Tort Reform!
 

Why haven't docs sued insurers on a fraud theory? If you raise rates to cover your own economic losses while simultaneously claiming the increase derives from made-up adverse market conditions, aren't you committing fraud?

Don't you have the intenional misrepresentation of a material fact with detrimental reliance required for a fraud claim? Why hasn't that class action been filed?

Alternatively, why not a price-gouging claim under some state's price gouging statute? I know the insurance contracts say rates can be jacked for any reason the companies want, but there's got to be spome legal basis to hang them...

Tort Reform!
 

Ever sued your insurer? Better yet, ever made a claim? What happened? Right. Lesson is, Good luck getting coverage in the future. It benefits the doctors much more to point the finger at lawyers than at their insurers. They need insurance - they don't need lawyers (they think - bwahhhahahahhhahahhahhh).

The insurance lobby is pretty powerful, and they tend to hire some expensive legal talent. In CA, we have an insurance commissioner who tries to do something about gouging, but has had only limited success.

Tort Reform!
 

Do you really think that is how business works?

Tort Reform!
 

Touche. But at least thats the theory. The govt doesn't even try/pretend to attempt to adhere to that theoretical standard.

Tort Reform!
 

They pretend. They just have a lot more restrictions on them than private employers do. The whole due process part of firing, etc. I think that the gov't is not all that unlike a business of a comparable size (if there were one . . . ) in terms of bureacracy. Except, the gov't has to operate under rules that are actually laws in some cases and thus has even less flexibility than a private company -- they can't just revamp evaluation and compensation structures whenever they want to. Or, that's my impression.

And on the state level, and even more so the local level, firing is fraught with political implications -- and the people at the very top are always political.

The accumulated debt today is $8.2 trillion. Interest payments for 2005 were over $350 billion.

I guess that's insignificant, too -- right?

Tort Reform!
 

Seems to me that they do, nowadays. Like Enron, or Adelphia, or Tyco.

S_A_M

Tort Reform!
 

Give me a break. Your comments are just a product of denial. To try and blame the outlandish insurance rates on the insurance companys trying to make up for failing investments is a joke. If they were just charging the high rates to pad their pockerts a cut throat insurance agency would come in and offer lower rates. In some counties insurance companys just won't cover obstraticians. Many county hospitals have to create their own inurance. Many insurance companys have dropped medical insurance all together because it is not profitable. If they were simply gouging doctors to line their pockets every insurance company would be offering medical malpratice insurance wherever they could. Blaming the insurance companys, or thinking regulating them is going to help the situation, is pure economic ignorance. If a business is not profitable all the regulation in the world is not going to make it better. Insurance companys charge the outlandish rates because that is the only way they can make a profit. And the only way the cost of medical insurance would have to be so high is because of litigation. There is simply no other reasonable explanation.

The doctors don't seem to be blaming the insurance companys and they are the ones being gouged. Don't you think the doctors are in the best position to know who is responsible for the high rates. Yet they don't blame the insurance companys, they blame lawyers - do they just not understand the situation? No they understand what is happening, and no amount of B.S from the trial lawyers is going to obscure the obvious truth that a bat could see.

There is a lot of mistakes in hospitals, so all this money we spend on litigation does not seem to make the system safer. So there is so much litigation insurance companys are pulling out and yet we still have all lot of screw ups. The trial lawyer system is not working and screwing up the economy.

Tort Reform!
 

The problem with your approach is that the government is often doing a job that wouldn't be profitable in the private sector--giving away money, protecting things that wouldn't be protected, etc. So it's not market driven. You can't just evaluate it like a salesman--so a cop arrests 10 people/month and he gets a toaster? Wonder why you get a lot of parking tickets? Much of what the government does can't easily be evaluated by teh same standards. How do you know the guy did a good job reviewing the FCC license application?

Sure, there are lots of places to root out corrupion and laziness, but there are in the private sector too. ask fringey's boss.

Tort Reform!
 

The doctors are not afraid of insurance companys. That is absurd. Half the leadership of the Republican party in this area is doctors. The former head of the AMA is chairman of the local Republican central committee. He doesn't blame the insurance companys at all. None of the doctors do. They blame trial lawyers and that is there sole reason for being in politics. Stopping trial lawyers. These guys are not stupid. If the insurance companys were the problem they would know it. In order to believe in creationsim you have to believe that every biology Phd is stupid. In order to believe that the insurance companys are at fault for the high rates you would have to believe that almost every doctor, and all the heads of the AMA are stupid. That is just absurd.

Yes but how much of that date was left there by prior generations. The overwhelming bulk of it has been created in the past twenty years. Like I said, recent deficits cause the problem not long term debt.

And like others have said, it's disengenuous to pretend that the problem will easily and painlessly evaporate with a growing economy and balanced budgets for the next 20 years. You'll most likely have the former, but the last two decades have taught us to be quite skeptical of the latter. With that reality, it's not a hard stretch to conclude that the problem keeps getting passed down.

Tort Reform!
 

Yes but those laws can be changed. There is no reason government jobs can not be performanced based like private sector jobs. But any time performance (actually doing your job) is entered into the equation for job retention or increase compensation for doing good work is entered into the equation, the Public Unions, most particularly the teacher unions, cry bloody murder.

