If by “concierge” you mean catering to the wealthy, that’s simply incorrect.

” I am an oncologist please do fill me on on turning oncology into “concierge” medicine. I am all ears and waiting for your proposols.”

I would think YOU would want to figure it out, if things are as bad as you say. Can you not negotiate a flat salary with a hospital? Can you not negotiate a per patient rate?

There is no hard science to back what up? Since you don’t know the facts of Mr. Edwards’ cases, how exactly are you qualified to opine on the science?

Do you treat your patients while knowing nothing about them?

Propose those without arbitrary damage caps and you might get somewhere. Of course, who is going to pay for all that additional bureacracy? You going to do more hard work for your insurer and shift their duty to defend to the taxpayer?

Are the catastrophically injured no longer going to need lawyers to represent them?

Look at how much physicians bitch about their own state medical boards – and now we can trust them to automatically get it right?

Have some limited understanding of the proposals you are touting before you go spewing off at the mouth about them.

“Thanks I run a business on government capped payment system so I probably know a little more than you do about the subject. I also know one big payout to you guys can support quite a few “losses”.”

Actually, your business is not capped. You choose to take those caps in exchange for guaranteed payment. No one forced you to do that.

And if you don’t know how many “big payouts” there are, or how much it costs to finance a case, you basically (again) have no clue what you’re talking about with regard to law firm economics.

Because any idiot ought to be able to find the statistical anomalies, but even you can’t do that. I think we can all acknowledge no system involving humans is perfect, but that alone doesn’t mean they fail. Basically, you lied about your claims, because you’ve never read a single medical record from any case, as is now obvious. The fact you would lie from the beginning undermines everything you say.

“This article does a nice job of summing up how the study itself doesn’t really show anything until each group reading it puts its own spin on it:”

I didn’t quote a GROUP. I quoted the AUTHOR of the study, a man with no particular axe to grind. Understand the difference?

This man put out the most unbiased, thorough study on this issue in decades. I’m sorry its results didn’t fit your bias. Hey, I don’t agree with them all either, BUT there’s no doubting its thoroughness and fairness.

Game, set, and match? How cute. I’m glad you believe in yourself, if not the facts. Confidence is worth something. Not much, but something.

re:” If you guys come up with another method that doesn’t arbitrarily cap the damages of the injured, maybe you can improve on those findings. So far you haven’t”

Of course medical courts, medically trained justices, and boardsof lawyers/doctors have all been discussed but ATLA has fought every idea tooth and nail He knows it so I won’t rahash and waste my time.

“You don’t know much about economics, do you?”

Thanks I run a business on government capped payment system so I probably know a little more than you do about the subject. I also know one big payout to you guys can support quite a few “losses”. It is simple mathemetics

I’m glad that you picked that study, though, since it illustrates perfectly the futility of the sort of debate you seem to want very badly. This article does a nice job of summing up how the study itself doesn’t really show anything until each group reading it puts its own spin on it:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1147251932770

This is exactly why dueling studies is a silly style of debate. But you haven’t shown much courage or willingness to discuss the principles underlying the debate (or much principle at all, for that matter, given your inconsistency just within this thread, much less anywhere else), so I guess it’s to be expected.

Game, set and match! Thanks for coming out, I’m sure we’ll rehash the same points at a later date. And you’ll be just as inconsistent then, almost without a doubt. Such is lawyering at its finest, I suppose.

Still looking for all those cases you say you’ve cited where you’ve reviewed the medical records and found the award unjustified and arbitrary? Hell, even I can probably find one – no system is perfect all the time.

““Some critics have suggested that the malpractice system is inundated with groundless lawsuits, and that whether a plaintiff recovers money is like a random ‘lottery,’ virtually unrelated to whether the claim has merit,” said lead author David Studdert, associate professor of law and public health at HSPH. “These findings cast doubt on that view by showing that most malpractice claims involve medical error and serious injury, and that claims with merit are far more likely to be paid than claims without merit.”

If you guys come up with another method that doesn’t arbitrarily cap the damages of the injured, maybe you can improve on those findings. So far you haven’t.

“Sucks for doctors, sucks for patients, still not to shabby for lawyers.”

You don’t know much about economics, do you?

The Studdert study found that 40% of claims were meritless and that the legal system came to the wrong result 27% of the time. That’s slightly better than a coin-flip, but hardly something to say is “pretty good.”