IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Miller wrote:

Quote:

dward Amsler, of the Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Co., says most of the blame lies with the tens of millions of dollars New York juries award families of disabled children.

NYPost

The blame? Shouldn't the blame be directed towards the physicians who make the mistakes, that cause the disabilities of the children and others?

Why blame the Jury?

that is VERY subjective. physicians are people too, and they make mistakes. have you ever thought about how much stress they are under? to expect them to never make a mistake is crazy. that being said, i imagine a lot of these cases are not that a physician actually caused an issue but that the parent didn't like the outcome or took a chance and it turned out badly. nothing is medicine is guaranteed. for ABSOLUTELY ANY procedure, there is a risk, and sometimes that risk includes death. that is why before any of that, patients are provided with information on what is going to be done and made aware of the risk. they are made to sign an acknowledgment of the risk prior to. a lot of these people took the gamble and lost. that is not the fault of the physician. now, i realize there have been serious mistakes made and for those i offer no defense. however, in many of these cases, i'm not sure that having a trial by jury is a good thing. a jury will almost always side with the plaintiff because they feel sorry for them or because they view doctors as some sort of infallible super-person that is not allowed to screw up.

they view doctors as some sort of infallible super-person that is not allowed to screw up.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My statement was factually correct. Very rarely do cases without any merits whatsoever end up in the large payouts which are typically blamed by the insurance industry for rising costs (without factual basis themselves). It would be preposterous to believe that cases with no merit regularly end up in large payouts or settlements; in the absence of specific data, it can be safely assumed that our system of justice actually does its' job.

Quote:

For example, a large fraction of employee claims for discrimination are without objective merit, even though they provide a legal basis for findings of fault on something as unknowable as the subjective intent of people who make necessary decisions and choices.

How large a fraction? It would seem that we all do some of the things we criticize others for - especially when it comes to statistics.

Cycloptichorn

"merit" can be manufactured in many of these cases. medicine is not an exact science. doctors often have different opinions on the same thing. one can manufacture the "merit" by finding a doctor that disagrees with the treating physician's choice.

That's not how the law is written...

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Quote:

dward Amsler, of the Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Co., says most of the blame lies with the tens of millions of dollars New York juries award families of disabled children.

NYPost

The blame? Shouldn't the blame be directed towards the physicians who make the mistakes, that cause the disabilities of the children and others?

Why blame the Jury?

that is VERY subjective. physicians are people too, and they make mistakes. have you ever thought about how much stress they are under? to expect them to never make a mistake is crazy. that being said, i imagine a lot of these cases are not that a physician actually caused an issue but that the parent didn't like the outcome or took a chance and it turned out badly. nothing is medicine is guaranteed. for ABSOLUTELY ANY procedure, there is a risk, and sometimes that risk includes death. that is why before any of that, patients are provided with information on what is going to be done and made aware of the risk. they are made to sign an acknowledgment of the risk prior to. a lot of these people took the gamble and lost. that is not the fault of the physician. now, i realize there have been serious mistakes made and for those i offer no defense. however, in many of these cases, i'm not sure that having a trial by jury is a good thing. a jury will almost always side with the plaintiff because they feel sorry for them or because they view doctors as some sort of infallible super-person that is not allowed to screw up.

How would you like to support a disabled child, the result of a "mistake" by an MD, over the span of the child's life for a cost of minimally $10 million?

Quote:

they view doctors as some sort of infallible super-person that is not allowed to screw up.

That's how pharmacists are viewed today, by the general public in the USA, so why not the MDs?
That's also why registered pharmacists carry no less than $3 million in liability insurance.

Miller wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Quote:

dward Amsler, of the Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Co., says most of the blame lies with the tens of millions of dollars New York juries award families of disabled children.

NYPost

The blame? Shouldn't the blame be directed towards the physicians who make the mistakes, that cause the disabilities of the children and others?

Why blame the Jury?

that is VERY subjective. physicians are people too, and they make mistakes. have you ever thought about how much stress they are under? to expect them to never make a mistake is crazy. that being said, i imagine a lot of these cases are not that a physician actually caused an issue but that the parent didn't like the outcome or took a chance and it turned out badly. nothing is medicine is guaranteed. for ABSOLUTELY ANY procedure, there is a risk, and sometimes that risk includes death. that is why before any of that, patients are provided with information on what is going to be done and made aware of the risk. they are made to sign an acknowledgment of the risk prior to. a lot of these people took the gamble and lost. that is not the fault of the physician. now, i realize there have been serious mistakes made and for those i offer no defense. however, in many of these cases, i'm not sure that having a trial by jury is a good thing. a jury will almost always side with the plaintiff because they feel sorry for them or because they view doctors as some sort of infallible super-person that is not allowed to screw up.

