medical malpractice caps

[CARLHAYDEN]

My state has recently suffered from soaring medical malpractice insurance which in turn is causing many doctors to give up their practice or move.

A few years ago, California and Texas implemented medical malpractice limits which resulted in lower medical malpractice insurance and continued medical care.

Should the country as a whole adopt such limits?

I strongly suspect that Kerry (a lawyer) would oppose such a proposal, and Bush would support it.

If such a proposal were a factor in the 2004 Presidential election, how would it play out>

[CARLHAYDEN]

The docs are pretty unsophisticated and uninvolved in politics in this state so they've gotten run over by the shysters.

If they docs gear up on this one and go for a ballot initiative, they'll be the ones to roll over the ambulance chasers.

A petition in every doctor's office with a phamplet explaining the cost of medical malpractice insurance would be real effective.

Since the Board of Medical Examiners in my state got their act together a few years ago, docs who commit malpractice lose their license to practice real quick.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Arizona.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, Bush is on record as favoring limits on medical malpractice awards, not eliminating them.  He has also favored administrative remedies as an initial step in the process.

Second, the trial lawyers are on of the biggest and most powerful intersts in the Democrat party.  If Kerry snubbed them, nader would start getting lots of money.

Third, you vastly overate the effectiveness of political ads.  When people learn that their doc, or one for a family member is leaving the state or giving up the practice because of medical malpractice premiums they believe that, not some fancy ad.

To support the relative ineffectivness of mass media versus actual experience, I suggest you look at what happened in California last year.  The mass media was overwhelming against the recall, but, the people were mad as hell at the actions of Davis, which touched them personally (in their wallets).  Bye, Bye Davis.  

Have you ever seen how angry people get when their employer changes HMOs and they find that their doctor isn't on the panel of docs for the HMO?

[CARLHAYDEN]

As someone whose father is permanently paralyzed as a result of gross medical malpractice, I would not support a limit on such damages. I can speak from great personal experience as to the necessity of such suits, and I trust judges and juries to make decisions about what is reasonable, not the politicians.

First, I'm sorry to hear about your father's suffering.

Second, for my own citation, I note that the doctor who has delivered my oldest daughter's last two kids announced to his patients that he is leaving because he cann't afford the malpractice insurance costs.  There has never been a case filed against him for medical malpractice.

Third, I've seen judges in action, and I wouldn't trust most of them any further than I could throw my car.

Fourth, judges keep juries from hearing relevant evidence when they want a case to go in a particular way.  So, frequently the juries don't have the full story.

Fifth, it is not unusual for juries to feel sorry for an injured plaintiff and to award him/her extremely high damages (beyond compensatory damages) in the mistaken belief that the defendant will pay.  Some of them are a little more sophisticated and believe that the insurance company (which they believe simply has money which comes from a magical source) will pay.  What they don't realize is that all docs, including the many good ones end up paying for their generosity, and when the costs become too high the docs quit or leave, and we all pay.

Sixth, genuine compensatory damages are of course valid, but the malefactor should be punished by the Board of Medical Examiners rather than punishing other doctors.

Finally, lawyers should not be enriched by high awards (lawyers in these cases typically take a third of the award on a contingency fee basis).  If these cases were often decided in an administrative process, you could cut out (or at least reduce) the cost of the lawyers.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, apparently you do not understand the difference between "compesantory" and "punitive" damages.  'Pain and suffering' is a compensatory damage.

Second, juries only hear the 'evidence' judges want them to hear.  If they heard additional evidence often excluded by judges, they might change their minds.

Third, you also ignore the costs of protracted litigation.  Yes, appealate judges do reduce damages awards in some cases, but the lawyers don't work for free.

Fourth, you continue to ignore the central problem, i.e. that good docs (and their patients) are paying for the awards.

In summation, to the extent that monetary damages can make a plaintiff whole, well and good, but lets reduce the cost of process (which ultimately the vast majority of patients bear) by excising the cost of the shysters.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I would like to see a reputable survey on this question.

I suspect Bush voters would support caps by at least three to one.

I suspect that undecided voters would support it by approximately two to one.

I suspect that Kerry voters would be closely divided on this issue.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, federal judges are lifetime appointments.

Second, in some states the terms of office can exceed a decade.

Third, the system has been rigged to prevent competition for judicial offices in most states.

Fourth, the public generally does not know of the records of judges prior to voting, and they typrically get retained unless that have made a major fool of themselves as occured in California where Rose Bird and the birdbrains when out of their way to antagonize the voters.

Fifth, yes it would be nice to improve the judiciary, but it would also be nice to have a great tasting ice cream with no calories.  Its more likely we'll get the latter than the former.  

[CARLHAYDEN]

Approximately as I expected.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, as I earlier posted, in my state we have a tough Board of Medical Examiners which lifts the licenses of incompetent physicians.

Second, the caps in question are not for genuine compensatory damages, but rather for punitive dammages and to reduce the avarace of shysters.

Third, an administrative procedure component would both reduce the cost and increase the speed of resolving malpractice claims.

Fourth,  to take just one issue you raised in your paen to almighty government, if the government pays for malpractice, just who do you think pays for the government?