In yet another morphing of George Bush and Barack Obama, the Administration has indicated that it will include “tort reform” in the new and smaller health care bill — provisions that the CBO has said could cost 4,800 lives a year. While an estimated roughly 100,000 people die each year from malpractice, the Administration is about to make it more difficult to sue doctors and hospitals.
What is particularly ironic is that Republicans have been objecting that the health care plan will lower the quality if health care, but they are moving to make it more difficult to sue over such malpractice.
The Congressional Budget Office says that the reforms will save $54 billion over 10 years, but it also notes that it could cost thousands of lives. Moreover, $54 billion over 10 years is not a lot of money in the context of $2.5 trillion we spend each year on health care, as Dick Durbin has noted.
The Democrats clearly want to pass anything that can be called health care reform at any cost, even if it means embracing such canards as these tort reform proposals. While I have supported some tort reforms in the past, we are experiencing a high level of malpractice in this country that is only fueled by caps on damages and other limits on liability. I have long opposed caps on liability as in this column, here.
Tort reform is a bit of a misnomer since reform implies a change for the better. For victims, it can be more like malpractice protection.
For the full story, click here.
If people want to actually lower the costs of healthcare as opposed to just getting the productive people to pay for the provisioning of access to comprehensive care for the rest of the residents of America, one has to address the costs of malpractice insurance and defensive medicine. You do that via reform of the relevant tort laws.
Obviously various attorneys would be against it since it negatively impacts their income. Of course Americans shouldn’t lend any more credence to lawyer’s lament on this issue than they lend to the laments of any other special interest on topics that pertain to their income.
We’re all gonna die. Don’t Worry, Be happy
The effect of Liability Limits in Texas.
“Of course Americans shouldn’t lend any more credence to lawyer’s lament on this issue than they lend to the laments of any other special interest on topics that pertain to their income.”
****************
We certainly shouldn’t rely on those who see the medical records, talk to the witnesses, retain the independent experts to analyze the events, and then console the victims. Rather, we should rely on the good intentions of those who perpetrate the wrong and then legislatively try to mitigate their responsibility after failing to conceal the fact of the error in the first place. I see your logic here.
We’ve got a history of lending credence to “lawyer’s laments” in this Country. One particularly interesting one begins, “When in the course of human events….”
After major Tort Deforms in many states, was this not the next logical step?
After any caps on successful malpractice suits have been reached, the insurance companies and states still have to pick up the rest of the costs – so what’s the point? The only extra costs to be deplored are the legal ones.
Surely the reduction in defensive diagnostic tests will be a cost-savings of great magnitude. And I would suggest that most people over 65 have had tests they are pretty sure they didn’t need – I know I have.
I wouldn’t say that Obama is caving in, because that implies that he has been pressured to give something up to get something. The Republicans don’t care what he gives up; they are going to vote, no matter what, for 45,000 people a year to continue to die because of inadequate health care. For such a smart man, Obama is a fool.
But he smokes. He should worry. I wonder if he still smokes weed with anyone?
I don’t know what category to place this issue in.
Perhaps “terrorism we can believe in”?
We kill more of our own BY FAR than any perceived enemy:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/terrorism-we-can-believe-in.html
If people want actually lower the cost of health care…
Cap the salaries of health insurance company CEO’s.
As long as were limiting someone’s rights, in this case the injured to sue, why not limit the right of CEO’s to pay themseleves huge sums of money all while denying care to sick and dying Americans? I’m mean if were going to start denying rights, that seems like a more logical place to start.
George
If people want actually lower the cost of health care…
Cap the salaries of health insurance company CEO’s.
As long as were limiting someone’s rights, in this case the injured to sue, why not limit the right of CEO’s to pay themseleves huge sums of money all while denying care to sick and dying Americans? I’m mean if were going to start denying rights, that seems like a more logical place to start.
================================================================
There is a beautiful logic to this post.
President Obama unites the republicans while he divides the democrats … strange way of doing business.
Tort reform is and always has been a euphemism for providing immunity for favored groups. The Republican Party trumpets itself as the promoter of personal responsibility for one’s actions, excluding only physicians and hospitals, manufacturers, financial institutions, health insurance companies, telecommunications companies and military contractors. And of course, the party of personal responsibility will oppose the creation of any governmental agencies to protect the people whose ability to protect themselves has been legislatively eliminated. The professed goal is always to reduce costs and the villian is always the legal profession, whose members are protrayed as latter day Vikings, unmercifully plundering the coffers of the wealthy and the just for their own selfish ends. Tort reform is nothing more than corporatist protectionism.
President Obama unites the republicans while he divides the democrats … strange way of doing business.
Thats what happens when you have no business experience
You tell them how it is brother. No business being in this office.
He’s surrounded himself with communist.
Obama’s “Science Czar” John P. Holdren, was once involved in a publication that included two accused Soviet informants among its founding sponsors.
