In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:03:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

How many times is that $54 billion exceeded by cover your ass extra
diagnostic tests?

Actual real case.

1 - Two doctors are sued for not catching a PE (pulmonary embolism) in
an otherwise healthy 50 yo woman with no prior history of asthma,
heart disease, non-smoker.

2 - Husband sues for 10 million dollars.

3 - Husband wraps himself around a telephone pole in his car drunk and
dies.

4 - Case is picked up by son who left home at 16 and hadn't seen or
contacted his mother in five years.

5 - Son is arrested for heroin possesion with intent to distribute,
assault on a police officer and various other charges.

6 - Case is picked up by sister who promptly moves to another state
and drops case due to indifference.

7 - Case is transferred to Federal Court and picked up by Nephew in
Nebraska.

8 - Nephew deployed to Iraq, additional plaintiff picked up - First
Cousin also in Nebraska.

9 - Case moved to pre-trial where plaintiff's offered to settle for 6
million - rejected.

10 - Case moved to trial - four days. Jury takes one hour to
deliberate and finds doctors not guilty with no award.

11 - Case moved to Federal Appeals and rejected.

12 - Case moved back to state court with additional plaintiff -
another First Cousin.

13 Case settled for $750,000.

Total years - 9.
Total expenses (practice) - $650,000.
Total expenses (insurance) - 2.7 million
Lost wages: 1 million (practice had to be shut down for a total of
four weeks)
Practice legal counsel: $400,000

Total cost: $5.5 million dollars

Multiply that by how many?

That's where the costs are - it's not the awards - it's the defense
expenses that cost. And the additional malpractice and ommissions and
commissions insurance expenses to protect themselves from these trial
vultures that will sue for anything and keep on suing until they get
something.

The only good thing that came out of this particular case by the way
wsa that the plaintiffs recieved, after expenses, $3,000 apiece.

And you wonder why the Trail Lawyers don't want to stop the madness? And
then why Pelosi won't put anything in the bill to address it? Aren't the
trial lawyers some of the biggest donators to the Democrats?
HUmmmmmmmm...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
"We found that regardless of a physician's political affiliation, the
respondents attributed the practice of defensive medicine to excessive
waste in the health care system," said Rick Jackson, chairman and CEO
of Jackson Healthcare, in a statement."

~~Sorry - no can do. Gotta keep the trial lawyers busy and rich.~~

The survey found that 62 percent of physicians disagreed with the
American Medical Association's (AMA) stance on health care reform. Of
those, 46 percent said they "strongly disagree" with the AMA's stance.

http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlan...1.html?ana=fox

Heh - what a shock.


Nothing wrong with tort reform. But, that's not going to solve the
healthcare cost issue. I know this troubles you, but it's not as simple
as that.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Where is the Healthcare bill going to solve the cost issue? Maybe the
path of the money to the doctor may change but there is nothing lowering
costs. As it is now, a doctor can not work for less. He has huge loans
to pay off after getting his MD. In the 70's there was a drive to
produce more doctors and the government paid a lot of the costs. So when
the doctor graduated, he was not saddled with piles of debt.


We've gone through this a couple of times.... sigh... you have two
choices... regulation or competition. The bill creates more competition
and introduces more regulation.

Not sure what you're ranting about wrt to doctors. They certainly can and
do work for "less" depending on how they have to or don't have to deal
with ins. companies. Are you going to blame the med schools for high costs
now?


--
Nom=de=Plume


Show me the increased competition. The doctor has to pay for his education.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
"We found that regardless of a physician's political affiliation, the
respondents attributed the practice of defensive medicine to excessive
waste in the health care system," said Rick Jackson, chairman and CEO
of Jackson Healthcare, in a statement."

~~Sorry - no can do. Gotta keep the trial lawyers busy and rich.~~

The survey found that 62 percent of physicians disagreed with the
American Medical Association's (AMA) stance on health care reform. Of
those, 46 percent said they "strongly disagree" with the AMA's stance.

http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlan...1.html?ana=fox

Heh - what a shock.


Nothing wrong with tort reform. But, that's not going to solve the
healthcare cost issue. I know this troubles you, but it's not as simple
as that.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Where is the Healthcare bill going to solve the cost issue? Maybe the
path of the money to the doctor may change but there is nothing lowering
costs. As it is now, a doctor can not work for less. He has huge loans
to pay off after getting his MD. In the 70's there was a drive to
produce more doctors and the government paid a lot of the costs. So
when the doctor graduated, he was not saddled with piles of debt.


We've gone through this a couple of times.... sigh... you have two
choices... regulation or competition. The bill creates more competition
and introduces more regulation.

Not sure what you're ranting about wrt to doctors. They certainly can and
do work for "less" depending on how they have to or don't have to deal
with ins. companies. Are you going to blame the med schools for high
costs now?


--
Nom=de=Plume


Show me the increased competition. The doctor has to pay for his
education.

Two companies competing.. one has lots of overhead the other doesn't. If the
former wants to compete with the latter, it must lower its costs or offer
additional services (value added services).

Doctors work for money. Some work for places like Kaiser for (I'm assuming)
lower wages than they might get in private practice. (I know one who makes
about the same as he did in private practice, but let's just assume that's
the case.)

Questions? (Or, refer to an econ book....)

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:56:35 -0800, I am Tosk
wrote:

The only good thing that came out of this particular case by the way
wsa that the plaintiffs recieved, after expenses, $3,000 apiece.

And you wonder why the Trail Lawyers don't want to stop the madness? And
then why Pelosi won't put anything in the bill to address it? Aren't the
trial lawyers some of the biggest donators to the Democrats?
HUmmmmmmmm...


This is pretty telling

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=K

OpenSecrets is actually a valuable resource. They actually take the
raw FEC numbers and sort them by just about every criteria you want to
see.

Hummmm, Dodd, Obama, and Clinton seem to be on a lot of these top donors
lists and lists of orgs and businesses that have bankrupt America....
Obama, Kerry and Dodd (in that order) from Freddie and fannie.. and
several others..