OT: House votes to ban obesity lawsuits

[sachmo71]

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
Thu Oct 20, 7:10 AM ET



WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to shield fast-food chains from lawsuits that blame them for making people fat.


Nicknamed the "cheeseburger bill," the measure stems from lawsuits accusing McDonald's of causing obesity in tens of thousands of children. The food industry has asked Congress and state legislatures to protect it from liability, and so far, 21 states have agreed.

"You cannot litigate personal choices and lifestyles," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said potential costs from the lawsuits threaten the food industry and its 12 million employees and raise food prices for consumers.

"These suits would be laughable if they were not so harmful," Sensenbrenner said.

The measure, which won approval on a 306-120 vote, would prevent class action lawsuits blaming restaurants and food companies for weight gain or obesity. The House passed a similar bill last year, but the Senate ran out of time to act.

Two-thirds of American adults are overweight, and nearly one-third are obese, while obesity among children and teenagers more than doubled in the past 30 years, according to government estimates.

Critics of the bill contend that a better way to make people responsible for how they eat is to require nutrition information on menus and menu boards.

"But of course this silly legislative effort has nothing to do with encouraging personal responsibility and everything to do with pleasing a powerful and politically connected industry," said Michael Jacobson, director of the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest.

A food industry lobbyist said lawsuits against food companies are the wrong way to fight obesity in America.

"More energy must be put into solving the problem of obesity, and less into assigning blame for the purpose of collecting legal fees," said Hunt Shipman, executive vice president of government affairs and communications for the Food Products Association.

Courts have dismissed most obesity claims, but an appeals court in New York reinstated one lawsuit against McDonald's earlier this year. It is still pending.

___

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.R. 554, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov

Food Products Association: http://www.fpa-food.org/

Center for Science in the Public Interest: http://www.cspinet.org/

While these types of bills can be dangerous, I think this is an exception to the rule.

[Warhammer]

You've gotta eat. However, you don't have to eat at a fast food chain. Just because someone decides that they want to eat massive amounts of unhealthy food, why should the rest of us pay?

Hell, look at the medical industry. All those million dollar lawsuits for malpractice, that cost just gets passed on to the rest of us.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Hell, look at the medical industry. All those million dollar lawsuits for malpractice, that cost just gets passed on to the rest of us.

Personally, I'd rather pay an extra 1% (which is more than malpractice costs amount to) on my health care bills to deter a doctor from leaving a Junior Mint inside of me. But maybe that's just me.

[panerd]

It passed 306-120. I guess I don't see the need for the first line to say Republican controlled house. I usually roll my eyes when people talk about the bias in the media, but this line seemed so out of place. It would have made sense if every Republican and Democrat voted along party lines, but they didn't.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Personally, I'd rather pay an extra 1% (which is more than malpractice costs amount to) on my health care bills to deter a doctor from leaving a Junior Mint inside of me. But maybe that's just me.

I'm not a big fan of Junior Mints either.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by panerd

It passed 306-120. I guess I don't see the need for the first line to say Republican controlled house. I usually roll my eyes when people talk about the bias in the media, but this line seemed so out of place. It would have made sense if every Republican and Democrat voted along party lines, but they didn't.

Maybe they did it to give them kudos?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Personally, I'd rather pay an extra 1% (which is more than malpractice costs amount to) on my health care bills to deter a doctor from leaving a Junior Mint inside of me. But maybe that's just me.

That's why I'm against a national health care system! That way I can control the doctor I see! That's beside the point though. In any of these cases where there is a class action lawsuit, the insurance premiums increase or the company is out of pocket that amount. What does any company do to ease the burden? Increase rates.

Let's look at doctors. They get hit with a malpractice suit. The doctor loses in court. The court issues a large penalty. The doctor's malpractice insurance covers the cost. However, it then raises the premium of 5 or 6 other doctors who have to charge their patients more to cover the extra cost. This isn't the sole factor at work here, but it certainly doesn't help!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That's why I'm against a national health care system! That way I can control the doctor I see! That's beside the point though. In any of these cases where there is a class action lawsuit, the insurance premiums increase or the company is out of pocket that amount. What does any company do to ease the burden? Increase rates.

Let's look at doctors. They get hit with a malpractice suit. The doctor loses in court. The court issues a large penalty. The doctor's malpractice insurance covers the cost. However, it then raises the premium of 5 or 6 other doctors who have to charge their patients more to cover the extra cost. This isn't the sole factor at work here, but it certainly doesn't help!

