Who's side do you take in the malpractice problem in the U.S.?

[Dis]

I've been meaning to do this. As some people think it's okay to sue for millions of dollars for minor mishaps.

[Dis]

the most obvious choice is to take the patient's side. That's why I didn't include it in the poll.

[Zkribbler]

Sue for millions?? In California, it's impermissible to even specify a dollar amount in a complaint for personal injury or wrongful death. There's also a $250,000 limit on paid and suffering in malpractice award -- which is insufficient to compensate maimed babies.

People may have -signs in their eyes if they suffer a minor-injury, but first, they have to find a lawyer who's willing to invest time in the case, get a judge who let the case go to the jury and then convince a jury to make an award. These things aren't handed out like candy, no matter what the defense bar tries to make out. BTW - Juries love doctors. More than 95% of cases don't go to trial and in those cases that do, doctors ususally prevail.

50% of the medical malpractice actions are voluntarily dismissed once plaintiffs' attorney obtain the medical records and find out there was no malpractice.

With the exceptions of obstetrics and anestheology, there is no malpractice problem in America.

A few years back, there was a major malpractice insurance problem when insurance companies jacked up their premiums to make up for stock-market losses, but that does mean there was a malpractice problem.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Sue for millions?? In California, it's impermissible to even specify a dollar amount in a complaint for personal injury or wrongful death. There's also a $250,000 limit on paid and suffering in malpractice award -- which is insufficient to compensate maimed babies.

People may have -signs in their eyes if they suffer a minor-injury, but first, they have to find a lawyer who's willing to invest time in the case, get a judge who let the case go to the jury and then convince a jury to make an award. These things aren't handed out like candy, no matter what the defense bar tries to make out. BTW - Juries love doctors. More than 95% of cases don't go to trial and in those cases that do, doctors ususally prevail.

50% of the medical malpractice actions are voluntarily dismissed once plaintiffs' attorney obtain the medical records and find out there was no malpractice.

With the exceptions of obstetrics and anestheology, there is no malpractice problem in America.

A few years back, there was a major malpractice insurance problem when insurance companies jacked up their premiums to make up for stock-market losses, but that does mean there was a malpractice problem.

maybe it's just my city then. We can't find enough doctors to deliver babies where I live supposedly because of the malpractice problem.

I believe the doctors exaggerated the problem. I blame all sides in this. They are all scumbags. Including the patients.

Or perhaps there is no problem at all and the media is blowing it out of proportion. . That is the most likely case.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Sue for millions?? In California, it's impermissible to even specify a dollar amount in a complaint for personal injury or wrongful death. There's also a $250,000 limit on paid and suffering in malpractice award -- which is insufficient to compensate maimed babies.

Don't you have damages for future care, thats what we have in the UK, if a baby is hurt through negligence and needs alot of care in the future then the award can be very high, although the amount fo actual pain and suffering wouldn't be anywhere near as much.

[Sikander]

The main problem is the assumption that somehow it's possible for someone to fix everything with money. While this is convenient for those who do this sort of thing for a living (law firms and insurance companies) it is rarely the case. Either no amount of money in the world can compensate someone for what they have lost, or the amount of money that could do so is so out of proportion to the economy that it creates crippling effects downstream. Las Vegas medical delivery system isn't the first that has collapsed under the strain (however temporarily). Limiting pain and suffering serves as a brake to the jury shopping manipulators who take advantage of the lotto mentality in order to enrich themselves while making everyone else poorer. They produce no goods or services and add a lot less value than they take. They are in a word parasites.

[Donegeal]

The only side I take is the one that is against insurance companies.

Nothing like taking a personal injury (a serious one) and playing three way snail-mail tag between the hospital, insurance company and victim. And then putting it all into an impersonal numbers game just so a profit could be made.

Hmm... I usually don't like to complain about something and not give a possible solution to the problem, but I just never had a solution to the problem with evil corprate insurance companies. But I just came up with a possible answer.

Not sure how it would work, but what if insurance companies were somehow required to be non-profit? Would something like this be possible?

[Ninot]

the whole thing is a farce.

Banana all the way

[Sava]

I'm with Donegeal...

I choose the side against insurance companies.

As my hero Bill Maher said, "If a surgeon leaves an Altoid's box in my chest cavity, I want to see him in debtor's prison".

[Japher]

problem is that doctors are damned if they do and damned if they don't

requried by law to work on someone, required by law not to mess up

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dis
maybe it's just my city then. We can't find enough doctors to deliver babies where I live supposedly because of the malpractice problem.

I agree. See the exceptions I mentioned for obstetrics and anesthesiolgists.

When malpractice occurs in the delivery of a baby, huge damages are awarded (1) because the injury to the baby usually occurs over the entire lifetime and (2) because babies are so darn cute, it's easy to give them big awards. This is reflected in malpractice insurance rates, which is driving future obstetricians into other fields of medicine.

Anesthesiolgists always get sued whenever anything goes wrong in surgery. Their insurance rates are far higher then the surgeons, who are usually the people who've messed up.

Originally posted by TheStringer
Don't you have damages for future care,

Yes we do. It just that no dollar amount can be set out in the Complaint. The jury in deciding the amount of damages, if any, to award never sees the Complaint. The sole purpose for setting out big dollar amounts there was to scare the defend. "Ohhh, I'm suing you for a gazillion dollars...no, make that ten gazillion dollars. Ohhh, are you scared??"

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Donegeal
The only side I take is the one that is against insurance companies.

Nothing like taking a personal injury (a serious one) and playing three way snail-mail tag between the hospital, insurance company and victim. And then putting it all into an impersonal numbers game just so a profit could be made.

Hmm... I usually don't like to complain about something and not give a possible solution to the problem, but I just never had a solution to the problem with evil corprate insurance companies. But I just came up with a possible answer.

Not sure how it would work, but what if insurance companies were somehow required to be non-profit? Would something like this be possible?

We could form not for profit insurance companies (like credit unions, but for insurance), though I'd bet that there would be an immense amount of resistance from the insurance industry and their legions of bought and paid for legislators.

[Dis]

that's probably the only reason we don't have universal health care. I can't see doing non profit health insurance companies unless they are goverment run. And if we are going to do that, we should provide health coverage to everyone.

but everyone is so resistant to change.... I guess that's why they are called conservatives.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dis
that's probably the only reason we don't have universal health care. I can't see doing non profit health insurance companies unless they are goverment run. And if we are going to do that, we should provide health coverage to everyone.

but everyone is so resistant to change.... I guess that's why they are called conservatives.

My credit union does a much better job of serving my needs than any bank or government entity has ever done. We probably will have to eventually provide universal coverage for competitive reasons, but I'd personally prefer to go with a decentralized model where individuals would have more control over what their slice of the pie goes for.

[chequita guevara]

The lawyers side is the patients side, thus I chose lawyers.