Bush's Tort Reform Will Kill People

[XT]

@Metacom

Tell that to the people that Prison Health Services has murdered.

:rolleyes:

-XT

[bashere]

@Campion

The OP’s thesis seems to be that implementing Bush’s tort reform plan will lead inexorably to higher mortality rates among patients as the medical industry will, in essence, be given carte blanche. The OP posits that the only way to force hospitals to vigilantly monitor medical care given to patients is to threaten the industry with the big stick of potentially massive med/mal judgments.

If this thesis were true, we would expect to see both higher mortality rates in the 23 states that have not already implemented similar reforms, and better health care in the 27 states that have.

I hope I’m not being dense, but are you sure you don’t have those reversed? If the threat of high awards is a disincentive to malpractice, then we would expect higher mortality rates in the 27 states that have implemented such reforms, and lower in the 23 that have not.

Evidence supporting this doesn’t seem to be an element of the public discussion about the tort reform plan, which makes me suspect that the plan is neither the panacea that its proponents make it out to be, nor is it the beginning of the slippery slope to disaster. Anyone with actual facts should feel free to chime in.

But the bigger issues with the plan, it seems, is that it disincentivizes trial lawyers to take on med/mal cases. If there is a cap on the non-economic damages, that limits the amount that a trial lawyer could earn in contingency fees. Given that there doesn’t seem to be evidence to support either sides’ arguments about the plan, doesn’t this just seem to be another instance in which an administration is taking lukewarm action on behalf of its supporters?

In other words, this is all sound and fury.

In addition, California places caps on the amount of the settlement that can be awarded to attorneys. This provides a further disincentive to sue.

[Fear_Itself]

@xtisme

:rolleyes:

-XT

Ooh, the dreaded ‘smiley’ ripost! There’s no defense against that one! Debate over.

[XT]

@Fear Itself

Ooh, the dreaded ‘smiley’ ripost! There’s no defense against that one! Debate over.

Its a ‘roll eyes’ ripost actually…and it wasn’t directed at you, but at Metacom. Why, you ask? Because what does Prison Health Services have to do with Bush’s proposed tort reform?? Are they connected in any way? Will less prisoners die if Bush’s tort reform is not passed…or conversely will more die if it is??

There is certainly one in this thread who is ducking and weaving here…and it isn’t me. You’ve been asked to back up your claims by a number of posters. I’ve asked you for a cite with actual numbers twice now. You haven’t responded to Pervert at all. Stop trying to shift this to me and back up what you are talking about our flee your own thread Fear.

-XT

[Metacom]

@xtisme

Its a ‘roll eyes’ ripost actually…and it wasn’t directed at you, but at Metacom. Why, you ask? Because what does Prison Health Services have to do with Bush’s proposed tort reform??

You ridiculed the notion that health care providers would let people die because it would be more cost-effective then treatment, and said that providers wouldn’t do that because people would go elsewhere. I provided an example of a health care provider that is killing people who can’t go elsewhere because it’s more cost-effective then treatment.

And, of course, the families of the people that PHS has murdered aren’t going to be able to sue for as much now.

[pervert]

To further digress discussion, I off this site containing many interesting facts about pnumonia.

pnumonia

Most importantly to this discussion is this bit :

Categorizing Severity
One approach for determining whether a patient should be hospitalized categorizes patients into five classes depending on risk factors for severity, with class 1 being the least severe (having less than 0.5% risk for mortality) and class 1 being the most severe (having at least a 10% mortality risk).

Ruling out the Least Severe Cases. The procedure for deciding on hospitalization or not starts by ruling out patients in the lowest risk groups (class 1 and 2), who can be discharged with outpatient care only. This can often be done with a simple physical examination, which can often rule out a severe condition. Patients in low-risk categories have the following characteristics:

* Under age 50 and not a patient in a nursing home.

* No other major illnesses are present.

* No serious symptoms are present (eg, altered mental state, rapid pulse or breathing rate, very low blood pressure, very high fever). 

Even these criteria, however, should not be carved in stone. Physicians still must use their own judgment and take mitigating factors into consideration.

As examples, the following young people with signs of pneumonia should be hospitalized, even if they fit class 1 categories:

* Any infant under a month.

