws and regulations that allow quality medical care to be delivered for less in a free market. With NOBODY motivated to control costs, a universal coverage would cause costs to balloon until our economy is really handicapped.

The more toward the socialist end of the spectrum this country goes, the weaker and poorer it will become, and eventually our children or grandchildren will lose those American freedoms we cherish - one way or another. I don't know where y'all come from, but from my experience, poverty sucks.

Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the biggest reasons poverty sucks is because you can't afford health care which is
not a luxury item that only the wealthy deserve
but a necessity of life.
It is also a public health concern not just a personal responsibility--you can be the most personally responsible person in the world, as far as your own health is concerned, and still sit down on a park bench next to someone who isn't so responsible, and walk away with some of their germs.
If you don't like always running into someone on the sidewalk who asks you for a few dollars for something to eat imagine what it would feel like when the person asking for the handout is a friend or a relative who needs help with their medical bills--and they won't be asking for a few dollars, more likely thousands!
In addition to being a public health concern,
health care is also an economic concern--something economists call "human capital". When people start a business they can spend more of their own precious time concentrating on providing the service or product they plan to sell if they have to spend less time making sure all of their employees are healthy. The economically productive countries in the world are those countries with healthy and educated populations--so it makes sense that everyone who has a living wage job or better should be contributing through their taxes to make sure their country has a modern health care system--just as they do in France, a country which has indeed had socialist governments (or socialists in the government), and a country whose health care system has been ranked the best in the world by the World Health Organization.
"Inefficient and faulty." Isn't that a good description of so many poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans' experiences with private health insurance. You loyally pay the insurance premiums month after month and once you've actually tried to use your policy to pay your medical bills you spend half an hour listening to elevator music (whether you have the time for it or not) until you get a live representative and you argue and argue over and over again to get the insurance company just to do the job you payed them to do and use the money you paid them over and over and over and over again expecting that one day you will have to use it. And after you've spent so much time dealing with the insurance company who may or may not pay for whatever it is--your biopsy for skin cancer, your chest X-rays--you're ready to go to the psychiatrist for help dealing with the nightmare the insurance company puts you through just about everytime you try to get them to pay for the health care you have already paid for (in the form of insurance premiums).
Universal Coverage doesn't make costs balloon--just about every other industrialised country has universal coverage and people pay less. The so-called "free-market" in the U. S. doesn't provide better quality health care--unless you make about $90,000 a year or more--but we do spend more of our GDP on it than any one else with pathetic results.
So, what's the point of using that tired old rhetoric about freedom and health care when you know that freedom is totally worthless when you can't afford health care but you desperately need it.

Peace,
Kevin

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big-Thinker:
I am absolutely opposed to universal coverage and mandatory health insurance. This will hurt the most those poor who are trying the hardest to do well for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The poorest are already covered by government health insurance - medicaid. It is the the better off 'working poor' and lower end of the middle class who have to do without. And much of the rest have inadequate health coverage.

The loss of medical coverage is one of the worst hurdles for former welfare recipients to overcome as they move to work - which the vast majority do in less than two years. Full coverage for Family health insurance costs up to $15,000 a year - try that on $10 per hour.

Universal health will reduce poverty, and benefit industry - which is why both unions and big businesses are now both backing it - particularly in the auto industry.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by Big-Thinker:
I am absolutely opposed to universal coverage and mandatory health insurance. This will hurt the most those poor who are trying the hardest to do well for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem today is so many working people can not afford health care. Health care is a necessity of life and not a luxury. Even with the best of health and many years of following a regimen of proper diet and exercise, there is no guarantee that someone will not get sick. I am all for trying anything and everything that examines each cost aspect of health care and then attempts to lower these costs. I am against lawyers who benefit from the pain and suffering of others by making enormously excessive amounts of money in jury awards. I am also for initially trying some kind of low cost basic health care (ie perhaps a $10 doctor's office visit copay) that will enable everyone to access health care when needed and at an affordable price. Health care should not bankrupt the lower and middle class workers when catastrophic illness strikes.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The poorest are already covered by government health insurance - medicaid. It is the the better off 'working poor' and lower end of the middle class who have to do without. And much of the rest have inadequate health coverage.