All together, it still amounts to less than 1% of total health care costs. That is more than worth it to deter bad actions by doctors.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

In any of these cases where there is a class action lawsuit, the insurance premiums increase or the company is out of pocket that amount. What does any company do to ease the burden? Increase rates.

You DID read where John told you that lawsuits are only 1% of the total malpractice premium cost, right? And add to that, premiums rising significantly even in states with malpractice caps, and those lawsuits really don't do much to the price.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

All together, it still amounts to less than 1% of total health care costs. That is more than worth it to deter bad actions by doctors.

If you ask me, revoking their medical license and making that applicable in all 50 states would be better. Then, reduce the amount of the fine, and figure out a way to make it payable from the doctor's funds (in other words, try to figure out how to cut the insurance company out of the equation). This does a few things:

1) It puts the doctor on the hook for the money rather than the insurance company.
2) This does not affect other doctors because you have removed the insurance company from the equation.
3) Since the doctor has to pay from his own funds, the settlement will be much less.
4) The lawyers don't get as much money (always a good thing in my book. I feel they are half the problem since most are paid a % of the settlement.)
5) Any doctor guilty of malpractice no longer practices medicine, so he can't screw anyone else over.

[albionmoonlight]

None of these lawsuits were going anywhere anyway. Despite what the media had people believe, there was no epidemic of "cheeseburger lawsuits." They have all been dismissed at the early stages of litigation, as they should be, IMO. This is mainly symbolic.

The only thing that I was worried about was language in the bill that would shield these companies from lawsuits for actual negligence (i.e. spoiled meat, etc.). That langauge seems to have not made it into the bill--so no harm no foul.

The big loser here are people who beleive in states rights and a limited federal government.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

figure out a way to make it payable from the doctor's funds

Um... isn't that EXACTLY what insurance is meant to cover? Why take the insurance companies off the hook? They offer the coverage. Shouldn't they be the slightest bit responsible? Why do so many people want to give the insurance companies such a pass?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If you ask me, revoking their medical license and making that applicable in all 50 states would be better. Then, reduce the amount of the fine, and figure out a way to make it payable from the doctor's funds (in other words, try to figure out how to cut the insurance company out of the equation). This does a few things:

1) It puts the doctor on the hook for the money rather than the insurance company.
2) This does not affect other doctors because you have removed the insurance company from the equation.
3) Since the doctor has to pay from his own funds, the settlement will be much less.
4) The lawyers don't get as much money (always a good thing in my book. I feel they are half the problem since most are paid a % of the settlement.)
5) Any doctor guilty of malpractice no longer practices medicine, so he can't screw anyone else over.

So the victim of malpractice who had their leg accidently cutoff gets less/no compensation just to protect the insurance companies? I'll take my 1% cost increase, thank you.

BTW, this wouldn't protect insurance companies - it would hurt them. It essentially makes malpractice insurance pointless and they make a lot of money off of that.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You DID read where John told you that lawsuits are only 1% of the total malpractice premium cost, right? And add to that, premiums rising significantly even in states with malpractice caps, and those lawsuits really don't do much to the price.

But they do reach across all states. The states with the caps are not going to have a major impact if the majority of claims are in states without caps. It helps alleviate it somewhat, but not much. The way insurance companies work is they base everything on risk. So yes, the insurance premiums for doctors in a state with caps should be lower, if there are a number of cases that result in large settlements in a state with no cap, everyone's premiums are going up, regardless of the state you are in. The insurance companies are going to ensure that they don't lose money.

I also question where this 1% comes from. From the doctors I have talked to it is a much higher cost than that.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

None of these lawsuits were going anywhere anyway. Despite what the media had people believe, there was no epidemic of "cheeseburger lawsuits." They have all been dismissed at the early stages of litigation, as they should be, IMO. This is mainly symbolic.

The only thing that I was worried about was language in the bill that would shield these companies from lawsuits for actual negligence (i.e. spoiled meat, etc.). That langauge seems to have not made it into the bill--so no harm no foul.

The big loser here are people who beleive in states rights and a limited federal government.

I would have been happier if they would have still allowed injunctive relief. I find nothing wrong with forcing companies to be more forthcoming with nutrition information. People with allergies and those trying to diet should really have better access to information from restaurants.

