StupidNation Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The biggest amount of waste/spending in the medical industry is doing unnecessary tests to avoid malpractice lawsuits according to the study by PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute. Interesting... I still want to end all contingency attorneys, and those that do work without getting paid must post a bond for the defendant to stop frivolous suits. Also, I think a board or panel of doctors who will agree something is malpractice before the lawyer gets his man to say whatever for payment would also be a big help. Look at Texas after they started tort reform when doctors were leaving in droves to coming back and now is a haven from unscrupulous attorneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The biggest amount of waste/spending in the medical industry is doing unnecessary tests to avoid malpractice lawsuits according to the study by PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute. Interesting... I still want to end all contingency attorneys, and those that do work without getting paid must post a bond for the defendant to stop frivolous suits. Also, I think a board or panel of doctors who will agree something is malpractice before the lawyer gets his man to say whatever for payment would also be a big help. Look at Texas after they started tort reform when doctors were leaving in droves to coming back and now is a haven from unscrupulous attorneys. It won't change anytime soon. The Democrats are as beholden to the trial lawyers as the Republicans were to Big Oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 It won't change anytime soon. The Democrats are as beholden to the trial lawyers as the Republicans were to Big Oil. Give specific examples what the GOP did for big oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Give specific examples what the GOP did for big oil. Cheney worked for Halliburton, that's the smoking gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Oh, and Bush is from Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Of course, you're "analysis" is at best misleading. Even if you eliminated every lawsuit you'd only cut "waste" by less than 18% and more likely, less than 10%. Yes, that's a lot but certainly not a panacea. The study even says that of this 18%, the cost is not all due to lawsuit concerns but the fact that doctors could make more money or - gasp - they believe the procedures are "the right thing to do." There probably is a "better" system to hold down inflationary pressures due to lawsuits BUT the "fixes" will cause just as much outrage. The GOP has kept tort reform alive because the "cures" are more politically dangerous. "Rationing" "star chambers," etc. It will take an awful lot of fixes to tackle the out of control costs. Anyone looking for a silver bullet is kidding themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Give specific examples what the GOP did for big oil. Ironically, I had a hard time finishing that sentence. At one point I wrote [insert favorite bogeyman here]. I don't particularly think the Republicans are wedded to big oil, but I think the left does and that's all that matters for my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 It won't change anytime soon. The Democrats are as beholden to the trial lawyers as the Republicans were to Big Oil. As Democrats we love Trial Lawyers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 As Democrats we love Trial Lawyers? John Edwards does, at least. Otherwise...I'm not sure where that came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 John Edwards does, at least. Otherwise...I'm not sure where that came from. That's what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 That's what I was thinking. Good to know that you and DC Tom are on the same wave length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Good to know that you and DC Tom are on the same wave length. You think Dems and Liberals are in favor of frivolous lawsuits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 You think Dems and Liberals are in favor of frivolous lawsuits? I really don't have an opinion on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Malpractice is weird, It is wasteful when you are paying higher premiums as a result from it. Yet when your doctor screws up your or someone you knows diagnosis they should pay for their mistake. Like George Carlin says their stuff is sh-- my sh-- is stuff. So yeah it may increase the costs yet you want to be able to sue a doctor that clearly made mistake. I think that its a touchy subject (Much like health care in general) but its not as clear cut as some would have it. Not all malpractice suits are just dirty liberal lawyers who want to make a buck. Yet there are people who drive up costs by felonious lawsuits. Reform is needed yet you want your rights as a patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Malpractice is weird, It is wasteful when you are paying higher premiums as a result from it. Yet when your doctor screws up your or someone you knows diagnosis they should pay for their mistake. Like George Carlin says their stuff is sh-- my sh-- is stuff. So yeah it may increase the costs yet you want to be able to sue a doctor that clearly made mistake. I think that its a touchy subject (Much like health care in general) but its not as clear cut as some would have it. Not all malpractice suits are just dirty liberal lawyers who want to make a buck. Yet there are people who drive up costs by felonious lawsuits. Reform is needed yet you want your rights as a patient. Part of the problem, too, is that malpractice cases are often decided by people (i.e, juries) who are in no position to determine if malpractice actually occured. It's one thing if a surgeon amputates the wrong leg. It's completely different when someone is arguing malpractice based on an obscure one-pixel data point in an EKG reading (which has happened - the cardiologist lost). Most people simply don't realize that medical decisions are often ambiguous, and not clear-cut and exact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The biggest amount of waste/spending in the medical industry is doing unnecessary tests to avoid malpractice lawsuits according to the study by PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute. Interesting... I still want to end all contingency attorneys, and those that do work without getting paid must post a bond for the defendant to stop frivolous suits. Also, I think a board or panel of doctors who will agree something is malpractice before the lawyer gets his man to say whatever for payment would also be a big help. Look at Texas after they started tort reform when doctors were leaving in droves to coming back and now is a haven from unscrupulous attorneys. The contingency idea is a bad one. It will hurt poor people the most--and as they are the people going to bad doctors, it's them that may need to bring these suits most. I love the idea of expert juries, which is in the zip code of what you suggest. As a patent attorney, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to explain a semiconductor or a pharmacological compound to a jury who barely made it through earth science (if that). In the end, they all decide based on some gut instinct with nothing to do with the nuances of the scientific facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The contingency idea is a bad one. It will hurt poor people the most--and as they are the people going to bad doctors, it's them that may need to bring these suits most. I love the idea of expert juries, which is in the zip code of what you suggest. As a patent attorney, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to explain a semiconductor or a pharmacological compound to a jury who barely made it through earth science (if that). In the end, they all decide based on some gut instinct with nothing to do with the nuances of the scientific facts. Nobody !@#$s with the Jesus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Eight-year-olds, Dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 You think Dems and Liberals are in favor of frivolous lawsuits? Yes. Look up the Dems voting record on tort reform, medical or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Yes. Look up the Dems voting record on tort reform, medical or otherwise. Because, as we've learned in this thread: everything is black and white, especially with regard to malpractice policy. Boring day at PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts