Hillary lost!

[Paddy]

However, he subsequently changed his mind about the war and apologized for that military authorization vote.

Because he trusted the President to use the authorization only as a last resort. He was man enough to admit a mistake after he discovered he'd been lied to.  Unlike George 'Mission  Accomplished' Bush.

Insurance companies are in the business of accepting risk in exchange for premium dollars. They didn't 'lose' anything, so there was nothing to 'pass along'.  Business 101.  Probably available at your local Community College.

[Antibubba]

And Obama won.
He's worse.

Only because he seems to believe the platitudes he pitches.  Nothing is more dangerous than a visionary.

Still, I'd rather take my chances on that than on Hellary.  A President that strays too far from the middle will find himself blocked by Congress.  For gosh sakes, she's trying to convince people she used to be a duck hunter! 

[De Selby]

  See cases in which the baby dies during birth only averages about a half a million dollars, meanwhile Edwards could tug on the heartstrings of juries by parading the disabled in front of them to get his 1/3 cut of multi-million dollar settlements/awards.

Mrs Scout is a NICU nurse.  The mention of John Edwards gets her pretty fired up.

What you just described is a function of the law.  Because there was no such thing as a wrongful death lawsuit at common law, the action is entirely statutory or a patchwork creation, and so if a plaintiff dies, that generally (for all types of cases) means less money than a severe injury.  That's just the way the legal tree shook out on the question of death.  There was personal injury at common law, so there's a long and deep body of law to rely on in suing people for it.  There was no wrongful death, so you get whatever courts or legislatures have made for you.  And it isn't very good, for the most part.

Before we get into calling Edwards a heart-string tugger, it'd be good to note that Medical Malpractice is by FAR the most difficult personal injury case to win, and has by far the most prohibitive standards of proof and generally the most restrictive limits on recovery.  

Doctors and hospitals have better legal protection from lawsuits than any other industry-including the government, for the most part.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"Doctors and hospitals have better legal protection from lawsuits than any other industry-including the government, for the most part."

how so?

[De Selby]

"Doctors and hospitals have better legal protection from lawsuits than any other industry-including the government, for the most part."

how so?

The standard of care usually requires tons of expert testimony tailored to the local situation; you can't just allege malpractice and have a claim on the basis that you're screwed up.  You need other doctors who have done exactly the same kind of procedure under the same conditions to come testify, otherwise you have no case. 

Many states have pre-trial mechanisms that require extensive work and documentation to go forward with a suit; not so for other kinds, but for malpractice....yep.  So your case can get tossed before you've even gotten near a jury.

Also, many states require that you post a bond to be paid just in case you don't make it to trial in one of the above conferences.

And then there's the fact that certain damages are capped only for medical malpractice in many places, like California, where non-economic damages are capped for medical malpractice cases.

Lots of special rules designed solely to protect against malpractice cases out there, which explains why the failure rate for that kind of lawsuit is about 85 percent.

[LAK]

Sergeant Bob,

RE: shark eyes

And Hillary could still bite even after this

[Manedwolf]

when in fact its malpractice yes. but when its about ambulance chasing with the insurance company anti chasers opting to settle outa expediency its all the rest of us that pay.

Uh, YOU don't pay unless YOUR'E at fault.  As far as 'ambulance chasing', he apparently convinced more than one jury of the facts.  The juries found in his favor, so take it up with them.

You don't know much about the medical industry, do you? Do you have any IDEA how much of a doctor's yearly income gets sucked right back into expensive malpractice insurance so they don't lose their home if an ambulance-chaser goes after them because someone whose LIFE they saved is not back to 100% of their original quality of life? That a doctor can't work for a hospital unless they have that insurance? That they'd lose their private practice, if they had one, if they didn't have that insurance? We're talking up to hundreds of thousands a year they have to PAY for the insurance if they're a leading surgeon.

Oh, but doctors are supposed to be miracle workers and restore someone who didn't take care of themselves to full capacity after their body finally breaks down. Otherwise they can be sued for millions. That's the idea of people like Edwards, who are quick to stick their greasy hands in the winnings and take their cut.

A surgeon can spend eight straight hours on their feet trying to put someone's organs back in and limbs back on after a traumatic accident, blood everywhere, literally trying to push their brains back into their skull and seal it up...and that person, if they're an ingrate, can sue the surgeon if their fingers don't bend quite right or they have "pains" later. And win.

Tell me how that's "right".

Also:

The standard of care usually requires tons of expert testimony tailored to the local situation; you can't just allege malpractice and have a claim on the basis that you're screwed up.  You need other doctors who have done exactly the same kind of procedure under the same conditions to come testify, otherwise you have no case.

