Author Topic: Info for those who still believe (Read 1300 times)

rpm · « **Reply #15 on:** November 17, 2006, 11:04:55 AM »

Wait till a doctor kills or injures your child then tell me about malpractice. Say Ripsnot's star running back becomes a quad just because his doctor was too lazy to order a test or too stupid to read the results of one if he did? Oh well, it's Rip's kid not mine. Suck it up and play for the ICU team.

VOR · « **Reply #16 on:** November 17, 2006, 11:12:25 AM »

A doc too lazy to order a test would be a good case for malpractice. Of course you know that. Of course you also are intelligent enough to recognise an obviously frivolous lawsuit compared to negligence which resulted in the loss of someone's 4 limbs. Maybe you're just taking jabs because you don't like the names on the other side of the argument.

Edit: tasteless jabs.

myelo · « **Reply #17 on:** November 17, 2006, 11:56:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Wait till a doctor kills or injures your child then tell me about malpractice. Say Ripsnot's star running back becomes a quad just because his doctor was too lazy to order a test or too stupid to read the results of one if he did? Oh well, it's Rip's kid not mine. Suck it up and play for the ICU team.

And you think Rip getting a few million dollars is going to mean diddly to him at that point? Plus the doctor will still be in practice.

The goal of the medical malpractice system should be to identify and remove or retrain bad doctors and fix any system problems that harm patients. The current system does not do this. It's fairly good at compensating victims of malpractice (at considerable cost) but it's lousy at actually preventing malpractice.

When I'm president, we'll have a system where a panel of doctors review each case to determine if an error that resulted in injury took place and if so, what restrictions or retraining should take place for the clinician in question and if any system errors need to be addressed. If malpractice took place, the victim would be compensated from a general fund that all doctors and hospitals pay into instead of their insurance premiums. Compensation would be based on a standard scale for pain and suffering and actual economic damages.

This avoids having lawyers, judges and juries making medical judgements that they are not qualified to make. It substantially lowers the cost by taking out the lawyers (who eat up about 50% of the costs) and insurance companies, leaving more money to go to the victims. Finally, it focuses on fixing the system and removing the truly bad doctors.

rpm · « **Reply #18 on:** November 17, 2006, 12:39:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
Maybe you're just taking jabs because you don't like the names on the other side of the argument.

Edit: tasteless jabs.

I'm not taking jabs, I'm presenting the other side of the debate. Don't consider it tasteless, it's a real world scenario. Maybe you're just offended someone doesn't follow your way of thinking.

VOR · « **Reply #19 on:** November 17, 2006, 12:56:37 PM »

Playing for the ICU team = real world scenario. Gotcha.

Anyway, I acknowledged the other side of the debate (and your hypothetical scenario) in the first part of my post. You must have skimmed over it.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #20 on:** November 17, 2006, 12:59:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Wait till a doctor kills or injures your child then tell me about malpractice. Say Ripsnot's star running back becomes a quad just because his doctor was too lazy to order a test or too stupid to read the results of one if he did? Oh well, it's Rip's kid not mine. Suck it up and play for the ICU team.

Does a doctor's screw up sending my Dad down the road to a pretty sad death count? Money wouldn't bring him back. It won't help a damned thing. Now, I've BEEN THERE, and money wouldn't make things any better. Could I use a big settlement? Sure, so could my Mom. But that's not what it's supposed to be about. But I don't expect you to understand that.

Yeager · « **Reply #21 on:** November 17, 2006, 01:07:35 PM »

Every single medical doctor that evaluates patients will likely make a mistake that results in one of his patients losing life or limb during that doctors career in practice. If every single doctor were removed from practicing medicine because of errors in judgement there would be no doctors with any experience under their belt. I wonder how Hillarys plan addresses this problem?......