In the private sector one of the most important aspects of running a successful business is cutting out workers that aren't producing. But in the public sector for some reason people seem to think that non-producing employees should keep their jobs. That is an absurd notion, and government will continue to be highly inefficient and waste our money until that paradigm changes.

Who is being disengenuous? If we balanced the budget for the next twenty years there would be no problem. I never said that was likely to happen.

Tort Reform!
 

Yes - many times. Once personally and many times for clients. I sued a company handling my car insurance, got them to settle, and I have never had a problem getting car insurance since then. Insurance companys, like any other companys are greedy. If insurance companys were making so much money from medical insurance (gouging as you like to say) everybody and his brother would be jumping in. Instead everyone is getting out.

Exactly
 

Exactly. Mostly because of their cartoons. And don't forget they strongly endorsed CAFTA and think farm subsidies are a complete waste of money.

The so called "experts".
 

Stop me if this gets too complicated.

If you spend money you don't have (a/k/a "deficit spending"), you have to pay for it later.

Therefore, future generations will have to pay not only for whatever spending they want for themselves, but also for the things Republicans have spent money on but chosen not to pay for. In this way, they are being taxed.

Even if they elect representatives who decide not to spend as much, they will still have to pay for the stuff today's Republicans are buying.

None of this has anything to do with social engineering.

The so called "experts".
 

[SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF]

[/SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF]

The so called "experts".
 

No you don't. In fact, we should probably never pay off the national debt. The 300 billion in the national debt that was there in 1960 should probably never be paid off. Our national debt forms the anchor for the international monetary system and sets the foundation peg for world interest rates.

If we just balance the budget now and don't touch the debt in twenty years we will be fine. If we balance the budget for the next forty years the national debt will probably get to low and we will have to borrow money. But that is probably something we won't have to worry about.

The so called "experts".
 

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are."

-- Jean Jacques Rousseau

The so called "experts".
 

If we paid off the national debt what do you think the consequenses would be? Do you have any idea what I am talking about?

The so called "experts".
 

You are welcome to move to Somalia or Haiti, or someother place where government has completelybroken down and man is truly free, but I think I will keep my chains.

Just so we're clear: You're not saying that we're not taxing future generations, you're saying it's not a problem because they'll be able to afford it.

We have to have some sort of national debt, so having a debt is not a problem (if there is growth and no deflation). The problem comes from recent deficits. Especially high recent deficits. In order to solve the problem you just need to keep the budget balanced for a while until the national debt becomes a much smaller percentage of the GNP. But if the debt becomes too small that would also be a problem. We could not have balanced budgets indefinitely without hurting the economy. So in the long term todays debt does not have to be paid back. If you keep the budget balanced for too long of a time you would have to incur some more debt to keep the economy healthy.

Tort Reform!
 

When I practiced law in the Bay Area, my only clients were physicians, and I represented them in every area of their practice except for medical malpractice claims. I worked very, very closely with CMA and I'm professional and personally sympathetic to the plight of the physician. (I'm typing this while two of them argue hospital politics during the Rose Bowl. BTW, Go horns!) My interest is in protecting physicians, and to focus solely on medical malpractice, especially in the state of California, is ridiculous.

MICRA rules and has since 1975 years in California. Further tort reform isn't really possible given MICRA. MICRA is the model for most other states' tort reform with regard to medical liability. I've represented physicians who got dinged with med mal insurance surcharges for "claims history" simply because of a notice to sue letter. *

The problem in your area is low reimbursement, a complete and total domination of a failed managed care system, and closed panels. I used to represent nephrologists that made less than $75K a year. Primary care physicians were even worse off, and this is mainly because managed care dominates the entire market.

Pissed off physicians in California are NOT bitching about medical malpractice. Pissed off physicians in California are bitching about capitation.

*This is what the CMA has to say about MICRA, and why your physician friends in the California Republican Party need to shut up and focus on the other stuff that the CMA advocates:

Quote:

MICRA, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, reformed the medical malpractice insurance system in California through implementation of a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, a limit on attorney fees, full disclosure of collateral sources of compensation and periodic payments for awards over $50,000. While a medical malpractice crisis is sweeping across America, MICRA has kept the doors of medicine open and has protected the health care safety net in our state by keeping medical malpractice insurance available and affordable in California. CMA supports continuation of MICRA, including the quarter million dollar cap on noneconomic damages.

I can see Republicans in other states bitching about these things, but not in California. The Texas Monthly rebuttal that I cited shows that medical malpractice premiums went up by as much as 10 percent after tort reform in Texas in 2004 for many insurance companies. Sort of tells you that the lawyers aren't the problem. And the doctors, as usual, are simplifying the issue by vilifying the lawyers. Which they always do, until they need me.

The so called "experts".
 

Future generations will have to pay either the principle or the interest, Spanky. You can argue that the debt won't be crippling -- I didn't say it would be, so I'm not sure whom you're arguing with -- but you can't say it won't exist. If you spend money today, and borrow to do so, you create a liability to be borne in the future. This administration is fine with this, because future generations are politically underrepresented just now.

