A no-fault model of malpractice could more consistently compensate victims of avoidable mishaps and more effectively reduce error and incompetence

Although it makes the most sense, it is unlikely to happen here. As the article states: “Americans are used to blaming someone – in this case, doctors – when something goes wrong.”

Comments

Curious JD
While it’s nice to blame the citizenry and your patients for this not happening, why would any insurer support this plan? If they were really interested in such a thing, they certainly have the lobbying clout to get it done. They’ve done it with no-fault auto in some states, and all that results is that instead of fighting with the other parties’ insurer over getting your bills paid, you’re now fighting your own.
This would effectively eliminate their role? If standard amounts were given, then you can quickly expect caps on premiums to follow. What’s more, health insurers, who are one of the major beneficiaries of non-economic damages, would also lose.
One of the reason this works in Sweden and other countries with a nationalized health care system is that they are not redistributing the economic damages to the original payer – the health insurer. Unless your no-fault system includes automatic repayment to the health insurer of any bills incurred.
In short, we’re back to a national health care system. Which is where we’re headed anyway.
Anonymous
I find it amusing that the most vocal opponents of ANY sort of tort reform (who not coincidentally always seem to be lawyers) are also the staunchest proponents of socialized medicine. They stridently resist any impingement on their own ability to make stacks of cash, yet are entirely willing to subject physicians to the paltry (read: incommensurate) remuneration seen under every socialized system in existence. Never mind the fact that they’d balk if the government told all attorneys that they had to do a public defender’s work for the same mandated fees.
I find it amusing, quite frankly. And yes, this is a non-sequitur with regards to the topic at hand, but it’s an observation that I’ve made over and over again, and I just wanted to share it. Sorry, but even in Canada, which is the single-payor system with the MOST adequate compensation for physicians, neurosurgeons make ~$160K USD. For their expertise, the time invested, and the rigors of the profession, and given the wage scale of the REST of the US as well as our ridiculous cost of living, I’d say that that is wholly inadequate. $90K for physicians is shamefully inadequate (which is what they average in Canada, never mind other nations where they earn $50-70K USD).
Unless the US is ready to alter our ENTIRE wage scale, from the top down, and also address cost of living issues (housing, schooling, utilities, tuition expenses etc.), I’d say that socialized systems constitutes a SEVERE economic injustice for one segment of society– and that segment of society happens to be the MOST deserving of adequate compensation, not the least.
Anyone who espouses a single-payor system is a joke, and it’s clear that they have not thought through the various financial and ethical issues involved with doing so. The issue discussed above is merely one of these (and there are many more important issues re: patient care), but one I wanted to highlight since it provides a nice counterpoint to attorneys’ reflexive resistance to any limitations on their own income or scope of practice.
Curious JD
I hope you’re not referring to me, because I have no love for socialized medicine.
But as the pensioners in this country retire, and the health care liabilities of millions start to fall on America’s largest corporations, there will be shifting. Regardless of what political party is in charge.

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels