Tort Reform!
 

So you are saying that states like Texas that don't have MICRA need it. So Sexual Harassment Panda arguments do not apply to non-MICRA states.

And you still didn't answer the question: if MICRA is doing such a good job of keeping litigation costs down why are malpratice rates so high in California and why have so many insurance companys in California disontinued providing medical insurance?

Tort Reform!
 

The Texas legislature passed HB 4 and the voters in Texas voted for Proposition 12 in 2003. (YAY! TEXAS!!!! ARE YOU WATCHING THIS GAME???? HOLY SHIT!) We have tort reform. The non-profit insurance company dropped it's rates automatically by 11 percent. The for-profit insurance companies raised their rates in 2004.

I suspect that the shareholders are much more interested in making money than providing medical malpractice insurance that is affordable.

Tort Reform!
 

The interesting part of that article was this:

However, MICRA opponents are spreading false notions about this important reform, claiming that the insurance industry has created the rising premiums to make up losses due to troubled stock market investments. Both of these claims are myths and the facts speak for themselves.

The fact is that insurers cannot raise premiums to recover past loses - whether in the stock market or anywhere else.

So the article you cited explained why your claim, and SHP claim about raising rates to deal with Tech losses is complete B.S.

This article also explains that there is a medical malpratice crisis across this country where MICRA does not exist.

"States without MICRA reforms are now experiencing their own version of California's mid-1970s medical liability crisis."

In other words the Economist article was right. And you and SHP were wrong.

The article also stated the need for national Tort Reform and that many groups (Trial Lawyers) are fighting national tort reform, where tort reform has done so much good in California.

How does this article back up your and SHP's assertions?

My guess is that the Doctors here in Santa Clara County, like Dr. Burnett, who is the former head of the AMA, are pushing for national tort reform and are mad that the trial lawyers are blocking it. Your article supports their position that the trial lawyers are spending tons of money spreading disinformation (like this tech loss mantra that you and SHP so obediantly repeated) and are hurting the country by not letting it pass the type of tort reform California already has.

Tort Reform!
 

There are several explanations that do not involve the necessity of "tort reform" and which may actually be exacerbated by "tort reform."

The medical community imposes very daunting and unnecessarily stressful conditions on many of its doctors. There is simply no reason for the length of shifts doctors are expected to work. Fatigue increases errors, but the machisimo of the profession prevents reform.

Physicians (like lawyers) are remarkablely reluctant to discipline their own until way, way too late. Most claims come from a small minority of doctors. Medicine needs to recognize problems with practicioners sooner, intervene sooner, and yank licenses sooner.

Physicians are simply not paying enough attention. 25 years ago, anesthesiologists had some of the highest malprace insurance rates; now they have some of the lowest. The difference: anestesiologists collectively undertook to study why and how errors were being made and took steps to prevent them as a profession. Why haven't other doctors done the same? Because its easier to bitch about lawyers than to actually fix what's wrong and stop killing people.

Tort Reform!
 

Um, hook 'em?

Tort Reform!
 

According the article RT cited, Tort reform has worked wonders in California and is needed in the rest of the country. Did you not read the article: http://www.sfms.org/sfm/sfm603h.htm

And even though things are much better in California I still think medical malpratice isurance rates are still really high. They are just insane in states that don't have some Tort reform.

Tort Reform!
 

So, if you can't blame lack of tort reform in CA, what are you arguing now?

Doctors are, overall, whiny, cheating bastards. Just like lawyers. Always, ALWAYS getting involved in tax scams. It's fucking ridiculous.

Tort Reform! Post #2680


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said -

This is not true: That "this is not true" was a link to article you seem to imply contradicted the above statement.

However, that article merely pointed out that insurance rates have not increased in California as much as they have across the country since MICRA. But it stated that insurance rates in California have increased. In addition, it did not contradict my asserttion that many doctors medical malpractice insurance rates exceed their own salaries. I am aboslutely sure that is true of obstraticians in California.

So again, I ask why are insurance rates in California so high?

Tort Reform!
 

No. This is actually very simple. California faced a medical malpratice crisis in the 1970s and so MICRA was passed. As a result, medical malpractice rates steep climb was reduced. Rates still were high and still went up, but because of MICRA the rates in California did not increase as much as other states without MICRA.

