It isn't the total solution. It just takes care of the malpractice portion.
If the problem of medical costs is to be solved, then people are going to have to make less money. People are going to be recieve less money. That's the exact reason why things won't change. Too many democrats and too many republicans are making way too much money in the present system.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat doesn't even make any sense.
That'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.?
Punitive damages (which are RARE in medical malpractice cases) are assessed on individuals who actually intend to commit harm or who recklessly disregard the safety of others. They are meant to deter and punish reprehensible behavior. If they deter such behavior in future, then they have prevented harm. Punishing people who do reprehensible acts is considered socially desirable.
I cannot even fathom what you could possibly mean by "90% of punitive damages" going to puppies or whatever wonderful goals you stated. If the punitive damages weren't assessed, they'd just be a saving to the persons committing reprehensible acts. Why do you consider that desirable?
Originally posted by no1marauderI just don't think the punitive damages and other malpractise claim costs are that much of a deterrent to make mistakes. Doctors who intentionally cause harm are pretty rare, and this does not explain the high malpractise insurance costs.
That doesn't even make any sense.
Punitive damages (which are RARE in medical malpractice cases) are assessed on individuals who actually intend to commit harm or who recklessly disregard the safety of others. They are meant to deter and punish reprehensible behavior. If they deter such behavior in future, then they have prevented harm ...[text shortened]... a saving to the persons committing reprehensible acts. Why do you consider that desirable?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can count anyone who believes that part of the problem is the cost of malpractice insurance as those woefully ignorant. That would be more than just two people.
Who says State legislation is "failing"? Two people who are woefully ignorant of the facts?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNOW you're getting it. So, punitive damages are NOT a major factor in malpractice insurance costs.
I just don't think the punitive damages and other malpractise claim costs are that much of a deterrent to make mistakes. Doctors who intentionally cause harm are pretty rare, and this does not explain the high malpractise insurance costs.
Originally posted by EladarThe way the Feds are throwing around money to rich guys, it's only a matter of time before lawyers want a hand out, too.
Works for me too.
I will have a problem with it if the federal government decides it needs to insure the doctors so that the lawyers can continue to make huge amounts of money.
Originally posted by no1marauderFine by me as well. Or just abolish punitive damages altogether, they don't exist here as far as I am aware, I don't see why there should be any.
Then doctors will be personally liable if they cause injury by doing something that "no reasonable doctor" would have done "given the same information".
That seems OK to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung#Post-trial_motions_and_appeal
Pearson v. Chung is a civil case filed in 2005 by Roy L. Pearson, Jr., a former administrative law judge in D.C., following a dispute with a dry cleaning company over a lost pair of trousers. Pearson filed suit against Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C., initially demanding $67 million for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself, as a result of their failure, in Pearson's opinion, to live up to a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign that was displayed in the store.[1] The case drew international attention[2][3] when it went to trial in 2007 and has been held up as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice#Criticism_of_medical_malpractice_lawsuits
Criticism of medical malpractice lawsuits
Doctors' groups, patients, and insurance companies have criticized medical malpractice litigation as expensive, adversarial, unpredictable, and inefficient. They claim that the cost of medical malpractice litigation in the United States has steadily increased at almost 12 percent annually since 1975.[10]Jury Verdict Research, a database of plaintiff and defense verdicts, says awards in medical liability cases increased 43 percent in 1999, from $700,000 to $1,000,000.
These critics assert that these rate increases are causing doctors to go out of business or move to states with more favorable tort systems.[11] Not everyone agrees, though, that medical malpractice lawsuits are solely causing these rate increases. A 2003 report from the General Accounting Office found multiple reasons for these rate increases, only one of which was medical malpractice lawsuits.[12] Despite noting multiple reasons for rate increases, the report goes on to state that the "GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims-which make up the largest part of insurers’ costs-appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run."
Tort reform advocate Common Good has proposed creating specialized medical courts (similar to distinct tax courts) where medically-trained judges would evaluate cases and subsequently render precedent-setting decisions. Proponents believe that giving up jury trials and scheduling noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering would lead to more people being compensated, and to their receiving their money sooner. This approach has been criticized for treating medical malpractice differently from other areas of tort law and for depriving Americans of their right to a trial by jury. Still, a number of groups and individuals have supported this proposal.[13]
Other tort reform proposals, some of which have been enacted in various states, include placing limits on noneconomic damages and collecting lawsuit claim data from malpractice insurance companies and courts in order to assess any connection between malpractice settlements and premium rates.[14]
Most (73% ) settled malpractice claims involve medical error. A 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that claims without evidence of error "are not uncommon, but most [72%] are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures [54%] go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant." Physicians examined the records of 1452 closed malpractice claims. Ninety-seven percent were associated with injury; of them, 73% got compensation. Three percent of the claims were not associated with injuries; of them, 16% got compensation. 63% were associated with errors; of them, 73% got compensation (average $521,560). Thirty-seven percent were not associated with errors; of them, 28% got compensation (average $313,205). Claims not associated with errors accounted for 13 to 16% percent of the total costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including lawyers, experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of administrative costs.[15][16]