“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.

"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

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:29:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

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.

Hmmm... sounds about the same as the percentage who want health care
reform. Weren't you the one who said "let's leave well enough alone"
earlier today?

Assuming you're advocating on behalf of tort reform, why this and not
health care?

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:29:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

“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 AssociationÂ’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...9/daily1.html?
ana=fox

Heh - what a shock.

Yeah, what a shock. The CBO states that we could save $54 billion over
the next ten years, by instituting tort reform. Big whoop, that's 0.5%
of health care spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/10/09/
AR2009100904271.html

Oh, and 23 states already limit pain and suffering awards, and 34 states
already limit punitive awards. Doctors might be better served by
policing their ranks and getting rid of the incompetents. 5% of doctors
account for over 50% of the malpractice here. Get rid of those 5% and we
would have saved $21 billion, and a lot of pain and suffering.

http://www.tradewatch.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1222

On 11/12/09 6:55 AM, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:29:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

“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 AssociationÂ’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...9/daily1.html?
ana=fox

Heh - what a shock.

Yeah, what a shock. The CBO states that we could save $54 billion over
the next ten years, by instituting tort reform. Big whoop, that's 0.5%
of health care spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/10/09/
AR2009100904271.html

Oh, and 23 states already limit pain and suffering awards, and 34 states
already limit punitive awards. Doctors might be better served by
policing their ranks and getting rid of the incompetents. 5% of doctors
account for over 50% of the malpractice here. Get rid of those 5% and we
would have saved $21 billion, and a lot of pain and suffering.

http://www.tradewatch.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1222


Not to worry...next on Tom's regurgitated GOP talking post list: the
miracle-like drop in insurance premiums if only those non-competing
corporations could ignore state borders.

Better...eliminate the exemption health insurers have from anti-trust
laws, beginning 1 January 2010. Oh...wait...that's not what the
corporate creed calls for.




--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

In article ,
says...

?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.

Well of course!! They don't want the responsiblility on their shoulders
when they hack off the wrong leg or arm....

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

"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.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:29:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

“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...9/daily1.html?
ana=fox

Heh - what a shock.

Yeah, what a shock. The CBO states that we could save $54 billion over
the next ten years, by instituting tort reform. Big whoop, that's 0.5%
of health care spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/10/09/
AR2009100904271.html

Oh, and 23 states already limit pain and suffering awards, and 34 states
already limit punitive awards. Doctors might be better served by
policing their ranks and getting rid of the incompetents. 5% of doctors
account for over 50% of the malpractice here. Get rid of those 5% and we
would have saved $21 billion, and a lot of pain and suffering.

http://www.tradewatch.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1222

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

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.

"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