What does this show: that Tort reform worked to reduce the growth rate. If a little Tort reform reduced the growth rate then more tort reform could stop the growth rate completely or even reverse it.

If some medicine slows the rate of growth of an infection that does not mean it does not work. It means you need more medicine to stop the infection or reverse it.

California needs more of the medicine, and some states need to start using the medicine because California has shown that the medicine works.

California shows that Tort reform works and we need much more of it. Despite the misinformation the Trial Lawyers are spreading.

Tort Reform!
 

OK, so, um, non-economic damages are capped. What further would you do?

Tort Reform!
 

First - kill all the lawyers (at least nine out of ten medical malpratice attorneys).

Tort Reform!
 

but you have enough liquid $$ to retain one when you get the wrong organ removed.

Where's pony or whatever?

ETA that is such a total copout bullshit answer. Give it up, tort-reform-boy. Maybe doctors are just fuckups? Maybe insurers are just money-hungry and non-competitive?

Um, maybe because tort reform isn't the silver bullet that it's advocates seem to think it is. Which is the point of all of the other articles that i've cited today.

And why weren't you watching one of the best college football games ever played?

Tort Reform!
 

I would have to study it more. I do know that insurance rates are too high, and it is not because of the insurance companys for reason I have explained and no one has contradicted - insurance companies leaving the business instead of flooding in to take advantage of high profits etc). The only logical explanation is runaway litigation problems.

Listening to anything trial lawyers have to say about Tort reform is like taking Pat Robertsons advice about how to protect the integrity of science in the class room.

All those other articles were ridiculous.

If the Trojans are on TV (on any channel) I simply can not have the TV on for fear of an infection spreading throughout the house.

Tort Reform!
 

OK, but the same goes for listening to anything doctors have to say about insurance premiums.

The Texas study was ridiculous? Why? Looking at the actual claims data, especially in light of the 1999 IOM report, seems much more responsible than throwing out the entire system because your physician buddies in the Republican club don't like lawyers.

See this also for an analysis of Connecticut vs. California in 2003 and suggestions as to how to make changes in the system.

ETA: Public Citizen fact sheet using data from the NPDB on OBGYN payouts.

I'm going to bed and dream burnt orane dreams.

Tort Reform!
 

Not if their medical malpratice premiums exceed their take home pay. That is just absurd. Completely ridiculous. Indefensible. They should be screaming bloody murder.

And since they have the highest interest getting them reduced, I can't think of anyone better to trust in determining the best way to reduce them. And I would especially trust them much more than people who benefit from the high rates to determine how to reduce them.

If you are shaking a tree which is causing coconuts to fall on someones head and every time they get hit on the head with a coconut you get ten dollars then their assertions that you are the cauce of the coconuts falling are much more reliable than your assertion that it is solely the trees fault.

That study is absurd:

1) Because the rates are really high. This article does not say that Tort claims and litigation costs are not really expensive, just that they have not climbed signifcantly in the past twelve years (adjusting for inflation and population growth). In other words they have grown, but not much faster than the population growth rate and inflation. Despite the fact that I have no idea how they have adjusted for population and inflation, insurance rates were absurd before the study was conducted. Just because they have remained consistently ridiculous is not much of a defense. And in addition, my experience with statistic has taught me that when you "adjust for inflation and population growth" there is a lot of room for subjectivity.

2) The article does not explain why insurance rates have gone up so much. If such activity was benefitting the insurance companys then the divisions of insurance companys that provide medical insurance profits would be climbing significantly and other insurance companys would be rushing in to take advantage of the profit situation. Since insurance companys are not rushing in to provide medical insurance, it is much more likely that the economist article and the one you cited are accurate and the one you cited just adjusted too much for inflation and population growth. The economist and San Francisco articles explain the growth in insurance rates, this study does not.

3)These stats directly contradicted the article you quoted by the doctor and the economist article. The Texas study was done by attorneys. It is like reading a study about the health of tobacco paid for by the Tobacco companys. So am I going to trust a study by some guys that have a vested interest in the outcome, or by the economist that has no vested interest? The other article you cited was by a doctor who has a vested interest in the truth coming out. If they go after the attorneys and the insurance companys are really at fault, then they are still screwed. So how could it possibly be in their interest to point their fingers at the lawyers if the insurance companys are really at fault? An article by an insurance company would be highly suspect (as one put out by lawyers), but not from a doctor. Doctors only benefit if the true cause of the problem is discovered and dealt with. If the insurance companys were the cause the doctors would have no problem in pointing to the insurance companys. Therefore, I will be suspicious of an article from the two suspects, insurance companys and lawyers, and will have more faith in articles produced by non-biased organizations (the economist) or from a group who will benefit the most if the true problem is fixed (the doctors).

