You know, I find it interesting that individuals who voice what this article on non-rights communicate are usually the ones who spout off on who is 'the Government' to give (and thus take away) rights.
And yet, here they are, doing the same damn thing. .... <_<
Coolwaters,
Usually, with stuff like this, ignorance (which, in this case, is undoubtedly of the deliberate variety) usually leads to hate. Or to at least stupidity, in any event.
I love the idea of speaking only in English, but it's screwing with my relocation and travel plans. I think I'm going to move from Flowery to The Angels, if I can get a job there. Of course, the state of Mountains is also pretty good. I don't know. So many choices of places to live and visit: The Pass, Snowy (good gambling there), maybe even St. Francis.
"ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. "
I am currently working on a case where a 25 year old woman died, needlessly. She was a new mom, married, her husband employed. No health insurance. She went to a clinic that did not have the proper equipment to diagnose her. They could not afford an emergency room fee, so they didn't go to one. Now she is dead and her new baby is left without a mother. Heartbreaking. A simple trip to an ER would have saved her life.
"You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful."
take advantage of opportunities for education and vocational training? Do you have any idea how expensive that is these days? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a job that pays enough to allow you to pay your bills with only a high school education?
"This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!"
I suspect most immigrants would gladly learn English if given the time and opportunity - but both of those are key elements. However, learning English should NOT mean they have to give up their native language either.
"This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!"
No, our country was founded on the belief in freedom and equality, and yet despite that blacks were slaves and women were not allowed to vote. Thank GOD, our constitution was made in such a way that our government had the ability to grow and change as our society grew and changed, otherwise I would still be unable to vote. And, being a Jew, finding housing outside a jewish community, would be difficult at best.
In re your friend, if she was denied bona-fide emergency care at an emergency room, that emergency room may be in violation of Federal law. See the linked article for more information. You may want to ascertain the actual facts of the matter...but if what you implied is, in fact, the case, you may want to get the widower to contact a lawyer. Because, again, if his late wife was denied bona fide emergency care by an emergency room, there'd likely be a good possibility of a h3ll of a lawsuit.
(Of course, it's far easier to carp about the need for socialized medicine and use this as an example to tug at people's heartstrings rather than assert those rights that do exist)
Mark, the woman in question is not a friend, I've never met her, though it is amazing how much you can get to know about someone simply from reading their medical records. This is already a lawsuit - a case the firm I work for is defending.
However, the case is not about being denied care from an Emergency Room. The woman never went to the emergency room because they could not afford the bill that would come from such a visit.
You are correct that an emergency room cannot turn you away. However, where I come from you are looking at a MINIMUM of $500 for a visit to one and unless you are indigent, you will be expected to pay that bill.
My point wasn't to say everyone should have free healthcare - my point was to say everyone should have access to AFFORDABLE healthcare.
Hell Mark, I have a two income family, WITH insurance, and I cannot afford to get a needed root canal. Now, I take great care of my teeth and have very few dental problems. However, I do have one tooth that has been problematic - have had it filled 3 times now. Dentist says its either a root canal or an extraction. My insurance only covers the first grand and most of that was used up with the cleaning, x-rays, and temporary filling. I have yet to find a local dentist who will "finance" a root canal and crown. Thanfully there is a university about an hour away from here that will have students fix me up for a smaller fee - though it still won't be cheap.
Healthcare is not only becoming difficult for the poor to have access to, but even the middle class are finding it more and more difficult to afford. If trends continue they way they are now, one day only the rich will be able to afford it.
Believe me, Abigail, I know it's getting worse and worse. My wife's insurance scheme went from being one of the best coverage levels in the state (far better than my retired military stuff) to being almost unusable. In fact, it's being dropped next open season...so that we can just depend upon mine. For that very reason. I don't know what I'd do if I wasn't retired military.
As to affordable, I've said it before and will say it again: we need to examine the components of cost involved. Malpractice insurance is the one I hear about more. I understand the average malpractice premium is almost $200,000 now (for a doctor...I have no idea what the liability insurance costs are for facilities). There are a number of OB/GYN's who have simply quit practicing in my state due to the costs involved...and my state isn't hardly unique. I also understand that the number of Emergency Rooms is decreasing...because of, again, the liability issues involved.