Several other socialist and communist sympathizers worked for the publication, including some with family ties to Barack Obama.
So what Bdaman. He is the president. Nothing you can say ill change that. Your ill will does not help. Your Bush stole not one but two elections. Was there a movement to contest his birth or that he stole the election?
Your Bush? I’m all trimmed, I have no Bush
I suppose you are a buckboard.
Ay check out these satellite shots of sharks at Bondi Beach in Australia. Hit the plus button to zoom in.
http://www.australiancoastalwatch.com.au/index.php/news/bnshark14432tx.article.html
No business being in this office.
You know what they say,
No business like show business, except when it comes to the original birth certificate, that’s, No Show. Who says don’t ask Don’t tell needs to be repealed, it’s already in effect.
AY why did you run Gerty off?
For sure this guy looks like a raging communist. Do you think the “P” stands for Proletariat?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
I liked Gerty. Gerty took alot of attention off me and now Im scared it’s all coming back and you just started. Please AY ol buddy, go easy on me.
empirecookie he is way out there in left field. He wanted to put stuff in the drinking water to stop births because there was gonna be to many people in the world. Now he advises the president on matters of science.
Bdaman,
Dr. Freud. I did not run Gerty off. I am not sure what you mean. I am wondering if it was the same person that said the mean nasty things to mespo. Those were not very nice. You will be known by your deeds.
In whose drinking water?
Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”[19] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”[20] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.[10][21]
In the populations drinking water. They discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children
ECookie,
It stands for Politician. If P was the first name he would be the elected official.
You did run Gerty off AY and I will never forgive you for that. I hate you, I hate you, I hate you, you mean person you.
Ecookie did you not know this?
Ok Scarlett. You don’t know nothing about birthing either I am sure.
It looks like it was in the ’70s, so he was probably stoned.
I was wondering whether he was advocating it for third workd countries – I seem to recall crazy ideas like that from many years ago.
Ecookie,
People in the 70′s being stone? I don’t recall.
The publication he assisted the two communist is the Bulletin of The Nuclear Scientists world famous for its ominous symbol, the Doomsday Clock. Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock.
The Bulletin was founded in 1945 by former scientists from the Soviet spy-riddled Manhattan Project, creator of the US Atomic Bomb. From the start, the Bulletin and its associated organizations, worked to weaken US nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union, through East/West scientific exhanges, conferences and a a steady stream of anti- nuclear propaganda designed to terrify the US public with tales of nuclear destruction and looming Armageddon.
It looks like it was in the ’70s, so he was probably stoned.
If he wasn’t he should have been, as in to death.
Ok Scarlett. You don’t know nothing about birthing either I am sure.
No, only birthers
And what subject did Obama due his college thesis on that no one can find a copy of. Only his professor stating that he remembers it and had it at one time, but lost it.
I think it was on how to fake your own birth certificate.
Ecookie did you see the link to the satellite of Bondi Beach Australia I linked above?
I love that!
Yea I got in my inbox this morning. I normally don’t get spoofed by those but that one made me jump out of my chair.
So whats up? What you got goin on today?
bdaman doesn’t know it, but we have been using the camera in his computer to record his reaction to different events. Here’s his reaction to the sharks in Australia.
That’s sort of what I did too.
Oh look! I found the original birth certificate.
http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/47952488fc798bb843f49a5119b4c0ec.jpg
AY:
“Those were not very nice. You will be known by your deeds.”
Hows this for a deed?Although he paid the piper today.
Ecookie my information is a private matter. Had I wanted my birth certificate released I would have contacted Kenya directly.
Good Job Bob!!!! That one’s been around for awhile. I’ll be sending it out again today.
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) will not seek reelection — after only one term in office.
According to several House aides on both sides of the aisle, the House ethics committee has been informed of allegations that Massa, who is married with two children, sexually harassed a male staffer.
Massa is now the 15th House Democrat to announce retirement plans, with 11 of them leaving districts that Republicans are aggressively contesting. House Republicans face 19 retirements within GOP ranks, but most of their departing members hail from safe seats.
Massa’s departure also adds to the woes of New York Democrats, who have been on the defensive this week amid a scandal surrounding Gov. David Paterson, who announced he wasn’t running for election, and the tribulations involving embattled Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who stepped down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Wednesday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33864.html#ixzz0h9IWMnVb
Please feel free to help me out here, as I may be missing something, but I don’t see anything in Professor Turley’s post or the linked article, supporting the title’s statement: “Obama caved on tort reform – adding provisions to health bill that could kill 4,800 a year.”
While I would definitely share Professor Turley’s, Senator Durbin’s and many commentator’s outrage over “tort reform” if that had indeed been proposed, however I don’t see it here.
The NYT web site has published the full “letter to Congressional leaders detailing 4 republican ideas put forward in last week’s health care meeting that he will consider.” IMHO the letter may be worth reading as it does not raise too much cause for alarm with regard to “tort reform” (although, what do I know, as I am not an attorney.)