[scooper]

WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to shield fast-food chains from lawsuits that blame them for making people fat.

Damn. There goes my retirement plan.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I also question where this 1% comes from. From the doctors I have talked to it is a much higher cost than that.

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

That is from an advocacy group, but you can find the numbers many places.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But they do reach across all states. The states with the caps are not going to have a major impact if the majority of claims are in states without caps. It helps alleviate it somewhat, but not much. The way insurance companies work is they base everything on risk. So yes, the insurance premiums for doctors in a state with caps should be lower, if there are a number of cases that result in large settlements in a state with no cap, everyone's premiums are going up, regardless of the state you are in. The insurance companies are going to ensure that they don't lose money.

Insurance companies are heavily regulated and must issue policies for each state. They do not issue a policy in a capped state for a higher price to make up for another state without a cap - that is illegal.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... isn't that EXACTLY what insurance is meant to cover? Why take the insurance companies off the hook? They offer the coverage. Shouldn't they be the slightest bit responsible? Why do so many people want to give the insurance companies such a pass?

*SIGH* OK, here goes...

In my rosy world, doctors have printed fees. You go in for X, you pay X. Every other vendor - customer relationship I can think of, you know how much you are going to pay before you get the service or good. But this doesn't happen when you go to see the doctor, why? I have several ideas, but don't really want to get into that.

To answer your question, you're right, insurance is supposed to cover malpractice suits, etc. However, do you see speeding insurance? Company profit insurance? I fucked up my price to my customer insurance? No. Just because someone screws up at the office does not mean their should be an insurance company to back them up and make them whole. That is the whole point of the punitive damages! If you have an insurance company making the doctor whole, what is the point of the damages then?

[flere-imsaho]

"You cannot litigate personal choices and lifestyles," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

Says the guy who has consistently voted to ban abortions and gay marriage.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Insurance companies are heavily regulated and must issue policies for each state. They do not issue a policy in a capped state for a higher price to make up for another state without a cap - that is illegal.

Understood, that is not what I am saying...

State X (no cap) State Y (cap)
$1000/month $500/month (please take note, I am just pulling numbers out of my ass)

Now, after a year in which there were several large settlements across the country, the insurance company raises premiums.

State X (no cap) State Y (cap)
$1200/month $600/month

The state with the cap is still paying less for their premiums, but their rates were raised the same amount (the insurance companies need to make their money).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

*SIGH* OK, here goes...

In my rosy world, doctors have printed fees. You go in for X, you pay X. Every other vendor - customer relationship I can think of, you know how much you are going to pay before you get the service or good. But this doesn't happen when you go to see the doctor, why? I have several ideas, but don't really want to get into that.

To answer your question, you're right, insurance is supposed to cover malpractice suits, etc. However, do you see speeding insurance? Company profit insurance? I fucked up my price to my customer insurance? No. Just because someone screws up at the office does not mean their should be an insurance company to back them up and make them whole. That is the whole point of the punitive damages! If you have an insurance company making the doctor whole, what is the point of the damages then?

There is liability insurance in almost every major industry in the country. Doctors, like lawyers, like corporations, like small businesses, have liability insurance.

Insurance exists because people want to pool risks. To avoid the massive payout which does them in, they share that risk with people in similar situations. It is an economically efficient way for the market to handle risk. The insurance companies profit, the doctors avoid the killer lawsuit, patients are better protected, and costs are insignificant. I can't imagine a problem with that.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Understood, that is not what I am saying...

State X (no cap) State Y (cap)
$1000/month $500/month (please take note, I am just pulling numbers out of my ass)

Now, after a year in which there were several large settlements across the country, the insurance company raises premiums.

State X (no cap) State Y (cap)
$1200/month $600/month

The state with the cap is still paying less for their premiums, but their rates were raised the same amount (the insurance companies need to make their money).

You are missing the point. The cost of malpractice suits is SOOO low in the big picture, that the difference in costs to a doctor or hospital aren't significantly different in states with caps and those without. There are even states with caps with higher rates than those without. It just doesn't matter that much.

[Warhammer]

First, I question whether or not those figures are fact or fiction. There is no supporting evidence, I can throw something up and say the same thing.

HOWEVER, I agree with their goal, get insurance companies out of medicine.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

There is liability insurance in almost every major industry in the country. Doctors, like lawyers, like corporations, like small businesses, have liability insurance.