That's BS. Most sleazy law firms have at least one failed pet "doctor" who will go around on their paycheck and testify to the court for them.

[280plus]

All I know is it sticks in her craw and that's enough for me right now. 

Can't wait to see how the rest of the race unfolds, it oughta be good. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

too true  theres a sleazy lawyer on conn ave across from the mayflower . his son practices with him.son has a med school skeleton on the rack in his office in a neck brace.  they have a closet in te office stocked with neck braces all sizes and as you said a couple pet doctors. everyone leaves in a brace. i was in an accident that was so severe the big gulp i was holding , no lid, didn't spill. he got the driver 10 k settlement and told me i could get 3 k easy. hes so good the insurance companies roll over and settle.he was also unperturbed my my telling him i wasn't hurt. he called it easy money.

to paraphrase clintons lawyer  no telling what you'll find when you troll a big settlement opportunity through the lawyers lounge

[Werewolf]

how does anyone see edwards as pro middle class? like the "king " in king rat was pro rat

Uh, he was born into poverty, put himself through college and law school, then represented MIDDLE CLASS WORKING AMERICANS in successful lawsuits against abusive and negligent corporations. 

That makes him PRO middle class.

No...

It makes him Pro money AND smart.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Edwards is an opportunist.  He saw opportunity in dubious malpractice lawsuits.  Now he sees opportunity in politics, peddling his populist pap to the gullible. 

He's been playing the same game his whole life.  He comes up with new moves from time to time, but it still the same old game.  He looks for easy ways to take advantage of others, and never bothers to produce anything useful or contribute anything of value.

[wooderson]

Do you have any IDEA how much of a doctor's yearly income gets sucked right back into expensive malpractice insurance so they don't lose their home if an ambulance-chaser goes after them because someone whose LIFE they saved is not back to 100% of their original quality of life?

You mean malpractice insurance - offered by insurers with a history of overstating losses so they could overcharge the doctors? And who routinely raise rates, claiming that there's been a 'surge in payouts' - when no such thing exists?

I mean, surely the cost of insurance couldn't at all be related to malfeasance on the part of insurers, right?

[Manedwolf]

Do you have any IDEA how much of a doctor's yearly income gets sucked right back into expensive malpractice insurance so they don't lose their home if an ambulance-chaser goes after them because someone whose LIFE they saved is not back to 100% of their original quality of life?

You mean malpractice insurance - offered by insurers with a history of overstating losses so they could overcharge the doctors? And who routinely raise rates, claiming that there's been a 'surge in payouts' - when no such thing exists?

I mean, surely the cost of insurance couldn't at all be related to malfeasance on the part of insurers, right?

If you dislike insurance companies so much, I'm sure you have no health insurance of your own to cover the costs of modern medical treatment.

Right?

They're a business. They're trying to make a profit, which is getting harder and harder to do with people demanding that Big Government step in and force them to cover everything from stomach stapling to transgender surgery.

Maybe if you push them hard enough, they just might close. Then you'd be happy, right?

[wooderson]

If you dislike insurance companies so much, I'm sure you have no health insurance of your own to cover the costs of modern medical treatment.

Um, no, I don't.

But you didn't really to respond to me, so I don't know what your point was.

You tried to blame malpractice suits for the cost of insurance - while conveniently ignoring, as I said, the role of insurers themselves. It's very convenient.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?

[SteveS]

Also:

The standard of care usually requires tons of expert testimony tailored to the local situation; you can't just allege malpractice and have a claim on the basis that you're screwed up.  You need other doctors who have done exactly the same kind of procedure under the same conditions to come testify, otherwise you have no case.

That's BS. Most sleazy law firms have at least one failed pet "doctor" who will go around on their paycheck and testify to the court for them.

It isn't BS, it is how med-mal cases generally work.  Having a 'hired gun' isn't going to win a case if the defendent followed the standard of care.  

You don't know much about the medical industry, do you? Do you have any IDEA how much of a doctor's yearly income gets sucked right back into expensive malpractice insurance so they don't lose their home if an ambulance-chaser goes after them because someone whose LIFE they saved is not back to 100% of their original quality of life?

From a 2006 study:

Despite claims by some doctors that rising malpractice premiums are driving physicians out of business, new data confirms that for many years, insurance premiums have made up only a small percentage of total expenses for doctors, including “high-risk” specialists.

In the first known study to compare doctors’ premiums to their total expenses and incomes, researchers analyzed the American Medical Association’s own physician surveys.  The study is published in the May/June 2006 edition of Health Affairs magazine.1  According to the study:
From 1970-2, premiums increased only slightly. In 2, premiums were lower than in 1986.  From 1986-2, there was a sizable decline in premiums while other expenses surged.

