ashbrocha

"What is wrong: Crazy lawsuits and crazy judgements have been a plague on our medical system for years. Its one of the reasons malpractice insurance is so high."

Give me an example of a crazy lawsuit and a crazy judgment. In fact, no, give me enough examples to convince me that your example is not merely an anamoly, by a symptom of a corrupt system.

"Why it is wrong: Its costing everyone tons of cash."

Who? Who is it costing tons of cash? Not me. Not you. Not anyone I know.

"What needs to be fixed: Litigation costs."

What do you mean "litigation costs"? The cost of filing a lawsuit? The cost of paying an attorney? The cost of paying jurors to appear on a jury? What litigation costs, exactly, are you talking about?

"How that will solve the problem: Lowering litigation costs and insurance rates."

Wow, that sounds like a great idea. Let's lower litigation costs and insurance rates! In fact, while we're at it, let's lower gas costs and the cost of heating oil! Anyway we can lower the costs of automobiles and houses while we're at it?

Hmmm. Government control of prices and costs. I know there is a political ideology that endorses government control of prices and costs, but I can't think of it. Capitalism? No, that's not it. Democracy? No, not that either.

Gimme a minute, it'll come to me.

" . . . they need to start somewhere and hammering that s**t out is their job, not mine . . . "

No, your job is just to whine about something you apparently don't understand at all, complain that the problem is so obvious you aren't even capable of explaining, and demand an immediate and obvious solution that is so obvious you can't even put into words what the solution should be.

The solution you propose is actually straight-forward, simple, and easy to implement. It is called c*******m, but it would be easy to implement once we eliminate things like the free market, v****g, and freedom.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Sound to me like you're advocating a system where Doctors have to pay kazillions of dollars in insurance costs whether they ever actually use it or not - costs that we pay for through high prices. A system that encourages frivolous litigation because there's no penalty for doing so. A system that allows ambulance chasing law firms to initiate huge class-action lawsuits that net them millions and gives the plaintiffs a pittance.

ashbrocha

No, I'm really not. I think that malpractice premiums are a crime, and I think class action lawsuits which protect the attorneys' fee are an abuse of injured plaintiffs and should be outlawed.

I also think that answers aren't as simple as the shouters think they are, and if they understood the problem more clearly they would not be as eager to shout.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

OK. If you know something we don't then help us out. Put it out there. It doesn't require much thought at all to take potshots at someone else's post, but figuring out possible solutions to some of these monumental problems will take the combined efforts of many brains. Working together is far more effective than undermining each other.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You believe in Utopia! The United Federation of Planets! That is rich! The funniest thing, though, you're right, c*******m would work... except for one thing - human nature! Idealism is fine until it bumps into reality. As far as me demanding an immediate solution yadayadayada....more hysterical bird chatter. Chirp! Chirp! buddy. :roll: :thumbdown:

ashbrocha

I agree with you.

And I think there are people out there who want to call themselves smart and think themselves large simply by complaining about the stupidity of a given system, without first acknowledging that the system did not arise overnight, and there is no clear easy way out.

We can advocate for the type of tort reform that limits damages in medical malpractice cases to $250,000.00. Fine.

But what happens when someone who has to have their left leg removed because of bone cancer accidentally has their right leg removed because of a physician's error? Now they have no legs, and are in a wheelchair for the rest of their life.

Here's $250,000.00 kid. Enjoy the next 50 years without legs, and good luck living life.

We can do a loser-pays system. But what happens when a patient is given the wrong medication and ends up in a coma for a month and a $200,000.00 medical bill, plus brain damage? He sues the hospital, who then enlists a top law firm with 20 attorneys billing $500.00 per hour, and they convince a jury that the nurse, and not the hospital, was solely responsible for the plaintiff's injuries, and now in addition to a $200,000.00 bill and brain damage, the patient now owes $500,000.00 in lawyers' fees because he was pursuing the only recourse open to him, since he'll never be able to work again for the rest of his life, and now he may as well k**l himself.

Fact is, neither you nor I know why medical malpractice premiums are so high, but I suspect it is not as simple as "the blood-sucking lawyers."