What's the implication for us, the consumer: our costs go up. These businesses (medical practices, hospitals, etc.) are going to pass those costs on up to us. In addition to the obvious increases, there are others, as well: in order to protect themselves against potential malpractice suits, more tests, including more tests that may not be absolutely necessary for a diagnosis, are being ordered. I've heard the term used: "defensive medicine." Perhaps a doctor really only needs to run one blood test for a diagnosis...just to be absolutely sure, though, that doctor may order a battery of 20, have the person do a diabetis test, get radiographic images, and so on: to confirm the suspicion. Good medicine? Yeah, maybe. Needed all the time? probably not. But those costs get passed on to medical insurers (or must be borne by underinsured people themselves).
Then you have the law I cited above: while in the case of your client, it is appropriate, it is also misused by people who treat the ER as their primary care provider. There have been times where I've gone (for myself or as escort for another) to an ER for a bona-fide condition (broken bone, gunshot, trauma requiring stiches, and so on) and I've seen the place piled to the ceiling with people waiting to see a doctor for a kid with a cold. Literally. By law, the ER can't turn the kid away automatically. The kid has to be seen by a doctor and released...and, to avoid a possible lawsuit, they will often run the standard battery of tests to make sure they have the correct diagnosis. When the people don't pay up: the costs have to be borne somewhere. So you, me, and other paying customers end up having those costs added in. Compounding matters, it also leads to longer lines. Why do these folks go to an ER as a PCM? Because of the costs of a private practice doctor. Why those costs? See above.
That's why you've always heard me advocate tort reform. It isn't the be-all and end-all, but I truly believe it is the nexus to the problem of costs. Malpractice insurance and liability insurance is high why? Because of lawsuits and awards. Defensive medicine is practiced because of that reason, as well, further adding to costs.
Even if you wanted to go with a socialized medicine scheme (NHS or Hillarycare or any other scheme), you'd still have to control the lawsuit costs...or none of the professionals would play. But if that added cost from lawsuits could be brought under control, it might help stem the spiral, thus eliminating one of the primary factors making socialized medicine attractive in the first place.
"Malpractice insurance is the one I hear about more. I understand the average malpractice premium is almost $200,000 now (for a doctor...I have no idea what the liability insurance costs are for facilities). There are a number of OB/GYN's who have simply quit practicing in my state due to the costs involved...and my state isn't hardly unique. I also understand that the number of Emergency Rooms is decreasing...because of, again, the liability issues involved."
Now you are barking up my tree! I agree tort reform is necessary. You could start by capping "expert witness fees". I always find it amusing when people blame the attorneys for the high cost of medical care. Your average doctor who testifies as an "expert witness" will make anywhere between $20,000 - $40,000 for a case that goes to trial. Most trials have AT LEAST 4 expert witnesses (2 for Plaintiff and 2 for defense), so right there you are talking about $80,000 - $160,000 and that doesn't even include attorney fees, court costs, etc. Add to that, the defending liability insurance company has to pay for the depositions of Plaintiff's experts (and vise verse for the Defendant's experts). So, for example, if the Plaintiff has a case against a doctor and a hospital the insurance company has to pay to depose an average of 4 experts at an average of $2,000 per expert (for an average of a 2 hour deposition - these experts are making $1000 an HOUR!).
THEN the "contingency fee" system for Plaintiff attorneys needs to be reformed. I'm not sure exactly how, but it should be - they get an average of 1/3 of the award AFTER costs. Granted, they gamble and lose money if they don't win the case, but then again, perhaps that is good incentive not to take on frivolous cases.
Insurance Companies should be reimbursed all of the money they paid out in a malpractice case that wins. While this is already in place to some degree, in that they have a right to be reimbursed, they often do not exercise this right and when they do, they usually settle for an amount that is less than what they paid.
So, how is that for a start?
"Then you have the law I cited above: while in the case of your client, it is appropriate, it is also misused by people who treat the ER as their primary care provider"
Agreed. However, one of the reasons this happens is because people can't afford to go to a primary care provider (i.e. don't have affordable access). If you can't pay up front before the office visit, and have no insurance, the primary care provider can turn you away. However, the emergency room cannot.
