Damn, I wish the insurances paid 40% of what was owed.

Again, who is the greedy one here?  

Rich doctor?  

I am worth $-300,000 right now.  My plumber buddy makes more then me.  

Sorry, but I cannot think of a better way to handle civil lawsuits than the procedures that we have adopted in the United States.

And guess what? Neither has the rest of the world!

So maybe a better method of handling civil claims simply does not exist.

If you have any suggestions, that do not present even more glaring possibilities for injustice, then please propound them here.

I'd like to see what changes that you would like made.....

Let's start off with the so-called 'English Rule', which permits the prevailing party in a civil lawsuit to recoup his attorney fees from the losing party.

Anyone support that one?



Speak up, please!

Eric The(LoadedForBear)Hun

ARdoc, sorry for your partner's troubles.  My first reaction was disgust she got brought into it, but then i wondered if she had some special skill that was necessary, or unique experience and therefore had some duty to get involved...I realize there are two sides to everything, but again sorry she got sucked into that .hang in there.  

Quoted: Sorry, but I cannot think of a better way to handle civil lawsuits than the procedures that we have adopted in the United States. And guess what? Neither has the rest of the world! So maybe a better method of handling civil claims simply does not exist. If you have any suggestions, that do not present even more glaring possibilities for injustice, then please propound them here. I'd like to see what changes that you would like made..... Let's start off with the so-called 'English Rule', which permits the prevailing party in a civil lawsuit to recoup his attorney fees from the losing party. Anyone support that one? Speak up, please! Eric The(LoadedForBear)Hun

Eric I think thats a start.  The problem lies with mercenary doctors and lawyers.  Takes both to file a suit.

A sanction system to punish frivolous suits should be a start.

And to be fair I think sanction should also exist for the doctors, especially ones that pop up all the time.

Tort reform has worked to some degree.

Award limits is another device has worked.

But you are correct, unless God is the judge, it is very difficult to fairly resolve these cases.

Quoted: ARdoc, sorry for your partner's troubles.  My first reaction was disgust she got brought into it, but then i wondered if she had some special skill that was necessary, or unique experience and therefore had some duty to get involved...I realize there are two sides to everything, but again sorry she got sucked into that .hang in there.

She is an OB/GYN like me.  I really cant get into the details but there were other doctors and the patients doctor was on his way to the hospital.  The were residents in the hospital that could have taken care of the patient.

The problem lies in the fact that some nurse had documented somewhere by name that she was in the hospital.  Why she did this we are still asking.

Eric, Recoil, SGB I have a question for you guys.

There was a case where the Pl expert going over the case was a new lawyer and ex-nurse.  She contacted some of the people involved in the case to get inside information.  She didnt use the name of the patient but contact all the nurses named in the suit.  She pretended she just wanted their opinion on a case and asked all sorts of questions. They nurses figured it out pretty quickly. I believe she was fired by the firm for doing this.

But how can this impact a case?

Quoted: Damn, I wish the insurances paid 40% of what was owed. Again, who is the greedy one here?   Rich doctor?   I am worth $-300,000 right now.  My plumber buddy makes more then me.

Is that a negative sign?  If so, that really sucks assuming you didn't do something crazy to get deep in debt (other than going to medical school).

Quoted: Quoted: Damn, I wish the insurances paid 40% of what was owed. Again, who is the greedy one here?   Rich doctor?   I am worth $-300,000 right now.  My plumber buddy makes more then me.   Is that a negative sign?  If so, that really sucks assuming you didn't do something crazy to get deep in debt (other than going to medical school).

Oh ya a big NEGATIVE.  $150000 in school loans alone.  

Want to see why the 'American Rule' is the better 'rule' for use in assessing attorney's fees.

Three words...Pinto gas tank.



An Engineering Disaster

There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months Ford took 25. Before production however, Ford engineers discovered a major flaw in the cars design. In nearly all rear-end crash test collisions the Pinto's fuel system would rupture extremely easily. Because assembly-line machinery was already tooled when engineers found this defect, top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway, exploding gas tank and all, even though Ford owned the patent on a much safer gas tank. Safety was not a major concern to Ford at the time of the development of the Pinto. Lee Iacocca, who was in charge of the development of the Pinto, had specifications for the design of the car that were uncompromisable. These specifications were that "the Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000." Any modifications even if they did provide extra safety for the customer that brought the car closer to the Iacocca’s limits was rejected.

The rush of the Pinto from conception to production was a recipe for disaster. Many studies have been concluded by Mother Jones on Pinto accident reports which have revealed conclusively that if a Pinto being followed at over 30 miles per hour was hit by that following vehicle, the rear end of the car would buckle like an accordion, right up to the back seat. The tube leading to the gas-tank cap would be ripped away from the tank itself, and gas would immediately begin sloshing onto the road around the car. The buckled gas tank would be jammed up against the differential housing (the large bulge in the middle of the rear axle), which contains four sharp, protruding bolts likely to gash holes in the tank and spill still more gas. Now all that is needed is a spark from a cigarette, ignition, or scraping metal, and both cars would be engulfed in flames. If a Pinto was struck from behind at higher speed say, at 40 mph chances are very good that its doors would jam shut and its trapped passengers inside would burn to death.

