Skip to main content

Folks, as you know, in Bush's State of the Union Address to the Nation, he mentioned doing away with mal-practice suits. How do you feel about this or have you given it much thought? Many times I have mentioned about the issues that at the present may not be affecting us. And then we put something into law and find ourself in a situation where the issue does affect us. What would be accomplished by doing away with the mal-practice suits? You are probably thinking that health care costs will go down because the doctors insurance that he's paying for mal-practice, he can afford to cuts prices on doctors visits.


I understand the doctors, hospitals, health care workers business, having to walk the thin line, fearing law suits. Let's say, you or a loved one was scheduled for surgery at some hospital, any town USA, for a gallbladder operation. Now, the gallbladder operation nowadays is considered a minor surgical procedure, but I have know people to die from it. You or the loved one comes out of surgery with a staph infection due to a surgical tool not being cleaned good, maybe the housekeeping department didn't clean the room good, and so forth. In some cases, the staph infection can clear up with antibiotics. In other cases, it does not clear up. So, you or your loved one dies and in most cases, the hospital is going to cover their butt in documentation and try to make it look like this patient had this infection prior to the surgery. You've got to remember, hospitals have registered nurses to constantly go through charts to correct mistakes. And then they have a doctor over the quality management who reviews the charts, not in the patients behalf but in the behalf of the hospital. This doctor knows the rules and knows what can and cannot get them sued. Now, lets say you or your loved one died and the family somehow found out that the patient died from a staph infection. How much investigation would you do, if any, and would you sue, if you thought it was the hospital or doctor or medical staff's fault?

Now, if Bush gets his way, you are going to relieve any fault of the doctor, the hospital, the medical staff of the responsibility they once had.

Remember, doctors, nurses, housekeeping, the lab, dietary department, x-ray staff, the entire hospital has something to do with you as a patient. So, keep in mind that the people that are taking care of you are human, dealing with tools and anything could go wrong because of human error, or a breakdown in a machine. It could cost you your life or cause damage for life.

Thinking points. What if central supply failed to clean a certain surgical tool real good that got used on you.
Then you would be subject to a staph infection. So many people hate OSHA but OSHA keeps these medical facilities on their toes. If you waiver law suits to such medical facilities, you have waivered your rights. Because if you're a doctor, medical facility, you are going to be a little bit more careful and be on your toes because you know you can be sued

As I have said, I know the doctors and the medical facilities have to watch out for those types that are just looking for banana peels. These are the types that I guess if you want to put the blame on anybody, these would be the types. I think the innocent people that are not looking for banana peels and just for good clean health care, should have some type of leg to stand on and be able to sue a medical facility if the medical facility is at fault or medical mal-practice. And remember, staph is in all medical facilities.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Let's talk about who we are really dealing with here. It's not the Doctors or Hospitals, or drug companies, medical suppliers et al. It IS the American Trial Lawyers Association. You know, those folks who will sue an incontinent for wetting themselves. They are the real reason medical insurance rates sky rocket or are unavailable to many decent docs.
Why don't you try some facts before climbing on your charger and rabble rousing yet one more time. Yes, Yes we all know those rich Drs are right wing Republicans and all their victims are liberals. We all have a right to be wrong but not about the facts.
No, I don't think malpractice suits should be eleminated.
I do think there should be some sort of on-line clearing house where hospitals and doctors could be "rated" based on their past mistakes, allowing you to shop .

As far as the trial lawyers are concerned, don'
t forget that a trial requires a jury . I sat on a civil trial jury years ago, and found an entitlement mentality amongst many on the jury I was on. That may be the real problem. If a jury is told all the facts (and they aren't) and if they are really fair (not with a entitlement mentality) then the trial lawyers are not the problem.
Point is: don't skip jury duty next time you are called.
I say do away with lawsuits for monetary values attached. Put some a more strict punishment as the sentence. With the egos of our local drs,,can you see any of them dealing with being ordered to do no surgery for,,oh say a year, or the general practice doc having to do free public clinic work for 3 or 4 days a week for a year, if found guilty of a malpractice incident.
quote:
Originally posted by Quarrles:
Let's talk about who we are really dealing with here. It's not the Doctors or Hospitals, or drug companies, medical suppliers et al. It IS the American Trial Lawyers Association. You know, those folks who will sue an incontinent for wetting themselves. They are the real reason medical insurance rates sky rocket or are unavailable to many decent docs.
Why don't you try some facts before climbing on your charger and rabble rousing yet one more time. Yes, Yes we all know those rich Drs are right wing Republicans and all their victims are liberals. We all have a right to be wrong but not about the facts.