Perhaps another solution would be to require or somehow strongly encourage doctors to put in a certain amount of "pro bono" hours every year or month at a free clinic (or reduced cost clinic) - not so very different from the way our legal system is set up. In Michigan, members of the Bar are not "required" but are "strongly encouraged" to do a certain amount of pro bono work. Then, awards and recognition is also given to those who do high volume pro bono.
Something's wrong here. We are not supposed to agree on what is, essentially, a political topic. :blink:
The only proviso I'd put toward physicians performing "pro bono" work is if they are getting some type of protection against lawsuits. Even more extensive than the tort reform you are speaking of. Without that, I could understand completely why they wouldn't care to do any charity work: help a person out from the goodness of your heart, donate your time, your staff's salary, supplies, lab work, drugs -- and then end up defending a multimillion dollar lawsuit as your reward...even if you won such a suit, you'd still spend a pretty penny defending it.
BTW, one thing I neglected to mention above was the practice of insurers -- as well as large corporations -- to settle out of court rather than to mount an extensive defense. What will happen is that a plaintiff's attorney will approach a defendant, file a lawsuit, massive press coverage, flurries of motions, and then the defendant will settle. Because even to win costs a HUGE amount of money. It is cheaper on them if they settle a claim for 100-200 thousand -- even if the claim is baseless -- rather than to spend a million in legal fees to win the case in court. Plaintiff's attorneys know this and leverage that strategy to their advantage. Because face it: a filing and a couple of letters to earn a payout of 40-50% of 100,000 is easy money.
So the malpractice insurer will settle out of court, because it's easier on them. Then they turn around and raise rates to recoup the cost of the settlement. The "people" are the ones getting stuck with the bill, in the end.
I'm sure Dr. Sudo, if he read this thread, could tell us some horror stories about this kind of stuff.
"BTW, one thing I neglected to mention above was the practice of insurers -- as well as large corporations -- to settle out of court rather than to mount an extensive defense. What will happen is that a plaintiff's attorney will approach a defendant, file a lawsuit, massive press coverage, flurries of motions, and then the defendant will settle. Because even to win costs a HUGE amount of money. It is cheaper on them if they settle a claim for 100-200 thousand -- even if the claim is baseless -- rather than to spend a million in legal fees to win the case in court. "
The laws vary from state to state, so I can only speak to what I see in Michigan. Most med mal cases here do not get press coverage. The ones that do usually involve something unusual, or particularly horrifying.
Michigan mal practice cases go through a case evaluation process. All parties present their side to a panel of 3 attorneys (who generally get paid $50 - $75 for sitting on the panel). The panel then places a value on the case (what they think a jury would award). The parties can accept or reject the panel's decision. If it is rejected the case proceeds to trial. IF you rejected the award and then lose at trial (be it the Plaintiff or the Defendant), you are subject to sanctions and fees.
This is done to help prevent frivolous cases and to encourage a reasonable settlement. It is my experience thus far (2 years in med mal defense) that we will rarely settle a case for more than $50,000 unless we feel very strongly that we will lose at trial. If we feel very strongly that we will win, we will try the case. Of course, ultimately that decision is up to the insurance company, but I can think of only one case where we have disagreed with the insurance company and in that case, we think we should settle and the insurance company wants us to try the case.
You have to remember what you see in the press is what they want you to see - it is often not the full story.
Also, in my two years in this field, I have only seen 2 cases that were, in my opinion, totally frivolous. In the rest of the cases, there was at least a reasonable question as to whether or not malpractice was committed.
"We are not supposed to agree on what is, essentially, a political topic"
HA! Actually, I think we agree on principals far more often than not - it is the "how to" part that we disagree on - lol ;)
Recommended Posts
Suda
Love it! Now how do we get it onto the House and Senate floors?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Don't know if it true or not but heard it has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA as the author.
Perhaps there is hope......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Articles IV, V and X are born of stereotypes that I hope are founded upon ignorance and not out-and-out hate.
Article XI is stupid.
The rest are pretty good...
IMO...
To which I have the right...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
You know, I find it interesting that individuals who voice what this article on non-rights communicate are usually the ones who spout off on who is 'the Government' to give (and thus take away) rights.
