Kerry picks Edwards as VP. That's it, I'm not voting.

[World_Eater]

@GLWasteful

Hokay. So insurance carriers are erring on the side of paying someone off so as to save money. How foregone was the victory of the case that they would have paid a million for?

How forgone was the victory? That has nothing to do with anything. Let me make it simple for you.

Pru wins case - cost them a million
Pru loses case - costs them a million plus more in damages
Pru settles case - costs them less then a million

After awhile people wise up that hey, they usually settle instead of go the distance, it costs too much. Next time I have something that won’t hold water, I’ll sue anyway because it will cost them more to prove it doesn’t hold water then to settle.

Because I would grow tired of rolling over and taking it like a man everytime, and would like to think that I would stand up for principle.

Well, you’re not a company with a bottom line. Besides he didn’t say they rolled over all the time, but a lot more then they should.

Sorry, but telling people who have actually been harmed, “Too bad, so sad, but the cap is $500K. Take it and shut up,” is in no way sensible, and I sure as hell hope that it’s not common.

As I said before the actual cap numbers should be determined after looking at the whole system. Feel free to lay out an example in which a person should get more then 5 million.

Alright, let’s pretend that you’re right. Who gets to choose the charity? And how established does this charity need to be? If, say, a pentecostalist Christian wants the money to go to Snake Handler University, is that okey dokey? Howzabout the first time that a smart assed plaintiff wants the money to go to Trial Lawyers 4-Ever? Because I guarantee you that if your plan were ever (fates forfend) implemented, then the number of charities would explode, and they would all be very closely defined in their recipients. So, you’ve not helped anyone. Not doctors, not plaintiffs, not me and not you.

The point is it goes to anyone other then the victim and their lawyers. Funds, charities, light the shit on fire, when you remove it from their hands, hopefully, you remove the incentive to go after the deep pockets. That’s the concept at least. I’m open to any suggestions you might have, if any.

[quote]
So, you want to change the foundation of the legal system of the US so that people will no longer be allowed to sue for punitive damages for their own use. Instead they get to run their case all the way to trial so that they can make money for a charity. How is this not like Celebrity Jeopardy again?

Here’s a definition for you.

DAMAGES, PUNITIVE - The purpose of punitive damages is to punish a defendant and to deter a defendant and others from committing similar acts in the future

“…so that people will no longer be allowed to sue for punitive damages for their own use.”

Has nothing to do with it.

As far as the celebrity Jeopardy thing, I don’t know what that has to do with it. I never stated that the plantiff or the defense should have any say in where the money ends up. How about for something glamorous like highway repair? :rolleyes:

[GLWasteful]

@World Eater

After awhile people wise up that hey, they usually settle instead of go the distance, it costs too much. Next time I have something that won’t hold water, I’ll sue anyway because it will cost them more to prove it doesn’t hold water then to settle.

As you point out, I’m certainly not a company with a bottom line, but I still maintain that after the first four dozen times I would fight the fucking thing all the way to the bitter end. Hell, show people that Prudential, for one, is not gonna allow frivolous lawsuits without a fight.

Besides just because you think it’s frivolous doesn’t mean that it is.

@World Eater

As I said before the actual cap numbers should be determined after looking at the whole system. Feel free to lay out an example in which a person should get more then 5 million.

Well, a three year old winds up in a wheelchair due to a doctor’s mistake. As an added wrinkle, this three year old lives in Hawaii, has for her entire life. Her parents both are employed in Hawaii and the doctoral mistake isn’t going to shorten her life. Hawaii isn’t an inexpensive place to live, and she is expected to live for another 72 years.

Is that an example that you think should have a floating cap? Is it worth $5 million? I certainly think so.

The point is it goes to anyone other then the victim and their lawyers. Funds, charities, light the shit on fire, when you remove it from their hands, hopefully, you remove the incentive to go after the deep pockets. That’s the concept at least. I’m open to any suggestions you might have, if any.

