Medical Malpractice Reform

[Hababi]

A lot of Republicans are now running on medical malpractice reform. Beyond that it's a stupid issue to pick for a campaign issue, what are your thoughts on it? Should we have a cap on pain & suffering awards? Or should we leave it go as it is now? So on.

Amit, you must respond to this without mentionining JHU

[AA-12]

I don't think there should be a cap on it, but i'm very biased. My entire life was changed and deeply hurt by medical malpractice.

[griftadan]

people should be awarded money based on provable economic losses, "emotional trauma" is a bullshit reason to award someone money.

i think that along with tort reform is a good idea and will lead to lower medical care prices.

[AA-12]

"emotional trauma" is a bull**** reason to award someone money.
Are you kidding me?

[griftadan]

no.

[Amit]

griftadan for teh jhu win

[Chameleon]

I don't think there should be a cap on it, but i'm very biased. My entire life was changed and deeply hurt by medical malpractice.

Any chance of some details?

[Matt?]

no.

might as well say no claims of emotional trauma. and no consortium either. or any mental or emotional claim

people have their lives ruined by malpractice in ways that go beyond the physical. it's rediculous to say that should just go ignored, and that is why the law does not ignore it.

also by saying emotional trauma is bs you are essentially saying that half of their rightfull claim is bs. they deserve compensation

[griftadan]

if they can prove it leads them to economic loss than i don't care, give them the money. awarding it on an arbitrary bases of emotional distress is ridiculous.

[Chameleon]

Guys, at no point did griftadan say "emotion trauma is bs". He said "emotion trauma is a bull**** reason to award somebody money".

Though I believe there can be certain circumstances that call for money to be awarded, he's just saying that there's no valid reason to award somebody material things for emotional damage.

That's the point you should argue with, if any.

[AA-12]

Any chance of some details?

I don't want this thread being derailed by this, but i'll say it. When I was like 6-7 my mother was in the hospital for something fairly minor (don't remember what it actually was in the first place), and had an IV in her arm. She kept complaining about rising pain in the area and the nurse said it's probably normal and did nothing. After a while longer the pain got very intense to the point where she was about to cry, and the nurse still refused to take it out. After the entire situation (i'm guessing a week or so later) her arm swelled up and had bruising and knotting. We took her to the hospital and found out the needle was improperly placed and caused nerve damage and RSDS. The RSDS made it where anything touching her arm would hurt, and if she bumped it into a wall she would be miserable. After a few years it had gone into her entire body, nearly immobilizing her. Now she has the ability of a 80 year old woman and is in constant pain that cannot be fixed. She's had a spinal cord stimulator implanted that ended up making things worse, and now a morphine pump that is helping a bit.

http://www.arthritis.org/conditions/DiseaseCenter/rsds.asp = Info about RSDS

[Matt?]

if they can prove it leads them to economic loss than i don't care, give them the money. awarding it on an arbitrary bases of emotional distress is ridiculous.

this is why we have lawyers, to decide how much a case is worth or not.

[griftadan]

ok then just award money for her not being able to work (if she did in the first place) and then cover all the medical expenses.

this is why we have lawyers, to decide how much a case is worth or not.

how does being a lawyer make anyone more capable of judging something that is impossible to judge?

[AA-12]

ok then just award money for her not being able to work (if she did in the first place) and then cover all the medical expenses.



how does being a lawyer make anyone more capable of judging something that is impossible to judge?

We were in a lawsuit (9 years worth) and ended up getting awarded $1,000,000, which ended up at about $450k

[Matt?]

how does being a lawyer make anyone more capable of judging something that is impossible to judge?

ugh. when you go to court the jury/ judge isn't there to just plug numbers of days missed from work into calculators. they're there to judge the case. this is what law is, arguing someones case. It may be impossible to truely know what damage was caused emotionally, but this is what lawyers get paid for. Arguing the case to the jury, who will then judge whether it is worth it or not.

if the emotional trauma truely is b.s. then the defense attorney will tear the claim apart. this is the Judicial system, it's how we judge things.

[griftadan]

no, i know how they do it, i'm saying they should stop doing it. i don't care if you are emotionally traumatized or not you shouldn't get money for just that.

[Matt?]

f.uck trials

[Africa]

No, leave it go. Doctors have economic incentives to **** people over too.

