America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

It seems, to naive me, that the problem isn't the amount of settlements but that there's no protection for the care provider who exercises due diligence but still gets sued. Victims should certainly still have access to awards for pain and suffering when there's real negligence. The medical lobby would no doubt like to be protected from all of that, and would claim that as "savings."

How are medical procedure torts adjudicated? Jury trials? Seems to me that there should be a way to have boards of experts representing both valid concerns (patient protection against negligence and doctor protection against frivolous suits) decide whether there's a case.

 

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

And they're going to come right back at you now and say the $10B is bogus because the real cost is in the defensive medicine aspect of it.

And round and round we go.

Maybe so, and to be clear I'm all for making the effort. 10B (or whatever it is) is nothing to sneeze at. But I am curious about the details of some of these proposals. How much money does capping lawyers fees for example save? I don't want to see awards capped necessarily because of negligence killed someone for example, a cap of 250K for damages would seem a little light IMHO (although I can think of a few posters where that amount might be too much ).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I don't want to see awards capped necessarily because of negligence killed someone for example, a cap of 250K for damages would seem a little light IMHO (although I can think of a few posters where that amount might be too much ).

I don't either but there can be no question that I was called an idiot for saying so. So, have fun with the Tort crowd, they're a passionate bunch and are 100% convinced that that is the ONE thing we have to have to fix health care. Without it we ain't fixing nothing.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

It seems, to naive me, that the problem isn't the amount of settlements but that there's no protection for the care provider who exercises due diligence but still gets sued. Victims should certainly still have access to awards for pain and suffering when there's real negligence. The medical lobby would no doubt like to be protected from all of that, and would claim that as "savings."

How are medical procedure torts adjudicated? Jury trials? Seems to me that there should be a way to have boards of experts representing both valid concerns (patient protection against negligence and doctor protection against frivolous suits) decide whether there's a case.

Your 2nd paragraph is precisely what I proposed earlier. Sort of grand jury style where you need to pass a preliminary litmus test before you can both proceed to court and/or get an insurance company settlement.

As for the adjudicating part, the ambulance chasers (personal injury) lawyers have "negotiating" with insurance companies down to a science - so cases rarely get that far in court - it's way, way cheaper for the insurer to settle with no fault than to go through the expense of litigating in court.

I don't either but there can be no question that I was called an idiot for saying so. So, have fun with the Tort crowd, they're a passionate bunch and are 100% convinced that that is the ONE thing we have to have to fix health care. Without it we ain't fixing nothing.

....says the many who presents many a problem, but scoffs at all solutions. You crack me up.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

....says the many who presents many a problem, but scoffs at all solutions. You crack me up.

That's BS and you know it. I've been positive on many solutions to problems that have been posted when I agree with them. I just did that yesterday in this thread by the way.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

That's BS and you know it. I've been positive on many solutions to problems that have been posted when I agree with them. I just did that yesterday in this thread by the way.

Have you ever made a positive comment verbally, in writing or in cyberspace without pairing up with a negative?.....your negative washed out your positive, so you were neutral. That's not "positive" in the true spirit of the word.

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

...but...*right now*, the cost benefits are better when you purchase through a group (company). The more employees I put on any given plan with any insurer I know of, the cost per family/couple/individual goes way down. Much cheaper per policy to purchase through a company (group) than buying an individual plan. I've never seen a company charge for making group coverage available to their employees unless they self-insure all or part of a plan.

So as an employer would you rather pony up for the employee benefits and their attendant headaches, or would you be amenable to giving them a chunk of change annually and letting your employees shop for their own coverage? Not trying to be argumentative, for once, but around here we carry alot of HR folks who do nothing but handle benefits plans and they are a big "cost center".

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

So as an employer would you rather pony up for the employee benefits and their attendant headaches, or would you be amenable to giving them a chunk of change annually and letting your employees shop for their own coverage? Not trying to be argumentative, for once, but around here we carry alot of HR folks who do nothing but handle benefits plans and they are a big "cost center".

I wonder how big the HR lobby is?

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I wonder how big the HR lobby is?

