Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: eddiek on September 10, 2003, 09:34:23 AM
-
What are your opinions on this?
I can see both sides.
I've not been on the other side of the coin, being a victim of shoddy medical care, but I have known people who have. Most were not interested in suing anyone, they just wanted to get on with their lives and get past the experience. Not that they didn't deserve some compensation for the errors in the treatment they received (like having activated charcoal instilled into the lungs instead of the stomach......:eek:.......BIG TIME mistake on the part of the attending physician and the resident), but at some point one must ask "What am I really gaining from all this?"
As a healthcare professional, it worries me to see my insurance premiums keep going up and up (even nurses are encouraged to have malpractice insurance). What is most aggravating is knowing that even though I do my best each and every time I work a shift, there are others out there who are only in healhcare for the money, and their shoddy work makes it harder and harder for all of us.
But IMHO, most of the mistakes we see in medical care today stem from one thing: Corporate involvement in healthcare.
You take a chain of hospitals all tied together and answering to a main office 500 or a 1000 miles away (or more), and the bottom line is not quality of care..........it is the almighty dollar, and the "make a profit" mentality.
I am not into the idea of the government getting involved in the day in and day out operations of healthcare, but at some point, something needs to be done. More and more, especially at larger hospitals, I see dangerous understaffing.......like 20-30 patients for each nurse. This is far too many patients for one nurse to deal with, and inevitably leads to patient dissatisfaction and mistakes on the part of the medical practitioner.
Instead of setting limits on how much compensation victims receive, if the government is going to involve itself with medical care, how about setting standards and regulations on staffing. The most efficient medical facilities I have ever worked were considered "not for profit" or community based, and the bottom line there was and is quality care.
Until quality of care becomes the focal point of medicine, and not profits, we will continue to see more and more lawsuits and more and more understaffing.
Just my two cents worth.......
-
I'm voting for it, wouldn't consider otherwise. A very small step in the right direction.
-
I'm for it.
The limitation of $250K is for noneconomic damages (pain and suffeing). Should someone be rendered unable to work/function due to malpractice appropriate compensation can be made without limit.
So many false and/or bloated claims will soon make health care either unattainable or lacking in quality. If I have to pay someone for health care I'd rather it be the doctors than the lawyers.
-
Bandaids.
I sat on a civil suit where the plaintiff was sueing the doctor and hospital for not preventing her heart attack. The upshot of it all was she flatly refused to take care of her personal health.
The doctor had told her to exercise and had prescribed a diet plan along with some blood pressure medication.
She ignored both. The night she had the heart attack, she had been to Chili's, around 9pm, and had a plate full of fajitas, guacomole, and peppers.
A coupld of hours later she had chest pains. She took an antacid and lied down. A couple more hours later, her husband called the doctor (2am) and told the doctor she was having bad indigestion.
The doctor prescribed some prescription antacid and told him that if she was not feeling better, then to call him back.
The next morning, she finally goes to see the doctor, who immediately called for an ambulance, gave her oxygen and got her to the hospital.
She was having a heart attack.
She sued and won somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-6 million dollars. The insurance company figured they were not going to get it any lower and paid up.
I was livid, and the only juror who refused to give her a nickel. Everyone else thought is was great to beat up the bad insurance company and see the little guy get some cash. I still get angry about this.
-
[Edit: Thought better of it.
-
How much do you have to pay for a health insurance?
-
Understand your point AK, Skuzzy, ect...but,
When A doctor makes a major mistake at a childs birth, causing lifetime damage such as brain damage, loss of limbs on the right side of the childs body, handicapped for life.....
All due to a doctors refusal to act correctly and follow procedure....
why? taking a personal phone call while delivering a baby trying to sell a house.....
Now, mind you....my friends family has not taken any action, nor will they. Just for the fact of going through all that political BS.
So, your telling me that that mistake is worth 250k? therapy alone on this kid is over 50K a year, and medical is over 40k
I dont want to argue this point...but just an example of a close family friend.
My problem is with the words, "and other actions" legally speaking can mean an amount of just about anything.
Just the other "honest" side of it...ya know?
Dont bash me guys....just venting my dislikes with it. :rolleyes:
-
The emotional suffering is limited to that. Economic damages (which would include medical expenses) remain unlimited.
-
Hard to say, I haven't really paid much attention to the actual bill, just the propaganda from both sides. Anyone have a copy of the actual amendment?