I suspect the blood-sucking insurance companies are soaking medical providers as well, and that is something that could be addressed, you know?

ashbrocha

No, no. C*******m isn't MY solution. It is the solution of the person whose post I was responding to - which is you - as evidenced by your comments.

I think you misread.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

My point from the beginning was that we have to begin somewhere. "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time."

Your suggestion is as good a place as any to start.

ashbrocha

Thanks, man.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

I think YOU misread. C*******m has never worked and can't work because of human nature. C*******m requires a selflessness and lack of personal ambition that can't happen in a fallen world. The early Christian church tried it. Its mentioned in the book of Acts, but after that its not mentioned again. I don't know if it continued for a generation or more than one, but I can infer it didn't last long. Human nature won out over idealism.

We pay more than practically everyone for our medical care. Where do you think we should begin? I ask that question from the premise that major immediate changes would cause an unacceptable disruption and healthcare reform would be best done in steps.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Don't mention it. Its looking as if you're answering my question before I ask it. I'm detecting some passion! This wouldn't be a pet peeve would it? :lol:

ashbrocha

In case you guessed, I am a lawyer.

I once represented a shipowner, and their crew was detained in the United States on an environmental pollution charge.

While in the U.S., one of the crewmen got alcohol poisoning, and we took him to the hospital. He stayed for three days, then we re-patriated him to his home country.

A month later, I called the hospital and asked where the bill was, because we had not received it. So they faxed it to me, and it was $35,000.00.

$35,000.00!!!!!!!!

So I called up and said, basically, what the hell? He was there for three days! A room at the Hilton would have been a couple hundred dollars.

And they told me that, since he did not speak english, they assumed he had no insurance, so they were going to send the bill to our state's Department of Public Welfare (DPW).

The DPW would then pay what it pays - maybe 50%? - leaving the hospital $17,500.00 "in the hole."

So, the hospital would make $17,500.00 off of the government for basically letting this guy sit in a hospital room detoxing, and then would WRITE OFF the other $17,500.00 as a loss for the purposes of their taxes!!!

Consider those numbers for a second.

Basically, the hospital is running up the fee because they know they will get half of wh**ever they claim the stay cost from the government, and write off the other half as a loss.

Imagine for a moment that we had laws that said that a hospital gets to charge one rate to all comers, and cannot write off losses on billed rates.

Shouldn't this guy's stay have cost, at the most, a couple thousand dollars? He was there for three days, had no surgery, needed no medication other than maybe some paink**lers. Shouldn't that be a flat rate?

Start there. Go from there.

Medical costs in our country have gone through the roof because the people charging other people for medical services can do so without consequence because of the insurance industry and government provided benefits.

Put the clamp on that, and suddenly we don't have an issue.

(And, by the way, substitute "colleges" for "hospitals" and "student loans" for "insurance", and the story is also true for secondary education.).

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

A good 1st step! After that, once the dust settles, step 2 will be clearer. The trick is getting those with the authority to make such a change to take that first step! I'm convinced that for some perverse reason, probably having something to do with MONEY, our leaders are struggling mightily to maintain the status quo (engaging in understatement here :lol: ) and it may be necessary to kick most of them to the curb.

ashbrocha

Yes, and in a very real way, we have only ourselves to blame. Anytime a politician tries to buck the status quo, the side with the money can end that politician's career very quickly.

I have a hard time believing politics can be divided into red and blue, when really we're talking about green and not green.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

So, when you claim that nobody is offering any solutions, what you really mean is nobody is offering solutions that you approve. Interesting.

As for loser pays, no, that's not exactly what I'm saying. The way the system is r****d now, anybody can sue a medical provider for malpractice without consequence. The reason there are so many frivolous lawsuits is because there is no downside to it. You either win big or you lose nothing. It's like going to Las Vegas with a guarantee that you can gamble all you want and keep all your winnings, but get reimbursed for your losses. John Edwards comes to mind.

One of the reasons unethical lawyers represent clients in patently frivolous malpractice suits is because they know the jury is always biased towards the 'victim', which is what allows the possibility of a win when none is deserved.

Due to this jury bias, the chances of an actual victim losing a legitimate malpractice case are exceedingly slim. Trial lawyers always oppose loser-pays for obvious reasons, which have nothing to do with your claims above.