The decrease in premiums as a percentage of total expenses between 1986 and 2000 was attributable to a decline in premiums combined with increased spending for other practice expenses.

“For the specialties, premiums also decreased as a percentage of total expenses from 1986 to 2000—most notably for OB/GYN, for which premiums declined from 20 percent to 13 percent.  OB/GYN premiums decreased $487 per year, while total practice expenses increased $5,305 per year.”

“National trends were reflected in the nine regions with slight variations… In no region were premiums as a percentage of total expenses more than three percentage points higher than the national mean during any year.”

“Although premiums rose from 1996 to 2, practice revenue declined nationally and for specialties (except for OB/GYN).  It was revenue decline and increases in nonpremium expenses, not premium increases, that account for the overwhelming share of falling income. For OB/ GYN, revenue increased slightly, but income declined because of large increases in practice expenses. However, increases in premiums were less than one-twentieth the size of increases.”

The average physician income in 2003 was still between the ninety-fifth and ninety-ninth percentiles for all Americans.

_____________________________

1 Marc A. Rodwin, Hak J. Chang, and Jeffrey Clausen, “Malpractice Premiums And Physicians’ Income: Perceptions Of A Crisis Conflict With Empirical Evidence,” Health Affairs – Vol. 25 , Number 3, p. 750 (May/June 2006).

You mean malpractice insurance - offered by insurers with a history of overstating losses so they could overcharge the doctors? And who routinely raise rates, claiming that there's been a 'surge in payouts' - when no such thing exists?

I mean, surely the cost of insurance couldn't at all be related to malfeasance on the part of insurers, right?

Wooderson is right.  There is plenty of evidence that tort reform in reagrds to medical malpractice doesn't cause premiums to drop.  California put a cap on damages in 1975.  In the 13 years that followed, premiums rose 450%.  The “liability insurance crisis” of the mid-1980s was ultimately found to be caused not by legal system excesses but by the economic cycle of the insurance industry.  

[Sergeant Bob]

Thats pretty interesting Steve S., but how much do they pay for malpractice insurance?

----------------------------------------------------------------
June 1, 2005

High cost of malpractice insurance threatens supply of ob/gyns, especially in some urban areas

UMHS study finds premium rates affect where ob/gyns choose to practice; could have major impact on urban areas.

ANN ARBOR, MI - The high cost of malpractice insurance for some medical specialties affects not only how many doctors are entering the field of obstetrics and gynecology, but also where they offer their widely needed obstetric, prenatal and gynecological care, according to new University of Michigan Health System research.

heir study, published in the June issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, gives a foreboding prognosis for the supply of doctors specializing in the field because of the rising costs of malpractice premiums.

Malpractice insurance premiums vary widely from state to state. Florida is the highest-premium state, with an average 2004 premium of more than $195,, followed by Nevada, Michigan, the District of Columbia, Ohio, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois and New York.

The 10 lowest-premium states are Oklahoma, at about $17,000 on average, and Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, Indiana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arkansas and South Carolina.

Many areas of the country, especially around major metropolitan areas, are experiencing large increases in the average costs of premiums. Between 2003 and 2004, Dade County in Florida, which includes the city of Miami, went from $249,000 to $277,, an increase of about 11 percent.

In that same period, Cook County in Illinois, which includes Chicago , jumped about 67 percent from $138,000 to more than $230,000. Wayne County in Michigan , which includes Detroit, went up 18 percent, from almost $164,000 to nearly $194,000.

University of Mich. Health System
---------------------------------------------------------------------


This report seems to conflict with yours, which, while it may be true, may not be necessarily accurate.

I know if my insurance rates were to jump 67%, I'd seriously be considering getting out of the business.

[De Selby]

That's BS. Most sleazy law firms have at least one failed pet "doctor" who will go around on their paycheck and testify to the court for them.

There's what Steve said, which is true, and then there's the fact that you can't use a single doctor for all cases.  He has to be the same kind of doctor, doing the same kind of procedures, under the same conditions, as the doctor you want to sue.

The statistics speak for themselves-Medical malpractice cases lose about 85 percent of the time.  It is not a profitable business; if you do personal injury, just about every other type of case is more profitable and easier to manage.

[De Selby]

Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?

He would be right to suggest that-the total number suits, rates of success, and adjusted damages awarded in malpractice suits haven't risen for decades.  Yet insurance has skyrocketed. Hmmm.

[The Rabbi]

Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?

He would be right to suggest that-the total number suits, rates of success, and adjusted damages awarded in malpractice suits haven't risen for decades.  Yet insurance has skyrocketed. Hmmm.