Now, here's the kicker...and something that would NOT have been discovered unless the plaintiffs' lawyer had agreed to take this case 'on contingency', and would never have agreed to take the case IF the 'English Rule' was in effect...

The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw.Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car.

How do you like the idea of an American car manufacturer knowing beforehand that its mistake was going to cost the lives of, say, 180 dead Americans...and 180 more seriously burned Americans?

And then proceeding to build the car with its design defect?

Only an idiot would wish to take away the current civil litigation that makes such cold calculations economically unfeasible....for any American manufacturer.....

C'mon, step up to the plate and tell us you have a better plan to prevent such tragedies...

We're all ears.

Eric The(AndSingedEars,AtThat)Hun

Quoted: Damn, I wish the insurances paid 40% of what was owed. Again, who is the greedy one here?   Rich doctor?   I am worth $-300,000 right now.  My plumber buddy makes more then me.

What kind of car do you drive?

Quoted: Quoted: So...does your partner have one of those pawyers working for her, or is she flying solo, you know, on principle. Lawyers --our senators and representatives-- have rigged the whole show so everyone involved has to have one on the payroll or they get proper fucked. No matter who wins in a court case, the lawyers get paid. *Plaintiff's attorney *Defense attorney *Judge Why do our senators and representatives --almost all attorneys-- keep the system as it is instead of instituting real tort reform? Because they know they can always go back to suing the voters if they get thrown out of office on their shiny asses one day. www.harrywalker.com/photos/Edwards_John.jpg

Not true.  Plaintiffs' lawyers generally work for a contingent fee.  If they lose in court, they don't get paid.  And, except where prohibited by law, they eat their expenses too.  In a med mal case that actually goes to trial, those expenses could easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The way things are going with health care costs and health care coverage the system is going to collapse back down to a lower level of care (not all bad in some cases) and there won't be enough money there to make litigation against doctors worthwhile.  Medical conglomerate - yes or big corporations, but not so much the GP types.  Big corporations are bailing out on medical benefits (and pensions but that is another story).  People will get what medical care they can pay for.  Supply and demand will adjust the service to the ability to pay as long as the government stays out.  The other, maybe more likley path, is Nationalized Medicine.  Boy, we've seen how well that works elsewhere -not!  I imagine a lot of doctors, especially your specialist, fleeing the profession if that happens.  Although this may help out the social security solvency issue since people will die at younger ages.  

Unfortunately, you may look back wistfully at the days when you were being sued (or your partner in this case).  

Now, if the SHTF I'd pick a doc with an AR to hang with before a lawyer with an AR (sorry barristers!)  I just think it would be better to have someone around who could patch me up in case some (what was that phrase again?) lawyer shot me in the ass.  j/k

Quoted: Hey guys, I got accepted to law school two weeks ago

I've been wanting to use that pic!

My Uncle, an orthopedic surgeon, hates slimy fucking lawyers, too....except, of course, when he needs one!

Me? I hate those arrogant, airplane flying, body probing, god-playing, nurse farking, thieving, ferrari driving cocksmoking doctors.

Quoted: My Uncle, an orthopedic surgeon, hates slimy fucking lawyers, too....except, of course, when he needs one! Me? I hate those arrogant, airplane flying, body probing, god-playing, nurse farking, thieving, ferrari driving cocksmoking doctors.

Hey I only resemble two of those.

Quoted: Sorry, but I cannot think of a better way to handle civil lawsuits than the procedures that we have adopted in the United States. And guess what? Neither has the rest of the world! So maybe a better method of handling civil claims simply does not exist. If you have any suggestions, that do not present even more glaring possibilities for injustice, then please propound them here. I'd like to see what changes that you would like made..... Let's start off with the so-called 'English Rule', which permits the prevailing party in a civil lawsuit to recoup his attorney fees from the losing party. Anyone support that one? Speak up, please! Eric The(LoadedForBear)Hun

That might be workable for "little guy v. little guy" or "huge corporation v. huge corporation." But when it's "little guy v. insurance company,"  little guy will always have to settle for pennies on the dollar or forego bring suit at all because he'd be bankrupted if he lost.  And no matter how good your case is, there's always a risk that the jury will see things differently.  For regular people, the risk of going to trial is just too great.  An insurance company or a big corporation can spread the risk and is free to roll the dice in every case.  

As I understand it, they ameliorate this problem in the UK by having the taxpayers pay for poor folks' lawyers and exempting them from the loser pays rule.  In the case of union workers, the union covers the fees and spreads the risks.  As always, the middle class--people who aren't in trade unions and who aren poor enough to qualify for legal aid--get screwed.

