Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only people who will be hurt by Tort reform are lawyers. Lawsuits impose an enormous cost on health care. The direct cost of paying lawsuits and settlements is just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the costs come from the unnecessary tests and procedures that doctors have to do to protect themselves in lawsuits.
Arbitration panels could do all the good that lawsuits do and eliminate all the bad. Whenever you hear an advocacy group made up to disguise that it is a lawyers' front group say how bad some reform is for patients, hold on to your wallet. They are looking out for themselves and themselves only.
What people refuse to accept is that for us to be a decent country, everyone would have to give up a little somewhere to gain something else in the big picture.
I support UHC. I also support the right of people to sue when a doctor screws up. I understand that means you may only be able to sue for $100,000 when a doctor leaves a sponge in you and you have to get it removed as opposed to $2 million.
Doctors would have to understand that the lower malpractice insurance costs will have to go 100% to lower costs. Will anyone present something as simple as this?
What people refuse to accept is that for us to be a decent country, everyone would have to give up a little somewhere to gain something else in the big picture.
I support UHC. I also support the right of people to sue when a doctor screws up. I understand that means you may only be able to sue for $100,000 when a doctor leaves a sponge in you and you have to get it removed as opposed to $2 million.
Doctors would have to understand that the lower malpractice insurance costs will have to go 100% to lower costs. Will anyone present something as simple as this?
Not likely.
Why, how big of you. The doctors pay the same amount, but instead of paying it to their malpractice, it goes instead to funding healthcare. And then they're supposed to be like "oooo, thank you, this was the best compromise ever!"
We don't have to re-invent the wheel each time healthcare comes into focus.
We get to borrow the good ideas of others.
I'd borrow them from others if they had healthcare that was as good as ours. P.S. To the extent that other countries have even close healthcare to ours, it's always because they have physicians who were trained here and follow protocols developed here.
What people refuse to accept is that for us to be a decent country, everyone would have to give up a little somewhere to gain something else in the big picture.
I support UHC. I also support the right of people to sue when a doctor screws up. I understand that means you may only be able to sue for $100,000 when a doctor leaves a sponge in you and you have to get it removed as opposed to $2 million.
How about if a doctor screws up badly and someone dies due to the doctors screw up and the doctor didn't follow proper procedures. Let's say it's a 30 year old high paid attorney that died, with 3 small kids and a stay-at-home spouse. That attorney made $300,00 a year. Lifetime earnings are gone for the family that is now fatherless. Should the family get $100,000?
I'd borrow them from others if they had healthcare that was as good as ours. P.S. To the extent that other countries have even close healthcare to ours, it's always because they have physicians who were trained here and follow protocols developed here.
You are profoundly ill informed.
Studies have shown that:
On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. The U.S. had the lowest life expectancy at birth of the countries studied, at 78.8 years in 2013, compared with the OECD median of 81.2 years. Additionally, the U.S. had the highest infant mortality rate among the countries studied, at 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2011; the rate in the OECD median country was 3.5 death
High U.S. health care spending per person, greater use of medical technology (MRI - and higher cost for those scans), high health care prices generally.
U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes.
The U.S. had fewer practicing physicians in 2013 than in the median OECD country (2.6 versus 3.2 physicians per 1,000 population).
Americans also had fewer physician visits than the OECD median (6.5 visits).
In the U.S., there were also fewer hospital beds and fewer discharges per capita than in the median OECD country.
Americans were top consumers of prescription drugs (and those drugs cost a lot more that other countries).
Poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad.
This report can't really say why spending more on social services correlates to better health outcomes.
I could rebut your entire post, but just for you I will cut to the chase. Nobody cares what "studies show." Liberals say that Cuba has the best healthcare in the Western Hemisphere but I don't see them going to Cuba for their medical care. When they do, I'll read their studies.
Why, how big of you. The doctors pay the same amount, but instead of paying it to their malpractice, it goes instead to funding healthcare. And then they're supposed to be like "oooo, thank you, this was the best compromise ever!"
Yes, close. They will also be guaranteed to be paid for their services as opposed to selling off bad debts for 10%. Think a little. Understand that none of us are writing complete policies in our replies.
How about if a doctor screws up badly and someone dies due to the doctors screw up and the doctor didn't follow proper procedures.
He should be criminally charged.
Quote:
Let's say it's a 30 year old high paid attorney that died, with 3 small kids and a stay-at-home spouse. That attorney made $300,00 a year. Lifetime earnings are gone for the family that is now fatherless. Should the family get $100,000?
An attorney in that position will have a nice life insurance policy or will need to take one out. Everyone is going to have to give something up to get something.
How about if a doctor screws up badly and someone dies due to the doctors screw up and the doctor didn't follow proper procedures. Let's say it's a 30 year old high paid attorney that died, with 3 small kids and a stay-at-home spouse. That attorney made $300,00 a year. Lifetime earnings are gone for the family that is now fatherless. Should the family get $100,000?
Interesting point, but if I then said to you, "what if it was a homeless bum who did nothing," why should he get EVEN $100,000? Also, most lawsuits in this country are frivolous and are designed merely to force plaintiffs to settle out of court to avoid the higher burden of wasting everyone's time. Lastly, everyone loves to pretend that everything in this world is worth a minimum of $10 million. It's like how Erin Andrews and Hulk Hogan got $6 bazillion dollars for being seen naked. Nobody is for invasion of privacy and I'd be the first person to say press criminal charges, but anyone who wants to pretend that they should get $500 million dollars because a naked photo of them is available on the Internet is an idiot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