[Matt?]

what

[Africa]

Huh?

[AmericanWeiner]

It's the nature of capitalism to get the most out of someone that you can.

Are you against capitalism?

[Scuba_Steve]

It's the nature of capitalism to get the most out of someone that you can.

Are you against capitalism?



although that might have been a joke answer, you have a good point.


If the country is run by money, then it would be in the publics best interest to accumulate as much of it as (legally) possible, right?

Morally, i dont agree with it... but it's true. What the republicans are trying to do are make it so that doctors can basically make mistakes without losing their entire practice/career. While other people use this opportunity to do exactly what a citizen in a capitalist society is expected to do, gain a large sum of money.


If a doctor makes a mistake large enough to seriously screw up an entire life (such as wotan's case) the doctor should have enough money taken from him to reduce him to the level of a normal person. He shouldn't be able to pay up and the problem just disappears, because it doesnt work that way.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

There's a reason it's called a "practice"

[AmericanWeiner]

although that might have been a joke answer, you have a good point.


If the country is run by money, then it would be in the publics best interest to accumulate as much of it as (legally) possible, right?

Morally, i dont agree with it... but it's true. What the republicans are trying to do are make it so that doctors can basically make mistakes without losing their entire practice/career. While other people use this opportunity to do exactly what a citizen in a capitalist society is expected to do, gain a large sum of money.


If a doctor makes a mistake large enough to seriously screw up an entire life (such as wotan's case) the doctor should have enough money taken from him to reduce him to the level of a normal person. He shouldn't be able to pay up and the problem just disappears, because it doesnt work that way.

Well see, ethics really has nothing to do with this issue. The doctors' associations are probably fronted by the republican party, so doctors are trying to get the price of malpractice down so that their insurance is cheaper.

This will probably be rebounded to the common man, but not fully. This is capitalism, so that's their perogative.

Our perogative should be to decide whether the reimbursments are worth the increased prices that medical insurances affect.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Seems to me the question is whether or not you need $10 million in "pain and suffering" because the doctor amputated the wrong leg, in addition to the medical bills, et cetera

[EinzingerIsGod]

Not to say that a doctor can't be at fault, but there are many cases where doctors are being sued that simply aren't their fault. I'm not quite sure what to do about differentiating between the two.

[Aaron]

I work for an insurance company who does some of the management and feel that the process needs to be changed, but the amounts not to much. How it is at the moment, injury related legal claims are treated like property disputes and take years. If they sped up the process they'd make the system more efficient at recognising and regulating geniune claims. The majority of the costs claims are covering people's bills for the time its taken for the claim to be resolved.

[LegionsofMarduk]

The whole system needs reform. Part of what is driving up medical costs is the most of malpractice insurance. Granted there are cases where the doctor makes a mistake and should be held accountable for it. But for every case that is legit, how many cases are there that are total bs? Right now it's too easy for someone to sue the doctor. There is a difference in making a stupid mistake (ie removing the wrong organ) and making an honest mistake (ie perscribing someone a medication that causes harm due to an unforseen side effect). There needs to be a way to distinguish between the two. Obviously the guy that removed the wrong organ should be held accountable. But the guy that perscribed a medication that treated a problem that ultimately led to another problem should have less punishment. Medicine is not an exact science. Doctor's don't have crystal balls and they shouldn't have their lives/careers ruined over an unforseen side effect.

I doubt it will happen though. Virtually anytime anyone tries to do anything about it people get up in arms because somehow reforming the system is "violating patient's rights".

[Futue te Ipsum]

Seems to me the question is whether or not you need $10 million in "pain and suffering" because the doctor amputated the wrong leg, in addition to the medical bills, et cetera$10m may be a bit much, but that's a pretty bad mistake to make : /

[Hababi]

I swear, there aren't more people (Steerpike, Dropper) taking the anti-reform side because they don't want to be seen agreeing with Wotan :lol: :p

[thedeadwalk!]

I think a part of the problem is that insurance companies are for-profit companies as well. When they lose income they pass the buck to the doctors by raising their premiums making doctors pass more bucks to them.

They're also not just losing income for larger-than-they-would-like jury awards but from bad policy decisions on their part, like losing money in the stock market.

$10m may be a bit much, but that's a pretty bad mistake to make : /
Especially considering going back and getting the right leg amputated.