And yet, here they are, doing the same damn thing. .... <_<
Coolwaters,
Usually, with stuff like this, ignorance (which, in this case, is undoubtedly of the deliberate variety) usually leads to hate. Or to at least stupidity, in any event.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I love the idea of speaking only in English, but it's screwing with my relocation and travel plans. I think I'm going to move from Flowery to The Angels, if I can get a job there. Of course, the state of Mountains is also pretty good. I don't know. So many choices of places to live and visit: The Pass, Snowy (good gambling there), maybe even St. Francis.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Well White Dove...reading a couple of the posts agin it, I'd say..." YOUR COUNTRIES PRETTY WELL FOOKED" !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hey Allan,
If you're gonna use swear words around here, use the Official American © English version please.
You wouldn't want to run the risk of us thinking that you were some sort of illegal alien now, do you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. "
I am currently working on a case where a 25 year old woman died, needlessly. She was a new mom, married, her husband employed. No health insurance. She went to a clinic that did not have the proper equipment to diagnose her. They could not afford an emergency room fee, so they didn't go to one. Now she is dead and her new baby is left without a mother. Heartbreaking. A simple trip to an ER would have saved her life.
"You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful."
take advantage of opportunities for education and vocational training? Do you have any idea how expensive that is these days? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a job that pays enough to allow you to pay your bills with only a high school education?
"This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!"
I suspect most immigrants would gladly learn English if given the time and opportunity - but both of those are key elements. However, learning English should NOT mean they have to give up their native language either.
"This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!"
No, our country was founded on the belief in freedom and equality, and yet despite that blacks were slaves and women were not allowed to vote. Thank GOD, our constitution was made in such a way that our government had the ability to grow and change as our society grew and changed, otherwise I would still be unable to vote. And, being a Jew, finding housing outside a jewish community, would be difficult at best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Abi,
In re your friend, if she was denied bona-fide emergency care at an emergency room, that emergency room may be in violation of Federal law. See the linked article for more information. You may want to ascertain the actual facts of the matter...but if what you implied is, in fact, the case, you may want to get the widower to contact a lawyer. Because, again, if his late wife was denied bona fide emergency care by an emergency room, there'd likely be a good possibility of a h3ll of a lawsuit.
(Of course, it's far easier to carp about the need for socialized medicine and use this as an example to tug at people's heartstrings rather than assert those rights that do exist)
OK...back to lurking mode on this thread...
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark, the woman in question is not a friend, I've never met her, though it is amazing how much you can get to know about someone simply from reading their medical records. This is already a lawsuit - a case the firm I work for is defending.
However, the case is not about being denied care from an Emergency Room. The woman never went to the emergency room because they could not afford the bill that would come from such a visit.
You are correct that an emergency room cannot turn you away. However, where I come from you are looking at a MINIMUM of $500 for a visit to one and unless you are indigent, you will be expected to pay that bill.
My point wasn't to say everyone should have free healthcare - my point was to say everyone should have access to AFFORDABLE healthcare.
Hell Mark, I have a two income family, WITH insurance, and I cannot afford to get a needed root canal. Now, I take great care of my teeth and have very few dental problems. However, I do have one tooth that has been problematic - have had it filled 3 times now. Dentist says its either a root canal or an extraction. My insurance only covers the first grand and most of that was used up with the cleaning, x-rays, and temporary filling. I have yet to find a local dentist who will "finance" a root canal and crown. Thanfully there is a university about an hour away from here that will have students fix me up for a smaller fee - though it still won't be cheap.
Healthcare is not only becoming difficult for the poor to have access to, but even the middle class are finding it more and more difficult to afford. If trends continue they way they are now, one day only the rich will be able to afford it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Believe me, Abigail, I know it's getting worse and worse. My wife's insurance scheme went from being one of the best coverage levels in the state (far better than my retired military stuff) to being almost unusable. In fact, it's being dropped next open season...so that we can just depend upon mine. For that very reason. I don't know what I'd do if I wasn't retired military.