So. . .you don’t care where it goes, so long as it goes anywhere but into the pockets of the people who brought suit. Do you realize how unfair that is? People can suddenly sue for amounts with the added wrinkle that any amount awarded goes to a charity? Well, I’m agonna establish the “GLWasteful lifestyle enhancement charity”, by gum, and 'mence to suing.

What you have laid out is absurd.

As far as the celebrity Jeopardy thing, I don’t know what that has to do with it.

People get to take a suit to trial, and if the jury sides with them, they win. Of course, just like on Celebrity Jeopardy, they don’t get to keep any of that money. They get to give it to a charity that they named beforehand. What happens if they lose? Do they find out that Trebek ain’t kidding around and that if they don’t pony up, really bad things will happen?

I never stated that the plantiff or the defense should have any say in where the money ends up. How about for something glamorous like highway repair?(smilie once again eliminated for the good of people everywhere)

Um, somebody has to determine where the money ends up. And since MO has less than ideal highways, I gotta say that I’m sorely tempted to take you up on spending settlements on road work. But I still think that the system works pretty well, so no.

And I, too, hope that you’re wrong inre your prognostication that the system will collapse.

Our main difference seems to be that you feel that if everything isn’t changed immediately that we’ll be looking at a lack of doctors in the future. I, OTOH, think that the system is working and doing pretty much what it’s supposed to be doing, and that there will always be doctors. 'Zat sound about right?

Also, again: What happened fifty years ago when a doctor screwed up? I really wanna know.

[World_Eater]

@GLWasteful

As you point out, I’m certainly not a company with a bottom line,

No shit. A company with a bottom line tends to handle things differently then a single individual without a care in the world.

but I still maintain that after the first four dozen times I would fight the fucking thing all the way to the bitter end. Hell, show people that Prudential, for one, is not gonna allow frivolous lawsuits without a fight.

Showing costs more money, guess which route they they’ll take?

Besides just because you think it’s frivolous doesn’t mean that it is.

Same goes for you on the flipside.

Well, a three year old winds up in a wheelchair due to a doctor’s mistake. As an added wrinkle, this three year old lives in Hawaii, has for her entire life. Her parents both are employed in Hawaii and the doctoral mistake isn’t going to shorten her life. Hawaii isn’t an inexpensive place to live, and she is expected to live for another 72 years.

Is that an example that you think should have a floating cap? Is it worth $5 million? I certainly think so.

Too vague, what happened and what type of medical treatment is required? $70,000 a year for life is no small change, I want specifics.

So. . .you don’t care where it goes, so long as it goes anywhere but into the pockets of the people who brought suit. Do you realize how unfair that is? People can suddenly sue for amounts with the added wrinkle that any amount awarded goes to a charity? Well, I’m agonna establish the “GLWasteful lifestyle enhancement charity”, by gum, and 'mence to suing.

Now you’re just being fucking ignorant. Here’s the epoch shattering concept. The money goes to a “place” where the people suing don’t benefit from it. So you can set up your charity, start suing willy nilly, and not a dime will go to your charity, because you, the person suing, are affiliated with it.

I can’t make it anymore simple unless I pull out my crayons for you. The money goes to a place that doesn’t benefit the people bringing the suit.

They get to give it to a charity that they named beforehand.

No they don’t, that would defeat the entire purpose. Learn to read.

What happens if they lose? Do they find out that Trebek ain’t kidding around and that if they don’t pony up, really bad things will happen?

If they lose, there are no punitive damages. Crazy eh?

Um, somebody has to determine where the money ends up. And since MO has less than ideal highways, I gotta say that I’m sorely tempted to take you up on spending settlements on road work. But I still think that the system works pretty well, so no.

Yeah yeah system works great. Go here and do some reading. Check out the PDF.

http://www.iii.org/media/presentations/medmal/

Our main difference seems to be that you feel that if everything isn’t changed immediately that we’ll be looking at a lack of doctors in the future. I, OTOH, think that the system is working and doing pretty much what it’s supposed to be doing, and that there will always be doctors. 'Zat sound about right?