Also, the average jury award is a little over $1 million for these suits.

I swear, there aren't more people (Steerpike, Dropper) taking the anti-reform side because they don't want to be seen agreeing with Wotan :lol: :p
It gave me pause.

[AA-12]

I swear, there aren't more people (Steerpike, Dropper) taking the anti-reform side because they don't want to be seen agreeing with Wotan :lol: :p

:lol: I do have quite a liking around these parts :o

[Iskandar]

I swear, there aren't more people (Steerpike, Dropper) taking the anti-reform side because they don't want to be seen agreeing with Wotan :lol: :p
Don't forget that by taking the pro-reform side I'd be siding with Republicans(!).

I support this, at least nominally. People should get just compensation, but not excessive.

[Hababi]

Don't forget that by taking the pro-reform side I'd be siding with Republicans(!).

I support this, at least nominally. People should get just compensation, but not excessive.

As it stands now, the appeal process helps ward off excessive compensation--there's been plenty of cases where a jury gives, say, a $30 million settlement to a smoker, then the company appeals it and a judge knocks it down to $8 million


I think a part of the problem is that insurance companies are for-profit companies as well. When they lose income they pass the buck to the doctors by raising their premiums making doctors pass more bucks to them.


Also, good doctors suffer due to bad doctors. I forget the stat, but a small percentage of doctors account for something like 80% of malpractice suits.

So, whenever Amit gets into practice and runs up 10 malpractice suits in his first 5 years, he'll be hurting other doctors, too :mad:

[thedeadwalk!]

Also, good doctors suffer due to bad doctors. I forget the stat, but a small percentage of doctors account for something like 80% of malpractice suits.
Yeah, I think it's around 5%. That seems to be the magic number in deviance.

[Iskandar]

As it stands now, the appeal process helps ward off excessive compensation--there's been plenty of cases where a jury gives, say, a $30 million settlement to a smoker, then the company appeals it and a judge knocks it down to $8 million
Nevertheless legal limits would be a good idea, just in case.

[Matt?]

Not to say that a doctor can't be at fault, but there are many cases where doctors are being sued that simply aren't their fault. I'm not quite sure what to do about differentiating between the two.

this is so simple. i said it before.

it is our right to file suit. it doesn't matter if it truely was their fault or not, it's their lawyers job to show the jury that he is innocent of any responsibility.

i think that there are a lot of very expensive malpractice cases, my dad is a defense lawyer, who handles a bunch of these cases. i worked with him over the summer. people think that people exaggerate in order to take advantage in court, which happens a loooot, but not generally in a malpractice case.

also there are legal limits depending on the accident type i'm pretty sure. i'd be 100% but i helped more with insurance cases than malpractice so i'm a little hesitant to go all in.

also it may be a states rights thing

[Futue te Ipsum]

Also, the average jury award is a little over $1 million for these suits.With which you have to consider the loss of earnings, cost and a bit extra because you know this person is now pretty screwed in terms of walking, high figures aren't too surprising.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Also, good doctors suffer due to bad doctors. I forget the stat, but a small percentage of doctors account for something like 80% of malpractice suits.This may not be as bad as it looks. I'd like to see how this is when the information is put alongside people doing similar stuff in the same speciality. If a neurologist gets sued for 20 times more than a GP it may have nothing to do with ability, but if he/she gets sued for 20 times more than another neuro over an extended period, that may need a look in.

[thedeadwalk!]

With which you have to consider the loss of earnings, cost and a bit extra because you know this person is now pretty screwed in terms of walking, high figures aren't too surprising.
That wasn't referring to the hypothetical, just an average of real cases. And, as I remember, the average person's not going to make much over $1 million dollars over their lifetime, if at all, anyway.

So, they take away their ability to work, they compensate them for it. A little over a million dollars does that.

I don't think we're disagreeing here.

[Matt?]

depending on the severity that really isn't that much.

[thedeadwalk!]

And the severity is considered by jurors during each trial. I don't mean to imply whether it's enough or not, but that it compensates them work-wise. I, however, think the cap limit in tort reform of $250,000 is too little and doesn't address the problems of (the few) bad doctors, ill training, and systemic failures of the healthcare industry.

Lets also throw in that plaintiffs only win around 42% of these trials, with most being settled out of court.