From the letter, President Obama is “proposing authorization for funding State Demonstrations of alternatives to resolving medical malpractice disputes, including health care courts…($23-$50 million in grants)…Currently this is an authorization which does not guarantee that the grants will be funded.”
The President seems to be throwing the repugs a bone, as NAL has already pointed out Texas was proof enough.
Quoting David Herszenhorn “Republicans are certain to dismiss the president’s overture as insufficient. They have already said the Democrats existing legislation cannot be fixed and must be discarded. But Mr. Obama is laying the groundwork for Democrats to press ahead while showing that they have listened and even incorporated some Republican ideas.”
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/obama-to-consider-four-republican-ideas-on-health-care/
Personally, I had hoped for a lot less compromise by the Democrats, throughout this bill, as they have given away much (i.e. Public Option; with a special condemnation to Lie-bermen for killing the compromise-the age lowering of Medicare eligibility) with no gain in support by the obstructionists repugs; but maybe “something is better than nothing” at least for now, and as a place to start I will begin to hope again this bill may eventually pass.
CEJ you left the word TO out.
Obama TO Cave on Tort Reform. He hasn’t caved yet, it’s a prediction.
Obama caved on tort reform- You
Obama To Cave On Tort Reform — JT
Thank-you and pardon me, that makes it all so much clearer now; not!
“Adding Provisions to Health Bill That Could Kill 4,800 a Year”
4800/yr vrs 45000
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917
where’s the cave?…I missed the cave…I’d like to see more of that cave!
No problem CEJ glad to know I Helped:)
Bdaman:
question for you, that young child that gave a pilot permission to take off has gotten his father suspended.
The kid didn’t have any experience and was young and had never done any air traffic controlling in his life.
Why did his father get suspended when the President has the same qualifications as the kid but is still in office? It doesn’t seem fair to me.
AHH HA HA HA HA HA
Byron in case you missed it check out these satellite shots of sharks at Bondi Beach in Australia. Hit the plus button to zoom in.
http://www.australiancoastalwatch.com.au/index.php/news/bnshark14432tx.article.html
He must be a Sinatra fan and insist on doing it his way. Desperate people do desperate things.
Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes
The previously unknown DOJ Attorney’s who represented terror Gitmo suspects have now been revealed. The Attorney’s now known as “The Al Qaeda 7″ have been outed by the group Keep America Safe.
The names were confirmed by a Justice Department spokesman, who said “politics has overtaken facts and reality” in a tug-of-war over the lawyers’ identities.
“Department of Justice attorneys work around the clock to keep this country safe, and it is offensive that their patriotism is being questioned,” said Justice Department Spokesman Matt Miller.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/03/exclusive-unknown-doj-lawyers-identified/
Bdaman:
I already checked it out, that was very interesting about the sharks and how they interact with the bathers. I have heard that it looks like that on any American beach as well.
Nice.
New charge on dinner tab is in bad taste
The latest hidden mandatory add-on is a “health” charge added to restaurant bills. This scam cropped up first in San Francisco, but you can count on it to spread.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/family/ct-trav-0228-health-charge-20100226,0,6658174.story
Bdaman:
thanks for the link, this is my favorite line of the piece:
“The rationale for this one is to cover the employers’ mandatory contribution to the City’s “Healthy San Francisco” health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer’s bill to cover this charge.”
Is he for real? Who does this idiot (Ed Perkins) think is going to pay for an added tax? The business owner passes them on to his customers to the extent the market will allow him to.
Lets see, hmm, gas costs about $2.65 a gallon of which about $0.50 are direct taxes so gas should cost about $2.15 a gallon. Actually it would probably be even less than that if everyone along the way wasn’t adding there little portion for the taxes they have to pay as well.
I wonder how much a hamburger would cost in a free market? Mixed economy upscale burger costs about $9 bucks what with property taxes, employee taxes, sales taxes, transportation taxes, paying for the Ag stamp, the kick backs to health inspectors, free lunches to the mayor and his cronies to make sure your zoning doesn’t change, ADA compliance costs, insurance to protect against a frivolous law suit, money for storm water management, business license, gross receipts tax, compliance with disposal of grease and other “hazardous” materials, . . .
Jesus, I bet that burger would almost be free. Sheeit, if I was selling em I would be charging $15 just for all the hassle it takes to make a burger in a mixed economy. It is a wonder any get made at all.
Then this is for you Byron and I would encourage you and my other fellow Americans to join.
Thank you for joining the online tax revolt and marching for America. Check back often to see your avatar and your progression from your home to Washington, DC on Tax Day, April 15.
We will be sending you periodic emails with updates on where your avatar is and the latest news about the march.
This tax revolt is a wake-up call to everyone in Washington that the American people won’t be ignored any longer. We must stop the government spending and we must lower taxes and reform the tax code. Please ask others to join you for the online march at http://www.OnlineTaxRevolt.com by forwarding this email to everyone in your address book now.
