Posted on 05/07/2003 1:08:40 PM PDT by Tribune7
To The Press: The medical malpractice crisis has reached epidemic proportions in Pennsylvania.
Medical care in our state is in desperate trouble.
(Excerpt) Read more at zwire.com ...
baseballmom this is your State Senator.
When its time for a hip replacement, see a lawyer. I'm sure he wouldn't be against suing God for a defective product. On the other hand, that would require a court to admit to His existence.
I don't think I'd vote for her but she's dead right on this issue.
The guy she replaced BTW was a pro-abort Republican and the woman she beat to win the seat was a pro-abort Republican lawyer. Gotta love the Main Line.
Go Rendell Republicans.
"Go away Rendell Republicans."
I would have probably voted for Tilghman in a general election and maybe voted against him in a primary.
Upon reflection, I think I would vote for Connie Williams over Lita Cohen.
I live in the 26th District BTW.
I certianly don't like lawyers.
Why are the lawyers the problem? They are just providing a service people want. Free market and all that, right?
I love the nonesense so many "Conservatives" spout. No regulations by government because you should sue in court for any reddress of wrongs needed ... BUT, your payout in a lawsuit must be strictly limited to keep insurance costs down. If you want to limit payouts, then expect heavy regulation.
There's a simple legal reform that doesn't take a constitutional amendment that could solve any problems from the legal side - LOSER PAYS ALL COSTS. But I don't see Doctors campaigning for that, because I suspect a lot of malpractice cases are cut and dried. When the doctor amputates the wrong leg, its pretty clear he's at fault.
Great solution.
The problem is many. There are doctors who are sued for malpractice who didn't commit malpractice but must defend themselves anyway. There are doctors who are sued for malpractice without really committing malpractice but settle anyway because it is cheaper. And there are doctors who commit grievious acts of malpractice and lose wild judgements which they do not pay but their insurance company does spreading the pain to all the good doctors.
I would abolish pain and suffering as a consideration in settling all lawsuits and strictly limit non-economic damages.
What is the advantage to society in having this practice?
There are doctors who commit malpractice I've heard something like 5% of the doctors produce 50% of the malpractice cases.
Where did you hear this?
OK .. educate me .. how is changing the state's constitution for Medical Malpractice is a good thing??
The problem the way I see it, is the lawyers and all the stupid law suits
I think one of the sops the doctors are offering to the lawyers is to have non-medical people sit on the license review board. It's just a sop.
Ultimately, the market is the means of discipling bad doctors and the criminal courts are the means of disciplining really bad doctors.
The civil courts should be means of addressing wrongs not distributing punishment.
Other entities besides doctors would like non-economic damages capped too. I guess Connie is still enough of a Dem not to want to hurt the lawyers too badly.
In just about every article written on the subject in the past several months.
"Public Citizen analyzed a public use file from the National Practitioner Data Bank, which includes information about malpractice judgments and settlements since September 1990. The analysis found that 4.8 percent of doctors in the United States (40,118) who have paid two or more malpractice awards to patients are responsible for 51.1 percent of all the reports made to the Data Bank. Those doctors have paid out nearly $21 billion in damages, more than 53 percent of the total damages paid. The analysis also found that 1.7 percent of doctors (14,293) are responsible for 27.5 percent of all malpractice awards; 14, 293 have made three or more payments, totaling $11 billion."
And here:
"There are fair, viable prescriptions for this illness. Insurance companies could impose rates that reflect risks. Approximately 75 percent of malpractice claims are associated with 15 percent of doctors. Safe drivers pay different rates than habitual drunk drivers. Why not impose higher premiums on physicians and hospitals with higher error rates?"
The Pennsylvania law on this matter was adopted in 1790 in the generation of our Founding Fathers. I trust them more than I trust the Doctors and their shills. And I trust juries more than I trust the Legislature. Its juries, not lawyers, who compute the awards.
"The Pennsylvania Constitution provides, 'All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his . . . person . . . shall have a remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.' This provision, adopted in 1790 ..." (found here in the Post Gazzette)
In the same article is the claim: "Most importantly, in the last 25 years in Pennsylvania, only 9 percent of doctors, many repeat offenders, were responsible for 100 percent of compensation paid." This claim is easily verifiable since these statistics are public record.