As to affordable, I've said it before and will say it again: we need to examine the components of cost involved. Malpractice insurance is the one I hear about more. I understand the average malpractice premium is almost $200,000 now (for a doctor...I have no idea what the liability insurance costs are for facilities). There are a number of OB/GYN's who have simply quit practicing in my state due to the costs involved...and my state isn't hardly unique. I also understand that the number of Emergency Rooms is decreasing...because of, again, the liability issues involved.
What's the implication for us, the consumer: our costs go up. These businesses (medical practices, hospitals, etc.) are going to pass those costs on up to us. In addition to the obvious increases, there are others, as well: in order to protect themselves against potential malpractice suits, more tests, including more tests that may not be absolutely necessary for a diagnosis, are being ordered. I've heard the term used: "defensive medicine." Perhaps a doctor really only needs to run one blood test for a diagnosis...just to be absolutely sure, though, that doctor may order a battery of 20, have the person do a diabetis test, get radiographic images, and so on: to confirm the suspicion. Good medicine? Yeah, maybe. Needed all the time? probably not. But those costs get passed on to medical insurers (or must be borne by underinsured people themselves).
Then you have the law I cited above: while in the case of your client, it is appropriate, it is also misused by people who treat the ER as their primary care provider. There have been times where I've gone (for myself or as escort for another) to an ER for a bona-fide condition (broken bone, gunshot, trauma requiring stiches, and so on) and I've seen the place piled to the ceiling with people waiting to see a doctor for a kid with a cold. Literally. By law, the ER can't turn the kid away automatically. The kid has to be seen by a doctor and released...and, to avoid a possible lawsuit, they will often run the standard battery of tests to make sure they have the correct diagnosis. When the people don't pay up: the costs have to be borne somewhere. So you, me, and other paying customers end up having those costs added in. Compounding matters, it also leads to longer lines. Why do these folks go to an ER as a PCM? Because of the costs of a private practice doctor. Why those costs? See above.
That's why you've always heard me advocate tort reform. It isn't the be-all and end-all, but I truly believe it is the nexus to the problem of costs. Malpractice insurance and liability insurance is high why? Because of lawsuits and awards. Defensive medicine is practiced because of that reason, as well, further adding to costs.
Even if you wanted to go with a socialized medicine scheme (NHS or Hillarycare or any other scheme), you'd still have to control the lawsuit costs...or none of the professionals would play. But if that added cost from lawsuits could be brought under control, it might help stem the spiral, thus eliminating one of the primary factors making socialized medicine attractive in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Malpractice insurance is the one I hear about more. I understand the average malpractice premium is almost $200,000 now (for a doctor...I have no idea what the liability insurance costs are for facilities). There are a number of OB/GYN's who have simply quit practicing in my state due to the costs involved...and my state isn't hardly unique. I also understand that the number of Emergency Rooms is decreasing...because of, again, the liability issues involved."
Now you are barking up my tree! I agree tort reform is necessary. You could start by capping "expert witness fees". I always find it amusing when people blame the attorneys for the high cost of medical care. Your average doctor who testifies as an "expert witness" will make anywhere between $20,000 - $40,000 for a case that goes to trial. Most trials have AT LEAST 4 expert witnesses (2 for Plaintiff and 2 for defense), so right there you are talking about $80,000 - $160,000 and that doesn't even include attorney fees, court costs, etc. Add to that, the defending liability insurance company has to pay for the depositions of Plaintiff's experts (and vise verse for the Defendant's experts). So, for example, if the Plaintiff has a case against a doctor and a hospital the insurance company has to pay to depose an average of 4 experts at an average of $2,000 per expert (for an average of a 2 hour deposition - these experts are making $1000 an HOUR!).
THEN the "contingency fee" system for Plaintiff attorneys needs to be reformed. I'm not sure exactly how, but it should be - they get an average of 1/3 of the award AFTER costs. Granted, they gamble and lose money if they don't win the case, but then again, perhaps that is good incentive not to take on frivolous cases.
Insurance Companies should be reimbursed all of the money they paid out in a malpractice case that wins. While this is already in place to some degree, in that they have a right to be reimbursed, they often do not exercise this right and when they do, they usually settle for an amount that is less than what they paid.
So, how is that for a start?
