Medical Liability reform

[V Nura]

This is the most idiotic thing the administration can possibly do. Now they are saying the most you can get if you are teh victim of malpractice is 250,000 for pain and suffering.


Think about this. If malpractice by an OBGYN results in the death of a mother during childbirth (which yes still happens in reare cases)....the most that father and child would be entitled to is 250,000


As a future physician I think this is absolute idiocy. If dr. makes mistake he's liable for it..there are no excuses and his malpractice insurance should be charged in a manner that fully compensates the patient.




And a limit of 250,000 does not even come close to compensating some of the things that these ppl go through.



You can only claim economic losses on top of the 250,000 which in most cases is lost wages. ....so 250,000 plus lost wages..and you've been horribly impacted by a doctors error. .......utter crap.


This policy is not holding dr's to their jobs which is to complete any course of treatment with skill, and responsibility.

 

[deep]

Arun,

The state of California did pass a form of this in the late 80s, malpractice insurance premiums continued to go up (a little slower at first). Why, because they could raise rates. Then in the 90s insurance regulation was passed and insurance premiums are no longer front-page news. Rate increases are now regulated.

Trial lawyers are easy targets. The old lady who spilled the McDonalds coffee is a favorite example. A few poor decisions do not mean the system should be scrapped.

Bush does not receive contributions from trial lawyers. Bush does receive many contributions from Insurance Cos. and HMOs.

 

[V Nura]

The problem is.....if the cap were say 5 million or 6 million...I could almost live with that



But 250,000?????.......it's ridiculous...I hope the bill goes down in flames

 

[bonosloveslave]

I do think alot of people have been overcompensated in the past, but yeah, for a true doctor screw-up, $250k seems awfully low.

 

[nbcrusader]

Remember - "pain and suffering" is for the intangibles. This does not limit recovery for lost wages, medical bills, income potential, etc. It is also different from punitive damages.

To many litigants, pain and suffering is the lottery portion of a lawsuit.

 

[V Nura]

Remember - "pain and suffering" is for the intangibles. This does not limit recovery for lost wages, medical bills, income potential, etc. It is also different from punitive damages.

To many litigants, pain and suffering is the lottery portion of a lawsuit.

Your telling me that if a retired person say 65 + is injured by physician negiligence....let's say resulting in paralysis that on top of his all the things he should have had anyways...he only gets 250k???



get real 250k is a pittance this bill is a disgrace I think that overcompensation is better than screwing ppl over and that's what this bill does.



If bush was to limit it to say 3- 5 million I could agree with it. but 250 k....is just not enough.



lottery portion perhaps but I personally think that the administration should focus on gmaking healthcare more accessible not giving out free passes to dr's to mess up.

 

[nbcrusader]

Add into your equation the fact that YOU will be paying these awards. You want to increase awards based on the whim of a jury, be prepared for higher medical costs or more limited medical services.

 

[diamond]

ok fine..275,000.00

 

[V Nura]

Add into your equation the fact that YOU will be paying these awards. You want to increase awards based on the whim of a jury, be prepared for higher medical costs or more limited medical services.

it's part of the cost of medicine

it's a valid part of the medical cost structure..you just can't cut it out



rightful compensation of patients injured by physicians is important to the medical profession....



so you want a quak you was able to get insurance because of a artifciialy lowered rates after 3 malpractice suits operating on you?????

 

[diamond]

Arun-
There is no limit on punitive damages there is "unspecified cap " on punitive awards.
So the victims will not be handed 1 check for 250,000.00 and told to keep quiet.
That said, Pres Bush is more on the side of Physicians.
He is concern with the rising cost of Malpractice insurance due to greedy attorneys.
He hates greedy lawyers viewing them as oppurtuistic mooches.
Bush is a friend of Doctors, you should b pleased w that instead of looking for a oppurtunistic time to slam our beloved President.

Deep-
"a few poor court decisions"?
What planet our u living on?

NB-
U have the right idea.

DB9

 

[deep]

db.03 i like your new and improved sig

A hospital apologized for a laboratory mistake that resulted in the amputation of a healthy woman's breasts after she was mistakenly told she had an aggressive form of cancer.

She got an apolgy, so what's the big deal? It did not happen to you, your wife, your daughter so what's the big deal? Here is a little check, now go away you look creepy.



Mastectomy Patient Had No Cancer

From Associated Press

January 19 2003

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- A hospital apologized for a laboratory mistake that resulted in the amputation of a healthy woman's breasts after she was mistakenly told she had an aggressive form of cancer.

Dr. Daniel Foley, medical director of United Hospital, told KARE-TV that the St. Paul hospital had made changes so "this kind of mix-up would never happen again."

Linda McDougal, 46, said she was diagnosed with cancer in May after her doctor had a biopsy performed because a suspicious spot appeared on her mammogram. McDougal said she was told the cancer was so aggressive that a double mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation were necessary. In June, she had the surgery.

Two days later, she was recovering when her doctor visited. "She had bad news," McDougal said. "She didn't know how to tell us other than to just tell us, and immediately I thought I was dying, and she told me I didn't have cancer."

After finding no malignancy in the amputated breast tissue, McDougal said her doctor discovered a mistake in United's lab. Tissue from McDougal's biopsy was switched with tissue from another woman.

Foley said the woman who had the cancer has been contacted and treated. The pathologist at fault remains with United.

An attorney representing United's pathologists said the group's insurance company has paid McDougal's medical expenses and lost wages, and will continue to do so.

McDougal said she must undergo several reconstructive surgeries before she decides whether to sue.

 

[diamond]

Re: db.03 i like your new and improved sig

She got an apolgy, so what's the big deal? It did not happen to you, your wife, your daughter so what's the big deal? Here is a little check, now go away you look creepy.



Mastectomy Patient Had No Cancer

From Associated Press

January 19 2003

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- A hospital apologized for a laboratory mistake that resulted in the amputation of a healthy woman's breasts after she was mistakenly told she had an aggressive form of cancer.

Dr. Daniel Foley, medical director of United Hospital, told KARE-TV that the St. Paul hospital had made changes so "this kind of mix-up would never happen again."

Linda McDougal, 46, said she was diagnosed with cancer in May after her doctor had a biopsy performed because a suspicious spot appeared on her mammogram. McDougal said she was told the cancer was so aggressive that a double mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation were necessary. In June, she had the surgery.


McDougal said she must undergo several reconstructive surgeries before she decides whether to sue.

so she can sue for punitive damages.
until Bush puts a cap on that u have nothing to bitch about.

get some new material.

db9