Quoted: Cocksucking cunt leeches. That is all.   ps.  Mother fuckers!

Fucking stupid bitch doctors- can pass the board but can't figure out how to snort coke and not cut the wrong leg off when they should be taking an appendix out.,

Cunt bastards.

Whats the matter asshole- come up hot on the piss test after you fucked some poor patient up?

Quoted: Want to see why the 'American Rule' is the better 'rule' for use in assessing attorney's fees. Three words...Pinto gas tank. www.fordpinto.com/images/kboomdrawing.gif An Engineering Disaster There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months Ford took 25. Before production however, Ford engineers discovered a major flaw in the cars design. In nearly all rear-end crash test collisions the Pinto's fuel system would rupture extremely easily. Because assembly-line machinery was already tooled when engineers found this defect, top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway, exploding gas tank and all, even though Ford owned the patent on a much safer gas tank. Safety was not a major concern to Ford at the time of the development of the Pinto. Lee Iacocca, who was in charge of the development of the Pinto, had specifications for the design of the car that were uncompromisable. These specifications were that "the Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000." Any modifications even if they did provide extra safety for the customer that brought the car closer to the Iacocca’s limits was rejected. The rush of the Pinto from conception to production was a recipe for disaster. Many studies have been concluded by Mother Jones on Pinto accident reports which have revealed conclusively that if a Pinto being followed at over 30 miles per hour was hit by that following vehicle, the rear end of the car would buckle like an accordion, right up to the back seat. The tube leading to the gas-tank cap would be ripped away from the tank itself, and gas would immediately begin sloshing onto the road around the car. The buckled gas tank would be jammed up against the differential housing (the large bulge in the middle of the rear axle), which contains four sharp, protruding bolts likely to gash holes in the tank and spill still more gas. Now all that is needed is a spark from a cigarette, ignition, or scraping metal, and both cars would be engulfed in flames. If a Pinto was struck from behind at higher speed say, at 40 mph chances are very good that its doors would jam shut and its trapped passengers inside would burn to death. Now, here's the kicker...and something that would NOT have been discovered unless the plaintiffs' lawyer had agreed to take this case 'on contingency', and would never have agreed to take the case IF the 'English Rule' was in effect... The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw.Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car. How do you like the idea of an American car manufacturer knowing beforehand that its mistake was going to cost the lives of, say, 180 dead Americans...and 180 more seriously burned Americans? And then proceeding to build the car with its design defect? Only an idiot would wish to take away the current civil litigation that makes such cold calculations economically unfeasible....for any American manufacturer..... C'mon, step up to the plate and tell us you have a better plan to prevent such tragedies... We're all ears. Eric The(AndSingedEars,AtThat)Hun

It's fairly obvious that the real problem Ford misjudged its potential liability.  The problem is that they didn't have caps on damage awards.  If the legislature would just do its part and enact caps, businesses would make these cost-benefit decisions more accurately.

I'm with both ARDOC and ETH on this one.

The medical field must have a system for dealing with shitty doctors, and the legal field must have the same for bad attorneys.

What needs to happen is that more MD's counter-sue with obvious "shotgun" cases to reach equalibrium.

It's a pain in the ass, but this is how our system works and this is what must happen.

btw- I am a fan of both MD's and Lawyers.  They are both very much needed, just not all of them are good.

Quoted: I am worth $-300,000 right now.  My plumber buddy makes more then me.

hey Doc, I have a brilliant suggestion- with all the sand in your mangina- why not go be a plumber so you wouldn't have to be such a whiney bitch.

This is one reason I stopped racing on sailboats owned by doctors.  Rich and whiney.  Its never their fault etc.  

One solution to your insurance problem:  Police yourselves!  But the ol' boys club would never take care of their bad eggs!

QuitUrSnivlin.

Quoted: Quoted: I am worth $-300,000 right now.  My plumber buddy makes more then me.   hey Doc, I have a brilliant suggestion- with all the sand in your mangina- why not go be a plumber so you wouldn't have to be such a whiney bitch. This is one reason I stopped racing on sailboats owned by doctors.  Rich and whiney.  Its never their fault etc.   One solution to your insurance problem:  Police yourselves!  But the ol' boys club would never take care of their bad eggs! QuitUrSnivlin.

What did the docs do to you?

I guess ARDOC's snivlin sandy mangina just caught me the wrong way tonight.

Typical jackass doctor whining.  I heard this from lots of doctors in Houston when the tort deform was on the ballot.  They were complaining about the horrible plaintiffs attorneys, while pulling their sailing gear out of their ferraris, Excursions and H1 Hummers at the yacht club aqnd walking down the docks to their new racing sailboats with $10k-40k in new sails.

Give me a fucking break!

Quoted: The reason for high insurance bills may also be the insatiable desire of doctors to make more and more money. Or the fact that pharmaceutical reps often make 6 figure salaries. Or the fact that a large percentage of the population doesn't pay their medical bills and the medical providers have to make it up somewhere else. Or the insurance companies are just plain ripping us off. Or the med schools for turning out incompetent doctors who butcher innocent people. Or me 'cause I sue incompetent doctors.

