The Healthcare Thread

[Sunder]

Originally Posted by Etoille

Ok you DO realize that standard of care is part of the prima facie case a plaintiff has to prove, right?

There are general standards of care which are tweaked from case to case becuase the facts of each case actually matter.

Like I know this will mean nothing to you but you do realize that the award amounts arent the problem, right?

Most money (remember, I worked in this industry - SPECIFICALLY in malpractice defense) spent on premiums goes to cover attorney costs/costs of defense, not award amounts. Little cases here or there wherein someone has to be paid to write the motion to dismiss or take depositions before a settlement is reached.

As I said the answer, ESPECIALLY if youre going to rail against market regulation/be full retard capitalism, is not to cap damages; the court awards are PART of a capitalistic system.

The answer is to penalize attorneys (and their clients) for filing claims which are complete bullshit - because thats what costs the real money. They DO have rules for 'bad faith claims' however such rules cost time and money to enforce which insurance companies dont want to spend either to do.

Do the homework, stop listening to sound bites.

I think we are just wasting our time. Once again, the e-lawyers on this board are completely ignorant of the judicial process in this country and are content to just be spoon-fed the lies and distortions by their conservative overlords. I'm off to file some more malpractice suits against good docs so I can afford my Ferrari.

[Sunder]

Originally Posted by Haus

Here is where I have a little problem. He is "pushing" health care reform by saying "OK congress.. come up with a health care reform package. I'm going to mention the good things I want in it, now you guys make that happen".

If he were serious about getting it done I'd think he would be more involved in the process of writing the thing. Instead I think he knows there's a good chance he won't have the democratic votes to put a public option though so he wants to have a safe distance if it fails to get through congress.

I'm so sorry that Obama respects the separation of powers in this country that is part of this country's founding ideals. I know we're not really used to that after the past 8 years of dictatorial over-lording of the entire government by Czar Bush, but you'll just have to get used people actually FOLLOWING the Constitution now.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Sunder

I'm so sorry that Obama respects the separation of powers in this country that is part of this country's founding ideals. I know we're not really used to that after the past 8 years of dictatorial over-lording of the entire government by Czar Bush, but you'll just have to get used people actually FOLLOWING the Constitution now.

There is considerable precedent for presidents helping to author and push legislation they believe in. The separation still exists in that congress passes the laws, the executive branch enforces them.

Also, when you campaign on big talk and promises of reform you need to deliver, not tell other people to deliver for you.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by Sunder

I think we are just wasting our time. Once again, the e-lawyers on this board are completely ignorant of the judicial process in this country and are content to just be spoon-fed the lies and distortions by their conservative overlords. I'm off to file some more malpractice suits against good docs so I can afford my Ferrari.

I didnt know you were in Madison County!

http://www.atra.org/reports/hellhole...lholes2004.pdf

I had a legal mal case where the underlying was an asbestos claim out of Madison County.....I believe the legal mal was actually in front of Byron.

Well it was....til I found a piece of paper from when the lawyers were signing up plaintiffs that proved plaintiff's underlying claim was timebarred and she shouldn't even have gotten the 2.3million (she was suing my client for like 12 or 25 or something insane because he split off from his partners who convinced plaintiff to sue my client for 'fucking up the case' - basically the sharks eating each other) she was awarded before I believe it was Owens Corning went bankrupt.

We had been trying to get the case out of Madison County on forum non convienens for like 3 years along with getting it dismissed - I found that little piece of paper and the partner called plaintiffs lawyer up and magically they dismissed it themselves :P


ITS ALL CLEAR NOW SUNDER. YOURE ONE OF THOSE ASSHOLES.


Incidentally, people in southwestern Illinois have complained that there are no doctors around anymore; that they have to drive 2-3 hours to get healthcare.

Well fuckers, thats what happens when you sue every doctor in town.

[MrSpitz]

Isn't tort reform a term used to mean any reform of the judgment amounts or number of litigations in injury award cases? IF not, then I am sorry for misunderstanding.

So if you don't want judgments capped, but rather a penalty for the amount of frivolous law suits driving up litigation numbers and thus insurance premiums, then wouldn't that be tort reform? Or if not, just a reform of the legal system and practices outside medicine? And if there are a number of frivolous lawsuits, doesn't that show you how fluid and ill-defined the current standard of care considerations are? I mean if your explanation for malpractice insurance premiums going up in the face of leveled off payouts is extraneous lawsuits with no merit, that you want to be penalized, then isn't a large part of the problem that the standards of care allowing these lawsuits to be generated to the point of settlement (out of fear/expediency/whatever) are not well defined enough?

So, are you guys arguing my point for me? Or Sunder are you instead advocating for direct regulation of the medical malpractice insurance providers? Who here is really against me in that the malpractice system is broken?

I mean after all, who would want to take the Ferrari away from a lawyer? Smart move backing off that 2% claim though once the New York numbers were posted.