Not as big as the accountants and finance guys who keep sharpening their pencils.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

So as an employer would you rather pony up for the employee benefits and their attendant headaches, or would you be amenable to giving them a chunk of change annually and letting your employees shop for their own coverage? Not trying to be argumentative, for once, but around here we carry alot of HR folks who do nothing but handle benefits plans and they are a big "cost center".

I guess it boils down to the math. From a company's perspective, it's nothing more than a benefit - and through pure numbers, your company has much more buying power than a firm with say, 10 or fewer employees.

The other benefits to group plans (in addition to them costing less $) is that they can't cull the herd (deny coverage for pre-existing, et al). Also, if an insurer denies an individual coverage for something, there is a greater chance that the group can place pressure on the insurer to pony up, or lose a large piece of business.

But...looking at it from a numbers standpoint, it would be easier for a small employer to fork over $6k to an employee rather than pay $6k of a $12k/year family plan. Actually, if it were to be an actual wash on the balance sheet, you'd need to adjust that employee payment down to account for corporate FICA deductions, worker's comp., etc.

Maybe it gets more messy with a larger employer that has 300 peeps and they only pay $10k for the same family plan. That delta is $300k to the employer, but now (as you noted), you need added HR staff to handle the load.

Long and short, if you could create the proper environment, it would be easier for companies to give up that chore. First and foremost, I think you would have to completely remove the employer from any "management" obligation - once they fork over your "insurance contribution", someone else makes sure the individual is actually buying insurance with the $. If that obligation will remain with them, well then, you may as well keep your HR peep(s) and the group plan.

 

[unofan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

How are medical procedure torts adjudicated? Jury trials? Seems to me that there should be a way to have boards of experts representing both valid concerns (patient protection against negligence and doctor protection against frivolous suits) decide whether there's a case.

Generally speaking, yes, they are done via jury trials (with the occasional bench trial). And again, generally speaking, malpractice has to be proven via expert testimony from other doctors. Though, in cases where it's plainly obvious even to a lay person (the textbook example being a sponge left in a patient), expert testimony is not required.

(this post does not constitute legal advice, consult a licensed attorney in your state if you need to seek legal advice, this post is for general information only).

 

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

(this post does not constitute legal advice, consult a licensed attorney in your state if you need to seek legal advice, this post is for general information only).

Too late, I'm suing you...

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

As a practical matter, except in the most egregious cases, such as removing the wrong kidney, etc., most med mal cases are extremely difficult to win. They cost a great deal of money to defend and prosecute, and most plaintiffs don't win anything. Occasionally, you'll hear about the case where a birth was mishandled and there was a 7-8 figure verdict or settlement. However, that is really how the tort system is supposed to operate. Those verdicts or settlements are usually used for care for the life of the victim, not a windfall, and they are intended to keep them off the public rolls.

Even though I sit on the defense side, I think the constant calls for "tort reform" as part of these debate are ill-suited at the federal level. However, I think states should be encouraged to explore alternatives to litigation in these matters, such as mediation, dispute panels, etc. Even a simple apology can help avoid litigation.

 

[MattS]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

As a practical matter, except in the most egregious cases, such as removing the wrong kidney, etc., most med mal cases are extremely difficult to win. They cost a great deal of money to defend and prosecute, and most plaintiffs don't win anything. Occasionally, you'll hear about the case where a birth was mishandled and there was a 7-8 figure verdict or settlement. However, that is really how the tort system is supposed to operate. Those verdicts or settlements are usually used for care for the life of the victim, not a windfall, and they are intended to keep them off the public rolls.

If this is true why do I keep hearing about how out of control malpractice insurance cost are?

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

If this is true why do I keep hearing about how out of control malpractice insurance cost are?

Did you not see the line about "cost a great deal of money to defend"? The average doctor's malpractice insurance is over $100,000 a year. That's one primary reason why almost every doctor in the nation is now a salaried employee of either a hospital or group practice, so they don't have to shoulder the insurance premiums themselves.

* Insurance premium number comes from some doctors I know that sold their private practice a couple years ago for the express purpose of getting out from under the insurance premiums they could no longer afford.

 

[Tundra]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

How are medical procedure torts adjudicated? Jury trials? Seems to me that there should be a way to have boards of experts representing both valid concerns (patient protection against negligence and doctor protection against frivolous suits) decide whether there's a case.