Tort Reform!
 

They're not gouging. They invested, like everyone else did, heavily in the tech boom, and then the bottom fell out of the market, and suddenly we're in a "medical malpractice crisis."

The so called "experts".
 

You didn't understand my point, did you. I didn't say you were wrong, I just noted that you shifted from complaining about having a government that's too involved in the economy in the space of a handful of posts.

When most Republicans talk about reducing the size of government, they are using code words for explaining that they want government to stop doing things that Democrats like. Very few Republicans -- including almost no federal officials -- are willing to take the political heat that would come with actually practicing what they preach. It's have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too government.

The so called "experts".
 

That's my line. If you truly respect property rights, PM me and I'll tell you where to send the check.

Just so we're clear: You're not saying that we're not taxing future generations, you're saying it's not a problem because they'll be able to afford it.

The so called "experts".
 

are you familar with the Christian concept of Jubilee?
It's a debt forgiveness thing, if you had been reading FB you'd know Sebastian is a proponent- except not the Christian part. Oh, and as long as he's not owed.

What's the point? I'm kinda drunk and even stupider than usual.

Tort Reform!
 

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you agree with this:

"The Economist is probably the best news publication out there. That said, they sometimes come out with utter crap. This article might as well have been written by the AMA. Not a mention of the 1999 Institute of Medicine report that found between 44,000 and 98,000 preventable deaths every year in US hospitals, or the 2002 Public Citizen report that 5% of doctors are responsible for 50% of malpractice awards. A 2005 study by Dartmouth College researchers suggested that increases in doctors' insurance premiums are not due to jury awards and financial settlements for injured patients, but are more likely due to insurance companies having raised doctors' premiums to compensate for falling investment returns.

Reregulate insurance companies, force the AMA to police its own, and mandate aggressive reductions in preventable errors in hospitals. Any or all of these will reduce malpractice awards - and the last two have the additional benefit of increasing the quality of health care."

The you say: "MICRA is the model for most other states' tort reform with regard to medical liability." So are you saying most states have MICRA so the above article is wrong or are you saying that other states need MICRA (like Texas) so the article I was citing was correct for states without MICRA?

I believe she's irritated that for some reason some delegate in Virginia thinks that unmarried women shouldn't be able to give birth to children without conceiving them naturally. God knows why. I think maybe Mr. (Ms.?) Marshall thinks it's somehow related to abortion.

ETA: Perhaps, however, it is useful remember that at least one Representative to the US House has introduced legislation within the past few years to abolish the Federal Reserve system. Perhaps this bill has about as high a chance of success.

Tort Reform!
 

I know that medical insurance rates in California are still really high. Generally much more that the physicians salaries. How could the tort system not be out of hand if the physicians are paying more for insurance than they are earning in salary? Why are insurance rates so high?

Tort Reform!
 

So why aren't lawyers malpractice rates really high? Why aren't the insurance companys trying to make up for their lost income from lawyers? Why aren't car insurance rates climbing dramatically? And why are most insurance companys ending medical malpractice coverage. If they were just trying to collect money all insurance companys would be staying in medical malpractice and all insurance rates would be climbing dramatically across the board? The argument is absurd on its face.

Tort Reform!
 

My comments about MICRA were directed to your comments about the grousing Republican Doctors in California. You were talking about the state of the practice of medicine in California, a subject I know a hell of a lot of about. I'm saying that if there's a problem with medical malpractice in this country, because of MICRA such a problem does not exist in California. The article you cited is irrelevant to California and your doctor buddies are just bitching about lawyers. Doctors have done that since the dawn of time.

I don't think that the article that you cited is correct for states without MICRA, but it's totally irrelevant to states like California that already have tort reform for the reasons that Panda laid out as well as looking at the two academic articles that I cited. (I can also give you a NYT editorial by the UT profs that did the first study.)

Did you read the Texas Monthly rebuttal that started this conversation, which sort of lays out the situation in Texas?

The so called "experts".
 

Todays debt will not have to be paid back and the interest on todays debt will be insignificant forty years from now. Forty years from now the only deficits that will matter are the deficits that are incurred 33 years from now (if they are incurred).

That is why the comment of we are saddling future generations with debt is political hyperboly and the statement "future generations are politcally underrepresented is why Bush is doing this" is also politcal hyperbole that politicians spew but anyone who really understands the situation knows is just B.S. You just hear the mantra and you repeat it.

Bush creating deficits during a recession was the right thing to do. If the government continues deficit spending well into this recovery then that will be a mistake because it will hamper growth - in the short term. That is where we are screwing future generations, because slow growth now means a smaller pie in the future.

The best way to serve future generations is growth. Growth is like compounding interest so every little bit now makes a huge difference to future generations. Todays debt will diminish in importance as time goes forward (just the opposit of growth). Deficit management and debt management should be purely focused on growth. We screw future generations not by saddling them with debt, but by not maximising growth.

That is why all the liberals bitching about the deficit during the recession was pure stupidity (actually it was good politics for the Dems - but anyone who believed what the Dem leadership were spewing was an idiot).

Tort Reform!
 

This is not true:See also: This.