Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Once again my point is made: the solution, as always, is death!
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
duper
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Med Mal cases are REALLY difficult to win. Americans have bought into the insurance companies' party line about how lawsuits are what drives up healthcare costs so thoroughly, and with so very little evidence, that it's hard to get an entire jury where no one who will always automatically find in favor of the defense regardless of evidence in the case. And unofan is exactly right; those huge verdicts are typically for for people (often children) who will have tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of annual medical bills for the rest of their lives. But yeah, the lawyers who advertise on tv are the problem.When in doubt, blame the lawyers...always a great strategy.
You are, of course, forgetting that the biggest driver in medical malpractice premium increases is the power of modern medicine to keep victims of malpractice alive.
The biggest med mal verdicts aren't for the estates of people who die. They're for people who must now live for 50 or more years with gross disfigurement, nonworking organs, and the like. Past damages and loss of consortium are drops in the bucket compared to future medical costs and future damages.
When doctors screwed up in the past, people died. Now they don't always die.
When people ask for caps on medical malpractice cases, they're asking to screw over those people who now require round the clock nursing care because some surgical resident botched a procedure in order to save themselves $1 on their health insurance premiums.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
And those horrible lawyers who advertise on TV will only take a case if they think they will win (or be able to force a settlement). I nearly died because the ER doctor at Midcoast Hospital missed the fact that I had a giant tumor in my brain and instead diagnosed me with vertigo. The lawyer wouldn't take the case because, while it was gross negligence on her part, it wasn't a winnable case. On the bright side, I was told that if I had waited a few hours and dropped dead rather than going to Parkview where they saved my life, my mother would have had an outstanding case for wrongful death.
And those horrible lawyers who advertise on TV will only take a case if they think they will win (or be able to force a settlement). I nearly died because the ER doctor at Midcoast Hospital missed the fact that I had a giant tumor in my brain and instead diagnosed me with vertigo. The lawyer wouldn't take the case because, while it was gross negligence on her part, it wasn't a winnable case. On the bright side, I was told that if I had waited a few hours and dropped dead rather than going to Parkview where they saved my life, my mother would have had an outstanding case for wrongful death.
duper
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
This is part of why med mal contingency fees are so high. They are very difficult to win, and tend to be very expensive. If you lose the case, your lawyer typically eats the costs that went into the trial.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I think you're misunderstanding the problem. It's not that these cases are won by plaintiffs to the tunes of billions of dollars, driving up healthcare costs. It's that the THREAT that any random case against any one individual COULD win (decided by juries) that drives up malpractice insurance costs to the tunes of billions of dollars, which is actually what drives up healthcare costs. My bro-in-law has never been sued in near 20 years of practice, but his malpractice insurance premium is incredibly high - I think it costs him more than his take-home pay. That cost is there regardless if he is ever sued.
I think you're misunderstanding the problem. It's not that these cases are won by plaintiffs to the tunes of billions of dollars, driving up healthcare costs. It's that the THREAT that any random case against any one individual COULD win (decided by juries) that drives up malpractice insurance costs to the tunes of billions of dollars, which is actually what drives up healthcare costs. My bro-in-law has never been sued in near 20 years of practice, but his malpractice insurance premium is incredibly high - I think it costs him more than his take-home pay. That cost is there regardless if he is ever sued.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Whether or not they are difficult to win, it's the number of Med Mal cases that are in play. It still takes money to hire an attorney to receive a defence (extortion if you ask me; although it's possible to be appointed a public defence attorney, they aren't necessarily up to snuff on medical law), and even then, you have to protect yourself in case the prosecution wins.
Whether or not they are difficult to win, it's the number of Med Mal cases that are in play. It still takes money to hire an attorney to receive a defence (extortion if you ask me; although it's possible to be appointed a public defence attorney, they aren't necessarily up to snuff on medical law), and even then, you have to protect yourself in case the prosecution wins.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
And now you have your campaign slogan.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I would also think the threat of lawsuits would tend to increase the amount of unnecessary testing (and with that the cost of care) to avoid a misdiagnosis. While it's in the patients' interest that their doctors be thorough, there's certainly a point beyond which that becomes counterproductive and needlessly expensive.
Kepler, I'm sure that slogan would be incredibly popular. Let's see, I'd p*ss off the elderly, the uninsured, and pretty much anyone that gives a **** about either group.
I would also think the threat of lawsuits would tend to increase the amount of unnecessary testing (and with that the cost of care) to avoid a misdiagnosis. While it's in the patients' interest that their doctors be thorough, there's certainly a point beyond which that becomes counterproductive and needlessly expensive.
Kepler, I'm sure that slogan would be incredibly popular. Let's see, I'd p*ss off the elderly, the uninsured, and pretty much anyone that gives a **** about either group.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Well, the Tea Party slogan is basically "Whatever it is... I'm Against It," and that's popular.
