There is a clear winner in the new healthcare legislation

Ryan

It cannot be the same as the old boss. The old boss did nothing for eight years. And when they had the majority did nothing to curtail plaintiffs' attorneys and even attempt to change healthcare.

So once again the right wingers have no sense of history or proportion. Porportion in that 36 million people will now be covered and the isnruance companies will not have the ability to drop insureds due to pre-exisiting or newly developed disease.

As any child knows, it is easy to criticize if you do nothing.

So, basically you're ok with this then. I'm sure the Trial Attorney lobby appreciates your support. Wonderful people such as they are.

Watch out lawyers, it's just a matter of time before you'll take a fall like *Wall Street* is doing now.

You'll change your mind if you ever need one. Then, if there were these caps, you'd find that very few malpractice suits actually get filed becasue it's just too expensive for attorneys to front the amount of money needed to go to trial with no possibility of being reimbursed.

Well, we've used the Canadian model as the example for what we should have. Why not use their model for malpractice costs, as well. They cap their payouts.

"Watch out lawyers, it's just a matter of time before you'll take a fall like *Wall Street* is doing now."

The Dow is at a 52-week high.

'Well, we've used the Canadian model as the example for what we should have.

Your proposed system has nothing to do with the Canadian "model' .

Well TY, what about the pregnant woman who drinks day after day then turns around and sues her doctor for malpractice. You ok with that?

How about the person who completely mistreats their body and is obese. They have a heart attack during surgery. Yep, let's blame the doctor.

Whatever you feel about medical malpractice suits, caps only hurt the most gravely injured--they do nothing to limit "frivolous" suits.

It's possible for doctors to commit malpractice even on obese patients, or pregnant women who drink.

That's true, but then again it's also possible that juries have their head up their as* and can't distinguish real malpractice from what isn't malpractice but simply a function of circumstances that no doctor could have resolved satisfactorily.

BTW, if you ever sue a doctor in New York make sure it's in the Bronx. Juries love a good payout in the Bronx.

So, I'll add you to the list of people that will get a Christmas Card from the Trial Lawyers association TY.

So what I'm hearing apparently is that Canada has a better healthcare system, except they are uncaring because they have rigorous caps on malpractice payouts.

We on the other hand will control costs by not actually controlling a major cost.

Yep, makes perfect sense to me.

"CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services."

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

If health care is freely available to everyone, it's perfectly logical to cap malpractice payouts.

Is health care going to be freely available to everyone in the USA? I haven't been keeping up but I suspect the answer is "no".

Nope TY, don't have that. Of course, the fact that numerous states face shortages in obstetricians because of the rising cost of insurance might be a clue for some that a problem exists.

But, nope don't have those figures. That's the key part right. Not the fact that there are numerous articles stating that physician shortages exist and in some fields it is a direct result of the rising cost of malpractice insurance.

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/hospital-obstetrics-ward-will-close-amid/82971/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/baby_free_new_york_MFXeDYJvkVzrTGdubGt1rO

http://www.webmd.com/video/obstetrician-shortage

The old boss is health insurance bosses in corporate high-rise towers who have million dollar incomes and decide who lives and who dies. The new boss will be the American people.

Malpractice accounts for less than 0.5% of all medical costs and in fact, the numbers of claims have not only been decling but the payouts have as well. If the doctor is negligent or incompetent then he must answer to the patient or his family and accept responsbility for his misdeeds (where are the "personal responsibility" advocates?) and the consequences of his/her behavior otherwise we, as a society, pick up the costs of his/her decision making - especially if a person is severely injured so that he can never be a productive working citizen, a family loses their source of income or the negligence is due to indifference or simply NOT following the formalized Standards of Practice that govern medical practioners.

The increase in premiums of malpractice insurance is directly related to the Profit and Loss sheets in the insurance industry and as long as they are not making a killing in the stock market, or they can make even more money (capitalism and profit is good, remember?) they are going after the docs and providers of health care. And, of course, there are docs who practice in higher risk specialities and they are easy targets - knowing that they cannot take a chance and are held hostage by the insurers.

Then, of course, they promised how much money we'd save in our auto insurance premiums if they took away the right to sue or cap the rewards. How'd that work out for you?

It has been shown in study after study that if a practioner has a close working relationship with a patient - in fact a long relationship between and doc and his patient, the liklihood of legal action is deceased greatly. People are more likely to sue a doc who walks in the room, spends a few miinutes and then walks out - someone with whom they've have no or little contact with previously. As practices get larger and larger, patients no longer have "their" doctor but it's a roll of the dice who in the practice will see them is certainly creating a disconect between the patient and doc - the doc is no longer the family friend or the neighbor down the street in many cases - or if they are subject to an entire new team such as ER, surgeons, etc. Trust is a very big key - and that includes trusting the doc to do the right thing - not cut off the wrong breast, the wrong leg, not to order the wrong meds or wrong doses (or the nurse to administer them) and NOT to kill a patient simply because of carelessness or soemthing he/she shouldn't have been doing in the first place.