That, and you’re not listening to a word that’s been said.

Also, again: What happened fifty years ago when a doctor screwed up? I really wanna know.

Here’s a link that will explain that.

[qcomdrj]

World Eater, spectacular first link. As for the second?

Waste, the punitive damages aren’t there for reconciliation of debts of the person. They are noneconomic. If she had bills of 70K/year, inflation adjusted for 72 years, she would get that settlement, and it wouldn’t be covered by the cap. Because it isn’t punitive. It also wouldn’t be as bad for the company because it would be stretched out over those same 72 years as an annuity. Perhaps a floating cap might work in those instances, but the problem I have is that people are using heartache as a means to gain. If the parents are suing for punitive damages, they aren’t always using it to make the daughter’s life better. “Well, my kid is in a wheelchair, but she likes my new Ferrari.” So then should we put it into a fund that the parents can’t get to, since it is the daughter’s pain and suffering that the entity is being sued for?
Being in a wheelchair also doesn’t mean she can’t work. Maybe not in every field she wants to, but she isn’t of no value to the society. We have a cardiologist who performs surgery in a “standing chair”. Granted, he became paralyzed after becoming a cardiologist.
Caps aren’t as bad as you view, or people in California would be just miserable, and unable to do anything about bad doctors. I don’t see a massive flux of people out of that state, for that reason or any of the other reasons that would make sense (earthquakes, fires, mudslides, extremely loud liberal group around hollywood, etc).

[GaWd]

@qcomdrj

Caps aren’t as bad as you view, or people in California would be just miserable, and unable to do anything about bad doctors. I don’t see a massive flux of people out of that state, for that reason or any of the other reasons that would make sense (earthquakes, fires, mudslides, extremely loud liberal group around hollywood, etc).

Well, as I mentioned before, my uncle faces an arbitrary $100K cap on medical treatment after a worker’s compensation injury cause loss of limb. He cannot sue for Economic or non-Economic losses, either, because it was an on-the-job injury.

By all accounts, this 58 year old man who now has no arm, a screwed up shoulder, massive thoracic injuries and possible brain damage that cannot be verified due to a lack of treatment funds preventing him from diagnostics tests, is miserable. He can’t even get clearance to talk to his psychologist because of funding issues, so he can’t even learn to better deal with being limbless.

Sam

[GaWd]

P.S.- While that is not an example of a punitive awards cap, it is an example of what arbitrarily set caps can do to people.

And Worldy, I thank you for your sentiments, and must say the same thing about you. I’m glad to have you on my side 8 times out of every 10.

Sam

[qcomdrj]

Gawd, I’m not saying either method can’t be used to an extreme at the expense of others. However, California’s cap is low, IMO. The outcry, however, isn’t noticeable to most of us in the nation. Not being privy to newspapers out of Sacramento or Santa Cruz, I don’t know what people there think of it. Many malpractice insurers and medical groups consider it to be a success story from their viewpoint. If it got voted down at the next opportunity, trial lawyers would likely see it as a success story from their viewpoint.
In your uncle’s situation, it seems like that cap is mindless, and not thought through. Seriously, what if the person where in the ICU. Would they go “well, it is Tuesday, and the cap ran out at 7pm, so we can’t run this code now. Move him out and put another guy in here.”
The problem with reform is it will take people on both sides to make concessions, and that likely isn’t going to happen. So I’m going to have to support my side, since it is likely to directly affect me 100% of the time, and hope that chance events don’t cause me to change sides.

[GaWd]

What’s up with Santa Cruz? Does it have some medical importance that I don’t know about? Just curious…

The problem with reform is it will take people on both sides to make concessions, and that likely isn’t going to happen. So I’m going to have to support my side, since it is likely to directly affect me 100% of the time, and hope that chance events don’t cause me to change sides.

