Comments on: NY malpractice hikes: "Not good medicine"

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:37:00 +0000

“I am still waiting for legal malpractice to catch up. That way you can sue your lawyer when you dont win a case or you don’t win enough or you just want to sue. “

You can. In fact it’s easier than suing a doc in many states because you don’t need the “certificate of merit.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:36:00 +0000

Who is your insurer? What is their reserve and does it appear to be in line with their claims’ payouts? Also, are they insuring people with multiple payouts in the same pool as you? What is their return on their investment over the last 1, 3, 5, 10 years? It’s not like they’re going to tell you that their own screwups have caused them to have to raise rates. Also, are their increases in line with medical inflation?

And no, no one has a solution other than universal healthcare.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:33:00 +0000

These posts do not address the fact that I am now going to have to pay 14 percent more for my insurance, and I have never been sued or accused of malpractice.

In addition, the article linked to quotes NYS Insurance Dept as saying it was necessary b/c of liability costs.

So either they are lying, or ther eis a crisis. Either way I as a doctor get screwed. The cost of everything to run a medical office keeps going up ,and our reimbursement stays the same or goes down. Does anyone have an answer for that (besides the odious universal health care?)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:10:00 +0000

I am still waiting for legal malpractice to catch up. That way you can sue your lawyer when you dont win a case or you don’t win enough or you just want to sue.

If attorneys don’t want to reform, then lets have them play by their own rules.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:08:00 +0000

That’s true. However, it doesn’t negate the point that IF other countries pay less, it’s largely due to the fact that they don’t reimburse for medical care. Thta’s the bulk of most damages in personal injury cases.

Here’s a question surely a “reformer” can answer – if there was a cap in every case that resulted in a PAYOUT of in excess of $250,000 in pain and suffering damages, how much money would be saved, on average, per year over the last 20?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:04:00 +0000

Past and future medical care is an economic damage unrelated to the controversial non-economic damages that would be capped in tort reform proposals.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:03:00 +0000

Where is the source for your "every country in the world" claim?

Do you think that IF other countries pay less for malpractice, it might have something to do with the fact that they don't reimburse for past and future medical care because they have universal coverage? Are you advocating universal coverage to reduce malpractice costs?

A little critical thinking goes a long way. Try it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:44:00 +0000

And yet every other country in the world with a no-fault system pays far, far less money in malpractice costs. So either the lawyers are claiming US physicians are uniquely incompetent or … shockingly … the lottery system by jury is a stupid way of dealing with medical injuries.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:12:00 +0000

“Only a tiny fraction of frank malpractice results in a lawsuit, much less a claim. If every actual victim sought redress in the current system, malpractice costs would be ten to a hundred times what they are now.”

Please do give any data to support thisstatement. Otherwise it is just your opinion.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:42:00 +0000

Only a tiny fraction of frank malpractice results in a lawsuit, much less a claim. If every actual victim sought redress in the current system, malpractice costs would be ten to a hundred times what they are now.

The current system is only affordable because very few of those who could do so actually use it.