-
MwXX,..there are doctors out there who should not be practicing medicine, to be sure. Then there are doctors who are attentive and do the best they can with what they are given to work with.
The trouble is, in court, it is irrelevant. Both get smacked.
That is what my "Bandaids" comment was about. This does not solve the problem, it only puts a bandaid on the wound, which is still seething and oozing.
In the case I mentioned, how in the heck did it get to trial? Are people not responsible for their own health anymore, to the point that when they abuse themselves they can now sue and win enough money to retire. Heck of a deal.
It's a no-win situation.
-
I was in jury selection, some little auto accident/neck case. The lawyer for the plantiff was asking questions of the pool. He asked this one, which made me(and others) laugh out loud, Real loud, and led to my dismissal from the case:
"Would it prejudice you to my client if you knew that he called the doctor from my office, on my ugring, 3 days after the accident"
Another lady that I bowl with made the jury, and they awarded the scum nothing.
-
No, I agree 1,000,000,000~infinity % LOL :D
Just making a comment on those who it might hurt.
Though I dont wish this or any situation on anyone....
Ive done the surveillance on these people...and in my opinion....if your gonna sue, something BETTER be wrong with you! Now adays these frivolous lawsuits are starting to be accounted for. Once judgment is made, I guarantee you a company is hired to find fault with your claim....once your caught, life "pertaining to your judgment" is over.
So to those even "thinking" about suing....
we are watching you!
LOL :eek:
-
My mother had a case 3 back surgeries and another surgeon who was more then willing to say in court the first surgeon f-ed up big time.
Cali has a law like this as well. The result? My mom could not find a decent lawyer who would take the case. Not enough money in it for them, for the amount of time they predicted.
Do i have a problem with the law? Even though my mother suffers on perminant disability and is always in pain( proscribed Moraphine).
No, its a good law, for the cases like my mom, where she got boned by a doc and the system it sucks. But there are tons more just trying to make a buck. We have to many people trying to game the system and need laws like this, even though they can hurt some people.
What it has tought me? 99% of lawyers are ****ing scum bags, and need to be shot. They will be our downfall.
-
ummm. Its not the law, its the Jurys awarding the absurd amounts.
Leave it alone and make jurys held accountable.
Been involved in 2 malpractice cases. Lotsa ****ty doctors out there. I had at least 2 myself.
My only complaint are the take the lawyers get out of it. Doesn't make since some of the fees these guys get.
Insurance companies and lawyers, hate um both.
-
"Are people not responsible for their own health anymore, to the point that when they abuse themselves they can now sue and win enough money to retire. Heck of a deal."
That is one of the reasons I do the agency nursing. Too many "revolving door" patients, ones who don't take care of themselves, don't follow any medical advice, ignore any and all patient teaching and disease related literature..........they get admitted, get treated like kings and queens, get discharged....back in as little a week with the same problems.
I finally got my fill of the narc seeking patients and the noncompliant diabetics and cardiac patients at the local hospital. Felt like I was wasting my time and energy on them, knowing they were going to do the same old thing soon as they got home.
Example:
Young woman, in her 20's, gets admitted with a diagnosis of Sickle Cell crisis. Pretty dang serious.
However, her doctor knows that her "normal" lab values are always in what is considered the "critical" or "crisis" range, they are never normal.
He admits her, prescribes Demerol 75mg with Phenergan 25mg IV push every 4 hours, AS NEEDED.
This woman would not let 4 hours go by....she was on the call light at 3 hours, then every 5 minutes after that til she got her fix of Demerol.
Ok.....fast forward a few days........the doctor cuts her off the Demerol, orders Darvocet. She refuses it, says it doesn't work. I ask her what she takes at home for pain: "Darvocet, of course." is her reply.
"It works at home, but it doesn't work here in the hospital?"
She tells me to leave her room, I get reassigned away from her end of the floor.
Her doctor also leaves orders for a sedative in case she starts throwing a fit when she cannot get her Demerol fix (he left town for the weekend, the scumbag).....she refuses it. Her reason: "I might sleep past time for my next dose of Demerol!"
Repeat this several times, month after month after month........we note that she comes in the same time each month. When? At the end of the month when her Medicaid runs out, and she cannot buy anymore Darvocet.
I ask her MD the reason for the continued orders for Demerol and such.
