unFreep this poll

[Czolgosz]

The WSJ has a poll looking to bolster Shrub's anti-patients' right agenda, and it's getting Freeped. Help unFreep it

http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&nav=messages&msg=3352

If that link does not work, try this one:

http://tinyurl.com/6ega8

[maveric]

1. Unfreeped. 58% NO.

[YNGW]

2. Thing is...

...if we ever have universal health-care here in the USA, not only will the gov't need to negotiate the prices for medical procedures and medication, but in order to keep malpractice insurance costs down for doctors the gov't will also need to cap awards for patients who have been injured by the negligence of doctors. I'd place the cap at $1 million.

[Czolgosz]

3. Thing is . . .

we don't have universal healthcare here in the USA. If you want to give up your rights in exchange for universal healthcare, I get in line right behind you, but you shouldn't give up your rights (and everyone else's) to increase the bottom line for insurance companies.

Caps DO NOT reduce insurance premiums. Never have. It's been tried many times. If the problem is too many questionable lawsuits, then you need to eliminate the questionable cases (which presumably can be resolved for less than the cap so the cap will be ineffective in addressing such a problem if it truly exists). Caps, on the other hand, applicable to all cases have a grossly disproportionate effect on the most tragic and most meritorious cases. Anyone who pretends to be addressing a problem with a radical remedy that that will not effectively correct the alleged problem while having a huge impact on issues only tangentially related to the problem is selling you something.

Caps do not help doctors; they help medical insurance companies.

Also, if healthcare is ever nationalized (not a bad idea), there will be a nearly complete governmental immunity defense which would not necessarily be a bad trade off for truly universal healthcare.

[YNGW]

4. My example pertained to...

... our health-care system should we have universal health-care. If the gov't is paying for health-care, then large awards will increase the doctors cost of doing business, which will increase the amount of money they will need to receive in order to cover their costs and make a living, which will increase the money that would be required from the tax base, and that's those of us who pay taxes. And maybe the gov't is the insurance provider, or if other companies like State Farm or Allstate provided insurance, then they can only charge what the gov't tells them they can charge. Either way, these large awards will break the system, increasing the costs of the doctors malpractice insurance which will, in the end, increase the amount of money required from the taxpayers to cover the higher malpractice insurance costs. I say no matter what happens to the patient as a result of a doctor's error, a $1 million reward to either the victim or their family is enough.

[YNGW]

6. Let me add...

The pharmaceutical companies are going to have to get over having the gov't tell them how much they can charge for medication, the doctors are going to have to get over having their prices set for procedures, and the trial lawyers are going to have to face up to the fact that they are out of the business of chasing large medical malpractice suits. That's how the cost will be kept down for everyone.

[Czolgosz]

7. Here's my concern. The right-wing agenda on this issue is no more

fact based than its agenda on the war or trickle-down tax policy. The truth is that truly large awards are extremely rare and do not contribute in any meaningful way to healthcare costs (not even one half of one percent). We are getting NOTHING for giving up our rights.

You say a million dollars should be enough. That's an awful slippery slope. Maybe we should be content with reproductive freedom during the first semester only: three months is enough. No. Maybe we should be content with the rollback of environmental regulations over the past 3 years: drinking water that's largely free of arsenic is good enough. No. Maybe we should have been content counting certain citizens as 3/5 of a person under the Constitution: 60% is enough. Hell no!

Does anyone with kids think a million dollars is a fair cap on damages when a drunk doctor cames into the e.r. and kills a child? How does the million dollar get divided? Does the mother get $500,000 and the father get $500,000? Wait. After attorney fees (say 40%) and expenses (say $300,000 for a medical malpractice case), I guess Mom gets $150,000 and Dad gets $150,000. What if Mom dies? Does Dad get $150,000 and the kid get $150,000? What if there are 5 kids? Does Dad and each kid get $50,000? Does it matter if the doctor was drunk? Does it matter if the doctor leaves the e.r. in the middle of the surgery to get some cash at the ATM? Does it matter if the doctor's negligence results in Mom's quadriplegia instead of her death? You're good with Mom and her family splitting up a million dollars when a drunk doctor leaves her a quadriplegic for her life expectancy of 40 years?

My point is a million dollars is too much in most case and its not enough in a very few cases but we don't have to have a one size fits all cap because that is what the jury is for: deciding these tough questions on a case by case basis.

Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine: "I consider trial by Jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

You are completely buying into one of the Republican lies (in fact, it's one of Karl Rove's favorite lies): the issue of caps is not a fight between doctors and lawyers (that's a fight the Republicans can win) -- it is really a fight between patients and insurance companies (which is a fight the Republicans cannot win so they have re-defined into a battle they can win). When you say that the lawyers are just going to have to give up their big fees you should say the patients are just going to have to give up their right of recovery. The lawyers can practice in some other area of the law besides medical malpractice but the negligently-injured patients have no recourse except medical malpractice (ask a working man if cutting lawyers out of the workers compensation practice -- as was done in most states during the '80s -- has benefitted anyone but the careless employers and their insurance companies). Giving away your rights because you have fallen for the right-wing lies that bias you against lawyers is just as stupid as refusing to join the union because you have been bombarded by the right-wing lies about organized labor.

[frylock]

5. done..

Should states limit pain and suffering awards in medical-malpractice suits?

Yes 2073 votes (42%)
No 2858 votes (58%)

4931 people have voted so far

Your vote was No on 11/30/2004 8:38 pm

[PassingFair]

8. If I was the boss of the world...

I would cap what portion of the award could go to the lawyers. High enough that PI attorneys would still take cases on, but low enough so the 'pukes wouldn't have an excuse to be outraged.

[Czolgosz]

10. If I was boss if the world, the government would regulate corporations

so we didn't need to rely on lawyers as an obstacle to corporate greed. If we had a decent welfare system, it wouldn't be so important that people who are permanently disabled get a lifetime's compensation for their injuries. If we had nationalized healthcare plus a decent welfare system, we wouldn't need medical malpractice insurance or medical malpractice lawyers. Until that day, I pray that we don't give our rights away to swell insurance executive pay packages.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. done.

Should states limit pain and suffering awards in medical-malpractice suits?




Yes
2110 votes (41%) No
3002 votes (59%)

5112 people have voted so far

Your vote was No on 11/30/2004 11:43 pm

[Czolgosz]

11. kick

[NoSheep]

12. Done

[Czolgosz]

13. thanks