Sorry, but I disagree,
This is just more ripping - off of the people in favor of corporations and the wealthy. It won't cut down on costs all that much and the only way to hold a doctor or anyone responsible and insure they perform their best is to know they can be held accountable for their actions and mistakes and be sued.

Most of health care profits go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies CEO's shareholders. Other costs are eaten up in clerical work and see how they have the system now, you need to stay within your group doctors and hospitals they chose and such. All tests in this group have to be approved by some bureaucrat who's job is to save the corporation money. They actually get bonuses for how much they save. Which means how many tests and things they deny.

We spend the most on health care and rank in the teens or lower in quality. We have some of the finest doctors in the world but only the wealthy can afford them.


This sytem is a boom for insurance and pharmaceutical companies as well as doctors, who's numbers are limited so to guaranteed a high income. We need people to get into the health field because they want to help people, not cause they want to make a lot of money. It's a conflict of interest.

They already limit amounts in some states and it's a horror. Lose a leg and get ex amount of dollars. The American people are being ripped off so bad it's pathetic.

The corporate media continues to act as PR for the government and corporations. What nonsense.
The State of the Union address in which I listened did not mention the elimination of Medical Malpractice suits. What I heard the President state was for Congress to pass Malpractice Reform where the system that has had an impact on the cost of health care (there are many other reasons for soaring costs) could be remedied. One of the larger issues such reform proposals have included in the past has been "caps on economic damages". This does not change the ability to seek punitive damages (designed to punish the offense), it simply provides a reasonable approach to determine a "dollar amount" for the hard to measure results of a bad medical outcome, such as "pain and suffering". These are the "economic damages" that play to the sensibilities of a jury and places them with the burden of determining the often undeterminable. One last comment, very rarely do you have a physician or other healthcare provider whom deliberately, or with intent, sets out to hurt a patient. Let's not forget that Medicine is a science and sometimes problems occur. It is not an exact science and we all must embrace the idea that one day, we will all die. Medical errors occur and their results are sometimes fatal. True, errors occur in all sectors of life/business/fill in the blank. The difference is the object/person to whom the error occured.
quote:
Originally posted by ASSAexec:
The State of the Union address in which I listened did not mention the elimination of Medical Malpractice suits. What I heard the President state was for Congress to pass Malpractice Reform where the system that has had an impact on the cost of health care (there are many other reasons for soaring costs) could be remedied. One of the larger issues such reform proposals have included in the past has been "caps on economic damages". This does not change the ability to seek punitive damages (designed to punish the offense), it simply provides a reasonable approach to determine a "dollar amount" for the hard to measure results of a bad medical outcome, such as "pain and suffering". These are the "economic damages" that play to the sensibilities of a jury and places them with the burden of determining the often undeterminable. One last comment, very rarely do you have a physician or other healthcare provider whom deliberately, or with intent, sets out to hurt a patient. Let's not forget that Medicine is a science and sometimes problems occur. It is not an exact science and we all must embrace the idea that one day, we will all die. Medical errors occur and their results are sometimes fatal. True, errors occur in all sectors of life/business/fill in the blank. The difference is the object/person to whom the error occured.


I agree with your post. Thank you for stating this so well.
quote:
Originally posted by ASSAexec:
The State of the Union address in which I listened did not mention the elimination of Medical Malpractice suits. What I heard the President state was for Congress to pass Malpractice Reform where the system that has had an impact on the cost of health care (there are many other reasons for soaring costs) could be remedied. One of the larger issues such reform proposals have included in the past has been "caps on economic damages". This does not change the ability to seek punitive damages (designed to punish the offense), it simply provides a reasonable approach to determine a "dollar amount" for the hard to measure results of a bad medical outcome, such as "pain and suffering". These are the "economic damages" that play to the sensibilities of a jury and places them with the burden of determining the often undeterminable. One last comment, very rarely do you have a physician or other healthcare provider whom deliberately, or with intent, sets out to hurt a patient. Let's not forget that Medicine is a science and sometimes problems occur. It is not an exact science and we all must embrace the idea that one day, we will all die. Medical errors occur and their results are sometimes fatal. True, errors occur in all sectors of life/business/fill in the blank. The difference is the object/person to whom the error occured.