Edit: bolded for chaos. And no, I didn't say that. An article showed that payouts in new york state have leveled off for two years, another article showed malpractice premiums rising steadily until a temporary moratorium was put in place to halt any more premium increases. Not my words, what actually is the state of affairs in New York.

[chaos]

But... you said that payouts have not been rising, yet premiums have, and drastically. And tried to relate this to tort reform...

[chaos]

I agree, he does need to deliver on reform. However, I'd be pretty disappointed in his leadership ability if he were drafting the legislation himself. Pretty much a textbook case of micromanagement.

[MrSpitz]

Originally Posted by Sunder

I'm so sorry that Obama respects the separation of powers in this country that is part of this country's founding ideals. I know we're not really used to that after the past 8 years of dictatorial over-lording of the entire government by Czar Bush, but you'll just have to get used people actually FOLLOWING the Constitution now.

Hello hypocrisy. If your campaign promise is to reform health care, you should put your indelible stamp on it. It should be more than an empty statement, it should reflect some ideas or desire in the area. No specifics, no meaningful reform, a bill produced by congress that he can abandon support for if he doesn't like it for political cover. Yea, that's respect for self preservation, not the separation of powers. You are delusional. Better get back to the ferrari.

[chaos]

Well I'm certain that he has people making sure that the bill is drafted in keeping with his philosophy, there's no reason for him to be directly involved in the formation of a specific piece of legislation.

[Sunder]

Originally Posted by MrSpitz

Or Sunder are you instead advocating for direct regulation of the medical malpractice insurance providers?

You're at least getting warmer, but you still fail in other areas.

I mean after all, who would want to take the Ferrari away from a lawyer? Smart move backing off that 2% claim though once the New York numbers were posted.

So much for free market huh? As for the 2% comment, READ, MOTHER FUCKER, DO YOU DO IT??

Toolbox: Medical Malpractice Law Reform - David Kendall - The American Interest Magazine

In fact, medical malpractice insurance premiums account for only 1 percent of the nation’s health care spending, and actual malpractice judgments, despite the headline-grabbing dollar amounts of some of them, make up an even smaller percentage: about half of a percent.

[MrSpitz]

Did you really just reply to me with an article that supports pretty much everything I want?

Here, let me help you.

If what your article says is true, 1.5% of the 2 trillion we spend on health care goes directly to malpractice premiums and judgment awards. Fine, I'll accept that for now.

From later on in the article
"The cost impact of defensive medicine is greater than the actual costs of hospital errors, malpractice insurance and judgments combined (estimates range from 4 to 9 percent of health care spending). This, not high insurance premiums, is the core problem that needs a solution. "

So assuming middle of the ball park, let's say 7% from defense medicine (since he is pulling numbers out of his ass, but I digress, this is your article after all), a dysfunctional malpractice system accounts for ~8.5% of the two trillion we spend on health care.

If you take the 650,000 physicians, divy up that into specialists by relative percentage of residencies, and then find the average salary of each group and then average salary overall, doctors themselves pocket ~8% of the two trillion we spend on health care (not including profits based on ownership of imaging facilities, private research derived profits, etc.). Sorry, you can do some leg work to verify that yourself I've posted enough numbers in this thread.


So having a defunct malpractice system, by your own article, takes roughly 8.5% of the 2 trillion we spend. And your article wants health courts instead of 'stricter standards of care' like I pushed (which is probably a better idea than I had) which would also be able to better meter out judgment amounts.

Yea, you sure showed me. But you know what, at least we are on the same page at the core of the issue. Which, for you and I, speaks volumes as to how fucked up the current system is.

[Haus]

Does anybody have the pre-release list of questions and answers from his Health Care infomercial ABC is putting on yet? I wanted to get my talking points together for the water cooler at work...

(Seems ABC is denying requests from people opposing his health care plan to buy advertising time during the "special evening news" they're throwing for him. Yeah, that isn't going to be biased....)

[Haus]

Originally Posted by chaos

Well I'm certain that he has people making sure that the bill is drafted in keeping with his philosophy, there's no reason for him to be directly involved in the formation of a specific piece of legislation.

Did he , or did he not, campaign with health care reform as one of the cornerstones of his platform?

My bet is still with many democrats saying he won't have the votes for a public plan option he's keeping his safe distance. Probably hoping his informercial on ABC will help sway public opinion some.

[Araxen]

Originally Posted by Haus

Does anybody have the pre-release list of questions and answers from his Health Care infomercial ABC is putting on yet? I wanted to get my talking points together for the water cooler at work...

(Seems ABC is denying requests from people opposing his health care plan to buy advertising time during the "special evening news" they're throwing for him. Yeah, that isn't going to be biased....)

What he should do is let them air the commercials and then debunk them when they come back from break.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Araxen

What he should do is let them air the commercials and then debunk them when they come back from break.

What I would prefer would be an actual debate on the matter. Him and his crew, a group of the oppositions people. Moderated like a presidential debate with questions from both the audience and "expert" sources.