Um...you use the word compensation. Compensatory damages, the damages the make a person "whole" in civil cases won't get touched, right? I thought the big limit was on punitive damages. Damages designed to "punish." I could be wrong, however. I think if you look at the big picture, you could make a case that there should not be a limit on compensatory damages or punitive damages in ANY lawsuit. Compensatory damages should be what they should be to make the person "whole" and should go to the person filing the lawsuit. If you want to stop lawsuit abuse you take punitive damages, the amount meant to punish the defendent for their mistake and you don't allow the plaintiff to have it. There would be a lot to work out, such as where the money would go, but it would stop people from suing for just getting the big punitive damage pay out from greed. The money should go to some third party...whether the state, or a charity group or whatever. Maybe if its a drunk driving case the punitive damages go to MADD or something like that. Also, if you want to stop lawsuit abuse, you put a cap on the amount lawyers can make on a case. Make it high...make it $10 million....but that would stop a ton of these stupid $200 million lawsuits, if the lawyer wasn't going to make their third if it. You'd see a TON of $30 million lawsuits, where the lawyer's third (or whatever the percent is) meets the cap. AND another thing kinda off topic. People that use the words: Evil Corporations, or Big Business, or whatnot...you have to realize that those aren't empty entities. The majority of the people in this country are employed by one of the "evil entities." They are just trying to make a living like anybody else. I know corporations do bad things sometimes...but remember when you cost a corp a few hundred million in lawsuits, or whatever...its not the "Evil Corporation" that gets hurt. Its the IT folks that see their jobs go to India, or the manager who gets layed off, or the entire group that gets cut and loses their job, or the people taking pay cuts, or loss if insurance benefits for employees....those are the people that pay for all this stuff. I'm not saying that corporations shouldn't be sued ever, but realize that it is coming out of the pocket of normal people, whether they lose their job, or consumers have to pay more.
They probably can't affor to pay enough people to clean properly because they have to pay such high insurance. Why don't we just shut down all hospitals?
Yeah, that's it. They can't afford insurance premiums so the people who handle patients can't wash their hands. 100,000 a year or more dead to hospital infections
100,000 a year or more dead to hospital infections A good example of what is actually broke in the health care industry. We can only hope that the families of these 100,000 sue the hospitals for all they are worth, until the hospitals get some collective sense in their heads. Not holding my breath.
Many doctors in WV have moved to Ohio. My hometown is on the Oh-WV border and there is a couple really nice (almost liek mini-hospitals) that have opened up where WV doctors are practicing just over the state border.
Supermac, there are MONIED interests in this country. MONIED interest prevail. In most cases, the insurance company/medical defendant is the MONIED interest. However, sometimes big plaintiffs attorneys have thick checkbooks and fund huge battles against the medical industry. I favor significant reforms, but not the one sided solutions that always come from the doctors and the insurance industry. 1. I am opposed to punitive damages. Punitives are supposed to punish the guilty party, but ACTUAL damages, plus interest, court costs AND ATTORNEYS FEES should be the goal. 2. In most cases, the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys fees. We should have that same provision for med mal cases, and dispense with punitive damages entirely. It's like trying to play 5 card stud with Queens and sevens wild. Too many wildcards. 3. I favor some limits on pain and suffering, but there has to be a trade off. The industry has to give some things up to get that. 4. There is no easy way for aggrieved patients to get any help. Almost none. So all these aggrieved patients get rebuffed by the industry, and then the industry gets mad because a lawyer takes up the cause. If they want to stop getting sued as much, they can (1) stop committing so much malpractice, and (2) start dealing responsibly with claims before they get to a lawyer. I guarantee you that most people who end up with an attorney have tried for months to get response from the hospital and doctors, who typically stonewall and cover their mistakes. If you knew how money gets spent and divided up in a med mal case, it would really anger you. I'll do some kind of breakdown on it later, show a model.
Originaly posted by FF: 4. There is no easy way for aggrieved patients to get any help. Almost none. So all these aggrieved patients get rebuffed by the industry, and then the industry gets mad because a lawyer takes up the cause. If they want to stop getting sued as much, they can (1) stop committing so much malpractice, and (2) start dealing responsibly with claims before they get to a lawyer. I guarantee you that most people who end up with an attorney have tried for months to get response from the hospital and doctors, who typically stonewall and cover their mistakes. Very true FF-- I work in benefits management outsourcing and deal every day with carriers from United and CIGNA to half-a$$ regional HMO's and the "rebuffals" come at a steady pace. My day is filled with referrals BACK to the carriers as we neither approve or deny claims and it is illegal for us even to ASK about treatments (specificaly) due to the new HIPAA regulations. Unfortunately for our ppt's, of a MAJOR pharmecutical company no less, there is no patient advocacy--i.e., the company won't go to bat for their employee's who must fight for claim "concessions" on their own...