Ralph Nader has taken on this issue and did his homework on settlements and profits by insurance companies and the Pharmaceutical industry. They are way up and Health Care is one of the big money makers in the Stock Market.
The idea that huge settlements are the reason we have high cost in health care is a lie put out by the industry and spread by the corporate media. They are lying.

I am sure where you have read that it will cost $1.00 to make a pill then they sell it for $50.00, and that's not uncommon. Their spin is they use the money for research but they don't. There are good books out on it also. I have read reviews and interviews in the progressive press and WBAI radio, They spend huge sums on advertising and make big salaries and bonuses. That's why it's high. Universal Health Care is working in the Industrialized Nations and they have better care and lower costs. That's the bottom line. The Drug and insurance companies lie and the corporate media repeats it.

Malpractice occurs because of doctors and hospital mistakes and negligence. Some are constant abusers but the high price of insurance has generally run them out of business.
If someone runs over your child or hit you they didn't do it on purpose, but it may have been their fault due to negligence. What happened to all that right wing "personal responsibility?"

Insurance settlements are not driving up medical costs, most are reasonable and the reason we see big settlements is usually gross negligence and the doctor or hospital trying to cover up or stonewall, or they are repeat offenders, which generally angers the jury.
Most are fair.
And most people don't sue. The biggest factor in deciding why they sue is the doctor's attidute and care. If the patient felt it was genuine mistake and liked the doctor they usually don't sue or accept small amounts. There are exceptions but that's the general rule.'

There are also articles about what a failure is for the patient with caps. Their lives are sometimes ruined as crippled or somethin else and they receives maybe $50,000 and that's it. They are not happy with it.
Please review your reply, and in areas where you have cited "books, articles, studies or whatever" make a note. Then, please provide those "cites" to the rest of us so that we can be as illuminated and educated on the issue. When you speak to an issue with such confidence, it would be helpful if those bold proclamations were supported. If you are simply wanting to argue, I will not engage in a confrontation of my opinion vs. yours b/c we are all entitled to our own beliefs. If you wish to make your point and persuade others to support your views, provide backing for your countless examples of what you have read/heard/seen.
quote:
Originally posted by ASSAexec:
Please review your reply, and in areas where you have cited "books, articles, studies or whatever" make a note. Then, please provide those "cites" to the rest of us so that we can be as illuminated and educated on the issue. When you speak to an issue with such confidence, it would be helpful if those bold proclamations were supported. If you are simply wanting to argue, I will not engage in a confrontation of my opinion vs. yours b/c we are all entitled to our own beliefs. If you wish to make your point and persuade others to support your views, provide backing for your countless examples of what you have read/heard/seen.



If you are simply wanting to argue? Who said anything about an arguement? I put my view down just like you did, no, it would not be worth my time or yours to argue. we will think what we want anyway.So many people fall for lies and propaganda from the media and will not check out anything.you said make your point and persuade others. I made my point and its not up to me to persuade others.If others are interested then they will persuade themselfs.

I can't do your research for you, you must do your own.I told you Ralph Nader has taken on this issue and did his homework on settlements and profits by insurance companies and the Pharmaceutical industry. But,you may not care for Ralph Nader or the radio station I told you about. So,this is why you must do your own research. The infor is all out there.
I was certainly not asking for you to provide me with research. I only thought it would be interesting to read where Universal healthcare in the Industrialized Nations have better care and lower costs than we do.
You stated: "So many people fall for lies and propaganda from the media and will not check out anything". I was simply trying to see if you could direct me to the articles/books you have read so that not only will I not accept as fact what the media proclaims (the warning you provide), but also what you write which to me seems to be as misguided. But then again, I should have known what I was getting into when your responding to your opening post which stated that the President wanted to eliminate Malpractice suits.
quote:
Originally posted by ASSAexec:
I was certainly not asking for you to provide me with research. I only thought it would be interesting to read where Universal healthcare in the Industrialized Nations have better care and lower costs than we do.
You stated: "So many people fall for lies and propaganda from the media and will not check out anything". I was simply trying to see if you could direct me to the articles/books you have read so that not only will I not accept as fact what the media proclaims (the warning you provide), but also what you write which to me seems to be as misguided. But then again, I should have known what I was getting into when your responding to your opening post which stated that the President wanted to eliminate Malpractice suits.


ok, check this out read it and tell me if you agree.



This is just what we are discussing on Health Care, Profts, CEO saleries, Malpractice Suits, etc.

