Bush proposes capping malpractice awards

Well, as some on Abuzz would say in justification, "there is no free lunch". How do you like that?
I agree with you, but I have no idea what would be just compensation in a case like this.

The key is pain and suffering.

She can sue for reconstruction if she chooses, therapy to deal with whats been done to her, prosthesis and meds for life....

The P and S is on top of that.

I think its reasonable. No amount of money is going to change what happened.

These ungodly amounts are sending healthcare costs into the stratosphere. This is the main reason we have such a hard time paying for medical care, and why so many Americans are uninsured.

It is also a fact that uncapped P and S lines the pockets of smarmy lawyers.

CAP IT CAP IT CAP IT CAP IT.

No way! If anything could be capped, it should be the lawyer's fees, NOT awards for pain and suffering! And why shouldn't lawyers be able to get filthy rich like CEOs? They're costing you money, too! All those high prices, you know.

suzy
If no one else has let me be among the first to welcome you.

Hey, thanks, au. My kids are kicking me off the computer now, though! I'll see ya later!

Lash Goth
Every circumstance is different how could a cap be set. Awards and not only in malpractice suites but all litigation of that type should never be set by a jury but by a panel setup for that purpose.

If I could cut CEO salaries, I'd do that too.
But healthcare is a public crisis.

Welcome suzy.

Lash
You know what they say if the queen had-----. She would be king.

Hi, Suzy. I hope you regain control of your 'puter soon

I like the idea of caps, both on awards and on attorney's fees. However, a fixed dollar amount established by legislation is not my idea of how to handle the matter. Of course, all direct remedial costs should be borne by the transgressor. "Pain and Suffering" awards perhaps might be tied to some suitably significant multiple of The Median Annual Income. Punitive damages over and above these could still be assessed, but would be credited to an administrative entity charged with overseeing the The Corporate Conscience. Lawyers should be limited to recovery of direct costs with a reasonable profit percentage tacked on. Business in general gets by on fairly modest Net Profits, I see no reason lawyers shouldn't do the same. I also feel the losing litigant in any tort action should be made to bear the costs incurred by both parties to the matter ... which would have an inhibiting effect on frivilous suits, but pose little obstacle to those with merit.



timber

I think the Queen should just swipe the bigger Crown. -----s just bounce around uncomfortably in the pants..... I :wink: imagine.

In my country, the whole question of insurance and costs for mal-practice, public liability etc is being discussed too.

There is a crisis here both in terms of medical mal-practice costs - (exacerbated by the main insurance company for this having been sent broke by some spectacular payouts) - and in terms of all kinds of activities by clubs, councils, social groups etc having been rendered impossible because of the costs of public liability insurance.

The insurance companies say that this, too, has caused by escalating public liability pay-outs - but this is disputed by lawyers and other players in this particular field.

All levels of government and representatives of all the players are meeting on this - and I believe there will be some capping and some restraints on ability to sue - and possibly some other action.

I can see how this may disadvantage some - but the current situation is impossible for the community

The insurance companies aren't losing any money, rest assured.
They charge us up the ying-yang then raise the rates whenever they have to pay out. Instead of blaming victims of bad medicine, blame bad doctors and blame the insurance companies.

If we really want to control health care costs, it can be accomplished with two simple pieces of legislation. First, punitive damages in malpractice suits must be eliminated. Direct damages should be the responsibility of the physician, as is now the case. Secondly, if the health care market is to actually function as a market, health insurance has to be abolished.
I have been a practicing veterinarian for over twenty-five years, and I assure you that my fees were not based on my desired income, but what the market would bear. Of course, I also never made more than thirty-six thousand dollars in any year (it takes a lot of thirty-dollar cat spays and one-dollar pregnancy checks to get there), but I was always happy in my practice, and God knows I stayed busy. I'm not sure that many six-figure income physicians can look in the mirror with the same satisfaction that I can.

Approximately 2/3 of The American Healthcare Dollar is devoted to details other than medication and hands-on patient care. That's an awful lot of money for what is essentially paper.



timber

Hey, Welcome Cow Doc. Look forward to pickin' your brain ... I got a mess of critters.




timber.

CowDoc, to achieve your solution would require getting rid of all the lobbyists first. Not such a bad idea.

But 'twould create mass unemployment!!! LOL...

You will notice that I didn't say anything of the sort was going to happen. I also don't foresee a workable solution. :-)