"She will sue us for everything we are worth if we don't give her what she wants. It's that simple. Either we give it to her, or get sued. I'd rather just give it to her and get it over with than have to go to trial and defend myself for HER drug addiction."
The system is nuts, screwed, just plain crazy.
-
simple as this...if your in it for the money then you shouldent be in it at all
-
I'm voting yes.
-
I am against Prop. 12 and this is why.
[RANT] A Doctor makes a SERIOUS mistake during pregnancy/ delivery and the child is born only to survive a few agonizing years filled with DOZENS of horrible surgeries. The legs are so constricted that they must be cut open and the muscles sliced like a steak just so they may straighten from their constant cramped bending. 6 months later similar surgery on the arms. Another few weeks then back surgery. The child cries out in pain every waking moment only sleeping after being druged. The brain is so damaged it can not understand words or speak, but it does understand pain and how to cry from it. The child would have lived a normal life if not for the mistake that was clearly the Doctor's fault. You are saying that the agonizing suffering that child was tortured with every day of it's life is only worth $250,000. The insurance does pay you back (and you better have meticulous recordkeeping) for the medical treatment. The parents have been put thru an emotional Hurricane and have been scared for life. If the punitive damages are not set to a point where this Doctor has to pay thru the nose for future malpractice coverage, if he can obtain it, there is no deterent. These people are not looking for a payday, they are not taking a shot for the lottery, they simply want JUSTICE and they way our society is set up that justice is in the form of money. That doctor will never know how that child and it's family suffered, but you will get his attention when you take his money away. A Judge and Jury must decide what is fair compensation, not some politician lining his pockets with money from an Insurance company trying to limit it's losses. There are those who file frivilous suits and occassionally one slips thru the cracks in the system and makes headlines. 12 of your peers in most cases see those frivilous suits for what they are and they lose their case, but that does not make the headlines. [/RANT] :mad:
-
What you should be asking for, if indeed it is a case of criminal negligence, should be criminal prosecution.
If not criminally negligent, then why should there be punitive damages.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
What you should be asking for, if indeed it is a case of criminal negligence, should be criminal prosecution.
If not criminally negligent, then why should there be punitive damages.
Fine by me. Let's make malpractice suits criminal. Substitute the cash penalty for some jail time. I don't think the Doctors will be campaigning for that one.
-
That exists already, you just don't get money for it.
-
Fatty, you are not correct. For it to be criminal, as the law is now, there has to be premeditation and malice. That does not mean that the Medical Examiner's board can not take action, such as revoking a practicioners license. This is a matter between patient and provider. Not every lawsuit is frivilous, not every Practicioner a quack, but every insurance company is there to make money. If they can limit the potential payout, they can maximize their profit, and PROFIT is what this is all about. Wouldn't profit reform be more appropriate to lowering Malpractice Insurance rates? Why not make those huge Executive bonuses and severence packages limited by law? This is a move by huge mega-corporations to make more money at your expense, and it won't stop with Medical malpractice.
Let's take a look at the language of Prop 12:
"A constitutional amendment concerning civil lawsuits against doctors and healthcare providers, and other actions, authorizing the legislature to determine limitations on non-economic damages."
A constitutional amendment...( The Texas Constitution gives JURIES the power to decide damages on a CASE BY CASE basis. This radical amendment would cripple trial by jury and let polititions decide, instead of judges and juries.)
...and other actions...(This clause allows the Legislature to restrict what Judges and Juries can do to hold ANY wrongdoer responsable for their actions: drunk drivers, polluters, manufacturers of dangerous drugs or negligent makers of unsafe or defective products.)
...authorizing the legislature to determine...(considering the circus we have seen in Austin during this session, elected polititions in the Texas Legislature are the LAST people the citizens of Texas should authorize to take the place of Judges, Juries and the Courts.
...non-economic damages." (This allows the Legislature to set ANY low amount on a human life killed, maimed or injured by negligence or wrongdoing. A child, stay at home mom oe senior citizen could be worth $250,000 or $50,000 or 50 cents because they don't have "economic value".
Politicians are there to manipulate the public. Remember how Texas schools were going to get this great windfall from the Lottery? Turns out the money goes to the General Fund, but they didn't tell you that when they wanted you to vote in favor of a Lottery, did they?
Don't be sucked into beliving this will save Texas from losing Doctors. According to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners the number of Doctors practicing in the state has RISEN from 31,459 in 1998 to 37,188 in 2003.