TomPaine.com - Bush's Health Care Conspiracy

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/24/bushs_health_care_conspiracy.php

Bush's Health Care Conspiracy

Marilyn Clement
January 24, 2007

Marilyn Clement is the national coordinator of Healthcare-NOW
.
As I thought about the president’s speech Tuesday night, I imagined his handlers sitting together joking conspiratorially about how to twist the issues and help the president’s plummeting popularity. How could his handlers sneak through more support for his primary agenda, and that of right-wing fiscal conservatives, to decrease entitlements to Social Security and Medicare and transfer more of the people’s tax money into Wall Street—while couching this scheme in the language of “health care for all?”

I thought of them saying to each other, “Wow, now that the voters have made clear that a universal health care system is their number one domestic priority—why don’t we grab that issue from the Democrats? Since the Democratic Congress hasn’t gotten the message and isn’t really creating a new health care system, let’s make it work for us!”

The president got it. One obvious thing he realized was that the American people want a national health care system for themselves and their children as much as they want our troops out of the killing fields of Iraq. So he offered several unworkable and ridiculous suggestions: relief from payroll taxes and a tax credit to the uninsured. What is he thinking? That the uninsured have big salaries and are seeking some kind of tax shelter?

His proposed $15,000 income tax deduction for middle-class families would jeopardize both Medicare and Social Security while not providing enough money to purchase real health insurance, projected to cost $16,500 for a family of four by the year 2009. And employers would be encouraged to bail out of the health care system even faster than they are today.

His plan for fixing the health care system is more of the same—more big bucks for the insurance companies. He believes that government has a responsibility for the children, the elderly and the disabled—but for everybody else, “private insurance is the best.” Then he offers several plans to provide more billions of federal dollars to the private insurers who have driven the cost of the health care system up 73 percent since 2000.

I guess he means the private insurance companies that use up 31 percent of every health care dollar for their own CEOs’ salaries, payments to lobbyists, media campaigns and the multiple bureaucratic costs of thousands of insurance companies rather than a single payer such as Medicare. Those same private insurance companies provide no health care to anyone in this country. (Well, maybe they provide health care for their own employees, who number in the tens of thousands.)

He must mean those same private insurance companies whose highest-paid CEO (at United Health) gets $122.7 million dollars a year—enough to cover the health care costs of roughly 34,000 American citizens.

The president also gave a big plug for the idea of so-called federal/state partnerships. He said he will be urging the provision of federal funds to the states so that the poor and the sick can be covered to purchase insurance—with an “affordable choice.” More money for these same insurance companies! In every one of these instances, the president is talking about reckless additional spending for health care “insurance”—not a net savings such as that which we would get from a single-payer system. That’s why his highly applauded promise to balance the budget rings false—and cold-hearted.

Of course, he wants expanded money to help develop health savings accounts that help the very rich. It’s yet another tax break for them, since they can earn interest on all the money they save and continue to have their health care benefits provided from their employers—or they may even be the employers. Small business health pools, supplemented by government, for small businesses is another recycled idea. Both of these plans would provide yet more of our federal dollars to the insurance companies.
Other ideas, like new money for medical technology to decrease medical errors, sound like a good plan.

But “junk lawsuits?” Give me a break! This whole line of argument has been fully discredited by the facts. Only about four-tenths of a percent of medical malpractice lawsuits succeed in the courts. It is a big bugaboo to try to stop the common people from being able to bring lawsuits against the monied interests when we are injured. And guess who has been fueling the fire? It's the insurance companies, who convince the doctors that they must spend millions of dollars by purchasing insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits.

A single-payer system would end a lot of the problems of medical mistakes and malpractice because the medical costs of the miniscule numbers of suits that win in the courts would be covered in a universal system that would cover all health care costs for an injured person for the rest of her/his life.

So the president and the other administration ideologues hammered together a cruel package that would continue to send billions to “market-place” solutions rather than providing a less expensive, high-quality health care system for everybody in the country, a system more like those enjoyed by the 37 advanced nations of the world who have a better health care system than ours.

Let’s hope the Democratic Congress gets the message. The voters did indeed vote for a national response to the health care crisis. They desperately need it. The Democrats must get over the chilling effect of the Newt Gingrich attack that left them trembling in their boots.

So much has changed, and the American people have made it clear through the polls and through their votes that they expect their new leaders to lead.
Effects of medical error disclosure & apology
By Christopher Guadagnino, Ph.D.

