I am in complete agreement that the lawsuits that result in these bazillion dollar payouts have resulted in the cost of medical malpractive insurance to go up and the cost of health care in America has now sky rocketed.
It shouldn't have to be this way.
The other solution is less government paperwork requirements - should be e-records, this is a Newt and Hillary proposal so all you good conservatives and liberals out there this is your party leadership (Newt while a former leader still has a huge voice) ideas.
Your thoughts please
beardog4314
Or, we just illegalize insurance altogether. A doctor who's made an error that serious with someone else's life in his hands shouldn't stay in business anyway.
Trouble Maker
What ever a jury allows .
civil_av8r
$ 500,000 with a 4% increase each year to make up for inflation.
Maryn Bittner
This isn't really a question at all but a chance to air your views. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but not to post it here pretending it's a question.
There are plenty of places to hold discussions. This isn't among them.
ret_roch_cop
The best way to reduce these expenses is to cap lawyers' fees on these lawsuits. The freakin shysters get a major portion of every award so limit them to a set fee and watch the frivilous lawsuits disappear. Of course, you'd have to have a supply of hankies on hand for John Edwards.
So, genius, you don't consider a third plus expenses a major portion? What are you, married to a lawyer?
Rедиска
Well, you should ask yourself -- if, say, surgery to relieve your back pain goes awry because of your doctor's mistake and you become quadriplegic, with no movement or control from the neck down: what is that worth to YOU? Imagine the most horrible thing that could happen to you or your loved one and ask yourself how you would like recovery to you or your loved one be limited.
To the poster above: The "shysters" DON'T get the "major portion" of every award. That is an outright lie. In most jurisdictions, lawyers do not even get 1/3, and the higher the award, the lower the percentage of the legal fee.
EDITED: I AM lawyer. First of all, expenses do not go to the lawyer -- they are exactly that, expenses, and they are paid to courts, doctors, court reporters, etc. (and the lawyer pays his proportionate share of the expenses in the end). And no, No, I don't consider 1/3 of the net a "major portion" -- particularly since you word your comment in a way designed to mislead readers into thinking that the lawyer takes almost everything. When was the last time YOU litigated a case for 10 years? Do YOU know what it takes? In fact, when was the last time YOU worked for free? Expenses must be laid out by the lawyer in advance, and in most malpractice cases, they are never recovered, since most malpractice cases are lost. Nevermind the VERDICTS -- actual PAYOUTS by insurance companies have steadily decreased of the past 20 years, while premiums have skyrocketed.
cbmttek
I would be very reluctant to place an arbitrary 'cap' on lawsuits.
On the other hand, I think that the largest danger to the medical/health care industry in the US is lawsuits. So, I would be in favor of limiting the damages awarded.
Should someone that has a scar as a result of surgery be able to collect millions? No way! But, if a doctor amputates the wrong foot, I think that an appropriate award should be forthcoming.
How to base that award is the sticky part of that dilemma. Should the award be based on need? Doubt it. Just because you are in a tight financial situation is not justification enough for a large lawsuit payout. What about on the impact to the patient? Say the patient that had the wrong leg amputated needs that leg for work. Should he get a free ride for the rest of his working life? Or should the payout cover them until they can get retrained for a new profession? What if losing a leg has no impact on their ability to earn a living? Should they get nothing?
Come up with a way to make the payouts appropriate to the significance of the malpractice, and we have a winner.
Emily W
malpractice settlements should have a direct correlation to the injury sustained. for example if i break my finger i should not get the same amount of money that someone who now has to remain on life support for the rest of their lives should. however, if i was a hand model and this effected my liveli- hood that's a different story. so this is a very complex issue. there really is no obvious solution to it. although the increase in malpractice insurance is contributing to the increase in health care - it is not the only or even the main contributing factor. the health insurance industry, itself is one of the major
proponents of the huge increase in health care costs nationwide. it is a business and just like with any other they are in it to make $ . if you research that aspect of it - i feel that there should be no health insurance at all - then the health care industry would be scrambling all over the place trying to generate business and lowering prices. doctors are human and make mistakes like everyone else - you want to go with a good one but even the best have an error margin. i think frivolous lawsuits should be banned and everyone should be able to have free health care for everything even some cosmetic surgerys.
webned
The problem with caps is that folks with valid and substantial claims are the ones that are affected. Caps have nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits and do not affect them, nor do they affect folks with trivial claims, their damages never get to the limits. Only folks who are extremely hurt on account of a doctor's negligence are affected, they and the insurance company.
My thoughts are that caps should be scrapped. Frivolous litigants and their attorneys should be sanctioned.
Caps affect people who have the wrong leg amputated or the wrong eye removed, folks who are now legless or completely blind because of the screwup.
Orignal From: Whats the appropriate cap on Malpractice lawsuits - 1 million - 2 million?
Post a Comment