Vote AGAINST Prop 12.
-
What does an insurance agency being there to make money have to do with it?
Hell I'm here to make money too, and I pay them as little as possible trying to maximize my profit. Why am I not the evil behind the system?
This is a move by huge mega-corporations to make more money at your expense, and it won't stop with Medical malpractice.
Man you're losing it. Put down the flyer for a second. They're going to make money either way, most of us are not even concerned about that. We're tired of endless lawsuits. Even you last post suggested criminal time for a civil suit(?)
Sorry, but every item you list as a problem I see as a step in the right direction.
-
And this whole 'Insurance companies' behind it all thing?
Trial lawyers' lobby had to try to find a spectre as shady, dishonest, and universally hated as they are.
Insurance companies are up there pretty high, but they're no trial lawyer.
-
I am voting yes.
Its not a cure all, but it is a starting point. The next step should be to limit the amount of money (percent wise) a trial lawyer can charge. Turning lawyers into milionairs or even billionairs (like the tobacco suit lawyers) is insane. The cost is passed down to the consumer.
-
Fatty, you are the one losing it. The whole this revolves around the Insurance Companies. According to the backers of Prop 12, Doctors are leaving or quitting practice because they can't afford to pay the Malpractice Insurance Premiums. It has been shown that the number of Doctors in the state has steadily risen, so that arguement does not wash. The Insurance Companies pay the claim when a Doctor is sued (at least the amount his policy covers). When they pay they lose PROFIT. They are not going broke, they still make money, just not as much. I know like everyone else you go into buisness to make money, I have no problem with buisnesses making money. I do have a problem when their making money starts to infringe on my rights.
For those thinking this amendment will drive all the shysters from Texas, think again. Lawyers will always be practicing in Texas and yes there will be crooked ones as well, assuming there is such a thing as an honest one. I agree let's cap lawyer percentages, altho most reputable firms already use a pretty common scale suggested by the State Bar Assn for contengency cases. This amendment will have no effect on that, it's not in the language. This amendment is NOT ABOUT LAWYERS.
This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue either, this is a bi-partisan issue that will effect every citizen of the state. Former State Supreme Court Justice Deborah Hankinson, a Republican, appointed by George W. Bush and served for 5 years has come out against Prop 12. So has Former State Supreme Court Justice James A. Baker, also a Republican appointed by Bush, who served for 7 years. HERE (http://www.texansagainstprop12.com/latestnews/opinions/sne_082403.htm) is an article written by Hankinson outlining her opposition to Prop 12. It is a very interesting read.
A similar law was enacted in California in 1975 limiting damages to $250,000 for pain and suffering, all in the name of helping Doctors lower their insurance premiums. The exact opposite happened and Doctors premiums rose 450% in 13 years. The problem was so out of hand that ANOTHER LAW (Prop 103)had to be passed in 1988 to force insurance companies to justify rate increases. Only after Proposition 103 passed did medical malpractice insurance premiums go down 20.2 percent, according to the insurance industry's own data. Insurance companies were forced to refund more than $75 million directly to physicians. Just a few weeks ago, using Prop. 103's protections, 9,000 California doctors saved $2,555 a year by successfully challenging an unjustified rate increase by the state's second largest malpractice insurance company. (The company also does business in Texas, as American Healthcare Indemnity, where it is backing Prop. 12).
What does an insurance agency being there to make money have to do with it?
And this whole 'Insurance companies' behind it all thing?
-
How do you think the Insurance Companies got in a position where malpractice insurance was an inelastic demand product? Of course they're in taking advantage of that. Isn't it strange that none of the articles even address that?
I agree this is not enough to make a real difference, but I'll take it as a start.
-
yes on 12!!!
let see, are you going to side with trial lawyers or doctors? I know that's an oversimplification, but it holds true.
-
eddiek: Corporate involvement in healthcare.
You take a chain of hospitals all tied together and answering to a main office 500 or a 1000 miles away (or more), and the bottom line is not quality of care..........it is the almighty dollar, and the "make a profit" mentality.
Actually, it's the relsult of excessive government intervention into healthcare/insurance that only makes it possible for huge corporations to survive. The overhead of billing/collecting and having layers and people responcible for compliance with government regulations is too much for a small clinic/office.
I am not into the idea of the government getting involved in the day in and day out operations of healthcare, but at some point, something needs to be done. More and more, especially at larger hospitals, I see dangerous understaffing.......like 20-30 patients for each nurse.