Well, medical malpractice accounts for less than 2% of total health care costs, so that would account for you and the incompetent doctors you sue.  That leaves a mere 98% for the greedy docs, overpaid pharmaceutical reps and the rest.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am worth $-300,000 right now.  My plumber buddy makes more then me.   hey Doc, I have a brilliant suggestion- with all the sand in your mangina- why not go be a plumber so you wouldn't have to be such a whiney bitch. This is one reason I stopped racing on sailboats owned by doctors.  Rich and whiney.  Its never their fault etc.   One solution to your insurance problem:  Police yourselves!  But the ol' boys club would never take care of their bad eggs! QuitUrSnivlin. What did the docs do to you?

The same thing the police do apparently.   It seems SC has anger issues.

I'm on the doc's side in this one.  I've been pulled into these frivilous suits before.

Quoted: What did the docs do to you?

Made me listen to their whining about my profession while sailing with and around them.

I have docs in my family and respect them and what they do.  I don;t resect the prfession in that it places its own members obove the safety of the public.  

No- I don't and never have sued Docs.  But I have seen plenty of docs who needed to be sued and were not because the P's attorney's couldn't afford to invest the money in the case due to the lack of return.  The real victims are the fucked up patients.

If the good docs don't like the sytem- and their neighbor plumber makes more than they do- why don't they go be a fucking plumber?  They should have the IQ to be a plumber shouldn't they?

Quoted: I guess ARDOC's snivlin sandy mangina just caught me the wrong way tonight. Typical jackass doctor whining.  I heard this from lots of doctors in Houston when the tort deform was on the ballot.  They were complaining about the horrible plaintiffs attorneys, while pulling their sailing gear out of their ferraris, Excursions and H1 Hummers at the yacht club aqnd walking down the docks to their new racing sailboats with $10k-40k in new sails. Give me a fucking break!

I understand.  But I think that lawyers, doctors, and TEACHERS should be rewarded well monetarily for their service.  

I think the problem the doctor is having is relative to our lack of the teaching element.

Both Doctors and Lawyers must achieve educational merit above and beyond most professions, but someone must educate them.

That being said, we live in a world with a lotto mentality about lawsuits (lacking education) and this has to stop.

JohnInAustin- Doesn't surpise me that you and I would be on differnt sides of any issue.  In this case- I'm with ARDOC on the issue of the partner getting sued- Bullshit in my book.  I annoyed at the sweeping statement about lawyers that he made.

Anger Issues?  Whatever JIA:  I am just tired of docs whining about how bad they have it and how its all the lawyers fault, the insurance company's fault, the drug company;s fault- its everybody's fault but theirs.  

Its the same with people like you- you hate lawyers (or dislike them)- until your soon to be ex-wife is planting a protective order on you and your job and career are in jeapardy b/c you couldn't keep your hands to yourself and now you love the lawyer who is going to save your ass.  then you triy to get him to reduce his fee by half and biitch about paying that.

Give me a break.

In this case- ARDOC made a sweeping condemnation of ALL LAWYERS- showing what he really thinks) and then tried to partially limit the sweeping broad statement in a later post.  I'm just claling bullshit.

Quoted: I understand.  But I think that lawyers, doctors, and TEACHERS should be rewarded well monetarily for their service.

As should engineers, rocket scientists and anyone else whose special talnets are in demand in the market place

I think the problem the doctor is having is relative to our lack of the teaching element.

Probably

Both Doctors and Lawyers must achieve educational merit above and beyond most professions, but someone must educate them.

Other Doctors and lawyers usually

That being said, we live in a world with a lotto mentality about lawsuits (lacking education) and this has to stop.

True and that is a major problem.  One reason I do family law and not plaintiff's work

Quoted: JohnInAustin- Doesn't surpise me that you and I would be on differnt sides of any issue.  In this case- I'm with ARDOC on the issue of the partner getting sued- Bullshit in my book.  I annoyed at the sweeping statement about lawyers that he made. Anger Issues?  Whatever JIA:  I am just tired of docs whining about how bad they have it and how its all the lawyers fault, the insurance company's fault, the drug company;s fault- its everybody's fault but theirs.   Its the same with people like you- you hate lawyers (or dislike them)- until your soon to be ex-wife is planting a protective order on you and your job and career are in jeapardy b/c you couldn't keep your hands to yourself and now you love the lawyer who is going to save your ass.  then you triy to get him to reduce his fee by half and biitch about paying that. Give me a break. In this case- ARDOC made a sweeping condemnation of ALL LAWYERS- showing what he really thinks) and then tried to partially limit the sweeping broad statement in a later post.  I'm just claling bullshit.

