In West Virginia, doctors have gone on strike to protest malpractice insurance costs, some premiums running as high as $150,000 per year:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/02/do ... index.html
Some doctors say they cannot keep open their offices and still pay so much in malpractice insurance. They are demanding that the state pass a law making it more difficult for lawyers to bring frivilous lawsuits against them, all which cost a minimum of thousands of dollars to defend (even when the doctors win).
Doctors on Strike
Moderator: Edi
-
Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37390
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
That's low; in Pennsylvania it's passing the 350,000 mark for some. In my area many are moving across the state line into Delaware.
Jury's are out of control. Limits need to be set on awards and Judges should be responsible for the amounts. Recently one awarded 23 billion to one person; thankfully the judge did have the power to reduce it, to 23 million. But every time someone goes to pass such legislation people start claiming they're trying to totally remove ones right to sue and it ends up being shot down.
I support the strike. It seems to be the only way to get the publics attention before the doctors reach the point that they have to move or close down.
Jury's are out of control. Limits need to be set on awards and Judges should be responsible for the amounts. Recently one awarded 23 billion to one person; thankfully the judge did have the power to reduce it, to 23 million. But every time someone goes to pass such legislation people start claiming they're trying to totally remove ones right to sue and it ends up being shot down.
I support the strike. It seems to be the only way to get the publics attention before the doctors reach the point that they have to move or close down.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
-
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi
- What Kind of Username is That?
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: 2002-07-10 08:53pm
- Location: Back in PA
-
Wicked Pilot
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 8972
- Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm
-
TrailerParkJawa
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5850
- Joined: 2002-07-04 11:49pm
- Location: San Jose, California
-
Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Canada doesn't suffer from these problems. Our litigation laws are much different from yours, since they were designed for the good of the public, not the good of the bar association.
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Y'know, I said it on 9/11 and I have no doubt I'll be asking it many, many more times in the future:Darth Wong wrote:Canada doesn't suffer from these problems. Our litigation laws are much different from yours, since they were designed for the good of the public, not the good of the bar association.
Anyone know the going rate on a plane ticket to Calgary?
-
Wicked Pilot
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 8972
- Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm
-
Keevan_Colton
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 10355
- Joined: 2002-12-30 08:57pm
- Location: In the Land of Logic and Reason, two doors down from Lilliput and across the road from Atlantis...
- Contact:
Its similar here to Canada....frivilous lawsuits just dont happen as much....and when they do....things tend to just get sent to europe....
If the doctors want to strike....then they should go ahead.....though they should consider how much good it'll do them....the firefighters here tried strikes lately and it didnt do them much good.
Keevan.
If the doctors want to strike....then they should go ahead.....though they should consider how much good it'll do them....the firefighters here tried strikes lately and it didnt do them much good.
Keevan.
-
Darth Fanboy
- DUH! WINNING!
- Posts: 11182
- Joined: 2002-09-20 05:25am
- Location: Mars, where I am a totally bitchin' rockstar.
on the flip side Canadians don't pay near as much for health care as Americans do. Procedures are expensive and if they aren't done right a patient deserves some kind of compensation.
That however, is no excuse for huge jury awards. Stupid juries don't realize that these huge awards are hurting taxpayers more than its helping. But a group of 12 empowered idiots decides to "stick it to the man" and instead rams it up America's collective asshole, albeit with good intentions. I blame "The Practice".
That however, is no excuse for huge jury awards. Stupid juries don't realize that these huge awards are hurting taxpayers more than its helping. But a group of 12 empowered idiots decides to "stick it to the man" and instead rams it up America's collective asshole, albeit with good intentions. I blame "The Practice".
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little."
-George Carlin (1937-2008)
"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting."
-Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
-George Carlin (1937-2008)
"Have some of you Americans actually seen Football? Of course there are 0-0 draws but that doesn't make them any less exciting."
-Dr Roberts, with quite possibly the dumbest thing ever said in 10 years of SDNet.
I'm ambiguous on the issue.
On the one hand, I agree that jury awards, particularly "punitive damages" for "emotional trauma" have gotten out of hand. I don't think I could put a price tag on my own happiness or lack thereof, particularly since so much of it revolves around my wife; how can a pricetag be put on that? And since companies can pass on the extra expense of an award to their customers, how does it really hurt the company or truly recompense the victim?