Insurance exists because people want to pool risks. To avoid the massive payout which does them in, they share that risk with people in similar situations. It is an economically efficient way for the market to handle risk. The insurance companies profit, the doctors avoid the killer lawsuit, patients are better protected, and costs are insignificant. I can't imagine a problem with that.

Agreed. But there is a big difference between liability and a simple screw up. For acts of God, I understand insurance. If my house burns down because a bolt of lightning strikes a tree, which ignites, falls on my house, which then catches on fire, I understand. If someone screws up driving their car, and hits mine, I can understand that as well because there is no contract between the drivers. The insurance makes both people whole.

But, in the case of, I screwed up and left the forceps in the patient is a completely different story. If I price something wrong to a customer, I am obligated to accept the order at that price! The customer can take me to court, and would win if I failed to honor the price. That's why most prices have that whole "prices subject to change without notice" blurb on them. For a salesman, how is this any different than a doctor's screw up during an operation? Do I get reimbursed for my screw up? No. Should the doctor be reimbursed for his screw up? No.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

First, I question whether or not those figures are fact or fiction. There is no supporting evidence, I can throw something up and say the same thing.

I know it is hard for you when facts get in the way of your argument. It is much easier to just dismiss them.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Agreed. But there is a big difference between liability and a simple screw up. For acts of God, I understand insurance. If my house burns down because a bolt of lightning strikes a tree, which ignites, falls on my house, which then catches on fire, I understand. If someone screws up driving their car, and hits mine, I can understand that as well because there is no contract between the drivers. The insurance makes both people whole.

But, in the case of, I screwed up and left the forceps in the patient is a completely different story. If I price something wrong to a customer, I am obligated to accept the order at that price! The customer can take me to court, and would win if I failed to honor the price. That's why most prices have that whole "prices subject to change without notice" blurb on them. For a salesman, how is this any different than a doctor's screw up during an operation? Do I get reimbursed for my screw up? No. Should the doctor be reimbursed for his screw up? No.

You are comparing apples to oranges and not really making a lot of sense. When a company screws with its accounting books, it gets sued by shareholders, and has insurance for that eventuality. When a lawyer screws up, he or she gets sued by their client, and has insurance for that eventuality. Those are comparable cases - your examples aren't.

[Subby]

Awesome. More grandstanding from those do-nothing jackasses down the road from me.

[albionmoonlight]

Warhammer--

You are right in that one cannot insure against intentional conduct. I cannot get insurance to cover me if I intentionally smash into your car.

But the theory behind malpractice is that it is negligence. The doctor did not intentionally leave the milk duds in the paitent. (If he did, he would be facing criminal assault and possibly attempted murder charges). The doctor made an honest mistake. Just like I make an honest mistake when I stop paying attention to the road and rear end the guy in front of me.

Your argument is premised on the idea that medical malpractice is done with intent to harm paitents and should therefore not be insured. It's not. It's just mistakes.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You are missing the point. The cost of malpractice suits is SOOO low in the big picture, that the difference in costs to a doctor or hospital aren't significantly different in states with caps and those without. There are even states with caps with higher rates than those without. It just doesn't matter that much.

I am not really involvd in this argument, but I find this assertion very interesting (and counter to what I would have guessed to be true). In my state, like lots of places, we have had a much-belabored medmal "crisis" and are flooded with stories of doctors going out of business because of skyrocketing malpractice premiums.

This whole "1% of total costs" argument certainly makes it seem like that's just nonsense. As it is, no doubt, intended to be.

Can anyone help mw get this straight in some sense? Is the medmal problem (of out-of-control premiums) really just affecting certain types of practices, like ob/gyn (the examples I hear most often)? Is it really true that medmal premiums are only 1% of total health care costs -- or is that a comparison that has some element of apples and oranges?

I'm in public policy, but this isn't an area I work in, but I do find it fairly interesting. Anywhere I can go to see some explanation of this stuff?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I am not really involvd in this argument, but I find this assertion very interesting (and counter to what I would have guessed to be true). In my state, like lots of places, we have had a much-belabored medmal "crisis" and are flooded with stories of doctors going out of business because of skyrocketing malpractice premiums.

This whole "1% of total costs" argument certainly makes it seem like that's just nonsense. As it is, no doubt, intended to be.