What would you do? Draft people into medical profession? Sentence criminals to serve as nurses? How about punishing people for getting sick and becoming patients? Killing off the weak? Reinstating eugenic laws under which 50,000 were involuntarily sterilised in the US?
That would certainly improve your patient/provider ratio...
Of course the free market has solution to all those problems - quality and quantity of healthcare, lawsuits, etc. Not the ideal solution, as long as scarcity of goods/services remains with us but the optimal solution where the available resources are used with the greatest effect to satisfy the most urgent needs.
Government restricts the number of health providers by licensing and exessive regulation laws, mandates the fees, restricts the freedom of contract where a doctor can be released from responcibility while at the same time forbidding a doctor to refuse a patient that is too risky. Mix in mandated insurance that is for the most part not insurance but hidden redistributive tax scheme. Of course we have all the problems we have now.
P.S. About licensing - I know it is done so that the poor would only get the best doctors. That's why teh supply is restricted. By the same token, only allowing only the best and safest cars to be sold - no less than Rolls-Royce - would benefit the poor. Right? Better none of good than some of the passable that the people could actually get and afford.
About malpractice. Why not let the patients select the doctors they trust and allow them to sign an optional liability waiver (or go to another doctor). Then a patient would buy an insurance just for this particular risky procedure.
The doctors would not be saddled with huge expences and overheads (layer's fees and premiuls that are paid even if one is never sued). The care gets cheaper which helps patient pay for his insurance.
The victim is compensated by insurance without expensive lawsuits. If a doctor is criminally negligent, fine - ge gets sued in a criminal court. If he is just prone to error, insurance companies will refuse to sell inurance to his/her patients and he will get out of business.
After all, insurance company with dedicated staff of experts would have more knowlege about a doctor's record than a patient can have.
miko
-
Originally posted by Fatty
How do you think the Insurance Companies got in a position where malpractice insurance was an inelastic demand product? Of course they're in taking advantage of that. Isn't it strange that none of the articles even address that?
Did you read the last paragraph at all? Even after Tort Reform was passed in Califronia the rates continued to skyrocket. It had ZERO effect on helping Doctors.
[ i]Originally posted by Fatty [/i]I agree this is not enough to make a real difference, but I'll take it as a start.
It will be a starting point alright. written by Former Justice Hankinson
I urge every Texan to vote against Proposition 12 and reject this ill-conceived and radical attempt to rewrite our constitution.
The language of Proposition 12 reads: "A constitutional amendment concerning civil lawsuits against doctors and health care providers, and other actions, authorizing the legislature to determine limitations on non-economic damages."
What this language fails to convey is that by the three words "and other actions," the Legislature has written the Open Courts provision out of our constitution.
The Open Courts provision is rooted in the Magna Carta and is one of the most widespread and important state constitutional provisions that is not duplicated in the federal Constitution.
Our Open Courts provision guarantees "all courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law."
Bottom line, it's a BAD amendment with loopholes a mile wide. It can be applied to EVERY Civil case from drunk drivers to wrongful death. And it won't just be a law, it will be in our Constitution.
-
You quoted the answer to your question.
Bottom line, it's a BAD amendment with loopholes a mile wide. It can be applied to EVERY Civil case from drunk drivers to wrongful death. And it won't just be a law, it will be in our Constitution.
I hope you are right.
-
And I hope your child never gets hit by a drunk driver or poisoned by a careless Chemical factory. You would get $0 because it was a child and had no wage earning capacity. Politicians will determine how much you suffered by losing your child. When it happens to you, you will understand.
-
The lawyers are against. That says it all. I'm voting for it.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
And I hope your child never gets hit by a drunk driver or poisoned by a careless Chemical factory. You would get $0 because it was a child and had no wage earning capacity. Politicians will determine how much you suffered by losing your child. When it happens to you, you will understand.
why should you make money if your child dies? I know I wouldn't want to profit off the death of anybody. Much less would i want some GD lawyer to profit off of it too.
-
firbal: The lawyers are against. That says it all. I'm voting for it.
The medical guild and insurance special ineterest lobbies are for it. You will be screwed no matetr what.
You can try to remedy the result of one government intervention by creating another government intervention.
But the economic theory predicts that you get less desirable outcome than if you left things alone.