Of course, I speak as one who married a woman whose grandfather was prematurely killed by a doctor on the operating table.
Hermann
Public Citizen is dedicated to leftist causes and the promotion of unrestricted judical power. They fight each and every attempt at legal reform. It was founded by Ralph Nader for Pete's sake. Check the home page. Here is the doctors' answer to one of their claims albeit not that particular one.
The second link was to the Medical Malpractice Referal Network. The page is copyrighted by Medical-Malpractice-Lawyers-Attorneys.com. I think I will be suspicious of their motivations.
The third link was to a newspaper guest column by another trial lawyer.
Rember the question I asked you? What social good comes from plantiffs being liable for unlimited non-economic damages.
1. Take quality food supplements to better your health.
2. Get a PPO not a HMO
3. Get more than one opinion
4. Use the Library and the internet to learn more about what is wrong with you.
4. Don't be so dame lazy using by lawyers to take your responsibilities.
The hardest working people in our society include doctors not lawyers.
Very true.
But that would mean Bill Clinton would never have been president. It would mean we couldn't vote for Hillary. You must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
I have a PPO.
I don't go to the doctor (doctors are for sick people - I'm not sick).
I eat whatever I want, but limit my intake of processed foods, esp. those with lots of preservatives and corn syrup and the like. I don't pop vitamin pills. If I need vitamins, they'll be in the food I eat (milk, orange juice, meat, vegetables, potatoes, etc.)
I don't have any dealings with lawyers.
It is a method of compensating victims of malpractice for the wrong done to them. If you bothered to read the references, you'd note that most awards are small.
But think about it. Is your leg/penis/hand/eyeball/kidney/etc. worth a mere $250,000 if it got accidentally removed, as has happened again and again? How about your life, if you die under a doctor's care from his malpractice? Should your family be limited to compensation of $250,000 if you were old and no longer working (no lost wages)?
I simply do not understand why you folks feel the solution to malpractice is to blame the victims and limit their ability to just recompense.
Malpractice occurs because of a small number of doctors, not because of injured patients.
Limiting awards for malpractice is like limiting restitution for victims of crime.
Again, why do you so distrust your fellow citizens on juries to decide what is fair here?
I understand that.
If you bothered to read the references, you'd note that most awards are small.
So why not limit them?
But think about it. Is your leg/penis/hand/eyeball/kidney/etc. worth a mere $250,000 if it got accidentally removed,
I would say that would be too low. Suppose the damage was set at say $2.5 million by statute indexed to inflation -- plus whatever medical care is required to makes things as right as possible? I would not sell certain bodily parts for $2.5 million but I would not sell them for $250 million either. A lifetime's worth of income is about as reasonable compensation as one could get.
How about your life, if you die under a doctor's care from his malpractice? Should your family be limited to compensation of $250,000 if you were old and no longer working (no lost wages)?
Why $250,000? Is that what the going rate is? Raise it to a specific objective number that the average citizen would find reasonable and upon which insurance companies can make predictions.
I simply do not understand why you folks feel the solution to malpractice is to blame the victims and limit their ability to just recompense.
Because a major hospital has just closed down due to high liability malpractice rates. Because I know good doctors who are fleeing the state for the same reason. Because one of the last Philadelphia manufactors nearly went out of business because it owned a company involved with asbestos for three months in 1963.
Limiting awards for malpractice is like limiting restitution for victims of crime.
No, criminals are supposed to be punished. People who make errors should just be required to make good.
Again, why do you so distrust your fellow citizens on juries to decide what is fair here?
The huge judgements against various archdioceses in the cases of predatory priests have placed major burdens on Catholic schools, hospitals and good priests and nuns. Has it the affected the lifestyles of the church officials who covered the matter up? Not really. Did the out-of-court settlements offered to victims in the '80s make things safer? Obviously not.
Without the opportunity to use the civil court system like a lottery for this matter a lot of suffering would have been avoided.
The award for the psychic should be appealed.
Well the loss of an arm, eye or leg would have an economic factor also. But you have a point. There is a danger in the thing swinging to far the other way.
The award for the psychic should be appealed.
It was appealed. A judge knocked down the award to $1. BUT that was after three years of misery for those sued. And what if he didn't.
The event happened in the late '80s, btw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.