Can anyone help mw get this straight in some sense? Is the medmal problem (of out-of-control premiums) really just affecting certain types of practices, like ob/gyn (the examples I hear most often)? Is it really true that medmal premiums are only 1% of total health care costs -- or is that a comparison that has some element of apples and oranges?

I'm in public policy, but this isn't an area I work in, but I do find it fairly interesting. Anywhere I can go to see some explanation of this stuff?

I believe the med/mal crisis is largely fiction. What the real "crisis" is, if there is one, is achieving profitability for individual practitioners. Less than 1% of medical costs are due to malpractice insurance and payouts. From a consumer perspective, that is not a significant amount. For certain doctors, the margins of profitability are tight enough where 1% is significant. For doctors with especially high premiums (ie anesthesiologists), the costs can hurt them significantly.

Before managed care, the increasing premium costs were passed onto the consumer since it really wasn't that much of a difference. However, now with insurance companies pinching on the other end, certain doctors have had their profitability substantially eroded.

Med/Mal is just the area that has been targetted, but truthfully, the 1% loss of revenue could be picked up from any cost or benefit area - it doesn't matter. Med/Mal, however, is an easy political target and allows doctors and insurance companies to avoid coming to a reckoning about their disputes. It is a cause that unites them, but doesn't really accomplish much for the consumer. My concern is that over the long, it is actually worse for the consumer because of the decrease deterrence.

I'm not sure of a good place to read more on this. I'll see if I can find a link or two.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by John Galt

My concern is that over the long, it is actually worse for the consumer because of the decrease deterrence.

Yep, and in addition, the people who get screwed over cannot get the money they deserve, WHILE insurance premiums still continue to rise at the same rate they have been.

[CamEdwards]

I'm surprised this hasn't morphed into a discussion of the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which also passed the House today. Unlike the cheeseburger bill, it's also already passed the Senate, and now heads to the President's desk.

[Crapshoot]

Another fine bill such that the NRA can sell assault rifles to people Cam ?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Another fine bill such that the NRA can sell assault rifles to people Cam ?

Well, the NRA doesn't typically sell guns, and I'm not sure what you mean by assault rifle...

Basically, it's the cheeseburger bill for firearms. You can't sure a gun dealer or manufacturer to try and hold them accountable for the third party actions of criminals.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm surprised this hasn't morphed into a discussion of the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which also passed the House today.

That kinda surprised me too.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, the NRA doesn't typically sell guns, and I'm not sure what you mean by assault rifle...

Basically, it's the cheeseburger bill for firearms. You can't sure a gun dealer or manufacturer to try and hold them accountable for the third party actions of criminals.

But the question is can a criminal sue a gun manufacturer if the gun explodes and injures him during the crime?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, the NRA doesn't typically sell guns, and I'm not sure what you mean by assault rifle...

Basically, it's the cheeseburger bill for firearms. You can't sure a gun dealer or manufacturer to try and hold them accountable for the third party actions of criminals.

yeah, read the bill - seems reasonable, though I think there's a difference between cheeseburghers (self choice to kill) to guns (which exist, you know, to kill if used) .

[sterlingice]

But how could we when there's such other important news in the world.

CNN is reporting on their front page the more important news that Jennifer Aniston is photographed kissing Vince Vaughn, the upside down airplane stamps sold for over $2M, and that there's some kids missing in San Fran which is somehow more than a local story.

Fox, on the other hand, feels the need to inform us of Mickey D's and Coke's earnings on their front page, a baby got auctioned on Chinese ebay, and they're also covering the local San Fran story.

SI

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Warhammer--

You are right in that one cannot insure against intentional conduct. I cannot get insurance to cover me if I intentionally smash into your car.

But the theory behind malpractice is that it is negligence. The doctor did not intentionally leave the milk duds in the paitent. (If he did, he would be facing criminal assault and possibly attempted murder charges). The doctor made an honest mistake. Just like I make an honest mistake when I stop paying attention to the road and rear end the guy in front of me.

Your argument is premised on the idea that medical malpractice is done with intent to harm paitents and should therefore not be insured. It's not. It's just mistakes.

No my example was taken from my occupation. If a customer of mine, calls me up and says I need a price on X. I send him a quote, and let's say I drop a zero off the end of the price (its happened). If he comes back and says that he'll buy it, I legally cannot change my price. That is changing the terms of the contract. Bait and switch if you will. This does happen, and when this goes to court, I would have to honor the quote. Do they take you to court every day? No, but it does happen. Typically, if it is a regular customer they will not hold your feet to the fire, as they would realize it is a mistake. However, if this is a bid to specifications project, all bets are off. People have taken vendors to court and won on these issues.

