Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

trial lawyers destroyng healtcare

banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:32:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ask any doctor he will tell you
Doctors work 9 out of 12 monthes for malpractice insurance..!
If We cut out the trial lawyers.and we pass tort reform we could save the insurance companies from followiing the banks lead...!
Remember Obama's effort to try a "test" for tort reform? (We don't actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosi's bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990 spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try "alternative medical liability laws." But look — you don't get the incentive if you have a law that would "limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages." That's what the trial lawyers get for the millions spent in supporting the Democratic party, and that's what tort "reform" in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of health-care legislation amounts to. States will be strong-armed into repealing existing caps in order to get the Fed's money. Sweet, huh? Well, unless you thought the aim was to reduce medical costs. No, this will go a long way toward ensuring that tort lawyers remain rich, malpractice insurance remains high, and unnecessary defensive medicine remains a fixture of the health-care system. Nice going, Nancy!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 8:08:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
No, this will go a long way toward ensuring that tort lawyers remain rich, malpractice insurance remains high, and unnecessary defensive medicine remains a fixture of the health-care system.


Bravo. Kudos on that standard conservative approach to national health care. Now let's talk about the facts. First of all, I agree with the assessment depicted in The Godfather, "A lawyer with his brief case can steal more than a hundred men with guns." Americans are lawsuit friendly, and to convey the idea that tort lawyers would be rich because of health care is fallacious and frankly kind of silly. Second, malpractice insurance IS high. You said that with national care it will remain high. Well, it seems to me that it would be high either way, so what's your point? What's your solution to lowering it? And would nationalizing health care really increase it? Finally, I can't believe you're talking about unnecessary defensive medicine when many citizens can't even afford necessary medicinal treatment. You should probably do your homework before going on like that, I think.
President of DDO
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 4:52:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:32:37 PM, banker wrote:
Ask any doctor he will tell you
Doctors work 9 out of 12 monthes for malpractice insurance..!
If We cut out the trial lawyers.and we pass tort reform we could save the insurance companies from followiing the banks lead...!
Remember Obama's effort to try a "test" for tort reform? (We don't actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosi's bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990 spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try "alternative medical liability laws." But look — you don't get the incentive if you have a law that would "limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages." That's what the trial lawyers get for the millions spent in supporting the Democratic party, and that's what tort "reform" in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of health-care legislation amounts to. States will be strong-armed into repealing existing caps in order to get the Fed's money. Sweet, huh? Well, unless you thought the aim was to reduce medical costs. No, this will go a long way toward ensuring that tort lawyers remain rich, malpractice insurance remains high, and unnecessary defensive medicine remains a fixture of the health-care system. Nice going, Nancy!

I agree with this, partially. If we (by which I mean the government, state or federal) provided free medical care, I would be in favor of granting health care practitioners immunity from suit, as the system would pick up the costs of care for any damage caused by malpractice, save for death or permanent physical disability, which I would leave open with a bar against punitive damages. Ideally, there should be two health care systems: one where people get federally regulated and approved health care for free but can not easily sue their doctors and another where people can elect to pay private providers for experimental procedures, with the patient's full informed consent, but can sue their doctors (depending on the contract involved). Costs would go down, employment opportunities would increase, and American citizens would have access to procedures or medication they would otherwise have to visit another country to receive, provided they are willing to pay.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.