Howard Dean is Unprepared to be President

The problem I have with "tort reform" is that it protects institutions from taking responsibility for their mistakes. If a doctor botches a surgery and leaves you blind, you're gonna sue his a$$ off. And you should.

You're blind now because of negligence, but you shouldn't be compensated because other doctors need protection from future responsibilities? C'mon.

If a jury thinks that a person is entitled to just compensation, the government has no place to put restrictions on it. The jury should be able to award (or not award) whatever it sees fit, based on the evidence presented. That's how democratic justice works.

It's interesting how a "free market" is OK for money, but not for justice.

 

http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/NPDB_Data.pdf

The number of medical malpractice payouts decreased by 8.2 percent, from 16,669 in 2001 to 15,304 in 2002, according to a Public Citizen analysis of new National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) records for last year. The total damages paid to victims declined by 6.9 percent, from $4.5 billion in 2001 to $4.2 billion in 2002, the analysis found. When adjusted for medical services inflation in 2002 the decline was even more dramatic - 11.2 percent. (See Figure 1 in the attachment.) The cost of medical care typically represents the greatest cost in a medical malpractice payout.

The number of awards greater than $1 million decreased by 11.5 percent, from 454 in 2001 to 402 in 2002. The data bank, a U.S. government agency, collects reports of every judgment or settlement paid to malpractice victims throughout the country by insurance companies on behalf of doctors.

“It’s clear from these numbers that the insurance premium increases over the past year are not tied to lawsuits,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “The only thing that correlates with the premium increases is the decline in malpractice insurers’ investment income.”

 

Barf. I thought you were banned.

 

NOBODY can be fully prepared for the awesome responsibilities of President of the United States. The only thing that comes even cloes is being vice president, but that's not even the same league.

Saying a candidate is unqualified for the Office of President because he's never been President is pretty specious. All we can do is look at the individual records, consider their ideas, and vote our conscience.

 

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas Report.pdf

This Public Citizen study, which examined statistics from numerous government agencies and
other reputable sources, has two principal findings:

1) The most significant, long-term malpractice “crisis” faced by Texans is the unreliable quality of medical care being delivered by a relatively small proportion of doctors – a problem that health-care providers have not adequately addressed. Taking away people’s legal rights, as is proposed under a cap on non-economic damages, would only decrease deterrence and reduce the quality of care.

2) Any medical malpractice premium “crisis” in Texas, as in the rest of the country, is not a long-term problem nor has it been caused by the legal system. It is a short-term problem triggered by a brief spike in medical malpractice insurance rates for some physicians. This spike in rates is a result of the cyclical economics of the insurance industry and investment losses caused by the country’s economic slowdown.

 

Yawn.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/FinalBRIEFING BOOK--MISDIAGNOSIS.pdf

Government data shows that medical malpractice awards have increased at a slower pace than health insurance premiums.

For much of the 1990s, doctors benefited from artificially lower premiums. According to the International Risk Management Institute (IRMI), one of the leading analysts of commercial insurance issues, “What is happening to the market for medical malpractice insurance in 2001 is a direct result of trends and events present since the mid to late 1990s. Throughout the 1990s, and reaching a peak around 1997 and 1998, insurers were on a quest for market share, that is, they were driven more by the amount of premium they could book rather than the adequacy of premiums to pay losses. In large part this emphasis on market share was driven by a desire to accumulate large amounts of capital with which to turn into investment income.” IRMI also noted: “Clearly a business cannot continue operating in that fashion indefinitely.”

Medical liability premiums track investment results. J. Robert Hunter, one of the country’s most knowledgeable insurance actuaries and director of insurance for Consumer Federation of America, recently analyzed the growth in medical liability premiums. He found that premiums charged do not track losses paid, but instead rise and fall in concert with the state of the economy. When the economy is booming and investment returns are high, companies maintain premiums at modest levels; however, when the economy falters and interest rates fall, companies increase premiums in response.

 

I absolutely see what you're saying, and respect your position. But Texas is a HUGE health care market -- it has 22 million potential patients. Finding doctors to serve this huge market will never be a problem. There's simply too much money here.

Every person has a right to the courts. Their access shouldn't be restricted in any way. Stupid lawsuits are a fact of life, and it's a trade-off I gladly accept so that others can have a voice before a judge. Restricting "frivolous" lawsuits also restricts countless other genuine suits that deserve attention. If a lawsuit is frivolous, no damages will be awarded anyway.