* Young adults with alcoholism or severe psychiatric conditions.

* Young adults or children with abnormal heart rhythms.

* Young adults or children who are vomiting heavily.

* Children who are dehydrated. 

Unless you have some indications that the actress mentioned in the OP did not fit the catagories above, perhaps even her case was not malpractice of any sort.

[Liberal]

@Fear Itself

Except that, as has been pointed out, the* same plan is already in place in California*, and Bush just wants to take it national. I would argue that she was killed by negligence that was condoned because malpractice suits in California are suppressed.

You’re right. I stand corrected.

But never let the facts get in your way of lowering the bar for cleverness and humor, Lib.

Apparently, the fact is that you’ve misjudged me.

[Campion]

@bashere

I hope I’m not being dense, but are you sure you don’t have those reversed? If the threat of high awards is a disincentive to malpractice, then we would expect higher mortality rates in the 27 states that have implemented such reforms, and lower in the 23 that have not.

You’re not dense; I had them reversed. Thanks.

[Fear_Itself]

@pervert

Unless you have some indications that the actress mentioned in the OP did not fit the catagories above, perhaps even her case was not malpractice of any sort.

Perhaps; a difference of medical opinion is what court cases are made of. But since Bush wants to disincentivize malpractice cases for trial lawyers, we may never know, will we? Or is the ability to sue reserved for the wealthy?

[pervert]

@Fear Itself

Perhaps; a difference of medical opinion is what court cases are made of. But since Bush wants to disincentivize malpractice cases for trial lawyers, we may never know, will we?

Surely you are not now claiming that without a trial we cannot know the details of this incident. You were the one willing to cry malpractice on the lone evidence that she had seen two doctors and died shortly afterwards.

[TOUNGE_IN_CHEEK]

Or is the ability to sue reserved for the wealthy?

Yes, yes it is. Or should be. And I don’t mean the right. I mean the ability. It should be physically impossible for any person not making more than $1,000,000 a year or worth less than $50,000,000 in assets to enter a courtroom for any purpose other than answering a criminal complaint. Perhaps a force field of some kind.

Obviously, this means that any time a rich person sues a poor person they should be granted a summary judgement. Perhaps we could simply issue rich people coupons. They fill one out when they take property away from a poor person and simply turn it in to the nearest police officer.
[/TOUNG_IN_CHEEK]
:rolleyes:

Look. I’m not at all convinced that limiting malpractice awards is a good thing. I rather like the idea that a person should be wholly responsible for his behavior. But since you were the one complaining about letting facts get in the way, I just thought we ought to have a couple of them in the thread.

[Fear_Itself]

@pervert

Surely you are not now claiming that without a trial we cannot know the details of this incident.

Surely not.

You were the one willing to cry malpractice on the lone evidence that she had seen two doctors and died shortly afterwards.

And I am willing to let the jury decide. Are you?

[TOUNGE_IN_CHEEK]
Yes, yes it is. Or should be. And I don’t mean the right. I mean the ability. It should be physically impossible for any person not making more than $1,000,000 a year or worth less than $50,000,000 in assets to enter a courtroom for any purpose other than answering a criminal complaint. Perhaps a force field of some kind.

Obviously, this means that any time a rich person sues a poor person they should be granted a summary judgement. Perhaps we could simply issue rich people coupons. They fill one out when they take property away from a poor person and simply turn it in to the nearest police officer.
[/TOUNG_IN_CHEEK]
:rolleyes:

Am I supposed to respond to this? And what is with the all the rolleyes from the Pubbies today? Surely you don’t think that enhances your argument. And you should get that tongue looked at, it keeps mutating.

Look. I’m not at all convinced that limiting malpractice awards is a good thing. I But since you were the one complaining about letting facts get in the way, I just thought we ought to have a couple of them in the thread.

Bring 'em on. As yet you have only offered opinion. Surely you are aware there is a difference?

[PatriotX]

@Fear Itself

Under the Bush plan for tort reform, Nicole DeHuff’s family could only collect medical expenses plus $250,000. There are real cases of malpractice that will only be prevented by large awards that the hospital cannot ignore and write off as a cost of doing business.

The Bush plan guarantees that more people will die without any significant consequences for those whose negligence cause the death.