OTOH... IMHO, too many people became doctors because doctors are supposed to make a lot of money. When you go to the doctor, which will make you all warm and fuzzy and more confident that the doctor is looking out for your best interest: knowing that your doctor chose his profession because he wants to heal the sick and make people better... or because he wants a 6-figure yearly income? I bet it's the first answer. And I'm also willing to bet that the vast majority of "bad" doctors that have been used by the insurance companies as justification for raising the rates weren't engaging in such practices as unnecessary procedures/referrals, wrongfully written prescriptions, or mistaken diagnoses because they cared about the patients, but because they wanted to make even more money.
What's sad is that it's really the insurance companies' fault. You think those premiums the doctors pay covers the insurance company? Hell, no! They have the same problems that every other major corporation (which is what they are: corporations) has had for the past 2 years: a combination of an economic depression, accounting and management scandals, and the fallout from 9/11 causing their nice tidy stock investments to shrivel up. It's funny, isn't it, that insurance companies -- the ones that use the line "protect yourself against a possible future" will take such risks with money that really isn't even theirs, but is meant to protect their customers.
As a side note, a US district judge in Cleveland just awarded a $30 million punitive damage to a plaintiff. The defending company deserved it; they told the guy's mom they would cover her new intra-artery chemotherapy (way too expensive to do without coverage), then told her after the first 3 of 12 treatments that they were changing their minds and wouldn't cover it anymore -- and, IIRC, were refusing to pay for the 1st 3 treatments to boot. She could only afford another treatment before trying less-effective conventional chemo, and their last denial of her attempts to get compensation for the treatments she did reserve arrived on the day of her funeral.
The catch? The son has to give $20 million to a cancer-research foundation specified by the judge. Would have been fine in some other states, but Ohio law doesn't allow that yet. It made me think of another idea, though: instead of a punitive damage award, why not require that companies give all their customers a total rebate equivalent to the reward? Say, for example, the company would normally pay $30 million in punitive damages, and has 500,000 customers. Instead of paying the punitives to 1 person (who already has their original claim taken care of, plus court costs and some recompense), all customers of the company get a $60 check?
On the one hand, I agree that jury awards, particularly "punitive damages" for "emotional trauma" have gotten out of hand. I don't think I could put a price tag on my own happiness or lack thereof, particularly since so much of it revolves around my wife; how can a pricetag be put on that? And since companies can pass on the extra expense of an award to their customers, how does it really hurt the company or truly recompense the victim?
OTOH... IMHO, too many people became doctors because doctors are supposed to make a lot of money. When you go to the doctor, which will make you all warm and fuzzy and more confident that the doctor is looking out for your best interest: knowing that your doctor chose his profession because he wants to heal the sick and make people better... or because he wants a 6-figure yearly income? I bet it's the first answer. And I'm also willing to bet that the vast majority of "bad" doctors that have been used by the insurance companies as justification for raising the rates weren't engaging in such practices as unnecessary procedures/referrals, wrongfully written prescriptions, or mistaken diagnoses because they cared about the patients, but because they wanted to make even more money.
What's sad is that it's really the insurance companies' fault. You think those premiums the doctors pay covers the insurance company? Hell, no! They have the same problems that every other major corporation (which is what they are: corporations) has had for the past 2 years: a combination of an economic depression, accounting and management scandals, and the fallout from 9/11 causing their nice tidy stock investments to shrivel up. It's funny, isn't it, that insurance companies -- the ones that use the line "protect yourself against a possible future" will take such risks with money that really isn't even theirs, but is meant to protect their customers.
As a side note, a US district judge in Cleveland just awarded a $30 million punitive damage to a plaintiff. The defending company deserved it; they told the guy's mom they would cover her new intra-artery chemotherapy (way too expensive to do without coverage), then told her after the first 3 of 12 treatments that they were changing their minds and wouldn't cover it anymore -- and, IIRC, were refusing to pay for the 1st 3 treatments to boot. She could only afford another treatment before trying less-effective conventional chemo, and their last denial of her attempts to get compensation for the treatments she did reserve arrived on the day of her funeral.
The catch? The son has to give $20 million to a cancer-research foundation specified by the judge. Would have been fine in some other states, but Ohio law doesn't allow that yet. It made me think of another idea, though: instead of a punitive damage award, why not require that companies give all their customers a total rebate equivalent to the reward? Say, for example, the company would normally pay $30 million in punitive damages, and has 500,000 customers. Instead of paying the punitives to 1 person (who already has their original claim taken care of, plus court costs and some recompense), all customers of the company get a $60 check?