Kepler, I'm sure that slogan would be incredibly popular. Let's see, I'd p*ss off the elderly, the uninsured, and pretty much anyone that gives a **** about either group.
Well, the Tea Party slogan is basically "Whatever it is... I'm Against It," and that's popular.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Bingo.
One other issue I have is the lax levels of diagnosis. Take ADHD for example. Now, there is certainly a percentage of people that truly have this disorder and require medical attention. However, there are many others that are misdiagnosed and their issues could be solved simply with a belt to the bottom.
Bingo.
One other issue I have is the lax levels of diagnosis. Take ADHD for example. Now, there is certainly a percentage of people that truly have this disorder and require medical attention. However, there are many others that are misdiagnosed and their issues could be solved simply with a belt to the bottom.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
The same slogan applies to environmentalists, too.
The same slogan applies to environmentalists, too.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
This. Just had a Canadian GP visiting us, and he put the blame squarely on med-mal. In Canada, there are no punitive damages in med-mal cases, so only actual damages can be awarded. His malpractice insurance is C$1500 per year. Equivalent coverage for a US GP is $50k+. Huge med-mal awards are not so common that they alone would cause such a huge increase in cost - but they're common enough that doctor's can't ignore the threat so they have to be insured. The sum total of the insurance premiums has to cover the cost of the awards plus operating costs and profit for the insurers, so the net total cost to the doctors (and therefore their patients) is much higher than the just the sum of the awards and settlements themselves. Eliminate punitive damages and the risk of going to trial would be greatly reduced, so not only would awards come down, every settlement would also come down, and med-mal premiums would sink like a rock.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I've heard similar things from my cousin who is a doctor.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
What I would like to know is how much more fiscally sound would the country be if we said no more spending of medicare money on keeping people alive beyond age 75? If grandma and grandpa want morphine or something to manage the pain, fine. But don't be dipping into the taxpayer kitty for costly chemo treatment to get rid of that leukemia just so you can come back into the hospital in two years to die of heart failure. Also, we should not allow the use of life support equipment for terminal illness. Just dope the people up and let them die quickly in a state of morphine-induced bliss.
What I would like to know is how much more fiscally sound would the country be if we said no more spending of medicare money on keeping people alive beyond age 75? If grandma and grandpa want morphine or something to manage the pain, fine. But don't be dipping into the taxpayer kitty for costly chemo treatment to get rid of that leukemia just so you can come back into the hospital in two years to die of heart failure. Also, we should not allow the use of life support equipment for terminal illness. Just dope the people up and let them die quickly in a state of morphine-induced bliss.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
With our current moral codes we can't just dope people up and let them die when life-extending care is available, and we should not ignore our moral codes. In situations like that, morality evolves. No government or religious institution does that, it happens spontaneously in people. I personally wouldn't hang around being a burden to my grandkids after I've had my innings, but we may be the first generation that really has to make the choice to turn down treatment by thinking of it as immoral to take it. It becomes a Lifeboat situation. People are equipped to make those sacrifices, they just haven't connected up end of life care to it yet.
Most importantly, the decision must come from the patient. Grandma can decide to jump, but you can't push her.
This is one of those problems that religions usually develop a answer for so people can function. So, murder is always wrong, but killing in self-defense isn't murder. God must come first, but render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Absolutes are tempered with conditionals to make practical life work.
With our current moral codes we can't just dope people up and let them die when life-extending care is available, and we should not ignore our moral codes. In situations like that, morality evolves. No government or religious institution does that, it happens spontaneously in people. I personally wouldn't hang around being a burden to my grandkids after I've had my innings, but we may be the first generation that really has to make the choice to turn down treatment by thinking of it as immoral to take it. It becomes a Lifeboat situation. People are equipped to make those sacrifices, they just haven't connected up end of life care to it yet.
Most importantly, the decision must come from the patient. Grandma can decide to jump, but you can't push her.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
As a nation we aren't remotely capable of even discussing the subject of Bakunin's post, let along make hard choices along those lines. We are America after all, not some nation without limitless resources.
Our nation's uncontrolled spending is religion's fault somehow? Wow, that's a stretch. Really, it's the fault that we've been fat, dumb, and happy for so long and many Americans expect that because they are Americans, life should be easy and they should be provided for. The entitlement mentality.
As a nation we aren't remotely capable of even discussing the subject of Bakunin's post, let along make hard choices along those lines. We are America after all, not some nation without limitless resources.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
That picture needs to come with a warning. I'm struggling to not burst out laughing at work...
Well, the Tea Party slogan is basically "Whatever it is... I'm Against It," and that's popular.
That picture needs to come with a warning. I'm struggling to not burst out laughing at work...
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
That's what you got out of that? Really?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Yah, basically that religion gets in the way of society making needed rational choices. There's more to your post, but to inject commentary on religion regarding why we can't make sensible spending and healthcare choices in this country is just odd, though I know you tend to blame religion for all sorts of ills.
- Status