Published February 2005

React to this article in the Discussion Forum.
Albert Wu, M.D., MPH, is Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management with a joint appointment in epidemiology and medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

PND: What research have you done on medical mistakes?

AW: For a study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1991, we asked interns and residents in three of the top internal medicine programs in the country to report to us the worst mistake that they had made in caring of patients, what happened to the patient, what happened to them, what they did, how they were treated by the institution and what happened subsequently. Virtually everyone who responded reported a significant error, most of which harmed patients, yet only half told their attending physician and less than a quarter told the patient or the family. In 1997 we published an analysis in the Journal of Internal Medicine on ethical and practical considerations in disclosing mistakes. We came down very strongly with the position that physicians are obligated to disclose errors that harm patients to patients and/or their families, largely because the patient stands to benefit from it. While there are potentially some risks or downsides for the physician, the doctor-patient relationship can also, paradoxically, improve sometimes with these discussions. We are currently conducting work on disclosure of medical errors. We are interested in the question of what is the best way for a physician, hospital or other health care worker to tell patients or families about incidents that harm them. We have developed a series of vignettes which describe real cases where patients were harmed and in which a doctor is disclosing to a patient what happened. One involves an overlooked mammogram, another a chemotherapy overdose, a third is of a physician who is slow to answer pages about a hospitalized patient and as a result the patientcondition deteriorates. We are showing these vignettes to people who volunteer to view them and we’re asking them if they trust the physician, what their impressions are of the physician, and also if they would sue. We are just now getting the results of that study, but our hypothesis is that a full apology and acknowledgement of responsibility will be received better by patients and families.


http://www.physiciansnews.com/spotlight/205.html
Thanks for sharing. You and I are "worlds apart" philosophically, but I appreciate the dialogue.

A Universal health care system approach might just be the catalyst that will allow physicians across the Country to cease providing care to Medicare/Medicaid/Private Pay. How? By combining all of these, none of which pay 100% of covered charges, the mandate will be for physicians to sign up for the new universal healthcare system administered by the Federal Government (how is that for efficiency?). My guess is that most will not sign onto the program and instead will revert back to the system we had in place prior to 1965 (When LBJ et.al. created Medicare/Medicaid). This system will be on a cash basis, and maybe some jars of Mrs. Smiths canned green beans. Who knows?
Not so fast my friend. I listened to the President's state of the union and I did not hear him say anything about universal healthcare. What he did say was that he wanted to change the tax code so that health care would be accessible to everyone. Even the Repubs do not like the plan, I'm told, b/c the devil is in the details. The MO is to provide a tax credit, but also require those who take the credit to claim the $ that is paid for their insurance on the net income. What is the effect of this? That you would have to add the additional $ to your taxes, which will place you in a higher tax bracket. So there are trade offs and the pain is to be spread around. Probably not going to work. For this liberal women to state that GWB stole a page from the Dem playbook is laughable at best. And I remind you that Universal Health care means that you have one payer, Uncle Sam. B/c if you thing about it, we currently have a system in place for healthcare for everyone who chooses to have it. Medicare for the elderaly and disabled, Medicaid for the impoverished and private pay for those who can afford it. Who is left out? Those who chose not to pay for it, yet I bet you will see them buying a pack of cigs or an ice cream cone at Brusters. Let's face it, these people have too much sense of entitlement and simply want someone else to pay for it. I tend to agree with the PRes, though I am no fan of many of his policies, and that is "let the decisions be made by those who have the biggest stake in healthcare, the doctors and the patients, and not be determined by the insurance companies and uncle sam. One last comment, if my memory serves me well, the healthcare initiatives providing access to all are being led on a state wide basis by such Republican leaders as former Mass gov Mitt Romney and now by the Governator himself. Access to health care is worrisome, but we do have the best healthcare in the world, just ask the Canadians who have Universal HC.

This discussion was not about medical errors and mistakes. Those happen indeed. The Pres. does not want to eliminate redress through the courts, he simply wants to provide parameters to a system that can be out of hand when it comes to the cost added b/c of litigation. Can't blame him for that
PBA do you ever read any of this stuff you post? Most of which has little or no connection at all to the thread, just more BLA,BLA,BLA.
You told me that you saw that I was in favor of large corporations, DUUUH! Would you agree that the largest, and most inefficient of all corporations is the Federal Government? But that is what you are advocating time and time again. Try an occaisonal ORIGINAL THOUGHT, just once.
I don't mind at all letting you walk around wrong but it's embarassing sometimes.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×