That is the same thing as malpractice, an innocent mistake. However, companies do not have insurance against this sort of thing. Why is that?

I think John Galt's examples are apples and oranges per your test. In his, you have a company willfully cooking the books, and getting sued by the shareholders. In my opinion, there should not be insurance for any breach of the law. His second example, the malpractice is not a willful attempt to harm anyone. It is an innocent mistake, just like my example above.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I know it is hard for you when facts get in the way of your argument. It is much easier to just dismiss them.

Dude, you've done the same thing to me before. I am not dismissing them out of hand, all I said is I find it is hard to believe and cited that they did not have any supporting documentation. Most of the time, when you see a flyer of this type, they have a source of their information listed.

An advocacy group, with an agenda, has a reason for skewing data to suit their purposes. As I said before, I AGREE with the goals of this group. I just would like a source for their data.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep, and in addition, the people who get screwed over cannot get the money they deserve, WHILE insurance premiums still continue to rise at the same rate they have been.

So, if a doctor accidentally leaves a sponge in your body, you're entitled to millions of dollars?

If a oil change place doesn't put the oil plug back in correctly and your engine burns up, what do you get? A new engine and maybe the cost of the rental while your car is being repaired. If the doctor removes the sponge and performs any subsequent, related procedures free of charge, how are you not made whole?

Now granted, I am not talking about a doctor amputating the wrong leg or anything like that. But even there, how do we arrive at these astronomical figures except as punitive damages. And if they are punitive damages, why should those damages necessarily go to the patient?

My solution would cut the insurance companies out altogether so they can't get the higher premiums. Again, I understand why they exist for some things. But why should this insurance exist, and other companies that make similar "innocent" mistakes not have access to any?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm surprised this hasn't morphed into a discussion of the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which also passed the House today. Unlike the cheeseburger bill, it's also already passed the Senate, and now heads to the President's desk.

I'm not familiar with the details of the bill. I'm OK with it as long as there's nothing stupid in there such as protections for gun dealers who fail to check for IDs/permits (where applicable) when selling firearms.

[sterlingice]

I'm with flere on this. As long as the dealers are obeying the current laws on the books, that's just fine. Gun shops shouldn't be responsible for how someone uses a gun unless they look the other way with background checks, sell illegal kits, or something else to get around the laws.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

and that there's some kids missing in San Fran which is somehow more than a local story.

Are any of the kids white women? We need our WWWA fix.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/06/11...nounce-merger/

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So, if a doctor accidentally leaves a sponge in your body, you're entitled to millions of dollars?

If a oil change place doesn't put the oil plug back in correctly and your engine burns up, what do you get? A new engine and maybe the cost of the rental while your car is being repaired. If the doctor removes the sponge and performs any subsequent, related procedures free of charge, how are you not made whole?

Now granted, I am not talking about a doctor amputating the wrong leg or anything like that. But even there, how do we arrive at these astronomical figures except as punitive damages. And if they are punitive damages, why should those damages necessarily go to the patient?

My solution would cut the insurance companies out altogether so they can't get the higher premiums. Again, I understand why they exist for some things. But why should this insurance exist, and other companies that make similar "innocent" mistakes not have access to any?

Sure a patient should get thousands of dollars if he leaves a sponge in your body (How many of those who were awarded 'millions of dollars' in district court actually got even a quarter of that on appeal?)! Punitive damages are to punish the doctor. He shouldn't be leaving sponges in you... especially since it would cause severe adverse effects. And the money should go to the patient, because the patient is the one who did all the legwork.

And actually, if a oil change place doesn't put the plug in place and your engine burns up, and possibly causes you harm, you better believe there will be punitives.

This insurance exists because the insurance companies are willing to insure people. I love how the argument against malpractice suits is that insurance is getting so high that doctors are leaving the profession. For God's sake?! What do you think making doctors pay for their own mistakes is going to do? Good luck trying to find a doctor then.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Sure a patient should get thousands of dollars if he leaves a sponge in your body (How many of those who were awarded 'millions of dollars' in district court actually got even a quarter of that on appeal?)! Punitive damages are to punish the doctor. He shouldn't be leaving sponges in you... especially since it would cause severe adverse effects. And the money should go to the patient, because the patient is the one who did all the legwork.