Now this is the damndest thing. You will blindly support your side instead of trying to work to make concessions on both sides like you say it will take to settle the problem? That’s willfully ignorant at best, and irresponsible at worst. Blind faith in something that you know isn’t right for the “greater good” of ‘Me’ is quite unpalatable.

I take it you’ve never been much of an advocate for anyone before?

Sam

[World_Eater]

@GaWd

And Worldy, I thank you for your sentiments, and must say the same thing about you. I’m glad to have you on my side 8 times out of every 10.

Sam

Thanks.

I’ll also take the time to reiterate that qcomdrj sigh up, we can use him around here.

[GLWasteful]

@World Eater

No shit. A company with a bottom line tends to handle things differently then a single individual without a care in the world.

Yeah, that’s me, shitbag. Nipples to the wind, rushing right down to the singles bar. What was it you said? Oh, yes, “Learn to read.”

Showing costs more money, guess which route they they’ll take?

Well, if they’re gonna be punks and settle, then I’m supposed to get my schnozz outta joint, why? Oh, yeah, because you said so. Sorry, Sparky, it just don’t work that way.

Too vague, what happened and what type of medical treatment is required? $70,000 a year for life is no small change, I want specifics.

Yeah, I kinda figured you would. Look, I just pulled this off the top of my head because you asked for an example that I felt was worth $5 mil. I did so.

Now you’re just being fucking ignorant.

Well, sure. I tried that celibate ignorance but it just wasn’t my bag.

Here’s the epoch shattering concept.

You, laddie, are giving yourself credit that you are far from due.

The money goes to a “place” where the people suing don’t benefit from it.

Then who does? Because despite your impressive hyperbole in which you said it could be burned, something has to happen to it. You are the one who has come up with (totally unworkable IMHO, but such is thus) solutions, but you only have the most tenuous grasp on that important next step. And as a rule, when you don’t know the next step, you look pretty asinine. And resort to using rolleyes smilies and the like. I’m just sayin’ is all.

I can’t make it anymore simple unless I pull out my crayons for you.

Sure you could. You could start by answering the questions posed, or admit that you have no earthly fucking idea. Pretty basic stuff, really.

Yeah yeah system works great.

Once again (man, that’s a statement that gets used a lot with you): Show me one single instance where I said the system works great. Just one, I’ll wait. Yeah, that’s what I thought. “Learn to read.”

Go here and do some reading. Check out the PDF.

Did and did. Things aren’t great. And where did I say things were peachy? Ducky? Again: one single instance. Just one. Anything? Thought not. “Learn to read.”

Here’s a link that will explain that.

Tried it. The first four pages linked to Asian porn. I suppose I owe you my thanks.

Y’know what? You can answer a question with, “I don’t know.” Really! Give it a try! C’mon, all the cool kids are doing it.

Or, you can continue to work yourself into an hyperbole spouting ass. Doesn’t affect me one way or the other. So, which one will it be?

As for me: Some of this is straight off the top of my head (c’mon, I know yer gonna bag on me, so do it already and save me the suspense), but I, as I believe I said earlier, am not a doctor. Nor, for that matter, am I an attorney. I’m just some yutz who recognizes unfairness and hyperbole. Hyperbole, I rush to add that is probably as well placed as any, what with you defending your SO and all. Hell, watch me shriek when someone commences to flail at public school teachers. But honestly, I’m trying to learn here. And work as an advocate for those who I feel are in danger of being screwed. And it looks to me like the solution that you and qcomdrj are touting will screw a lot of people. Not all of whom deserve it. YMODV

[qcomdrj]

*Originally posted by Waste *
Tried it. The first four pages linked to Asian porn. I suppose I owe you my thanks.

Any of it good? My experience with Googled porn isn’t that great.

As for recognizing fairness, you seem to recognize it only from one standpoint. Unfortunately, as in many phases of life, what’s fair to one isn’t fair to the other.

Y’know what? You can answer a question with, “I don’t know.” Really! Give it a try! C’mon, all the cool kids are doing it.

