- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by EladarNo quite, the pharmaceutical companies can always be counted on to make an obscene profit. Makers of medical equipment are not about to be left out of the loop, either.
It seems to me that the answer is to limit award damages. If you damages are limited, then the insurance need not be so high.
...
The ones making all the money in the present system are the insurance companies who provide the coverage and the lawyers.
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI fail to see how it is "unnecessary" for the victims of medical malpractice to get financial redress. You might as well say the entire civil court system is an "unnecessary" expense.
For example through:
- Unnecessary lawyers.
- Unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy.
- Unnecessary legal procedures in general, resulting in costs for judges, safety of courts etc.
- Disproportional financial compensation, resulting in inefficient allocation of production factors (destruction of wealth through larger income differences).
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThe problem is with punative damages. People can get their money based on the original settlement. Punative damages are supposed to punish the doctor. That's why they are so high.
I fail to see how it is "unnecessary" for the victims of medical malpractice to get financial redress. You might as well say the entire civil court system is an "unnecessary" expense.
The problem is that with malpractice insurance, even the puntative damages are picked up by the insurance company. The insurance company just increases rates to make the money back. The increased rates get passed on to the rest of us by increases in health care cost.
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterthose damn rich people! screwing it up for everybody!
Hawaii, the only U.S. state to offer universal child health care, is dropping the program just seven months after launching it.
Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cites budget shortfalls and other health care options for eliminating the program. A state official complained that the program was aimed at helping low-income people and immigrants, ...[text shortened]... I say Aloha and good riddance! This proves once again that there's no such thing a free lunch.
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by EladarYou are misinformed:
The problem is with punative damages. People can get their money based on the original settlement. Punative damages are supposed to punish the doctor. That's why they are so high.
The problem is that with malpractice insurance, even the puntative damages are picked up by the insurance company. The insurance company just increases rates to make the money back. The increased rates get passed on to the rest of us by increases in health care cost.
In medical malpractice cases, punitive damages are unusual, are only permitted by some states, and are generally awarded only when there has been proof that the harm was the result of an act that was reprehensible, which usually means that there was actual intent to cause harm or that there was reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Those states that permit punitive damages in medical malpractice cases often limit the amount of damages that can be awarded, and many states set standards of proof that are higher than are needed for ordinary damages.
Your malpractice insurance policy may or may not cover punitive damages, and in some cases, you may be able to pay an additional premium (a buy back) to include this coverage.
Depending on what state you are in, state law may or may not prohibit your insurance from covering punitive damages, which may depend on whether the punitive damages are assessed directly (for an act that the insured committed) or vicariously (for an act that the insured is held responsible for, such as an act of an employee).
http://physicianentrepreneur.com/?p=263
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think it's unnecessary for victims of medical malpractise to get compensation, but I do think the situation in the US is disproportional because:
I fail to see how it is "unnecessary" for the victims of medical malpractice to get financial redress. You might as well say the entire civil court system is an "unnecessary" expense.
- The sums awarded are too high.
- Doctors are convicted too easily. Doctors are human and will make mistakes, compensation should only be awarded in cases of gross negligence or systematic failure.
14 Nov 08
I guess there was a category that I was unware. It is called "pain and suffering". Throw out pain and suffering and lump it in with punative.
Cap the damages for malpractice cases, but do not cap punative damages. That seems like a real win-win.
One other thing, make it a federal law that punative damages can't be insured in any state. Or if you like, take pain and suffering out of the cap and make it illegal to insure pain and suffering.
When lawyers can't get the huge settlements because they can't go after insurance money, then we'll make a dent in the problem.
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDoctors aren't "convicted" in medical malpractice cases; they are found liable for damages. The standard to find them liable is quite rigorous, to wit:
I don't think it's unnecessary for victims of medical malpractise to get compensation, but I do think the situation in the US is disproportional because:
- The sums awarded are too high.
- Doctors are convicted too easily. Doctors are human and will make mistakes, compensation should only be awarded in cases of gross negligence or systematic failure.
Q: What's the medical malpractice "standard of care"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: While state law generally determines how negligence is defined, the "standard of care" is generally defined by the medical community. It's not the measure of what is optimum care or even the measure of what an expert thinks should have been done in hindsight. The issue is whether any reasonable physician could have done what the doctor in question did, based on the available information. Help defining "acceptable practice" can come from a medical expert's experience, medical texts, literature and publications from groups such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. However, in most cases the standard of care the doctor deviated from must be established at trial by expert testimony. In some states, this expert testimony must be established before a victim can even initiate a lawsuit.
http://medical-malpractice.lawyers.com/Medical-Malpractice-FAQs.html#two
What is so unfair about a doctor being held liable when he does something that causes injury that no "reasonable doctor" would have done "having the same information"?
Victims of medical malpractice often suffer catastrophic injury and/or death. What amount is "too high" to compensate for that? And why is your general opinion that awards are "too high" more worthy of belief than the opinions of the jurors who, unlike you, heard all the evidence from both the plaintiff and defendant and their experts before they awarded the damages?
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by EladarLMAO!! Typical right winger. What ever happened to "States rights"? You want the Federal government to override laws in all 50 states in an area that is traditionally a state concern.
I guess there was a category that I was unware. It is called "pain and suffering". Throw out pain and suffering and lump it in with punative.
Cap the damages for malpractice cases, but do not cap punative damages. That seems like a real win-win.
One other thing, make it a federal law that punative damages can't be insured in any state. Or if yo ...[text shortened]... ements because they can't go after insurance money, then we'll make a dent in the problem.
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's easy. Any amount that causes more harm than it compensates for. How many lives do you think would be saved if 90% of punitive damages instead went to scientific research, improvement of road safety, etc.?
Victims of medical malpractice often suffer catastrophic injury and/or death. What amount is "too high" to compensate for that?
14 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not sure if I agree with Eladar's solution, but if the States' legislation is failing, why shouldn't the federal government intervene?
LMAO!! Typical right winger. What ever happened to "States rights"? You want the Federal government to override laws in all 50 states in an area that is traditionally a state concern.