Speaking of gas costs about $2.65 a gallon of which about $0.50 are direct taxes so gas should cost about $2.15 a gallon.
Your gonna love this. Don’t forget to browse the comment section.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/fuel-taxes-must-rise-harvard-researchers-say/
Bdaman:
$7 dollar a gallon, hell why not just make it $20 bucks and do what they want to do anyway-keep us from driving and forcing us to take public transportation. who the f . . . is in charge of this Insane-asylum called 21st century America?
Oh, thats right the guy at the top of this thread, my bad.
I’m not buying the argument that tort reform would cost 4,800 lives per year and therefore it is a bad idea. By that argument cars should be limited to 35 MPH, perhaps saving 10,000 lives per year.
Tort “reform” is a bad idea because the federal government has no authority to dictate these limits to the States, and it is immoral for government to set limits on damages for future cases they cannot possibly know anything about. How is it that we believe juries are smart enough to make decisions involving a death penalty but are not intelligent enough to limit damages in malpractice cases?
One little-challenged assumption underlying our medical regulation is that government bureaucracy is necessarily superior to the potential of self-policing among medical care providers. We know that a small fraction of practitioners make up the vast majority of malpractice claims. We know that government frequently permits these individuals to continue to endanger years after it is clear that they are incompetent. Were this decision to practice one that was instead made by more competent peers in a self-policing model, far fewer butchers would be practicing today. Until then, so-called tort reform will only heighten the risk of receiving poor care.
I sent that to my good friend who voted for Obama and is a firm believer in global warming. You think he’s screwed up. He’s in the limo and airport shuttle business. I told him going green was gonna shut him down. NEXT
Obama is easily the WEAKEST and WORST President this nation has ever had.
With luck, Democrats will lose the House & Senate in November.
You people are just lucky that you don’t even need to rely on “heath care” because you have the money. I hope that the President realize the America is never a country without people and these people put him to power ; and now he is giving this crap to his very own people?!
Rafflaw:
I have often said that political and economic freedom are corollaries. I think this link is an example of that statement. I was against the TARP bailout on principle. I hope you will read this article and understand what I mean.
When there is not economic freedom there is not political freedom and when there is not political freedom there is not economic freedom.
The implication I take from this story is that Henry Paulson would be more than happy to stifle the press if he felt it was in his interest to do so.
http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15596378&fsrc=rss
As a physician who has been unfairly sued repeatedly, I have a different view of tort reform than the author. All agree we are wasting billions of dollars. This is probably an underestimate as there is no way to measure defensive medicine. Nearly every physician in the country is hostile to the present system. Doesn’t this suggest that the medical liablity system needs to be reformed? Finally, most patients who deserve compensation from negligence are never captured by the system. Visit http://www.MDWhistlblower.blogspot.com under Legal Quality for some balance on this issue.
Bush lite just keeps getting heavier and harder to support.
mkirschmd
“most patients who deserve compensation from negligence are never captured by the system.”
Translation please.
mkirschmd:
“As a physician who has been unfairly sued repeatedly, I have a different view of tort reform than the author. All agree we are wasting billions of dollars. This is probably an underestimate as there is no way to measure defensive medicine. Nearly every physician in the country is hostile to the present system.”
************
You neglected to tell us if you (or your multi-billion dollar insurer) had to pay any of these “unfair” claims. An oversight I am sure. Also what we all agree on is not that billions of dollars are wasted by that thousands of lives are wasted by the substandard medicine we are receiving. And after all my good physician, aren’t lives the most precious commodity to those, like you, sworn to heal and comfort the sick?
Mespo:
“Also what we all agree on is not that billions of dollars are wasted by that thousands of lives are wasted by the substandard medicine we are receiving.”
you on medicaid or medicare or VA?
We have Blue Cross/Blue Shield and they treat us pretty well. And all our doctors are excellent.
We used to have Aetna and they were even better.
Byron–
There are bad/incompetent doctors in the world–like the one who removed a child’s bladder by mistake. I’ve read stories about doctors removing the wrong, foot, leg, kidney of patients. Should there be caps placed on the amount victims of such botched operations can receive?
************
My mother has Medicare and the Blue Cross Medex Supplement coverage. She has had excellent care.
I have good coverage under Blue Cross/Blue Shield too. Unfortunately, it carves a huge hunk out of my pension check each month. There’s a possibilty I could lose coverage under my current plan because the town where I worked is looking to save money on health insurance premiums. Many retired teachers don’t qualify for Medicare.
If you check out where our country stands on things like infant mortality rates the US doesn’t look so good. Millions of Americans have no health insurance because they can’t afford it. Many thousands die each year because of this. Many of these people visit emergency rooms when they have serious problems. Guess who pays for that? We really do need healthcare reform in this country.
Elaine:
thousands of people supposedly die from doctor incompetence each year.
