pirana 0
Recommended Posts
pirana 0
QuoteI do say I have to agree with this post. In the military we learn combat first aid, where lawyers are not involved. After going through this course many times, I have seen the diffrence in medical practices between combat first aid and how the hospitals work.
In a typical state-side response, the doctors have to treat the lawyers first. This means a whole lot of unnecessary procedures like a neck brace, etc, when none is called for.
Any medical bill that goes through is a complete waste of time unless it includes 2 key issues:
1. Tort reform
2. The doctor shortage
Since tort reform might put a few lawyers out of business, figure the odds of that happening. Unnecessary procedures and medical malpractice insurance are killing our heath system. Also think about the cost savings of not paying doctors over time and double time.
It's really depressing to think of it in those terms; because good luck getting lawyers to pass tort reform, and good luck getting the AMA to loosen it's stranglehold on the supply of docs.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
QuoteQuoteI am fully in favor of tort reform.
(And so am I).
Me too.
And me.
But when the majority of people that write the laws are lawyers, how do you really think that's going to happen?
The "lawsuit" industry needs reform, but if you thought the insurance companies could lie, wait until you hear what the lawyers come up with.
Easy. Hire a lawyer to write your damned laws.
The problem is not "lawyers." The problem is the Trial Lawyers (admittedly, I'm a trial lawyer). Like it or not, they are pretty firmly entrenched in D.C. And, further, are pretty firmily entrenched with the party now-in-charge. For example, see "John Edwards."
Of the trial lawyers, the Plaintiffs' bar is easily the more powerful. Particularly, the American Association for Justice (Formerly the "Association of Trial Lawyers of America" - name changed in 2006).
These are BIG MONEY organizations. They donate a lot. And, since legislators are all too frquently lawyers, there is some sympathy. Congress (and state legislators) are often adding new ways to sue. And getting benefits (there's a new tax break being pushed through - $1.6 billion tax break for lawyers who work on contingency so they don't get taxed on the costs forwarded, fees forwarded, etc.)
And so there is a lot of legislation pending and passed that can benefit the Plaintiffs' Bar (and, incidentally, the defense bar, who usually has no problem having corporations on retainer). Some of these seek to abolish arbitration in some circumstances (like the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would prohibit enforceability of arbitration provisions in employment and franchise agreements.) Arbitration is speedy and cheap - not a lot of money to be made in it.
Other provisions seek to abolish federal pre-emption of a number of laws, which means that each state may have its own regulations and companies will have to know the laws of all 50 states or get sued.
Note - there is even HR 1478 - this would broaden medical malpractice liability for servicemen being treated.
Medical malpractice reform is not even on the table.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
The problem is not "lawyers." The problem is the Trial Lawyers (admittedly, I'm a trial lawyer).
...
Arbitration is speedy and cheap - not a lot of money to be made in it.
...
Medical malpractice reform is not even on the table.
The problem is a lot more than that. When doctors and hospitals are killing more people by accident than guns and cars, and hurting others, why shouldn't malpractice be there?
Binding arbitration is cheap, but it definitely favors those who spend all their time involved in it. Arbitrators who don't play don't get hired.
jgoose71 0
Quote
Medical malpractice reform is not even on the table.
This is one of the reasons why medical is so expensive here is the US. How much does Medical Malpractice insurance and lawsuits cost the medical field each year? I believe I've heard numbers up to $500 Billion.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote
Medical malpractice reform is not even on the table.
This is one of the reasons why medical is so expensive here is the US. How much does Medical Malpractice insurance and lawsuits cost the medical field each year? I believe I've heard numbers up to $500 Billion.
Clearly the priorities are wrong.
'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteWhen doctors and hospitals are killing more people by accident than guns and cars, and hurting others, why shouldn't malpractice be there?
It should - when negligence is the issue. I don't know if you are aware, but a heart transplant requires killing someone with hopes of bringing the person back.
A doctor can kill someone and do nothing wrong. $100k later he/she can prove it. That's the problem.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
Clearly the priorities are wrong.
'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'
Nice thought, John. Very pleasant.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
pirana 0
QuoteThe problem is a lot more than that. When doctors and hospitals are killing more people by accident than guns and cars, and hurting others, why shouldn't malpractice be there?
Binding arbitration is cheap, but it definitely favors those who spend all their time involved in it. Arbitrators who don't play don't get hired.
Wrong. 37K and change for vehicular fatalities in 2008. Nearly half related to alcohol. So even in just looking at deaths caused by vehicle/alcohol combination , it's almost as many as the number "doctors and hospitals are killing."
Not to mention that doctors and hospitals save lives, many many more times than are not saved. Doubt if many drunk drivers have saved lives.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
quade 4
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote
Clearly the priorities are wrong.
