Either way, one can assume that a case which has $250,000 in non-economic damages probably has some significant injury. I have never seen a case with those kind of pain and suffering damages that didn’t involve a life long problem.

Interesting that you compare it to a lottery. A lottery is when you get something for nothing or for very little out of your pocket. I’d say the loss of brain function, one’s breasts, etc. would be quite a bit to bear. There are plenty of lottery winners who continue to buy tickets and look forward to winning again. Ever seen anyone with a malpractice claim that wouldn’t rather be healthy?

But hey, I know thinking about the actual harm suffered isn’t really your thing.

As you would likely say, “this is hearsay” Do you have any study that proves that the most injured are harmed the most by caps? After all, it’s accepted that very few people at all win anything in the current tort “lottery” climate. Also, the Wall Street Journal reported that one of the effect of the caps is that Texas lawyers are less likely to accept cases, due to the lower likelihood of huge payouts, leaving some of these “people injured the worst” without a lawyer to represent them.

I assume that because that’s the only place that physicians have really flexed their legislative muscle.

Tell me how recent tort reform in Texas could have dropped rates? Those cases haven’t even come to trial yet, and the nation’s largest insurer told the TX Dept. of Insurance that caps would affect at most 1% of their losses.

What actually happened, just like what happened in the 90s, was that the economic climate improved, and more competition came in. It will turn, and some carriers will go under because they underpriced their product to get money for the float, just like what happened a couple of years ago.

The TLMT, after increasing rates over 100%, reduced them 15%. They didn’t need to raise rates that high that fast, but they did so you guys would squawk. You did, you got your caps which, while not reducing their payouts much overall, gives them some certainty on the bigger cases, and so they gave a little back. Reserving the right, of course, to raise them at any time they see fit – like the next time the market crashes.

Of course, those harmed by the caps, the people injured the worst, they don’t get to raise their cap. It becomes a little less every day with inflation.

I would be interested to know, from a lawyer’s POV, do you know anything about the National Patient Safety Foundation. My understanding of the organization is that it was founded, largely with funding from the AMA, to promote various patient safety programs, and despite an explicit invitation from the founders, has no participation from the trial bar.

Yes, the insurers say that caps alone will not drop rates, but recent data from Texas’ comprehensive tort reform DID yield reduced rates, and hopefully will keep docs in the state as well as encourage them to practice safe and effective medicine.

Let’s clear something up. I do not believe that there are no unscrupulous lawyers out there. I bet there are just as many unscrupulous lawyers out there as there are doctors, or CEOs, or plumbers. I would never dispute that.

Nor do I believe that the current “crisis” has nothing to do with the fact that insurers have to pay claims. But the evidence indicates that lawsuits are not the primary cause. And I’ve posted multiple links from medical and insurer trade publications, insurance executives, and insurance lobbyists which support this. I’m not even citing plaintiff’s advocates. Even if you don’t believe me, how can you not believe them?

My real objection, however, is to those who would limit the ability of people harmed by another’s negligence by virtue of an arbitrary cap which has no basis on the individual case. Particularly when THE INSURER’S THEMSELVES say it won’t affect rates. The best they’ll say it that maybe the rate of increase will slow.

You say my view is unsupported by the facts? Again, I tell you what THE INSURERS say, when they have to say it under oath. I tell you what your own medical journals say. If anyone has the fact deficit here, it is your side. You rely solely on anecdotal evidence of cases you’ve never seen a bit of evidence in to come to these broad conclusions. How do you justify that as a scientist? Or is it merely a matter of faith that all lawyers are bad and every plaintiff is just a money-hungry liar?

Why post? Because you’re not the only physician on here. And I believe that behind the hatred for lawyers, some of you really do care about the legitimately injured. And, maybe, just maybe, the next time we have a “crisis”, you’ll remember what I was saying, and realize you’re right back where you were during the last “crisis”, and perhaps not try to make your money back off those who are hurt the worst.

Also, this blog is read by hundreds (maybe thousands with all the press Kevin has been getting) who don’t comment. And if all they ever read were your comments, they’d be getting at best 1/2 the picture, and they might not ask the questions about the logic behind your conclusions that I do.

In short, I’m an irrepressible optimist.

CJD

Yes, and his talking points are often flat out wrong but that won’t stop him, will it?

There are multiple anons posting, and you’re getting confused by them. I made one of the earlier posts, not the rest.

Regardless, it’s clear that your message wouldn’t change even if all the different posters were uniquely identified.

You basically believe that the current malpractice insurance crisis (when you are in a mood to actually see that there is one) is entirely a creature of insurance business cycles and/or practices, coupled with the endless failings of physicians. In your eyes, misguided plaintiffs, unscrupulous lawyers, and a legal climate designed to be singularly condusive to extraordinary amounts of litigation play completely no role, at all.

Your view is simply unsupported by the facts and the daily, unvarnished experience of doctors all around the US of A. Clearly, you have a similar ly poor opinion of our view.

It’s odd that you keep posting with such fervour. May I ask why? It must be obvious to you by now that telling doctors stuff they know from their very own eyes to be untrue is unlikely to convince them of your remarkable claims. Presumably, our efforts to educate you meet with a similarly low opinion of our views.

So why post? Nothing’s going to change. Posting here can be a bit fun, now and then. Yet every time I drop by, you are here posting away, with no break, no let up, the same talking points. What’s the motivation?

How is it one who posts so much about malpractice rates can have so little understanding of the insurance industry?