An example The patient has to prove the hospital and doctors screwed up, so that means tens of thousands of dollars have to be advanced by someone to pay all those costs. You can't prove the malpractice without legit experts IN EACH RELEVANT FIELD. So part of any recovery will go to pay those experts. Part of any recovery will go to pay past medical expenses. There is typically a lienholder such as a health insurance carrier who gets paid thusly. And then there are all the costs of court, primarily the deposition and forensic evidence costs. Let's suppose you have a claim that you settle for $300,000. The insurance company probably spent $100,000 defending the case, so that's money down a rathole. So they spend a total of $400,000, and how much does the claimant get? Of the $300,000, 40% goes to the plaintiff's attorney, so that's $120,000. Then let's say another $30,000 goes for experts, maybe $30,000 for deposition and other costs, and maybe $30,000 to the health insurance lienholder. The claimant walks away with a check for $90,000 out of the $400,000 spent. That is a messed up way to address these issues, but it starts with the hospitals and doctors ALWAYS refusing to do the right thing when faced with a claim. They clam up, shut the claimants out, and FORCE them to get an attorney if they want to get anywhere with a claim. Any system where most of the money goes to the lawyers on both sides is prima facie f***ed up, but they would not get their greedy snouts in the trough were it not for the equally greedy doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies.
I could argue this whole issue of whether tort reform is needed, but why do it? I've never seen anyone who changed their mind about it one way or the other Friendly fan. I've seen people change their minds on many topics: jury awards, are unions needed, whether America would ever fight a useless war, the need for guranteed nationaL heath care, Miranda laws, the need for worker's comp, more environmental regulations or oversight by the SEC and a whole host of positions ,when they finally get in the position that it is their ox or that of a loved one that is being gored. Until then it often easy for many to believe the ideas of the conservative think tanks funded by the ultrarich to come up with ideas to, defund services and protections for the middle class and poor so that the status quo for the ultraweatlhy can be preserved.
let me put it this way I don't feel a need to change minds. I've got an opinion which I state. If I feel like it, I support it. But I expect a conversation to be a discussion, not a changing of minds. I have lots of conservative friends, and I talk politics with them, but I don't expect to change their mind, and they don't expect to change mine, EVER! we just talkin' Some of you guys have the joy of arguing. I'm the other way. I'm like biotch, you already told me your opinion and I told you mine - why you still talkin? So you guys carry the banner while I sit over here and urge you on. Or not, as the case may be. being a curmudgeon requires a certain commitment to irascibility on my part, and I want to give it my all
Mr. C, this is unworthy of you. That could be said about any law about anything... "hell, you can always repeal it!" Think about how much money is being spent to get this thing passed. Think about the fact that the lobbyists were successful in getting the election, which will cost money unnecessarily out of YOUR pocket, on September 13th. Think about why respected organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the AARP and the Texas Federation of Teachers are against this. Now, tell me again how easy it would be to get it repealed.
FF -- don't give up entirely...i'm still in the middle on this issue...and your substantive posts are helpful.
Just like our experiment with the War on Drugs, huh? Once it is law, it is extraordinarily difficult to repeal it, even if it is an abject failure.
now you know why I don't really want to get into it. the system needs a huge overhaul. This is an insane way to resolve med mal disputes. It's so wasteful, and so harsh on the people who really need help. I favor special courts designed to order interim relief in special cases, to order that treatment regimes be started and funded by the defendants, if there is a high likelihood of liability. The plaintiffs bar on one side, the insurance/doctors on the other, and whores both sides hire as experts make this a cesspool waiting to be cleaned out and replaced with modern plumbing. This system does not work, not for med mal, and not for most auto cases. It's a mess, trench warfare where the casualties are all consumers. BTW, folks, the reason the premiums jumped so much in 2001 is THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE LOSING MONEY BECAUSE OF INVESTMENTS, not losses on claims. And when the economy dips, claims always go up, as people chase new avenues of revenue.
The amendment gives the legislature the ability to set caps, it doesn't actually set the caps. So it's not like they have to overturn the amendment to reverse the caps. I'm not sure on what basis those groups oppose this law, but the doctors and hospitals support it. I trust them. And I think the trial lawyers contributed more money than the insurance companies.
but they are the affected group...the most affected group. i trust them too...but they're definitely self-interested here. who wouldn't be?