'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'
Nice thought, John. Very pleasant.
Sorry, I can't claim originality:
Henry VI (Part 2) Act IV Scene II
CADE
I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
CADE
Nay, that I mean to do.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteThe problem is a lot more than that. When doctors and hospitals are killing more people by accident than guns and cars, and hurting others, why shouldn't malpractice be there?
Binding arbitration is cheap, but it definitely favors those who spend all their time involved in it. Arbitrators who don't play don't get hired.
Wrong. 37K and change for vehicular fatalities in 2008. Nearly half related to alcohol. So even in just looking at deaths caused by vehicle/alcohol combination , it's almost as many as the number "doctors and hospitals are killing."
The estimates for hospital accident deaths is on the high side of 5 figures - 50-80k.
Yes, they have to deal with sick people, but they also insist on limiting the supply of doctors, overworking the ones they have, and using the poorest technology possible. Only lawyers are more resistant to progress. It's not surprising that mistakes are made, and people die as a result.
And it's no surprise they'd want arbitration which gives all the power to them, rather than a class action environment where the individual has a chance. If reform could be made to eliminate the crap but still retain people's rights, it would be great. But that's not how it's being played.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Clearly the priorities are wrong.
'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'
Nice thought, John. Very pleasant.
He was quoting The Bard.
I know.
I am a fan of Shakespeare and have been
Since I was in my early teenage years.
The reference to lawyers is well known
To even those who did not read his works.
There is a lot of debate about the phrase
Made by the criminal Dick the Butcher to Cade
His boss who sought to ascend to the English Crown
Who knew that lawyers would quickly interfere
For they were the protectors of the law.
The whole exchange was silly and jocose
But deadly serious for what they plan.
Lawyers often argue that the quote
Is complimentary for it infers
The role that lawyers have in orderly
Operation of society.
The peasants had deserved issues with
The high taxes and corruption that they faced.
Killing all the lawyers likely was
A goal of many rioters of Kent.
It's in the light of history
That Shakespeare who held with such great disdain
The practitioners of the legal art
Would go through life suing many
Often with little cause - if any.
Okay - without the iambic pentameter:
The quote was directed towards the goal of killing lawyers. I've got problems with goals of killing people.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteThe quote was directed towards the goal of killing lawyers. I've got problems with goals of killing people.
except if they can't afford health insurance
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
No. I do not advocate killing anybody (exception - I support the idea of the death penalty, but I do not support the way it is being handled in the US and would call for there to at least be a national moratorium on it.)
However, if people want to do themselves in, let them. It is fascinating to me. You link having a person actually pay for a service as a fate similar to death. Asking a person to pay for services or health insurance is, in your mind, killing that person.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
However, if people want to do themselves in, let them. It is fascinating to me. You link having a person actually pay for a service as a fate similar to death. Asking a person to pay for services or health insurance is, in your mind, killing that person.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Asking a person to pay for services or health insurance is, in your
>mind, killing that person.
Well, heck - to the anti-Obamaites, having an option for end-of-life counseling is having a "death board."
>mind, killing that person.
Well, heck - to the anti-Obamaites, having an option for end-of-life counseling is having a "death board."
mnealtx 0
Quote>Asking a person to pay for services or health insurance is, in your
>mind, killing that person.
Well, heck - to the anti-Obamaites, having an option for end-of-life counseling is having a "death board."
So, what would a government board responsible for putting people in hospice for end-of-life issues be?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote>Asking a person to pay for services or health insurance is, in your
>mind, killing that person.
Well, heck - to the anti-Obamaites, having an option for end-of-life counseling is having a "death board."
So, what would a government board responsible for putting people in hospice for end-of-life issues be?
I find this whole thing funny. I think as many do that the term "death board" is a bit overboard but tecnically correct. There is only one way to keep costs down (which a gov run program cant do anyway, it can only limit is over expenditures) and that is to limit treatements. All one need do is look at info coming from Canada even this week But I digress.....
My point is the left has used fear for years. (to some extent both sides have) The R's will force old people homes was a fav for years. Now tossed back at them they scream its not fair
Funny shit and enjoyable to see
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteThere is almost nothing more powerful than a good
propaganda, uh, Public Relations department.
Indeed...what was that billvon was saying about people preferring news stations that lie to them, again?
QuoteI mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs.
Oops!! (photo of the, shall we say, 'creatively edited' white person with a gun, attached)
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Of course they do. Who do you think the government contracts with to administer much of their programs today? Uncle Bob's Shoe Repair?!
Most of the work will remain to be done, regardless of what gets passed. Those that can't see the forest thru the trees will just have a new tune to whine.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites