"Legalized Extortion" Medical Malpractice Bill in Senate

[Kanary]

Watching Sen John Cornyn, R (of course!) Texas.. (of course?) talking about the malpractice lawsuits, saying the yneed to be capped, etc, and equating it with "Legalized Extortion".

I'm so MAD I'm fuming.

I have a friend who was badly hurt in a car wreck, was left with inoperable back damage, and has lived with excruciating pain for over two years. She is heroically trying to work and support her two kids, it's looking like she may not be able to continue working, she cannot afford REAL care for her back and pain, and spends days out of it with pain. Her lawsuit is languishing in the courts, and she expects it to continue that way for at least two years. I'm really afraid of her losing her job, losing her home, losing her KIDS, all because all avenues are closed to her. Yet here is some clown who wants to close off even that meager avenue.

I'm sure we could fill up pages and pages of posts here with similar stories... this is a very shameful side of our society.

What we really need now is LETTERS... write your senators, now... this needs to be counteracted.

Write. Call. Emails aren't so effective... usually just tossed....

Please post and let me know you're writing... this is just obscene.

Kanary, mad as hell and not taking it anymore!

[papau]

1. when an actuary or the Acad, of Actuaries testifies re actual cost of

malpractice claims in excess of 500,000

I will believe they are serious and not just doing a political favor to insurance companies via a dump on trial lawyers.

Yes I know the answer as to cost because the studies have been done - but one wonders if reality/truth means anything to these GOP'ers who are on the insurance and drug company take and who seem to be excellent liars.

And one wonders why the media does not expose them.

[Kanary]

3. Most claims are against the same drs

A small number of drs garner the most claims. We're supposed to just let them all get away with it, and suffer the consequences in silence?

To me, the actual numbers don't mean that much... it's the fact that it's the *only* choice left to damaged people.

When drs start policing their own, instead of protecting them, then it'll be different story.

So, have you written?

Kanary

[papau]

4. most claims reflect risk of procedure-but you are correct re self-policing

does not not work well

Despite this, paying full boat via law suit judgement when things go badly results in a tail or extra cost to the premium (for an individual's health care) of 3 to 5 %.

However - in pricing the companies now try to get the actuary to price for a much larger tail - so that it comes back as more profit!

Indeed in pricing the premium the doctor pays - a silly huge "what if" tail is assumed and med malpractice becomes one hell of a profit maker. Now you find Ins companies exiting the business for capital usuage reasons, and/or if the reins deal they have is screwing them, they can actually lose money on med malpractice.

Cherry picking between types of doctor has caused some premiums to shoot so high it is silly - if you do the latest and best you have the highest risk patient coming to you - and indeed you lose more than the average because of this. So they charge you huge because every loss has a lawsuit potential.

In Germany you can not even sue for this stuff - but the state takes care of those who are harmed. Germany does feel it is right to punish those MD's who are going out on a limb and trying the latest and greatest to save you.

[Kanary]

5. Thanks for the explanation: I realize the situation is complex

However, the point is, putting an end to lawsuits and leaving patients high and dry is NOT medical care.

Are you willing to write a letter?

We talk about how we're getting screwed, and yet.....

Germany has it much more correct.... as long as they're watching those few drs who are making more mistakes, and don't just allow the mistakes to continue unabated.

Kanary, who is guessing that most are going to be content when this bill goes into effect....?

[papau]

8. I will be contacting the acad of actuaries to see what they are doing

The ethics rules of the profession have their statement submitted to any committee before mine should go in.

But they tend not to comment on BS political games - so as long as there is no mark-up of a bill they tend to submit nothing - leaving the airwaves to the GOP BS that the media never challenges, or asks for an actuarial or opposing view!

I'll be glad to write to whomever you think will help!

[aquart]

2. They're trying to get it all in before the deluge.

[Kanary]

6. The question is... are we going to let them?

[Cleita]

7. If we had national health care, the malpractice suits would be

handled by a special office that takes care of those legal matters like the military does. A doctor who has too many strikes against him would lose his license thereby reducing the incidences. Centralization has a lot going for it like the doctor wouldn't be able to move from state to state to start up a new practice again and people like your friend could continue to receive the care and assistance she needs instead of struggling to get by.

[AP]

10. People should be able to sue doctors even in a nationalized system.

In the UK they limit the awards you can get in med neg suits on the grounds that you're just robbing peter to pay paul if you sue the gov't.

However, the result is that they tolerate a ton of medical negligence in the NIH.

Soverign immunity is waved by the government all the time, and they should do so with universal health care in the US when the time comes.

I'm sure some conservative judges would love the opportunity to help bankrupt the US (especially if it isn't a private insurance company covering the costs) and I'm sure juries will be less sympathetic towards the defendant, since it's just the gov't.

however, you simply cannot tolerate people not having their actual damages covered the way they do in the UK. It creates a ton of misery for people, and sends them to the poorhouse.

[Kanary]

11. You're completely correct. If... it wouldn't be a problem...

But the fact is, we DON"T have universal health care, so we all stand to lose a lot here.

Anyone at all willing to write, call?

Kanary

[AP]

9. Remember: the caps only hurt people who have proven their cases ---

these are people who have shown that someone was negligent, that they were injured, and that the negligence caused the damages.

These aren't the frivolous suits. These are the serious suits.

It's hard to pursue medical negligence suits. They're complicated. But people rarely suffer more serious damages than when they're getting medically treated.

The purpose of these laws is to make it probitively expensive to sue these cases, and to make the ultimate rewards so low, that people tell clients it isn't worth it.

And who's pushing this? The insurance companies -- who had a record year last year even though the rest of the economy is in the shitter.

The other part of the equation, by the way (makign the cases expensive to pursue) they achieve by getting legislatures to pass laws regarding what kind of expert witness you can use, and all sorts of stuff like that. Some of these retrictions are legitimate. Others are just intended to drive up the cost of suing these cases.