Of course the best would be to remove the original government intervention.
miko
-
Originally posted by firbal
The lawyers are against. That says it all. I'm voting for it.
Lawyers are against it. So are the Galveston Municipal Police Association, the Dallas Police Association, and the McAllen Police Officer’s Association, MADD, AARP, the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault and Texas Council on Family Violence along with the two former State Supreme Court Justices that were appointed by George W. Bush that I previously mentioned.
Speaking of PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, Udie:
Originally posted by rpm371
These people are not looking for a payday, they are not taking a shot for the lottery, they simply want JUSTICE and the way our society is set up that justice is in the form of money. That doctor will never know how that child and it's family suffered, but you will get his attention when you take his money away. A Judge and Jury must decide what is fair compensation, not some politician lining his pockets with money from an Insurance company trying to limit it's losses.
-
rpm371: These people are not looking for a payday, they are not taking a shot for the lottery, they simply want JUSTICE and they way our society is set up that justice is in the form of money.
Many are. Obstetritians are run out of business in many states through exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums because they are mostly sued for birth defects that are not the result of the malpractice.
A poor mother that did not care about her nutrition, lifestyle, choice of partner, etc. or were just unlucky in a biological lottery (25% of pregnancies spontaneously abort due to natural random chromosomal and other abnormalities - mostly even before pregnancy is detected, many births are inherently risky, etc.) gives birth to a sick baby and the ignorant jury thinks "it may be his fault or not, but we fill sorry for her. Let's give her money. It's not like anyone get's hurt or goes to jail, It's not even money out of his pocket - insurance will pay for it!".
miko
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Fatty, you are the one losing it. The whole this revolves around the Insurance Companies. According to the backers of Prop 12, Doctors are leaving or quitting practice because they can't afford to pay the Malpractice Insurance Premiums. It has been shown that the number of Doctors in the state has steadily risen, so that arguement does not wash.
I guess it depends on your point of view. If we are gaining doctors at a slower rate than we are gaining popultaion, the ones that are retireing and leaving the state is only going to add to the problem.
A quote from the Texas public policy foundation
"Texas has one of the most severe doctor shortages in the nation. Thirty years ago, the state enjoyed the same coverage of medical care as the rest of the nation. But by 2002, there were only 64 general practitioners to care for every 100,000 Texans. In most other states, there are 120 to 135 doctors for every 100,000 people. Only Missouri and Oklahoma have fewer doctors for their citizens. "
-
Most people base their opinion of lawyers and our legal system on a parade of horribles (which, addmittedly, are really horrible). I posit that that is both unfair and inaccurate and further suggest that favoring any legislation or amendment that will tip the balance of power in the direction of insurance companies is seriously misguided.
This amendment will certainly accomplish one thing: many folks that have been harmed and who would have been able to get legal representation before this amendment will not be able to if it passes. Say what you will about legal fees, but that is not a good development.
Further, if you or a loved one has ever been seriously injured due to another's negligence and you have received compensation for your "pain and suffering," you know that the money is never sufficient compensation. Imagine that you're a worker that doesn't require use of his legs to perform his job (e.g., telephone operator). Would you trade your left leg for $750k? I think not.
-
Does less than a million settlement qualify as pro bono?
Sorry if I can't be moved by that.
-
I work as firefighter/paramedic in the D/FW metroplex. We practice medicine under the direction of doctor. He is the medical director of several fire depts in the area. This man was the Medical director of the year here in Texas. In my 12 years of service I have never seen a medical director as dedicated, innovative, or as personally involved with our training and our performance. He has untied our hands and allowed us save peoples lives at critical times instead of just trying to unsuccessfully sustain them till we get them to the ER. My crew and I have worked on dozens of people in the in the past 2 years that would have died if it were not for him allowing us to do our jobs. Thats just 1 crew, 1 shift, at 1 station, for 1 dept. If Prop 12 does not pass, we will lose him due to the price of malpractice insurance. It is highly doubtful that we would be able to find someone to replace him. This will happen through out our state. Just something to think about.
-
Wonderful. We get to decide whether we line the pockets of insurance companies/doctors or the lawyers.
Someone hand me a ****ing air sick bag.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Does less than a million settlement qualify as pro bono?
Sorry if I can't be moved by that.