You need to read the rest of the thread.  Is this a common trait with lawyers not read the entire tread?  If you read the entire thread you would realize that I did make a correction.  Not all but some. So read it again.  But you are just as wrong or more so because at least I made a correction.  

The typical dislike of lawyers have been created by the actions of lawyers.  There maybe only a few but since the self sanctioning rarely touches these individuals, the appearence continues.

Quoted: Quoted: What did the docs do to you? If the good docs don't like the sytem- and their neighbor plumber makes more than they do- why don't they go be a fucking plumber?  They should have the IQ to be a plumber shouldn't they?

What if you went to school for 15 years to find out that your govt. and other corporations suddenly decided they would all agree to set your wage based on what they thought.?

Quoted: Quoted: The reason for high insurance bills may also be the insatiable desire of doctors to make more and more money. Or the fact that pharmaceutical reps often make 6 figure salaries. Or the fact that a large percentage of the population doesn't pay their medical bills and the medical providers have to make it up somewhere else. Or the insurance companies are just plain ripping us off. Or the med schools for turning out incompetent doctors who butcher innocent people. Or me 'cause I sue incompetent doctors. Well, medical malpractice accounts for less than 2% of total health care costs, so that would account for you and the incompetent doctors you sue.  That leaves a mere 98% for the greedy docs, overpaid pharmaceutical reps and the rest.

Greedy doctors:

No, it is not the doctors being greedy that is the problem. You have to realize that with the recent advances in medical technology and the drastic improvement in health care over the past 20 years, medical care just plain costs more money; you haven't taken a look to see what the costs are on those nice MRI machines, including up front cost and maintenance and operation. Adding to that, doctors in many cases pay 1/4-1/3 of their income in malpractice insurance premiums, so the ob/gyn that used to get away making 140000 dollars with no malpractice insurance premiums now has to make 280000 dollars because his malpractice is 140000-150000 dollars in some states.

I may be biased, as my father is a physician, and I plan on becoming one, but I think that doctors do deserve every last cent they get. They bust their asses 60-80 hours a week and sacrifice their families in many cases, all so that you can be healthier and feel better.

Overpaid drug reps:

Here I may agree with you. A lot of the drug reps have huge company credit card balances that they are allowed to use for almost anything business related; this means that they often times will take doctors out to premium sushi and steak restaurants, and charge the cost to their company card. I do think that drug reps should make quite a decent sum of money, as it does take quite the saleman to convince a doctor to prescribe the drug rep's company's drugs in the face of generics that cost 1/4 to 1/2 that of their brand name competitors.

As far as being a plumber, I dont have the skills. I do have the skills to do surgery and deliver babies.   People tend to do what suits them.  And yes that was a pun.

But as long as you have guys like Sam Bernstein that comes on TV and says have seen a doctor in the last year?  Call me.   You have a problem.  

Are doctors part of the problem?  Absolutely.  I have seen more bad doctors in my lifetime then I would like to have seen.  

Quoted: Are doctors part of the problem?  Absolutely.  I have seen more bad doctors in my lifetime then I would like to have seen.

I agree, most of the doctors I have met tend to be bigger assholes than I am regarding a lot of things; i.e. not admitting when they are wrong,etc..

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The reason for high insurance bills may also be the insatiable desire of doctors to make more and more money. Or the fact that pharmaceutical reps often make 6 figure salaries. Or the fact that a large percentage of the population doesn't pay their medical bills and the medical providers have to make it up somewhere else. Or the insurance companies are just plain ripping us off. Or the med schools for turning out incompetent doctors who butcher innocent people. Or me 'cause I sue incompetent doctors. Well, medical malpractice accounts for less than 2% of total health care costs, so that would account for you and the incompetent doctors you sue.  That leaves a mere 98% for the greedy docs, overpaid pharmaceutical reps and the rest. Greedy doctors: No, it is not the doctors being greedy that is the problem. You have to realize that with the recent advances in medical technology and the drastic improvement in health care over the past 20 years, medical care just plain costs more money; you haven't taken a look to see what the costs are on those nice MRI machines, including up front cost and maintenance and operation. Adding to that, doctors in many cases pay 1/4-1/3 of their income in malpractice insurance premiums, so the ob/gyn that used to get away making 140000 dollars with no malpractice insurance premiums now has to make 280000 dollars because his malpractice is 140000-150000 dollars in some states. I may be biased, as my father is a physician, and I plan on becoming one, but I think that doctors do deserve every last cent they get. They bust their asses 60-80 hours a week and sacrifice their families in many cases, all so that you can be healthier and feel better. Overpaid drug reps: Here I may agree with you. A lot of the drug reps have huge company credit card balances that they are allowed to use for almost anything business related; this means that they often times will take doctors out to premium sushi and steak restaurants, and charge the cost to their company card. I do think that drug reps should make quite a decent sum of money, as it does take quite the saleman to convince a doctor to prescribe the drug rep's company's drugs in the face of generics that cost 1/4 to 1/2 that of their brand name competitors.

