Posted on 06/21/2007 1:10:55 PM PDT by Squidpup
A Federalist Approach to Malpractice Abuse
Click here to launch the Podcast Player
Out-of-control medical malpractice lawsuits have been a problem in many parts of the country for a long time. Malpractice insurance costs can be driven so high, that doctors and insurance companies flee to more reasonable business climates. With too few doctors, it’s the patients who suffer the most.
In the past, those who want to solve this problem have tended to ignore our Federalist tradition. They've driven right past their state houses to their airports and flown to Washington to ask for national legal remedies. Fortunately, now we're seeing that states can take effective action themselves.
Only a few years ago, Texas was losing doctors fast. Rising malpractice insurance rates were fueling what analysts called a crisis. In some parts of the state, emergency wards were closing and residents were facing long trips for even basic medical care. The doctors who were most likely to leave the state were those hit hardest by malpractice insurance premiums -- the "high risk" specialists such as neurosurgeons, cardiologists and obstetricians.
Then, in 2003, Texas passed Prop 12, capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $750,000. $250,000 of that applied to physicians. There were no limits put on damages for medical expenses or economic expenses such as past and future lost income.
At the time, there were only four insurance companies left in Texas willing to cover doctors, and they were scheduling rate increases. Now 30 insurers are doing business in the Lone Star State and others are moving into the market. Rates have fallen on an average of more than 20 percent. Malpractice lawsuits have fallen 50 percent,
So many doctors have now requested Texas medical licenses that thousands are backlogged and an emergency appropriations was passed to help the Texas Medical Board speed up their processing. Now, other states are considering similar legislation to stop the loss of their own doctors to Texas. I consider this a small but important victory for the principles of Federalism.
Texas has a lot of medical schools—they should be the first state to experience the mythical ‘doctor glut” that has been promised by medical economists for generations.
My daughters ob/gyn just informed her he will not be able to deliver her baby (8 months pregnant). He’s been her doctor for 10 years.
He received a notice from his malpractice liability insurance that they were raising his premium from $105,000 to $170,000 per year. (For an ob/gyn, they are required to carry their liability insurance for 18 years after they deliver their last baby)
There will only be one doctor in the association that will be able to deliver babies.
ping
Frederalism ping
Insurance companies have learned the fine art of laying off their mortgage losses, poor corporate management performances and generally finding a rational sounding, but false ploy to raise rates. The crisis is a self-catalytic device that is roughly analogous to the old party game of telephone where each person whispers a given tale in the next person's ear only to have it emerge at the end of the line divorced from the beginning reality.
It has obviously been effective and has exceeded the desired propaganda success that even Herr What's-his-Name had back in the 30s and 40s in you know where on another subject. So, knowing that there is no dissuasion of folks here who dearly love to hate the legal profession (until they need a lawyer to save their arse or protect their rights), I'll simply leave it at that if only to get the truth into the rancid air of insurance industry deceit.
According to my dictionary, Federalist = a political group that favored adoption of the Constitution; a political party in early US history advocating a strong central government.
Thanks for the ping.
I like Fred. But after looking at his voting record I find a few disturbing things. One of the main ones is his support for McCain-Feingold.
Any Fredheads care to explain his vote? Has he changed his mind?
this is the first statement from Fred that has disappointed me.
Fred said that he thought the notion of taking money out of politics was a good one, but in hindsight his support was wrong.
LOL
I know more then a few doctors who not only would disagree, but several who have moved because of lawsuits and of their rising insurance rates.
Of course, my opinion is only formed from first hand evidence.
He’s publicly renounced Mc-F. Says he thought it was a good idea at the time, but it turned out to be a bad idea and it needs to go away.
I thought Fred was anti-medical liability reform. That’s my only problem with him but its a big one if true.
You are full of it and must be a lawyer. The fact is that states with tort reform/malpractice caps (i.e. Indiana, Texas) have much lower malpractice rates than say states like NY and MA (liberal havens). Get off this site...
They have been abusers on both sides.
Here try this discussion of Federalism from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
“In the United States, federalism is the system of government in which power is divided between a central government and the government of each state. Before the U.S. Constitution was written, each American state was essentially sovereign. The U.S. Constitution created a federal government with sufficient powers to both represent and unite the states, but did not supplant state governments. This federal arrangement, by which the central federal government exercises delegated power over some issues and the state governments exercise power over other issues, is one of the basic characteristics of the U.S. Constitution that checks governmental power. Other such characteristics are the separation of powers among the three branches of government—the legislative, executive, and judicial. The authors of the Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) explained in essays number 45 and 46 how they expected state governments to exercise checks and balances on the national government to maintain limited government over time.”
Fred’s approach is, if you read the article, to limit federal government actions and allow the states to govern, as opposed to the current top-down approach favored by the “central planners”.
Actually, not even a nice try
Gnats
Nothing like gnats on a warhorse! We will fight the good fight indeed!
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.