A lot of the time the award is reduced because the original penalty was excessive. I agree that punitive damages are to punish the doctor, but I don't think a patient is entitled to a quarter of millions because he did some legwork and had the good luck to have the doctor leave the sponge in him. Talk about hitting the lottery, especially because not all of those things cause adverse effects. Now granted, a pair of clamps or a scalpel is something different...

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And actually, if a oil change place doesn't put the plug in place and your engine burns up, and possibly causes you harm, you better believe there will be punitives.

I'm not so sure. I knew some folks some years back that had this happen, and they basically just received what I described.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This insurance exists because the insurance companies are willing to insure people. I love how the argument against malpractice suits is that insurance is getting so high that doctors are leaving the profession. For God's sake?! What do you think making doctors pay for their own mistakes is going to do? Good luck trying to find a doctor then.

Again, take the insurance company out of the equation. The doctors that are worried about the malpractice suits are those that probably shouldn't be a doctor anyway. With insurance companies out of the equation, costs are lowered. Additionally, doctors paying for their own mistakes is exactly what should happen. If I supply a poor product, and have to cover warranties, that hits my bottom line. It should affect the doctor the same way.

A doctor is not some privileged person. He is basically a mechanic that works on people. When the machine is broken (sickness, disease), he tries to fix it. Granted, they have additional training, but that is no different than many other professions. I fail to see why they are a protected profession.

The whole reason why insurance got involved in the medical industry is due to malpractice suits and juries that would award unreasonable sums of money to the patient. In some cases, the doctors were unjustly convicted and forced to pay. That forces them to pool their resources in case they are the unlucky ones who get hit with a lawsuit.

I think all of this stinks to high heaven!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't think a patient is entitled to a quarter of millions because he did some legwork and had the good luck to have the doctor leave the sponge in him.

The good luck?! WTF?! Having a sponge in you can cause plenty of problems. Sponges aren't exactly all that clean at the end of a surgical procedure, you realize?

And yes, since they did the legwork, they should get all the money. What's the point in, say, giving the state a portion when they didn't do jack.

I knew some folks some years back that had this happen, and they basically just received what I described.

Well it probably just messed up their car and didn't hurt anyone. If it hurt someone, the oil change company would be hit hard.

With insurance companies out of the equation, costs are lowered.

You are insane. If anything, costs go through the roof, to cover any potential liabilities. The negative externalities of malpractice have to be covered some how. Doctors will raise their rates to do so.

I fail to see why they are a protected profession.

Because insurance companies are willing to cover them. If insurance companies saw money in covering mechanics in working on cars, they would do so.

The government isn't mandating malpractice insurance. You don't have to be annointed by Congress to be able to be covered by insurance.

The whole reason why insurance got involved in the medical industry is due to malpractice suits and juries that would award unreasonable sums of money to the patient.

And your solution is to get rid of medmal insurance so doctors can burn by themselves. And who are you to determine unreasonablness? I think someone who got the wrong leg cut off IS entitled to millions. I think most of the awards are reasonable and when reduced on appeal, the appelate court is being unreasonable to the victim most of the time.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And your solution is to get rid of medmal insurance so doctors can burn by themselves. And who are you to determine unreasonablness? I think someone who got the wrong leg cut off IS entitled to millions. I think most of the awards are reasonable and when reduced on appeal, the appelate court is being unreasonable to the victim most of the time.

Well, you didn't read some of my previous posts. I think I specifically mentioned amputating the wrong limb would be justified in receiving a hefty award.

I make no claim to determine reasonableness. I am no more qualified than you. You feel the juries are justified in levying exorbitant fines. I do not feel they are justified. I do not think the juries are qualified to determine penalties because they are not versed in the medical field.

My basic stance is in a situation where the patient's care resulted in a new serious medical condition or changed his way of life, a substantial fine is justified. However, if the mistake is minor (easily remedied), and can be cleared up easily, then a large fine is not justified.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

My basic stance is in a situation where the patient's care resulted in a new serious medical condition or changed his way of life, a substantial fine is justified. However, if the mistake is minor (easily remedied), and can be cleared up easily, then a large fine is not justified.

Astonishing. That is how tort law actually works (as opposed to your bizarre, unsubstantiated version of reality).