Well stated. But that 2% is misleading. Those are the direct costs of malpractice and defense of suits etc.

The indirect costs ofare where the true expenditure of money occurs.

A treatment plan that would have cost a few dollars, instead costs thousands due to defensive medicine.  For example a man comes in with a broken leg.  Instead of just regular xrays.  He gets an CT and MRI just in case something goes bad.  He gets expensive antibiotics instead of cheap ones because they are not state of the art.  I have heard a lawyer ask why she didnt use the latest antibiotic for his client, wouldnt that have made the outcome better?  Thats not the standard of care, but they dont care.  They want the jury to believe that all was not done for the patient.

So the doc is forced to react and use defensive medicine.  That drives the costs up.  The actual litigation and malpractice award make up only a small portion of the total costs.

Quoted: Well stated. But that 2% is misleading. Those are the direct costs of malpractice and defense of suits etc. The indirect costs ofare where the true expenditure of money occurs. A treatment plan that would have cost a few dollars, instead costs thousands due to defensive medicine.  For example a man comes in with a broken leg.  Instead of just regular xrays.  He gets an CT and MRI just in case something goes bad.  He gets expensive antibiotics instead of cheap ones because they are not state of the art.  I have heard a lawyer ask why she didnt use the latest antibiotic for his client, wouldnt that have made the outcome better?  Thats not the standard of care, but they dont care.  They want the jury to believe that all was not done for the patient.

Agree. This is why my dad, who is a pain specialist, continues to prescribe the far more expensive "brand-name" pain medications rather than the cheaper generics(that work just as well) in a majority of cases, because if the patient later sues him, the lawyer will try to spin off him prescribing cheaper drugs as just, "cutting costs"(doesn't matter that it is the patient spending less money, apparently patient expenditures are a two-edged sword).

On the other side, insurance companies will often times not pay for "unnecessay" examinations, just another catch-22. I cannot tell you how many times my dad referred a patient to the radiologist to get some MRIs and CT scans done that ended up showing cancer or some other serious ailment, only to be told by the insurance company,"tough luck, cough up the dough to the radiologist, because we aren't paying him either".

So the doc is forced to react and use defensive medicine.  That drives the costs up.  The actual litigation and malpractice award make up only a small portion of the total costs.

Well, I was also including premium costs, because premium costs account for more than that 2% too.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The reason for high insurance bills may also be the insatiable desire of doctors to make more and more money. Or the fact that pharmaceutical reps often make 6 figure salaries. Or the fact that a large percentage of the population doesn't pay their medical bills and the medical providers have to make it up somewhere else. Or the insurance companies are just plain ripping us off. Or the med schools for turning out incompetent doctors who butcher innocent people. Or me 'cause I sue incompetent doctors. Well, medical malpractice accounts for less than 2% of total health care costs, so that would account for you and the incompetent doctors you sue.  That leaves a mere 98% for the greedy docs, overpaid pharmaceutical reps and the rest. Greedy doctors: No, it is not the doctors being greedy that is the problem. You have to realize that with the recent advances in medical technology and the drastic improvement in health care over the past 20 years, medical care just plain costs more money; you haven't taken a look to see what the costs are on those nice MRI machines, including up front cost and maintenance and operation. Adding to that, doctors in many cases pay 1/4-1/3 of their income in malpractice insurance premiums, so the ob/gyn that used to get away making 140000 dollars with no malpractice insurance premiums now has to make 280000 dollars because his malpractice is 140000-150000 dollars in some states. I may be biased, as my father is a physician, and I plan on becoming one, but I think that doctors do deserve every last cent they get. They bust their asses 60-80 hours a week and sacrifice their families in many cases, all so that you can be healthier and feel better. Overpaid drug reps: Here I may agree with you. A lot of the drug reps have huge company credit card balances that they are allowed to use for almost anything business related; this means that they often times will take doctors out to premium sushi and steak restaurants, and charge the cost to their company card. I do think that drug reps should make quite a decent sum of money, as it does take quite the saleman to convince a doctor to prescribe the drug rep's company's drugs in the face of generics that cost 1/4 to 1/2 that of their brand name competitors. Well stated. But that 2% is misleading. Those are the direct costs of malpractice and defense of suits etc. The indirect costs ofare where the true expenditure of money occurs. A treatment plan that would have cost a few dollars, instead costs thousands due to defensive medicine.  For example a man comes in with a broken leg.  Instead of just regular xrays.  He gets an CT and MRI just in case something goes bad.  He gets expensive antibiotics instead of cheap ones because they are not state of the art.  I have heard a lawyer ask why she didnt use the latest antibiotic for his client, wouldnt that have made the outcome better?  Thats not the standard of care, but they dont care.  They want the jury to believe that all was not done for the patient. So the doc is forced to react and use defensive medicine.  That drives the costs up.  The actual litigation and malpractice award make up only a small portion of the total costs.