I don’t think the cure is a government Rx. There needs to be a private sector solution. We mandate car insurance coverage but at least the private sector takes care of it.
I may be so full of the brown stuff but I don’t trust government to do much of anything right. They have no motive, as Harvey McKay says “Beware the naked man who is willing to give you his shirt”. Well actually they do have a motive-power.
I don’t mind helping people but I heard a statistic today that said about 40% of all people in the US are receiving entitlements. How can we sustain that? And why should we? I care about my friends and family, I don’t care about some skinhead living in Idaho sucking at the public teat supported by my work. It isn’t fair and it isn’t right.
We are fast running out of other peoples money, look at Greece, you don’t think we are on that road?
Byron–
I don’t have a lot of faith in our government–but I trust big corporations, banks, and Wall Street even less.
You said: “We are fast running out of other peoples money, look at Greece, you don’t think we are on that road?”
It was good old Goldman Sachs that helped Greece hide its debt so it could be accepted into the EU.
I do think we are on that road. Unfortunately, our government bailed out the rich–and cast the middle and working classes adrift.
Elaine:
I agree, Bush was a scum bag and so was Hank Paulson. They should have let them fail and have a downturn for a year or maybe a little more. Had they done it we would probably be out of it and getting back up on our feet by now. This didn’t work in 1930 and it wont work now.
Let me say one thing though, the people that took bailouts for the most part are not really capitalists. They are the ones that need government to help them compete, they are philosophically Fascists. There are many good people who run corporations that were as opposed to that bail out as you and I were/are.
@marnie and @mespo
Regarding: “most patients who deserve compensation from negligence are never captured by the system.”
This means that the vast majority of patients who have been victims of medical negligence are not discovered oor compensated for their injuries. The current system only reaches a fraction of patients who deserve legal redress. If we physicians performed so poorly, we’d be sued.
Mespo seems hostile to the medical profession in general, so I’m skeptical there is room for dialogue. I will say that my insurance companies never paid a dime for me. I was deemed innocent in every case and dismissed from my cases at various stages in the process. This is not an example of the system working; it demonstrates that innocent physicians are turned into defendants too easily.
http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
Byron–
“Let me say one thing though, the people that took bailouts for the most part are not really capitalists.”
They were capitalists until they screwed up–and then they came crying to the government to bail them out.
I do believe there are honest businessmen. My husband is one of them. Unfortunately, there are too many people in business who are not…people who only care about what is good for them. They don’t give a damn about other people or their country.
No hostility doc, just years of dealing with duplicitous medical providers and their lawyers who will employ any means necessary to obfuscate their wrongdoing to the detriment of their patients. You may have been wrongfully included but we know from the medical profession’s own studies that the reason victims don’t get compensation is the profession hides their errors. Let me quote from just one in the New England Journal of Medicine and state its conclusions:
“Claims that lack evidence of error are not uncommon, but most are denied compensation.The vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant.”
What this tells most folks is that the system works and you guys are paying your lawyers and experts way too much to the detriment of real victims who suffer the consequences of preventable medical errors.
Read more and spare me the poor, poor pitiful millionaire routine. Remember, I do get to see the tax returns of the docs we sue and the ones of the experts you guys hire to invent medicine to protect the profession.
Here’s that study:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/michelle-mello/files/litigation.pdf
A similar study found the following:
1. There is a staggering crisis in health care quality in New York State;
2. The incidence of negligence is shocking;
3. Bad medical care is found more frequently at hospitals with a greater proportion of minority patients;
4. Patients over the age of 65 were found more likely to receive substandard care;
5. Many people never knew that they or their family members had been subjected to bad or incompetent medical services; and
6. Seriously injured patients gain almost nothing by filing a complaint with the Department of Health, which rarely responds or takes effective action
The real crisis, doc, is that most folks have no idea they’ve been malpracticed upon and many of your colleagues do their darnedest to make sure they never find out.
Bottom line according to Harvard, “… the number of meritorious claims that did not get paid was actually larger than the group of meritless claims that were paid.”
As my friend Bob, Esq likes to say, “stay in your own movie.”
@Mespo, with respect your hostility persists. I’ve been in practice 20 yrs and I have rarely confronted medical incompetence directly. Sure, I’ve seen (and made) mistakes and witnessed medical judgements that may have differed from mine. But your narrative suggests that the medical profession is a reckless and dangerous juggernaut, which conflicts with my experience, and that of my colleagues.
Millionaires? Perhaps, I should move to NY where I can become rich, rather than stay in Cleveland where small practices like mine are being squeezed by corporate medical giants. Good luck trying to see their tax returns.
Quote from the Journal
“Claims that lack evidence of error are not uncommon, but most are denied compensation.The vast majority of expenditures go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant.”
Mespo’s interpretation “What this tells most folks is that the system works and you guys are paying your lawyers and experts way too much to the detriment of real victims who suffer the consequences of preventable medical errors.”