If so-called "frivolous" lawsuits are clogging the courts, hire more judges and open more courts. You simply can't skimp on justice.

 

I've never heard of a doctor not earning a living wage. Anyone have any doctor friends living in a ghetto?

 

Facts are facts. You have only stated your opinion as fact. You made me (since you are lazy as well as blissful ignorant) prove to you that the facts I stated were indeeed facts. I did this.

I was right to say that you would attack the sources of facts, when the facts themselves were unassailable.

Hey TJ, when you finish reading the facts in the last linked PDF that I have posted here, let's start the debate again. The report is comprehensive (which I assure you that any report that supports your political stance on this issue is not). The report also addresses all of the talking points from the other side.

 

Hmm, maybe Dr. Nick. But he's more of an acquaintance.

 

No, my car insurance doesn't go up because the premium is determined by my driving record, not my earning power.

However, medical malpractice insurance is a form of liability insurance. All liability insurance premiums are calculated based on a person's and/or business' revenues (if you don't believe me, go ask the person at your company who handles the general liability insurance). Therefore, the more money a doctor makes, the higher his malpractice/liability insurance premiums will be.

So yes, it does work as a ratio (somewhat).

Speaking more directly to the topic, there are alot of factors that contribute to higher med mal insurance premiums, including both stock market performance and malpractice settlements. There's no one direct cause, so I think limiting pain and suffering damages really won't solve the issue. I agree with MadMax on one thing- until the AMA starts adequately disciplining the doctors who screw up over and over again, we're going to continue to have too many med mal suits.

One suggestion I've heard is that courts should forbid confidential settlements. The thinking is that people will be fully informed when a doctor is admitting he screwed up and thus will know better than to seek his services. Of course, it's hard for a crippled person to turn down money for principle's sake.

 

If being unprepared for the office were any predicter of how a presidency will go George Bush would have had the most inept administration in history.

He didn't; and I doubt Dean would either.

 

what a SURPRISE, T_J has disappeared

"Trial lawyers have created a dangerous environment in which every Jerry Springer enthusiast is threatening to sue for millions if they are rear-ended in a slow-speed collision."

what this statement by T_J has to do with Medical Malpractice, I'll never know..

 

how do you forbid private settlements between private parties?

maybe it would be mandatory to report it to the AMA or the agency that regulates doctors in Texas who could then make it public? that would be just part of the regulation of being a doctor...don't like it? don't be a doctor!

 

George Will has some nice things to say about Dean:

Another potential Dean weakness, implicating his political judgment, is suggested by believable reports that he admires retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander. Dean, more than any other possible Democratic nominee, might need a running mate who would assuage anxieties about a former Vermont governor's lack of national security experience.

Other Democrats see Clark as a solution to a problem their party has had since the McGovernite takeover in 1972, the problem of voters' doubts about its competence regarding national security. But the fact that Clark is the kind of military man who appeals to Democrats -- and that they appeal to him -- helps explain why the party has that problem.

Comparisons of Clark to Dwight Eisenhower are ludicrous. Eisenhower, as well-prepared as any president for the challenges of his era, had spent three years immersed in the political complexities of coalition warfare, dealing with Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle and others. Clark's claim to presidential stature derives from directing NATO's 78 days of war at 15,000 feet over Serbia. It was the liberals' dream war: tenuously related to U.S. security, its overriding aim, to which much was sacrificed, was to have zero U.S. fatalities.

As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him ("I expect to have my decision made by Sept. 19," when he visits Iowa--feel the suspense), he compounds the confusion that began when he said (June 15, 2003) that on 9/11 "I got a call at my home" saying that when he was to appear on CNN, "You've got to say this is connected" to Iraq. "It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over." But who exactly called Clark?

July 1: "A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank." There is no such Canadian institution. Anyway, who "from the White House"? "I'm not going to go into those sources. ... People told me things in confidence that I don't have any right to betray." July 18: "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."

Aug. 25: It came from "a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He's very well connected to Israeli intelligence. ... I haven't changed my position. There's no waffling on it. It's just as clear as could be."

Now Clark darkly says there are "rumors" that in February "the White House" tried -- well, "apparently" tried -- "to get me knocked off CNN." Clark still coyly refuses to say he is a Democrat but forthrightly confesses to being a "centrist." As he prepares to heed the clamor for him to join the pursuit of Dean, he is earning the description National Review has given to Sen. Bob Graham: "a deranged moderate."

 

Visions of Warren G Harding are now dancing through my head.

Historians will not be kind at all to GWB.