Definitely need changes when it takes 2 years for a frivolous suit to go to trial and then another 2 years for appeals. I'm not sure why the appeals court decided to hear the $54million dollar pants, when it shoul have been thrown out with prejudice. it seems like if you throw enough words together you can make anything plausible and common sense goes out the window.
Bailout becomes rescue. Bonuses for crooks becomes retainers for skilled personnel. Torture becomes harsh technique. etc...

Looks like Judge Roy Pearson is still going at it, this time suing the city for his job back. I wonder if he's collecting unemploment/pension while doing all this legal work.

10-23-08 -- A former administrative law judge who unsuccessfully sued a dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants tried to convince an appeals panel Wednesday that he deserves the money because he is a fraud victim.

However, after the expensive two-year battle, the Chungs were forced to close two of their three shops as a result of this lawsuit. Yet, now we find that a three-judge appellate court panel has agreed to hear Pearson’s appeal, dragging the Chungs back into the courtroom. . . . Not only did this frivolous lawsuit prove to be an embarrassment to Pearson – who lost his judgeship after he lost his case – this appeal is proving to be an embarrassment to the integrity of our legal system. . .

 

[leswp1]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Not true. A spouse might be on the hook depending on the financing arrangement, but even that's not guaranteed. And no other friend or relative, including parents and children, will ever be required to pay off a deceased person's debt that they didn't co-sign for in life.

Generally speaking, creditors can go after the debtor's estate when the debtor dies. They can't go after the debtor's family.

No but before they die the family gets to attempt to hold things together by making multiple sacrifices both on a financial and personal time/resource investment

As a practical matter, except in the most egregious cases, such as removing the wrong kidney, etc., most med mal cases are extremely difficult to win. They cost a great deal of money to defend and prosecute, and most plaintiffs don't win anything. Occasionally, you'll hear about the case where a birth was mishandled and there was a 7-8 figure verdict or settlement. However, that is really how the tort system is supposed to operate. Those verdicts or settlements are usually used for care for the life of the victim, not a windfall, and they are intended to keep them off the public rolls.

Even though I sit on the defense side, I think the constant calls for "tort reform" as part of these debate are ill-suited at the federal level. However, I think states should be encouraged to explore alternatives to litigation in these matters, such as mediation, dispute panels, etc. Even a simple apology can help avoid litigation.

Scott- the thing they always tell us about are the ones that go to settlements because the cost of the trial, depositions, etc is more than just throwing the provider to the wolves and settling even if the provider objects. Not sure if Tort would fix that but if they are telling us the way of things that kills the persons premium even if they weren't really at fault.

 

[sagard]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'm not a lawyer, but was involved in some insurance wrangling because of a car accident a while back. Somebody creamed me on the Expressway in Boston, and I had to get them to pay my medical bills (and that's all, I didn't make a profit on the claim).

What I've seen is studies showing far less potential savings from TORT reform than what Bill is suggesting, but these are all estimates. I'm all for savings $10B or whatever the amount ends up being, but in the context of a 900B dollar bill, there's bigger fish to fry.

If it is a small amount, then they should throw the bone to the Repubs and get the bill passed.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

If it is a small amount, then they should throw the bone to the Repubs and get the bill passed.

Defies logic, doesn't it?

That's because the attorney lobby gives bags of money to Obama and the Dems - *that* is why TORT is not part of the package.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

As a practical matter, except in the most egregious cases, such as removing the wrong kidney, etc., most med mal cases are extremely difficult to win. They cost a great deal of money to defend and prosecute, and most plaintiffs don't win anything. Occasionally, you'll hear about the case where a birth was mishandled and there was a 7-8 figure verdict or settlement. However, that is really how the tort system is supposed to operate. Those verdicts or settlements are usually used for care for the life of the victim, not a windfall, and they are intended to keep them off the public rolls.

Even though I sit on the defense side, I think the constant calls for "tort reform" as part of these debate are ill-suited at the federal level. However, I think states should be encouraged to explore alternatives to litigation in these matters, such as mediation, dispute panels, etc. Even a simple apology can help avoid litigation.

I was always under the impression that the idea behind tort reform was to limit the monies awarded as punitive, not those used to directly to indemnify the plaintiff.