Medical Malpractice and "Tort Reform" in letters exchange in NY TIMES.

[Eric J in MN]

The New York Times recently published an exchange between a former president of the American Medical Association, and a former president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

The former AMA president writes that people injured by doctors should receive only limited compensation, because this will cause the doctors to have lower insurance bills than they would otherwise.

The former ATLA president responds that it is the greed of insurance companies which is causing doctors' insurance bills to rise, and "taking away the legal rights of America's families and penalizing the most seriously injured victims of malpractice cannot be the answer."

READ MORE AT MOVELEFT.COM:

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_07_12_medical_malpractice_and_tort_reform.asp

[Eric J in MN]

1. kick

kick

[Eric J in MN]

2. kick

kick

[Eric J in MN]

3. kick

kick

[TeacherCreature]

4. This is a very important distinction for American people to Understand

I wonder if Howard Dean, who would have credibility because he and his wife are both doctors, could address this in some kind of national debate.
My doctor knows the truth about this issue, why are the majority of americans so clueless?

[Eric J in MN]

8. I'd like to hear Howard Dean speak more on this subject, too.

This is the conclusion of my essay at moveleft.com:

Want to lower insurance rates?

Break up big medical insurance companies, enforce anti-trust laws, and increase competition.

Don't take away the right of injured people to achieve justice.

[TeacherCreature]

5. This is a very important distinction for American people to Understand

I wonder if Howard Dean, who would have credibility because he and his wife are both doctors, could address this in some kind of national debate.
My doctor knows the truth about this issue, why are the majority of americans so clueless?

[gratuitous]

6. It's a lot of nonsense

Let's see, we've got a system where the AMA doesn't adequately police its own. People are maimed, injured and killed yearly by doctors' negligence and incompetence, yet only a small percentage ever contact a lawyer.

Working in a law office that does a little bit of medical malpractice, I can say that we investigate less than 10% of the inquiries we receive, and actually take on a very small percentage of those cases. We decline a vast majority of inquiries because of statute of limitations problems, lack of proof of negligence, minimal damages, hard-to-prove damages, lack of qualified medical experts to testify against their professional colleagues, and any number of other reasons.

When we take on a case, the malpractice has to be blatant, the damages grievous, and liability clear. It costs our firm a minimum of $25,000, and up to $100,000 to investigate a case, hire experts, conduct depositions -- and that doesn't account for one minute of attorney and staff time. Those outlays aren't paid back until and unless we actually win the case for our client, and according to the tax laws are a taxable "receivable" that may not be paid back for years. Maybe ever.

Meanwhile, the doctor keeps practicing and making money. The hospital continues its shoddy practices because "no one's sued us about it (yet)", and the insurance company sets aside a loss reserve to cover any potential liability, taking a deduction and earning interest on the reserve. Our client the patient, of course, continues to live with whatever damage was inflicted on him or her for years at a time, and may never receive any compensation whatsoever.

And the lawmakers' solution to this problem is . . . to limit the recovery that the wronged party can receive. Yeah, there's a creative solution! That'll certainly do away with those pesky lawsuits, but it doesn't address the underlying problem in any way, and indeed encourages it to continue and grow. Think a doctor is a negligent, incompetent butcher? Actually know that it's true? If you can't prove it in a court of law, who's going to take it seriously?

[Eric J in MN]

9. gratuitous - can you please re-post that at moveleft.com?

The post-comments button is on the bottom the webpage:

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_07_12_medical_malpractice_and_tort_reform.asp

[gratuitous]

11. EricJ

Feel free to copy-and-paste anything you see me post. If it makes good sense, file off the serial numbers and claim it as your own!

Some day I may require compensation or recognition for my deathless pronouncements, but that day isn't today.

[Eric J in MN]

12. ok, I just copied and pasted it to the Comments at MOVELEFT.COM

..for that article.

[AP]

10. Doctors don't have the bargaining power to go up against huge insurance

companies.

Doctors need to start identifying with labor rather than capital.

Also, if victims don't get full compensated for their injuries, taxpayers (rather than private insurance companies) will be the ultimate source of financial help for the victims when they end up going on welfare or medicare/aid. Ie, taxpayers will subsidize the profits of insurance companies.

[AP]

7. Just like corporations look at excess cash lying around in the pockets of

consumers and then figure out ways to suction it into their bank accounts, insurance companies see doctors as people with a lot of money lying around and try to suction it into their pockets.

[Eric J in MN]

13. But instead of criticizing the insurance companies, the AMA ...

...blames injured patients.

[Eric J in MN]

14. kick

kick

[salin]

15. kick