-Mark[/QUOTE]

That's not to say the poorest have it easy while it's working class and middle-class people who don't. The situation is different in each state and depending on what kind of medical care you are talking about, but anywhere from 25% to 50% of physicians in private practice don't accept Medicaid beause it pays them much less than Medicare or private insurance.
Universal coverage would change that. I think the Individual Mandate reform proposals like Schwarzenegger's or in Massachusetts would eliminate this problem where doctors are not receiving comparable pay for treating poor patients. But these proposals are still not totally comprehensive and will very likely cost most people more than single-payer reform if they still incorporate high co-pays and high deductibles and don't address high administrative costs and don't try to tackle drug costs as is done in every other country where there is universal coverage.
Peace,
Kevin

[Naturist Mark]

http://davies.lohudblogs.com/files/2007/01/0128davies.jpg (http://davies.lohudblogs.com/2007/01/29/364/)

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

Whatever health care policies get enacted over the next few years, whether it's something like the proposal presidential candidate John Edwards offered this morning on Meet the Press, for alternative "single-payer" plans within the overall health care market, we need legislation that will take on the biggest causes of high health care costs (and politicians with the courage to challenge the two most well-funded lobbies in the health care industry, health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies).
Otherwise, despite the improvements that will result from increased availability of health care, more hard-working Americans will still be squeezed in between high health care costs and everything else: student loans, credit card payments, rent, house payments, utility bills,
etc.

Steffie Woolhandler is one of the authorities on aministrative costs in American health care.
Her studies have indicated that as much as 31 percent of expenses are spent on administrative costs--insurance marketing, processing bills and claims, and something called "utilization review" (which is probably a term for when administrators, not doctors, decide when patients do or do not get health care). Administrative inflation has grown much faster than overall health care inflation in recent years.


Drug costs

Marcia Angell, a former editor-in-chief for the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote a book that takes a very critical look at the American pharmaceutical industry, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How they Deceive Us and What to Do About it .
Here's a thumbnail sketch of what's wrong with the American pharmaceutical industry, quoted from chapter 13 of the book:

"1. Drug companies produce too many 'me-too ' drugs (variations on existing drugs) and too few innovative ones."
"2. The FDA is too much in the thrall of the industry it regulates."
"3. Drug companies have too much control over clinical research on their own products."
"4. Patents and other exclusive marketing rights are undesirably long and too elastic."
(while product liability lawsuits get all the headlines--who knows how much money the drug companies spend simply suing other pharmaceutical companies, or threatening to sue, in order to stretch out the life of their monoplistic patents on drugs?)
"5. Drug companies have too much influence over medical education about their own products."
"6. Important information about research and development, marketing, and pricing is kept secret."
"7. Prices are too high and too variable."

Prices for drugs in America are as much as 50% higher than in other countries.
Angell: "big pharma gets away with exploiting the public in part because of its extraordinary secrecy. Drug companies reveal very little about the most crucial aspects of their business. Yet, unlike other businesses, they are dependent on the public for a host of special favors--including rights to NIH funded research, long periods of market monopoly, and multiple tax breaks that almost guarantee a profit."
Peace,
Kevin

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fred950:
Why not expand military medicine (or something modled after military medicine) to civies? Kind of hard for the neo-cons to scream 'socialism! when the concept has worked quite well (I did NOT say it's perfect!) for over 100 years. In the good old USA. Add the VA hospital system into the picture and you have a large pool of expirience in operating such a nationwide health care system.

Of couse Army, Navy and VA medical corps are not perfect. But niether is our current hodge-podge of for profit, some-are-more-equall- than-you set ups we have now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, you're right on target. With V.A. and Medicare infrastructure already in place, it is virtually a no brainer.