The other two articles you cited: One by a lawyers group and the other by Ralph Nader. When it comes to Ralph Nader, he is about as reliable on economics as Pamela Anderson is on astro-physics. Next you are going to cite an article by Noam Chomskey. Can't you cite any articles not put out by attorneys or far left organizations? If you are going to go that far why not be like Ty and cite some crazy left wing blogs why you are at it?

The so called "experts".
 

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.

I don't believe I ever used the word "saddling" in this context.

What Burger et al. said about this. They have my proxy.

For how long is Pete Carroll going to be second-guessed for not punting from the Texas 45. I just don't see how it makes sense to give Texas only 55 yards to go for the win. Not saying Texas didn't win it (that option pitch with the knee down in the first half not withstanding)--just saying.

I had no problem with this decision. Both offenses moved the ball at will in the second half and USC was scared to death to punt and let VY have the ball again with 2 minutes to go. Carroll, with the best offense in the country at his disposal, needed to gain two yards to win the National Championship. I thought it was a good decision.

What drove me nuts was Carroll's decision to go for it on 4th and 1 from the Texas 17 in the first quarter. Kicking the damn field goal puts you up 10-0. How is this a bad thing? Jimmy Johnson made the same mistake in 1987 against Penn State. Take the early points! To go for it so early in the game is just plain arrogant.

But if I were a USC fan, I'd have to strangle the guy who called the timeout before the two-point conversion. Simply one of the stupidest decisions ever made in a game. The offense needed that time out so badly during that last desperate drive to get into field goal range. What a shame.

That being said, what a great game. I'm ambivalent toward both teams, but this was the best game I've seen in a while.

The so called "experts".
 

Well, I agree that Bush should not be spending as he has. But the counter is that if we don't spend in the middle east now, we'll spend 10X more later, when we lose total control of the oil producers over there.

[Don't talk to me about developing new fuel sources. That's a solution for 100 years from now, utterly impractical to solve current energy dilemnas.]

But one point you seem to dodge is whether we should be shrinking the govt. Do you think that (1) we should stop borrowing and lower taxes at the same time; OR, (2) that we should fund a big govt with ample tax revenue?

If you think the latter, I say "fuck off, I'll take my money now and bet its returns over the next 100 years will more than cover the debt service you project will sadlle us."

I don't like guessing about super-long-term projections, since there are so many damned variables - particularly when we're talking about glabal economic events. Whatever puts the most cash in my pocket right now gets my vote. Call me a cynic. Call me a simpleton. Whatever. If you're as informed and armed with rock solid stats as you claim, you'd be retired with millions, not posting that info on a fucking chat board.

Tort Reform!
 

2. I've only repped a few docs and med partnerships, and I've come away each time feeling like I need a really long shower. I think docs are generally decent people, but they always get roped into scams by their partners who are more business oriented and trying to figure out how to exploit their medical licenses for obscene profit (PI docs; self-referrers, etc...).

Tort Reform!
 

On a recent plane ride, I sat with someone who had been involved in devising a self-policing program for one medical specialty. That specialty -- anesthesiology (sp?) -- has seen less growth in premiums and claims costs than have others, even though it is a high-risk practice and even though, prior to these initiatives, it had the same or greater problems with these issues as other specialties. There was also a significant improvement in patient care.

I relate this because I wonder, why is it necessary to "force" the AMA to police its own? And who would do that forcing -- government? Please.

I also wonder -- and in particular would like RT's thoughts -- on whether the benefits of what the ana-whatever docs did is actually as significant as I understood from my conversation (and later reading on the issue), and whether other specialties have considered similar measures.

Tort Reform!
 

Lawyers malpractice rates rose considerably after the tech bubble burst (also after the insurers faced huge increases in reinsurance costs as a result, in part, of 9/11).


Rates for car insurance and other types of non-professional insurance are, I believe, subject to much greater regulation and state intrusion, so they can't just be jacked up.

That said, I've seen health insurance rates climb and climb over the few years I've been paying for it.