I read the same quote that you just did and arrived at a completely different conclusion. I read it to mean that it is not uncommon for claims to be filed even though they lack supporting evidence. The majority is spent on litigations of errors and payment of those errors. Meaning it costs a lot to litigate and the awards are high. If the quote from the journal didn’t include “payment of them” (meaning errors), I would agree with your statement.
I know many doctors and many lawyers. I find the medical profession (doctors) as a whole to be more ethical. I know some very ethical attorneys. I just know more unethical attorneys than I do unethical physicians. When there is a cover-up from a medical error, the silence is usually directed by the hospital attorney giving them legal advice.
Lawyers don’t make a living by suing poor people. They make a living by suing doctors, drug companies, and corporations. (I’m talking more about trial attorneys) It’s only natural that lawyers will not like doctors, drug companies, and corporations. It’s just not good to fall in love with the Thanksgiving Turkey.
I have both doctors and lawyers in my family. I’m just a guy on the outside looking in.
mkirshmd:
“I’ve been in practice 20 yrs and I have rarely confronted medical incompetence directly.”
**********
Then perhaps you will listen to one who has seen it over and over again from breathtaking misdiagnoses to surgical fiascoes to drug and alcohol abuse affecting clinical judgments. There is a reason why we rely on national peer reviewed studies instead of anecdotal evidence from Cleveland. Here’s some more light shown directly on your profession by your profession:
“The 1999 Institute of Medicine Report concluded that from 44,000 to 98,000 people die annually due to errors in inpatient hospital treatment. Hundreds of articles on medical errors have cited the Institute of Medicine Report. According to Dr. Lucien Leape, lead the author of the Harvard study, the number of deaths from medical errors in hospitals account for the equivalent to the death toll from three jumbo jet crashes every two days. Public Health Reports , 1999; 114: 302-317 July / August, 1999.
One in every 10 patients admitted to a hospital is the victim of at least one mistake. National Public Radio (NPR) November 21, 2000,(Audio)
Only 1.53 percent of patients who were harmed by medical treatment filed malpractice claims. N Engl J Med 1989 Aug 17; 321(7):480-4 Five years after I.O.M. report, medical errors still claiming many lives – U.S.A. today (archived)”
You’re the scientist here, and as such you are compelled to analyze the evidence regardless of your own bias. How would you diagnose this situation in light of these facts?
And by the way, if you consider me hostile, maybe you’ll understand that my sympathy lies with the families of the 44000 to 98000 ANNUAL victims and not the sniveling lamentations of the perpetrators of the negligence, whose only goal it seems is to be freed from the same accountability for actions the rest of us weather every day.
Duh:
While I appreciate your point of view, I wonder on what basis do you conclude that, of the sample of physicians and lawyers you have “known,” the physicians seem more ethical. Ethical crises rarely arise in public but rather in the quiet decision making process behind closed doors. I know of no attorney, even the defense bar in medical malpractice cases, who tells their clients to lie in a deposition. They don’t give such advice, of course, because they would be disbarred for complicity in perjury. Alas it happens all the time. I wonder whose ethics is suspect then. When is the last time you heard of a physician losing his license for lying or encouraging others to do so? I’ll take our ethics and our self-policing under the authority of the courts.
Elaine M,
It is government that creates these banking syndicates, not a lack of government.
Byron is exactly right. This has nothing to do with capitalism. This is a criminal gang with members both in and out of government, using all the power and legitimacy of the US federal government to steal:
puzzling–
It was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that led to some of the abuses that took place on Wall Street. Maybe a little more government regulation of the criminals on Wall Street would have helped us avoid the near collapse of our economy.
I didn’t listen to the entire video. From what I heard, it sounded like an article I had read many months ago that was written by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone magazine.
I’m not exactly sure what you meant when you said the following: “It is government that creates these banking syndicates, not a lack of government.”
I laughed out loud when I saw a commercial for a local law firm a couple of weeks ago.
The guy said,”We will come to your hospital room.”
All I can think of with that congressman from New York is when it comes time to vote it’s either:
Yes Massa
or
No Massa
Mespo:
You raise some interesting points. May I comment as one who has seen quite a good deal of the medical profession as a patient and also as the father of child with CF. We have been to the hospital multiple times (at least 40 with 4-5 major surgeries for our daughter) and have probably more knowledge of and up close observation of the profession than most average people.
1. Doctors are insulated by the hospital, not in the legal sense but in the social sense. they are quite restricted in their social interactions and I think quite frankly somewhat naive about the world.
2. They are not as smart as they think they are, they get fed that bullshit about being the best and brightest in medical school. I have met only about 6 doctors in the last 20 years that I would consider of exceptional intelligence. thankfully they are the ones that have helped us. For the most part the other doctors are bright but in no way are they infallible and they seem to think as a doctor they are somehow superior to the rest of us. The really smart ones are not like that (at least the ones I have met).