I’ll take “How to fix the current system that isn’t peachy for $100 Alex.”

*Originally posted by GaWd *
Blind faith in something that you know isn’t right for the “greater good” of ‘Me’ is quite unpalatable.

Gawd, I’m blindly supporting my side? No cites, no evidence either. Completely blind. Walking with my arms out in front of me. I would tend to think that the AMA has researched this pretty thoroughly, and would argue much better than me. I am just kind of someone who donates to them, and am running for the research committees. Their side happens to support reform. I haven’t seen anywhere where they say specific caps, or perhaps an adjustable cap.

Something I know isn’t right? I tend to think malpractice reform is right, and moreso, it is for the better good of healthcare in general, of which I am just a part. If it is good for healthcare, I would tend to think it good for humanity.
But what do I know, the AMA is only out to make money. Same as the American Cancer Society, I mean, what would those people do if they actually cured cancer? Go find real jobs?

[mhendo]

@qcomdrj

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be able to sue for damages. Just not ridiculously high, lottery winning punitive damages for something that cannot be measured (pain and suffering are not the same for everyone).
So, I want really high malpractice awards to stop. If I wanted all of them to stop, then my position would be “I want to make all malpractice suits null and void”. People deserve to have their salaries and medical bills paid if they are injured. They do not deserve to be independently wealthy. Can you see that?

I don’t want to butt in on what seems to have turned into something of a private conversation, but i just saw a piece on the local evening news about the whole issue of medical malpractice insurance in Maryland.

Now, according to the report, there is a cap on the amount that can be awarded in the state of Maryland for noneconomic “pain and suffering.” That amount is currently $635,000, and apparently it rises by $15,000 a year. Yet, despite this cap, the payouts made my Med Mutual, the state’s largest malpractice insurer, jumped by about two thirds to $93 million last year, and the company intends to hike its rates 41% to help make up the losses.

So, we have a state where punitive damages awards are relatively low (and the Governor wants to reduce them to $500,000), yet malpractice payouts are increasing exponentially. Now, given the cap on punitive damages, we have to assume that a lot of the overall payout in Maryland is going towards economic damages (lost wages, medical bills, etc.). You say, qcomdrj, that “deserve to have their salaries and medical bills paid if they are injured.” Well, it seems that even this is too much for the system.

I’m still at a loss as to how you remedy this, short of actually denying injured parties the opportunity to seek simple restitution. Because, even if they managed to cap noneconomic damages at $0, the payouts in Maryland for economic damages would still be growing.

The Washington Post recently opined on the subject, saying:

A somewhat tighter limit on awards for “pain and suffering” strikes us as reasonable but inadequate; it needs to be coupled with better provisions for protecting patients from negligent doctors and improving medical care. The goal, as we’ve said before, should be to protect victims of doctor error as well as victims of unfair lawsuits. That might mean tougher discipline for repeat-offender doctors, better disclosure of errors in care and closer scrutiny of hospitals to identify patterns of errors. Doctors might squirm at that, and trial lawyers might squirm at lower caps on “pain and suffering” awards. But without some compromises, Maryland’s health care system may be heading for a fall.

I think that this paragraph points up one of the key problems in this whole debate. Many critics of lawsuits accuse lawyers of simply being greedy parasites who are out to protect their turf and rake in the cash. But those critics often forget that doctors represent just as much of a self-interested cabal as lawyers. If the medical profession had shown, over the years, a greater willingness to be transparent about its own problems, to acknowledge and fix them rather than covering them up, and to boot out or discipline the offenders, then the public might be somewhat more forgiving when errors are made.

Administrators are also a problem. Look at a recent case here in Maryland, where one hospital’s HepB and HIV testing lab messed up a whole bunch of tests, and it only saw the light of day after someone blew the whistle. I know this involves lab workers rather than doctors, but the fact that state inspectors only heard of the problem after a former worker made a report is indicative of the money-first blinders under which some hospital administrators work.