"Then you have the law I cited above: while in the case of your client, it is appropriate, it is also misused by people who treat the ER as their primary care provider"
Agreed. However, one of the reasons this happens is because people can't afford to go to a primary care provider (i.e. don't have affordable access). If you can't pay up front before the office visit, and have no insurance, the primary care provider can turn you away. However, the emergency room cannot.
Perhaps another solution would be to require or somehow strongly encourage doctors to put in a certain amount of "pro bono" hours every year or month at a free clinic (or reduced cost clinic) - not so very different from the way our legal system is set up. In Michigan, members of the Bar are not "required" but are "strongly encouraged" to do a certain amount of pro bono work. Then, awards and recognition is also given to those who do high volume pro bono.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Abi,
Something's wrong here. We are not supposed to agree on what is, essentially, a political topic. :blink:
The only proviso I'd put toward physicians performing "pro bono" work is if they are getting some type of protection against lawsuits. Even more extensive than the tort reform you are speaking of. Without that, I could understand completely why they wouldn't care to do any charity work: help a person out from the goodness of your heart, donate your time, your staff's salary, supplies, lab work, drugs -- and then end up defending a multimillion dollar lawsuit as your reward...even if you won such a suit, you'd still spend a pretty penny defending it.
BTW, one thing I neglected to mention above was the practice of insurers -- as well as large corporations -- to settle out of court rather than to mount an extensive defense. What will happen is that a plaintiff's attorney will approach a defendant, file a lawsuit, massive press coverage, flurries of motions, and then the defendant will settle. Because even to win costs a HUGE amount of money. It is cheaper on them if they settle a claim for 100-200 thousand -- even if the claim is baseless -- rather than to spend a million in legal fees to win the case in court. Plaintiff's attorneys know this and leverage that strategy to their advantage. Because face it: a filing and a couple of letters to earn a payout of 40-50% of 100,000 is easy money.
So the malpractice insurer will settle out of court, because it's easier on them. Then they turn around and raise rates to recoup the cost of the settlement. The "people" are the ones getting stuck with the bill, in the end.
I'm sure Dr. Sudo, if he read this thread, could tell us some horror stories about this kind of stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"BTW, one thing I neglected to mention above was the practice of insurers -- as well as large corporations -- to settle out of court rather than to mount an extensive defense. What will happen is that a plaintiff's attorney will approach a defendant, file a lawsuit, massive press coverage, flurries of motions, and then the defendant will settle. Because even to win costs a HUGE amount of money. It is cheaper on them if they settle a claim for 100-200 thousand -- even if the claim is baseless -- rather than to spend a million in legal fees to win the case in court. "
The laws vary from state to state, so I can only speak to what I see in Michigan. Most med mal cases here do not get press coverage. The ones that do usually involve something unusual, or particularly horrifying.
Michigan mal practice cases go through a case evaluation process. All parties present their side to a panel of 3 attorneys (who generally get paid $50 - $75 for sitting on the panel). The panel then places a value on the case (what they think a jury would award). The parties can accept or reject the panel's decision. If it is rejected the case proceeds to trial. IF you rejected the award and then lose at trial (be it the Plaintiff or the Defendant), you are subject to sanctions and fees.
This is done to help prevent frivolous cases and to encourage a reasonable settlement. It is my experience thus far (2 years in med mal defense) that we will rarely settle a case for more than $50,000 unless we feel very strongly that we will lose at trial. If we feel very strongly that we will win, we will try the case. Of course, ultimately that decision is up to the insurance company, but I can think of only one case where we have disagreed with the insurance company and in that case, we think we should settle and the insurance company wants us to try the case.
You have to remember what you see in the press is what they want you to see - it is often not the full story.
Also, in my two years in this field, I have only seen 2 cases that were, in my opinion, totally frivolous. In the rest of the cases, there was at least a reasonable question as to whether or not malpractice was committed.
"We are not supposed to agree on what is, essentially, a political topic"
HA! Actually, I think we agree on principals far more often than not - it is the "how to" part that we disagree on - lol ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
All very good points at the end of the day....but the million dollar question then is....where the hell does all the taxpayer money go ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well, here is an old old twist we are not likely to see in our modern medical models...
...in some parts of ancient greek culture, folks only paid the doctor if they stayed well
can you imagine?
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Up in smoke. :(
:(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.