3. Doctors are only human and the best make mistakes. We watched a resident kill one of our friend’s children because of a mistake that a 6th grader would not have made, he misread a dosage for a laxative. As a patient and patient advocate you must question every thing they do, if something doesn’t seem right it might not be. If you don’t like the answer then go ask someone else. Some people think doctors are gods, they are not. Part of the problem is doctors like to perpetuate that societal myth.
4. not all make a lot of money, the specialists do but the primary care docs do not. Not all are the greedy pricks you portray and they get roundly screwed by both insurance companies and the government. They rarely if ever get fully compensated for their time and services and they have huge overhead what with office staff and malpractice insurance fees. For example our last visit to a specialist should have cost about $500.00, it was an hours time and a couple of tests given at the office. The doc was reimbursed $150.00 and we paid $25 out of pocket.
How would you like to bill a client and only get 1/3 of what they owe you?
5. they go to school for 4+4 and then internship and residency, they don’t start making money until they are well into their 30′s. A good lawyer can make $100k right out of law school along with other percs. Doctors get a small salary and a bunk at the hospital for the first 5 years out of school.
6. they make life and death decisions in very stressful situations, lawyers have the luxury of hindsight and time to analyze all the data. If I could just look at someones mistakes from that vantage point and pronounce judgement from my Ivory Tower, I might pat myself on the back and think what a jolly good fellow I was.
As a final parting thought, I think we need government run legal service to go with our government run health care. Lawyers are way to expensive and the average person cant afford them. Lawyers need to be subjected to government declarations about fees and have an independent board of laymen assess what is and is not good legal advice. Better yet we need paralegals pronouncing judgement on their outcomes and setting maximum and minimum fees for services without regard to market considerations.
“Lawyers need to be subjected to government declarations about fees and have an independent board of laymen assess what is and is not good legal advice.”
*****************
There is a lot of validity in most of your points, but laymen boards assessing lawyers is about as good as laymen boards assessing astro-physicists or nuclear engineers — they are still dependent on experts to explain the issues and the standard of care. It’s a moot point anyway since we already have laymen assessment boards; we call them juries.
Although I do not handle med mal cases, I have practiced for 37 years and have tried many cases before juries in the areas of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary obligations, violation of restrictive covenants, fraud and misrepresentation, civil theft, corporate espionage, construction claims and other business and commercial disputes. Here’s what I know:
1. Historically lawyers earned more than doctors on average. Average physician income surpassed average lawyer income in the early ’30s. It really doesn’t make any difference to me who makes more than whom. Both are stressful professions and there is a huge earnings disparity among members of each profession. The perception that lawyers earn huge amounts of money comes from the publicity given to revenues in the mega firms (and we know what’s happened to those folks over the past two years) and to a small number of prominent PI and criminal defense lawyers. But the average lawyer is a sole practitioner who represents individuals and small businesses, struggles to meet overhead, performs a great deal of unpublicized work for free or at greatly reduced rates and lives a decidedly middle-class life. Nothing wrong with that, but that’s the way it is.
2. Juries are generally conservative. Studies of verdicts through the years reflect a consistent pattern of relatively modest awards, and that is certainly my experience. In the rare case of a truly “runaway” jury, remittiturs (a court ordered reduction of the verdict) or new trials are routinely ordered by the trial judge or by an appellate tribunal. Juries are seldom permitted to award punitive damages, and the amounts of such awards are small unless the actions of the defendant are truly egregious. Perceptions here are also skewered because only large verdicts are publicized.
3. I know from my colleagues who handle medical malpractice that a majority of those cases are turned down, either because they are not perceived to have merit, have not resulted in any permanent or significant damages or present insurmountable problems of proof. Mespo’s statistical data on medical negligence is certainly consistent with what I have read on the issue. An experienced malpractice attorney will not file “frivolous” suits, because they are notoriously expensive to prosecute and a majority of those cases which actually go to trial result in a defense verdict.
4. The claims (first raised by insurance companies) that the tort system is out of control and that trial lawyers are to blame are simply nonsense. Frivolous lawsuits do not produce fees and subject lawyer and client alike to serious sanctions, which courts are not reluctant to impose. What insurance companies will not say, but what they really mean, is that they don’t trust the intelligence or integrity of juries who, after all, make the decisions. In all my years of practice I have never been permitted to enter a jury room and dictate what the panel is to write down on the verdict form.
Excellent discussion.
Mespo,
Self-policing never has and never will work. Only professional arrogance permits a member of that profession to consider it to work.
Some years back I filed a complaint against an attorney who made false statements of material fact to the court. I provided proof of my claim. I provided the relevant Rule of Professional Conduct. You know what the self-policing authority said? They told me that was for a judge to determine and said that I should contact an attorney. That’s the way it works. Ethics violations are rarely addressed.