However, gross negligence is different from bad judgement or unpredictable death.

rpm · « **Reply #22 on:** November 17, 2006, 01:26:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Does a doctor's screw up sending my Dad down the road to a pretty sad death count? Money wouldn't bring him back. It won't help a damned thing. Now, I've BEEN THERE, and money wouldn't make things any better. Could I use a big settlement? Sure, so could my Mom. But that's not what it's supposed to be about. But I don't expect you to understand that.

Actually Virgil, I understand it completely. What some here don't understand is each case is different and each is equally complicated. To just make a blanket statemant about malpractice is ludacris. Looks like the courts are smart enough to weed out frivolous lawsuits from legit cases.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #23 on:** November 17, 2006, 01:39:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Actually Virgil, I understand it completely. What some here don't understand is each case is different and each is equally complicated. To just make a blanket statemant about malpractice is ludacris. Looks like the courts are smart enough to weed out frivolous lawsuits from legit cases.

Well, the problem is, there's practically zero punishment for bringing frivolous lawsuits, or repeated lawsuits without a real basis for a claim. It's all fine and dandy that courts can "weed them out". The problem with that is that it still costs plenty of time, money, and resources. And we all pay the bill. There's got to be some reform for that, it simply cannot go on. It costs way too much and it wastes the resources of an already over taxed system.

Neubob · « **Reply #24 on:** November 17, 2006, 02:46:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Wait till a doctor kills or injures your child then tell me about malpractice. Say Ripsnot's star running back becomes a quad just because his doctor was too lazy to order a test or too stupid to read the results of one if he did? Oh well, it's Rip's kid not mine. Suck it up and play for the ICU team.

A doctor kills your child and you, in return, punish all doctors for it, guilty or innocent. Have you considered that the proportion of bogus claims to legitimate claims is bigger than the proportion of trials that settle or end in plaintiff's victory is to those that are being thrown out?

lazs2 · « **Reply #25 on:** November 17, 2006, 03:02:58 PM »

nashwan... malpractice inurance is about half of the doctors expense in doing business.

How would that change under socialized medicine?

Are you saying that just as many malpractice lawsuits are filed by brits as by Americans? That the payouts are the same? That the legal costs are the same?

How much british law is America willing to accept to make the socialized medicine work?

lazs

Gunslinger · « **Reply #26 on:** November 17, 2006, 03:12:21 PM »

Think about the lawyer fees associated with 4000 cases as stated in the article posted.

Again Ohio represents 3.9% of the US population

Simple math here means 103422 cases are brought before the courts every year for this and get dismissed for whatever reason.

Most lawyers work probono for the one bringing the suit but the insurance companys and doctors have alot more to lose so they HAVE to pay their lawyers fees no matter what.

if each one of these cases cost between $4-10K each to defend then that means they are paying $413,690,604 - $1,034,226,511 (yes again that's a billion dollars annually) to defend lawsuits that get dismissed.

Again that's getting off cheap for a lawyer so that's a lowballed figure. And that is JUST THE LAWYER FEES ALONE.

Yes the system works just fine, leave it alone and eventually the healthcare industry will be sued out of existance.

Thrawn · « **Reply #27 on:** November 17, 2006, 03:27:49 PM »

Of course, no one is forcing these guys to become doctors.

I, for one think that docs shouldn't have to have insurance. But their clients would be wise to find out before hand. Same thing with waivers.

Great docs could have the waivers because people would be beating down the door to get to them. Mediocre docs would have insurance, just in case. And crap doctors wouldn't have either.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #28 on:** November 17, 2006, 03:59:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Of course, no one is forcing these guys to become doctors.

yea I mean c'mon how often do you have to go to a doctor. Who needs them anyways.

But what about the lawyers, we sue the doctors out of existance who will they have to sue? Eventually they will run out of cash cows to leech money from and then how will they pay for the beemers and lexus. Pretty soon country clubs will have to lay off grounds keepers because the lawyers can't pay their dues anymore and the doctors got sued out of existance. Geesh OH THE HUMANITY!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #29 on:** November 17, 2006, 04:19:33 PM »

So was this a Silat drive-by? Where'd he go?