That's an argument that's often made, but not supported with hard evidence.  The Congressional Budget Office (working for a tort reform lovin' Republican Congress) looked at this and found:

Effects on Defensive Medicine Proponents of limiting malpractice liability have argued that much greater savings in health care costs would be possible through reductions in the practice of defensive medicine. However, some so-called defensive medicine may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit small) benefits to patients. On the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small. A comprehensive study using 1984 data from the state of New York did not find a strong relationship between the threat of litigation and medical costs, even though physicians reported that their practices had been affected by the threat of lawsuits.(14) More recently, some researchers observed reductions in health care spending correlated with changes in tort law, but their studies were based on a narrow part of the population and considered spending for only a few ailments. One study analyzed the impact of tort limits on Medicare hospital spending for patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction or ischemic heart disease; it observed a significant decline in spending in states that had enacted certain tort restrictions.(15) Other research examined the effect of tort limits on the proportion of births by cesarean section. It also found savings in states with tort limits, though of a much smaller magnitude.(16) However, when CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts. Still, the question of whether such limits reduce spending remains open, and CBO continues to explore it using other research methods.

Fascinating, a lawyer vs doctor bitch session, with some of the worse swearing and name calling seen here in a while.

..running off to microwave some popcorn....

Quoted: Fascinating, a lawyer vs doctor bitch session, with some of the worse swearing and name calling seen here in a while. ..running off to microwave some popcorn....

We strive to entertain!  With the pit gone and all. We got to stir up some trouble.  

I've got an idea. Every time we run into a poor bastard who was  " done wrong "  less set him up for life. The best he'll be a wanting.

For everyone we find whinning or crying wolf , hammer to the skull  X 5 .

Quoted: Fascinating, a lawyer vs doctor bitch session, with some of the worse swearing and name calling seen here in a while. ..running off to microwave some popcorn....

+1

docs and lawyers fighting.... I likey  

Remember, it's just those 99% of lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name.

Quoted: I hereby invoke "cop-bashing" thread rules: Ya'll are a bunch of internet keyboard commando wannabes.  What happened, did they kick you out of law school?  Couldn't hack it in the courtroom?  You'd last 30 seconds at my job.  Those of us who make arguments for a living, and don't just play with them on the internet, are the only people who know what they are doing - the rest of you Judge Judy watching whiners can STFU. Did I forget any?

Yeah, you am da only one here profeshonal enuff to carry dem dare legal breifs    

JohnTheTexican:

A series of issue summaries from the Congressional Budget Office January 8, 2004

The page you reference is both Old and New studies--the NY study is from 1984.  Any kind of Tort reform will take many years or decades to change the way medicine is practiced.   The paragraph on Tort reform does make some mention of reduction in costs in some studies.   However, when people reference "tort" reform, it is often a reduction in massive, high $$ pay-out lawsuits, NOT small ones--those are what doctors get hit with frequently.  A change to the overall legal system, not just a cap on the amount of awards is needed.  If you sue me for malpractice--you have experts, I have experts, and it is decided by people who would rather be at home watching Oprah (and have no knowledge of medicine).  A review board would be a possible step--when there is True malpractice/negligence, the doctor should pay and pay heavily.  And, when it happens, there should be a review of their practice methods to ensure that they are not incompetent--including licensure revocation, etc.   As it stands now, you can sue and have a high likelyhood of winning some money regardless of the presence of malpractice/negligence.

And I have seen defensive medicine firsthand.  I rotated through the ER--someone comes in with a bad migraine or tension headache.  The ER Doc knows it is a regular headache, the patient knows it is a regular headache.  However, protocol requires at least a CT Scan ($500+) that has to be read by a radiologist before the patient can be discharged.   Chest pain--you helped your friend move yesterday and twisted funny while holding a box.  Today, your chest hurts when you breath.  Because it is chest pain (even though you and your Dr. know it is due to the move, and is a musclo-skeletal pain), you get an EKG and cardiac enzymes and ChestX-Ray.   It would take years to change that--you don't pass tort reform and have the doctors suddenly change the way they have been trained to treat headaches and chest pain

Look at John Edwards--made MULTI-millions off lawsuits that caused significantly more Cesarian Sections during deliveries (some that were not necessarly needed).  A lot of his "Evidence" has been shown to be junk science.   ((As an aside--I get a huge kick out of the women who now complain that they don't have the right to choose if they want a C-Section {as in VBAC, or questionable fetal distress}--the lawsuits filed by people preceeding you caused that change.))

AFARR

ETH--have to go now, but here's a thought:
Prior to filing a Malpractice/Medical Negligence claim, it must go through a state funded Medical review board.  
If the Board determines that there is negligence, that can be used in court, and the claim proceeds--additionally, a further review is made of the doctor to determine if additional punitory (license suspension, probation, etc) is needed.
If the Board determines that there is no negligence, the case can proceed, but the boards findings are also admissable, but the plaintiff has to post a bond to cover the defense legal fees if they lose (or, at least the defendant has the ability to sue and recover their fees if they win).