Here in Missouri we have a former Congressman Kenny Hulshof (R). In 2009 a judge declared that he lied to the jury in order to get a guy sent to prison. A judge determined that he lied to the jury and you know what kind of disciplinary action was taken? Not a damn thing.
http://members.mobar.org/members/LawyerSearch/GSResults.aspx?fname=%25&lname=hulshof%25&city=%25&zip=%25&county=
When it comes to judges it’s even worse. In 1992 three Bar Associations gave a Kansas City judge poor reviews. One of those was the statewide subcommittee of the Missouri Supreme Court known as the Missouri Bar Association. The voters listened and chose not to retain the judge. Just 4 years later this dethroned judge applied with the Missouri Supreme Court to be a “senior judge”. The court accepted his application and placed him on the bench in 9 other counties. The judge now had the same power, but being a senior judge, the voters could not remove him. Only the appointing authority could do that. No one in these other counties knew a damn thing about this judge. Who should have had to pay for the appeals from this identified bad judge?
If you need more horror stories I can provide them. It may not be the same where you’re from, but I doubt it.
Need I repeat that self-policing doesn’t work?
Duh:
I do agree that more aggressive oversight by the Bar on repeat ethical offenders is warranted but here in Virginia the Bar takes a pro-active role in disciplining lawyers. In addition, the Client Protection Fund is designed to provide compensation for client losses, so I think the system works about as well as it can. You should recall that the lawyers are not totally self-policing since an arm of the State, the State Supreme Court, holds ultimate control over lawyer discipline.
Mespo,
I don’t know about VA, but here in Missouri the Judges on the Missouri Supreme Court are lawyers too. The lawyer discipline is handled by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel. They’re an agency of the Missouri Supreme Court.
http://www.mochiefcounsel.org/
It is 100% self-policed.
Who evaluates the judges? The Missouri Bar Association. One hand washes the other and they’re all attached to the same body. The more disciplinary action taken the worse the profession looks to the public. Who thinks a profession is going to takes steps to make themselves look worse to the public? I know good attorneys and I know bad attorneys.
Do canibals think what they do is immoral?
Duh:
good points, judges should be able to be removed from office by some sort of method. This set for life stuff for lower court judges and state supreme court judges is ridiculous.
Byron,
In Missouri, the judges around the big cities stand for retention. That’s why having the Missouri Bar Association evaluate them is wrong. To have a committee of the Judiciary evaluate their own judges lacks independence. When evaluations started to look bad, jury evaluations were instituted. Juries don’t know anything except if the judge let them go early or kept them late. A nice judicial idiot would get good evals from them. In fact some of the judges with the worst ratings from the lawyers got excellent ratings from the juries. A jury eval has never hurt a judge.
The Supreme Court can also remove any judge after recommendation from the disciplinary committee and a trial. The only one I know of was a lay judge from a small town.
Impeachment is initiated in the House, but the trial is in the Missouri Supreme Court. (Starting to sound like too much inbreeding?) :>)
Rural judges stand in partisan elections. I never understood why a judge would run on a partisan ticket for a job that requires them to be non-partisan.
Duh:
I certainly understand that judges are lawyers but Senators, Congresspersons, government agency heads, and even Presidents can be lawyers too, and we don’t think twice about them serving as regulators. Their profession makes judges uniquely qualified to evaluate lawyers when asked to oversee them in their capacity as as public officials. Would you rather have a profession overseen by those with no knowledge or appreciation for the issues and the standard of care? How much effort would it really take to fool a group of persons on the intricacies of the Sherman Antitrust Act or securities regulation?
Elaine,
You wrote: Maybe a little more government regulation of the criminals on Wall Street would have helped us avoid the near collapse of our economy.
The middle five minutes of the video shows the connections between firms like Goldman Sachs and government, player by player from the Clinton years through Bush to today. Goldman effectively controls the government and the policies that affect it. Asking for even more government is not the answer. Restricting the power of government is.
Puzzling:
Excellent point. And they wonder why I am against government regulation.
The big question is – who is regulating the regulators? Apparently the regulatees and making sweet deals for their own companies to boot.
Byron: So Puzzling, if you don’t have government regulations what happens?
Puzzling: Well Byron companies actually have to prove themselves in the market place and face competition from other companies competing for limited dollars and customers.
Byron: Puzzling why does that regulate the market?
Puzzling: I am so glad you asked that question. Because they have to improve services and lower costs to gather customers or they go out of business.
Byron: So Goldman Sachs was trying to control the flow of customers by getting favors from government regulation?
Puzzling: Exactly, by getting into bed with government they don’t need to be worried about competition because they can manipulate regulators to make favorable conditions for them.
Byron: Puzzling are you implying that governments can create monopolies by granting most favored status to certain companies?
Puzzling: If the shoe fits.
Puzzling you may edit where you see fit. I have a feeling it wont be too much.
Byron,
I wasn’t subscribed to this thread, and I didn’t see this until now – my apologies.
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Vote third party. Vote for no government regulation.