Since Bush’s plan hasn’t yet passed shouldn’t “large awards that the hospital cannot ignore and write off as a cost of doing business” have prevented this?

[pervert]

@Fear Itself

And I am willing to let the jury decide. Are you?

Yes, if it gets that far. I haven’t seen anything which indicates that it needs to be taken in that direction at all.

Bring 'em on. As yet you have only offered opinion. Surely you are aware there is a difference?

Uh… no. I have offered 2 pieces of information. First that pnumonia in healthy young people is most often treated with outpatient methods exactly was done in the case you offered. That is a fact directly relating to your assertion that the case mentioned in the OP was malpractice.

Secondly I offered that your site said nothing like what you alleged it said. It claims that malpractice limits are the way to better healthcare. You claimed it said the opposite.

[Loopydude]

Here’s an interesting article germane to this discussion, in many respects. It appears that while the authors perceive a dire need to reform the tort system, they also do not support measures that simply cap plaintiff awards. Rather, they suggest a no-fault system and encourage a transparent system of error reporting, which ought to aid the systemic epidemiology of iatrogenic illness and the discovery of effective measures against it. A salient quote:

Today we are in the throes of new tort crisis, with claims rates and average payouts rising in many states, especially those that did not institute tort reform in previous crises (45). The concurrence of the tort crisis and the attention to medical errors has not gone unnoticed by insurers. Lobbying for tort reform at both the state and federal levels is under way (47).

The tort reform strategy is problematic, not the least because of its contentiousness. Many state legislatures cannot pass meaningful reform because of the competitive gridlock interposed by health care providers and trial lawyers. Moreover, traditional tort reforms aim to reduce providers’ economic exposure, not create a more efficient system. The system’s fundamental flaw is not simply that it costs health care providers too much but that it tends to overcompensate some patients while undercompensating others (8, 47). Reform should strive to do more…

Emphasis mine.

[Fear_Itself]

@PatriotX

Since Bush’s plan hasn’t yet passed shouldn’t “large awards that the hospital cannot ignore and write off as a cost of doing business” have prevented this?

As has been pointed out several times earlier in this thread, the equivalent of the Bush plan has been in place in California since 1975. And has never resulted in a reduction (PDF) of malpractice insurance premiums, I might add.

[XT]

@Fear Itself

Am I supposed to respond to this? And what is with the all the rolleyes from the Pubbies today? Surely you don’t think that enhances your argument. And you should get that tongue looked at, it keeps mutating.

Do you figure you are scoring any points with this crap? I already explained my own roll eyes, and I think Perverts [TOUNGE_IN_CHEEK] comments were meant to be humorous…which they were. Do you figure that if you dance about without actually producing anything to back up your bullshit OP but toss out some stupid accusations at us ‘Pubbies’ no one will notice you haven’t backup up anything yet? Your one cite, which wouldn’t be enough in any case as it gives not figures on what you’ve been asked for in any case, has already been shown to say something different than what YOU are saying.

I’ll ask again for forms sake, then move on as you will prolly try what seems to be your standard evasion in this thread…do you have any evidence that health care in the states that already have caps on law suit awards is worse than on states that have no such caps? If you can’t back THAT up, its going to be damn hard for you to back up your OP title that ‘Bush’s Tort Reform Will Kill People’, no? So I suggest you get cracking and find some of that evidence stuff or you back off…your choice.

@Metacom

You ridiculed the notion that health care providers would let people die because it would be more cost-effective then treatment, and said that providers wouldn’t do that because people would go elsewhere. I provided an example of a health care provider that is killing people who can’t go elsewhere because it’s more cost-effective then treatment.

Come on Metacom…this is a bit of a stretch. Let me put it to you simply…how does your cite relate in any way to the position that ‘Bush’s Tort Reform Will Kill People’?? I mean, it seemed that what you brought up could be a serious issue (I only skimmed it), but how does it relate to the OP?

Because there is a health care provider that allegedly is killing prisoners who don’t have a choice? Again, how does that relate to the issue in the OP? How would it be any different if Bush’s tort reform is passes or isn’t passed?? Its a special circumstance that would fall under CRIMINAL law first, not civil. Again, I did the roll eyes thing because YOUR CITE HAS NO BEARING ON THE FRIGGIN OP! If I’m wrong, then show me how it relates to the issue of Bush’s tort reform.