AFARR

I should add:

I'm one of those "Greedy" Docs:

I quit work after 10 years out of college.
I have a wife and 2 young kids--moved from Virginia to Illinois to go to Podiatry school.
Spent 4 years and $200,000 (total of my student loans) to go to school.
My first year of Residency was at Cook Co. Hosptial in Chicago--made $24,000 for 70+hours/week.
I moved to Pennsylvania to do a residency (that was closed)--moved again 90 miles to take a vacant residency.

Total time spent:
4 years Undergrad.
4 Years Med School
3 Years Residency (currently making $30k for about 55hrs/week).

Total $$--over $200k (fortunately, I didn't have undergrad loans).  It also cost me most of my firearms collection to make ends meet while I was in school and in residency.

When I finish in April, I will likely get a job making $65-80k my first couple of years as an associate (working about 45-50 hrs/week), if I become a partner in a practice, I will likely make $125-150k max. (that is at current rates for Podiatrists, after taking out business expenses, before taxes).   My malpractice will generally run $10k-$15k depending on where I end up (this is 10% of what some other specialties have to pay).

How much does a lawyer make 3 years out of law school?  For how many hours?  Do they take call in the middle of the night?  And, if they make a mistake, is it going to cost a person their life?

As to becoming a plumber--as a resident, I am still In Training.  However, I hope to become a fairly competant Doctor once I am done.  If all the Competant doctors leave the field to become Plumbers will you be happy going to the incompetant doctors that remain?

.

Quoted: Cocksucking cunt leeches. That is all.   ps.  Mother fuckers!

quit beating aroung the bush...

Quoted: Sorry, but I cannot think of a better way to handle civil lawsuits than the procedures that we have adopted in the United States. And guess what? Neither has the rest of the world!

Bullshit.

The legal profession has driven all sorts of industries out of this country.

Look at the lack of vaccine manufacturers in the US. Thanks to ambulance chaser who cashed in on a couple of adverse outcomes from the Swine Flu vaccine in '76, the industry said "fuck it" and packed up & left. The entire profession is little better than John Edwards channeling for a dead kid, "we do it all for the client*", what a disingenuous crock.

*translation: "we do it all for that fat 40% cut"

Let's talk about the "tobacco settlement", where a gaggle (not sure if that is the proper terminology for a herd of parasites is) of lawyers took a few companies to the cleaners "for the good of the people" and did nothing more than drive the price of cigarettes up for those they were "fighting to help". No, I do not smoke, but those who seek help from the settlement for cessation programs get nothing (in all states but one, I believe), nada, zilch, thanks to the state legislatures (surprise! more lawyers) divvying up the pie for pet projects.

I cannot think of professions at further ends of the spectrum (in terms of respect) than those of medicine and law. Not hard to figure out at which end the legal field resides.

Quoted: Quoted: What did the docs do to you? Made me listen to their whining about my profession while sailing with and around them. I have docs in my family and respect them and what they do.  I don;t resect the prfession in that it places its own members obove the safety of the public.   No- I don't and never have sued Docs.  But I have seen plenty of docs who needed to be sued and were not because the P's attorney's couldn't afford to invest the money in the case due to the lack of return.  The real victims are the fucked up patients. If the good docs don't like the sytem- and their neighbor plumber makes more than they do- why don't they go be a fucking plumber?  They should have the IQ to be a plumber shouldn't they?

And you think plumbers are somehow inferior?

ar·ro·gant (ăr'ə-gənt)

adj. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry, but I cannot think of a better way to handle civil lawsuits than the procedures that we have adopted in the United States. And guess what? Neither has the rest of the world! Bullshit. The legal profession has driven all sorts of industries out of this country. Look at the lack of vaccine manufacturers in the US. Thanks to ambulance chaser who cashed in on a couple of adverse outcomes from the Swine Flu vaccine in '76, the industry said "fuck it" and packed up & left. The entire profession is little better than John Edwards channeling for a dead kid, "we do it all for the client*", what a disingenuous crock. *translation: "we do it all for that fat 40% cut" Let's talk about the "tobacco settlement", where a gaggle (not sure if that is the proper terminology for a herd of parasites is) of lawyers took a few companies to the cleaners "for the good of the people" and did nothing more than drive the price of cigarettes up for those they were "fighting to help". No, I do not smoke, but those who seek help from the settlement for cessation programs get nothing (in all states but one, I believe), nada, zilch, thanks to the state legislatures (surprise! more lawyers) divvying up the pie for pet projects. I cannot think of professions at further ends of the spectrum (in terms of respect) than those of medicine and law. Not hard to figure out at which end the legal field resides.

So do tell Merrell, who has the best legal system then? England? Iran? Yugo? Guatemala?

Really, I've got to hear this one.

Until you look at how other countries do their legal business you shouldn't be so harsh of ours.