That was a clever retort, but if you're trying to make a serious point, you obviously have no idea how much it costs to try a lawsuit. An attorney or law firm that takes on a contingency case gets $0 if they lose, no matter how much (in the millions of dollars for reasonably complicated cases) he or they have invested. They prospect of a maximum contingency fee of $250k that will not even approach covering that investment, let alone counterbalance the risk of losing, is not going to entice many (any) lawyers or law firms.
-
If Gov. Perry was REALLY concerned about protecting Texas Doctors and not Insurance companies, why did he veto HB 1862 in 2001? The "Prompt Pay" bill would have forced insurance companies to pay claims submitted by Doctors in a timely manner. This is the major problem facing Texas Docs, not malpractice suits.
Here is a statement from the President of The Texas Medical Assn.
Governor Perry’s veto of HB 1862, the Texas “Fair Pay” reforms, gives the profit-driven managed care industry in our state a license to steal. While we appreciate the governor’s giving our views a fair hearing the past few days, the basis of this veto is fatally flawed. It will make a bad situation worse.
For more than four years now, the nation’s largest commercial HMOs and their intermediaries have methodically delayed for months at a time – or simply stolen – reimbursement for claims properly submitted by and owed to physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals. This has driven many small group and solo medical practices to the brink of insolvency, dangerously eroding our ability to properly care for our patients.
Current state law governing this behavior is riddled with loopholes, which the plans routinely exploit. That’s why the Texas Legislature – with overwhelming, bipartisan support – sent Governor Perry a comprehensive rewrite of those statutes that closes the loopholes and compels all managed care payers to stop a statewide pattern of predatory and deceptive business practices. It would have dramatically reduced the probability of lawsuits against the plans. It also would have greatly strengthened the plans’ hand in detecting improperly – or even fraudulently – submitted claims.
This untenable situation simply cannot be remedied by dumping the problem back in the lap of the Commissioner of Insurance. Doctors’ files are stuffed with letters from the Texas Department of Insurance over the past two years stating they have no authority over their prompt pay complaints.
The chaos this veto will produce can only drive more physicians into financial distress or bankruptcy and backs us into a corner where our only remedy is the courthouse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Medical Association is a professional organization of more than 37,000 physician and medical student members. It is located in Austin and has 118 component county medical societies around the state. The Association represents 85 percent of the doctors of medicine licensed and residing in Texas. TMA’s key objective is to improve the health of all Texans.
Please don't let some slick 30 second TV ad sway you into beliving Prop 12 is a good thing. Please, take the time to look at who's behind this (Joe Nixon for one) and look at what happened in California after they passed similar legislation. I am not making this stuff up.
-
I do understand Buckeye, but the difference is I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing.
-
RPM, are you sure you want to start referencing the TMA?
Considering their website begs you to vote for 12? (http://www.texmed.org/ata/nrm/can/thismonth.asp)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Please don't let some slick 30 second TV ad sway you into beliving Prop 12 is a good thing. Please, take the time to look at who's behind this (Joe Nixon for one) and look at what happened in California after they passed similar legislation. I am not making this stuff up.
You never even heard of Joe Nixon until opponents of this bill ran 30 second adds slamming him LOL
-
Originally posted by Fatty
I do understand Buckeye, but the difference is I see that as a good thing, not a bad thing.
Fair enough. Have fun negotiating with your or the tortfeasor's insurance company without legal representation.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
You never even heard of Joe Nixon until opponents of this bill ran 30 second adds slamming him LOL
Actually, I never heard of him until I started doing research(Haven't seen the commercial, sorry). I do not live in his district, so I would not have heard about him if not for Prop 12.
Fatty, I'm sure they are for 12. They are trying to cover their arse, but does that change Perry's position on making sure they get paid instead of ripped off by insurance companies? Gov. Perry is unequivically in the pocket of Big Insurance. Remember the whole Farmer's Insurance debacle a few months back?
-
I checked with my friends.
They pay $600/month for 10 months - which makes it $6,000 a year - for a decent private secular for-profit school (no extra source of income from religious institutions). They do have busses, etc.
Other people I know friends pay only $350/month for a greek orthodox school (10-15 pupils per class) but you must be a greek orthodox (the prevalent religion among russians, BTW) to get there.
I believe that per-pupil expense in a New York public school is around $10,000 a year.
miko
-
for prop 12 supporters, why are you for it?
an honest question.
-
Originally posted by Dnil
for prop 12 supporters, why are you for it?
PUNT
-
what, do you want a link to page 1?