How would you like to support a disabled child, the result of a "mistake" by an MD, over the span of the child's life for a cost of minimally $10 million?

do you have a source providing the cost estimate as a *minimum* of $10M for a disabled child?

by the way, the theme of that post was that there is risk inherent in ALL medicine and that even if a doctor does everything right with respect to what we know in medical science, there still exists the possibility that it could end badly for the patient. if that is the case, the doctor should not be sued.

We have all the money they need for the wars, but not $60 billion to fund universal health care for all of our children for ten years.

Gates seeks $190 billion for wars

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Congress Wednesday to approve nearly $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, increasing initial projections by more than a third.

Miller wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My statement was factually correct. Very rarely do cases without any merits whatsoever end up in the large payouts which are typically blamed by the insurance industry for rising costs (without factual basis themselves). It would be preposterous to believe that cases with no merit regularly end up in large payouts or settlements; in the absence of specific data, it can be safely assumed that our system of justice actually does its' job.

Quote:

For example, a large fraction of employee claims for discrimination are without objective merit, even though they provide a legal basis for findings of fault on something as unknowable as the subjective intent of people who make necessary decisions and choices.

How large a fraction? It would seem that we all do some of the things we criticize others for - especially when it comes to statistics.

Cycloptichorn

"merit" can be manufactured in many of these cases. medicine is not an exact science. doctors often have different opinions on the same thing. one can manufacture the "merit" by finding a doctor that disagrees with the treating physician's choice.

That's not how the law is written...

well by all means, tell us how the law is written.

Miller wrote:

Quote:

they view doctors as some sort of infallible super-person that is not allowed to screw up.

That's how pharmacists are viewed today, by the general public in the USA, so why not the MDs?
That's also why registered pharmacists carry no less than $3 million in liability insurance.

i'd say there is a huge difference between a pharmacist and a physician. pharmacists do not diagnose, treat or prescribe. the do not operate or perform procedures. doctors have a lot more on their plate. i personally cannot even think of a scenario in which a pharmacist can be sued except if he filled the prescription with the wrong dose or wrong med altogether.

Miller wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Quote:

dward Amsler, of the Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Co., says most of the blame lies with the tens of millions of dollars New York juries award families of disabled children.

NYPost

The blame? Shouldn't the blame be directed towards the physicians who make the mistakes, that cause the disabilities of the children and others?

Why blame the Jury?

that is VERY subjective. physicians are people too, and they make mistakes. have you ever thought about how much stress they are under? to expect them to never make a mistake is crazy. that being said, i imagine a lot of these cases are not that a physician actually caused an issue but that the parent didn't like the outcome or took a chance and it turned out badly. nothing is medicine is guaranteed. for ABSOLUTELY ANY procedure, there is a risk, and sometimes that risk includes death. that is why before any of that, patients are provided with information on what is going to be done and made aware of the risk. they are made to sign an acknowledgment of the risk prior to. a lot of these people took the gamble and lost. that is not the fault of the physician. now, i realize there have been serious mistakes made and for those i offer no defense. however, in many of these cases, i'm not sure that having a trial by jury is a good thing. a jury will almost always side with the plaintiff because they feel sorry for them or because they view doctors as some sort of infallible super-person that is not allowed to screw up.

How would you like to support a disabled child, the result of a "mistake" by an MD, over the span of the child's life for a cost of minimally $10 million?

do you have a source providing the cost estimate as a *minimum* of $10M for a disabled child?

by the way, the theme of that post was that there is risk inherent in ALL medicine and that even if a doctor does everything right with respect to what we know in medical science, there still exists the possibility that it could end badly for the patient. if that is the case, the doctor should not be sued.

Perhaps true as well. However, the life expectency of a healthy, non-disabled person born at the same time is a good deal less than 90 years.

These are calculations a lawyer, who is attempting to maximize the unjustifiable return to his plaintif client (and the share of them he will collect) might make. However they are laughably indefensible from a rational economic or demographic viewpoint. Sadly however, this kind of foolishness does indeed sometimes prevail among juries and even judges in our very litigious system.

It's a fact, however, that disabled live longer nowadays than before.
So indeed -here !- some problems arose because no-one really had made plans how to take of retired disabled persons (= staff, living conditions,mainly).