-XT

[manhattan]

@Fear Itself

Except that, as has been pointed out, the* same plan is already in place in California*, and Bush just wants to take it national.

You misunderstand what has already been pointed out. The people pointing it out wondered about the comparison and asked about it; why did you not honor their committment to eradicate ignorance?

In fact, the California plan and the Bush proposal both cap non-economic compensatory damages at $250,000. That’s stuff like pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc. There are large, large differences between the California law and the President’s proposal in other areas. Specifically to this thread, there are large differences in the treatment of punitive damages, which is where your alleged disincentive to negligence would lie if you were to establish that it exists, which you have not.

What are the differences? I’m not telling you. Frankly, you have made an assertion, not a debate. You know literally nothing about the tort system existing in any state or on the federal level or about any existing or proposed reforms to the system(s). You do not have the background, knowledge or experience to argue this issue intelligently and this thread should have gone in the Pit. You have contributed to ignorance today. Others’ and your own.

[Fear_Itself]

@pervert

Secondly I offered that your site said nothing like what you alleged it said. It claims that malpractice limits are the way to better healthcare.

I don’t see that is clear at all. While the article did discuss both sides of the issue, the part I quoted supported my claim.

@manhattan

Specifically to this thread, there are large differences in the treatment of punitive damages, which is where your alleged disincentive to negligence would lie if you were to establish that it exists, which you have not.

What are the differences? I’m not telling you.

And this qualifies as debate in your little world?

You know literally nothing about the tort system existing in any state or on the federal level or about any existing or proposed reforms to the system(s). You do not have the background, knowledge or experience to argue this issue intelligently and this thread should have gone in the Pit. You have contributed to ignorance today. Others’ and your own.

Take it to the pit.

[Cornelius_Tuggerson]

@Finagle

So let’s see if I understand your reasoning. A doctor makes a misdiagnosis (and I don’t think it’s hard to miss pneumonia in a young, generally healthy person), the patient dies, and it takes a > $250K penalty to make them feel * bad * about it?

No, that penalty is there to compensate for the money the victim doesn’t get to earn for her surviving family and since there is no way to tell how much she might have earned if she lived I don’t think it should be limited to 250K. To make the doctor feel bad they take his license away.

There is no reason to believe that there aren’t a whole bunch of doctors out there that would gladly let a patient to come to harm through malpractice because they are racist/sexist/nationalist/etc… If the only way to weed the bastards out is by near crippling the medical system - well would you rather they continue selectively crippling/killing their patients? Even a doctor’s honest mistake is still his manager’s criminal negligence. Someone that could have lived dies - heads have to roll, wallets have to get significantly lighter. If there is a limit there that makes malpractice an acceptable business risk that can be insured against and swept under the carpet - what would anyone’s motivation to prevent malpractice? It has to be a big deal for people to have to think twice before committing it.

[pervert]

@Fear Itself

While the article did discuss both sides of the issue, the part I quoted supported my claim.And this qualifies as debate in your little world? Take it to the pit.

I don’t think the article discussed both sides at all. It was a look at the effects on defensive medicine of malpractice limiting measures. The part you quoted said that malpractice effects the quality of medical care, but taken in the context of the section that paragraph was in, I think they clearly meant that it effected medical care negatively. Not positively as you asserted. Look again at the concluding paragraph of that section. It clearly states that " Altogether these studies support tort reform as a means of controlling malpractice crises."

@faldureon

Even a doctor’s honest mistake is still his manager’s criminal negligence. Someone that could have lived dies - heads have to roll, wallets have to get significantly lighter.

This assertion needs some clarification. In the case brought up by the OP, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that both docotrs could have reasonably thought their course of treatment was the best possible option. I’ll add the caveat that we don’t have many details, and it is still possible that there was some obvious sign which they both missed. But without such evidence (hell even a claim that such a sign existed would be something) we really cannot make the claim you do here even for this case. It is much more difficult to make such a claim for all medical cases. Sometimes people get sick and die. Rarely, they do so very quickly. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that every time a person dies who might have been saved that someone committed a crime or that they must pay. It is just as possible (in fact, IMHO more likely) that the result (death) was simply an atypical occurance.