Uh, no, that would not be correct.
In TX the legislature put in caps on damages.  Surprisingly a lot of suits never got filed and insurance rates went down.
In MS rates got so high that many counties do not have an OB.  There are shortages of specialists all over the country where insurance rates have put doctors out of business.
My older brother has been named in a suit two or three times.  The last time he was named because he had seen the patient once in the hospital so his name was on the chart.  That was his total involvement with the case.  But he had to hire a lawyer and get himself removed from it, costing him money.  And the suit was without merit anyway.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?

He would be right to suggest that-the total number suits, rates of success, and adjusted damages awarded in malpractice suits haven't risen for decades.  Yet insurance has skyrocketed. Hmmm.

The costs of malpractice suits are skyrocketing.  This is the prime factor in driving up the costs of malpractice insurance.  Tort reforms, such as the one implemented in California, work.

http://server.iii.org/yy_obj_data/binary/729103_1_0/Medmal.pdf

[SteveS]

This report seems to conflict with yours, which, while it may be true, may not be necessarily accurate.

The same holds true for your article.  We don't have access to the raw data.

Tort reforms, such as the one implemented, in California work.

No they didn't.  As I said, in the 13 years that followed the tort reforms of 1975, premiums rose 450%.  They didn't drop until after Prop. 103, which placed stringent regulations on the insurance industry. 

From an article Business Insurance (in 1986):

The Ad Hoc Insurance Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General concluded after studying the “crisis” in 1986: “The facts do not bear out the allegations of an “explosion” in litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty insurers today.  They finally do not support any correlation between the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and such a litigation ‘explosion.’ Instead, the available data indicate that the causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the insurance industry itself.”  Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al., “Analysis of the Causes of the Current Crisis of Unavailability and Unaffordability of Liability Insurance” (Boston, Mass.: Ad Hoc Insurance Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, May, 1986).  State commissions in New Mexico, Michigan and Pennsylvania reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., New Mexico State Legislature, “Report of the Interim Legislative Workmen's Compensation Comm. on Liability Insurance and Tort Reform,” November 12, 1986; Michigan House of Representatives, “Study of the Profitability of Commercial Liability Insurance”, November 10, 1986; Insurance Comm. Pennsylvania House of Representatives, “Liability Insurance Crisis in Pennsylvania,”September 29, 1986. Even the insurance industry admitted this internally.  In 1986, Maurice R. Greenberg, then President and Chief Executive Officer of American International Group, Inc., one of the country’s leading property/casualty companies, told an insurance audience in Boston that the industry’s problems were due to price cuts taken “to the point of absurdity” in the early 1980s.  Had it not been for these cuts, Greenberg said, there would not be ‘all this hullabaloo’ about the tort system.” Greewald, “Insurers Must Share Blame: AIG Head,” Business Insurance, March 31 1986, p. 3.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

http://www.atra.org/wrap/files.cgi/7964_howworks.html

[wooderson]

I've not had the chance to read through that entire document, but seriously: the "Insurance Information Institute"?!

Why, I can't believe they'd claim that malpractice suits were costing doctors money!

(oh, AND the American Tort Reform Association!)

[De Selby]

Are you honestly trying to suggest that malpractice suits aren't the prime factor in determining the cost of malpractice insurance?

He would be right to suggest that-the total number suits, rates of success, and adjusted damages awarded in malpractice suits haven't risen for decades.  Yet insurance has skyrocketed. Hmmm.

Uh, no, that would not be correct.
In TX the legislature put in caps on damages.  Surprisingly a lot of suits never got filed and insurance rates went down.
In MS rates got so high that many counties do not have an OB.  There are shortages of specialists all over the country where insurance rates have put doctors out of business.
My older brother has been named in a suit two or three times.  The last time he was named because he had seen the patient once in the hospital so his name was on the chart.  That was his total involvement with the case.  But he had to hire a lawyer and get himself removed from it, costing him money.  And the suit was without merit anyway.

Caps in California apparently led to increases, by this same reasoning.

There is no correlation between damage caps and insurance premiums-just like there's no correlation between the number of suits, success rate of suits, and insurance premiums. 

The main factor in setting insurance rates is the insurance company-and the risks the company faces from lawsuits simply have not changed, except to become mitigated by legislation, for a good half-century.


Malpractice lawsuits do cost money.  But they have always imposed costs-the rate and percentage of costs has simply not increased over time, despite skyrocketing insurance rates.

And there's also the fact that, of all torts, medical malpractice makes it the most difficult for a plaintiff to obtain recovery.  Doctors already have special protection from lawsuits, so even if you don't buy that the number of med-mal lawsuits and the damage caps had nothing to do with insurance premium rises,  I'm not sure what you would propose.   

Should we just ban all lawsuits for medical malpractice? If not, what are some specific measures that you'd all want?