Tort Reform!
 

Aargh!!!! STP!!!

I'll be quiet now, for awhile.

Tort Reform!
 

Brilliant! And if we just make doctors immune from all liability, then insurance costs will disappear!!!

Tort Reform!
 

Good point. You can only get an honest assessment about the benefits and drawbacks of tort reform by listening to industry groups and insurance carriers.

Tort Reform!
 

OK, but the partners are doctors too. . . .

Tort Reform!
 

why would anyone become an ass doctor or a Gyn?

I wouldn't want to look up buttholes all day, and I don't know what they have to do once they find something, but it can't be fun. And while gyn might be interesting at first, I bet you get desensitized and make even jaded after awhile- like Gene simmons or Wilt C. but w/o the orgasms. Plus, seeing a diseased one probably hurts the libido for days.

Tort Reform!
 

To make it interesting, you and your identical twin need to start creating really whacked out medical devices to use on your patients.

Texas Monthly is not a lawyer group or Ralph Nader.

One of the reasons that medical malpractice premiums are so high is that physicians, as a group, are much, much less willing to settle cases than other groups of insured. They (often rightly) see settlement as an admission of fault and worse, that they're bad doctors. They'll usually insist on going to trial unless it's glaringly, glaringly evident that they fucked up. And it's not a group that's really into admitting that they may, possibly be wrong about something. Also, settlement will end up on the NPDB, whereas taking a risk at trial may end up with a clear record as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

And the litigation is expensive. Experts need to be retained. Medical records need to be reviewed. Ever sat in on a deposition an expert going over 30 plus hours of a fetal monitoring strip? Experts costs money, the lawyers cost money, even the innocent law student who has to summarize the very boring deposition costs money.

Frankly, I'd rather focus on the 1999 IoM report which said that medical errors are the 8th leading cause of death in the United States, which I think is much, much more of an issue than medical malpractice insurance. The AAMC instituted the 80 hour rule for residents and fellows, which does help some. In June, after five years of debate, the Senate finally passed Jim Jeffords' Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, which hopefully will help in reducing medical errors, though I haven't seen any regs come out of DHHS yet on that bill. Additionally, the development of an electronic infrastructure for health information will help considerably in reducing medical errors. The National Health Information Infrastructure working group (with the help of the NCVHS) has been making vast steps towards this.

And I continue to point you in the direction of insurance companies if you really want to look at why malpractice premiums are increasing. And I'm not unsympathetic. I have an uncle who stoped his obstetrics practice because of the risk involved in running that sort of practice.

It appears that you and I are at an impasse. I suggest we stop the discussion while you ponder no-fault insurance.

The so called "experts".
 

In my world, the price of oil is determined by things like supply and demand. What's your world like?

If you want to make the government significantly smaller, you need to cut Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and/or defense. The American people do not want this, and so the Republican Party is unwilling to do it. So easy talk about shrinking the government is exactly that.

What returns do you see from the programs above? Against what baseline?

Whoa, Sebby -- I wasn't the one posting all those numbers yesterday. That was Sidd. And I'm pretty sure he's retired with millions.

Tort Reform!
 

Conversely, doctors could stop killing and maiming people through malpractice and their insurance rates would go down, too.

Tort Reform!
 

hypocritsezwhat?

Tort Reform!
 

I agree with your cynicism, but something has to be done. On one hand we have all this litigation running amock, driving up medical costs and on the other hand we have doctors still screwing up - badly. All this litigation is not forcing doctors to clean up their act.

Basically you have doctors and lawyers milking the system and the patients are getting screwed. For the doctors some sort of stricter policing action needs to be enforced. Just like with the teachers unions, these guys have figured out a way to protect the incompetant doctors.

Maybe we should put Phd's in biochemistry on their review boards instead of doctors. Something needs to be done to weed out the bad doctors and punish doctors who screw up. The trial lawyers have not solved the problem, they have just lined their pockets, so we need another solution.

Tort Reform!
 

No by listening to nonbiased groups and to the doctors. Industry groups and insurance carriers are just as reliable as the lawyers (which means they are not reliable).

Tort Reform!
 

How are the doctors reliable? They aren't going to want to say that insurance rates are high because it's just plain expensive to pay off mutilated people and their families, and the families of dead people.

Tort Reform!
 

Mutilated sounds so harsh. I believe the AMA-approved term is "differently treated".