Texas passed a law that caps lawsuits to $250,000. This was supposed to lower the Doctors insurance so they could afford to practice. Lawsuits filed before the law was passed, in a three month period, was over 700,000. the same three month period AFTER the law was passed they were only 70. The Insurance companies told doctors their insurance would be 8 to 15% less IF the law passed. They lied. Their premiums are the same as they were before the law was passed. It seems to me the insurance companies, are as much at fault, for high medical cost as lawsuits.
Lawsuits
- Thread starter davidjg47
- Start date
premiums are down genius...that speaking, i am not an advocate of this law
rather i am a proponent of "jury reform" (competent juries) and also for a proponent of criminal prosecution if a lawyer attempts to mislead in the courtroom
good luck with that though
rather i am a proponent of "jury reform" (competent juries) and also for a proponent of criminal prosecution if a lawyer attempts to mislead in the courtroom
good luck with that though
The insurance companies always seem to make money. Price fixing scandal that was brought out in NY yesterday is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think if just one juror was certified and did it full time, it would go such a long way to more reasonable rulings.
I think if just one juror was certified and did it full time, it would go such a long way to more reasonable rulings.
people are buying plans that are ridiculous....
no need to pay 1 grand extra so that your office visit gives you a 20$ co-pay
need to get back to visits and tests paid by patient directly instead of by insurance companies.......that would get people in shape as they would get hit in the pocketbook to get their cholesterol checked every 3 months......
a healthier population & much cheaper health care while no need for unproductive jobs arguing for and against tests....co-pays would go way down and patients would win and they would also have a say in what tests they want and not necessarily need to enlist in defensive medicine protocols....
but to end defensive medicine practices we also need to put a harness on litigation....
look at whats happening now with Vioxx....how the hell are we going to get cheaper drugs while we are paying lawyers to litigate?
no need to pay 1 grand extra so that your office visit gives you a 20$ co-pay
need to get back to visits and tests paid by patient directly instead of by insurance companies.......that would get people in shape as they would get hit in the pocketbook to get their cholesterol checked every 3 months......
a healthier population & much cheaper health care while no need for unproductive jobs arguing for and against tests....co-pays would go way down and patients would win and they would also have a say in what tests they want and not necessarily need to enlist in defensive medicine protocols....
but to end defensive medicine practices we also need to put a harness on litigation....
look at whats happening now with Vioxx....how the hell are we going to get cheaper drugs while we are paying lawyers to litigate?
You know it occurs to me Quacker, what is the problem with defensive medicine? Seems to me that might give a patient better care.
With regard to lower premiums, I've been saying that to all my doctor friends. I ask them to come to me and tell me how much there premiums have dropped after caps were in place. You know what the answer is.
Some carriers have artificially dropped premiums after caps in place to act as poster boys to mislead doctors that caps work. Within several years the rates are as high or higher than they were before caps.
Carriers are screwing their insureds and especially the victims of doctors negligence.
Eddie
With regard to lower premiums, I've been saying that to all my doctor friends. I ask them to come to me and tell me how much there premiums have dropped after caps were in place. You know what the answer is.
Some carriers have artificially dropped premiums after caps in place to act as poster boys to mislead doctors that caps work. Within several years the rates are as high or higher than they were before caps.
Carriers are screwing their insureds and especially the victims of doctors negligence.
Eddie
Jesus H Criminney, don't you guys leave anything alone. Wonder if Al gore knew he was creating a monster
Edwin: simple language for you to understand
good medicine == evidence based medicine
defensive medicine == bad medicine
evidence based medicine == rewards>risks plus costs
defensive medicine == (rewards + countless paperwork + extra hospital days + extra tests +extra administrators)>(100*risks + 50*imagined risks + 200*legal precedent +200*professional witness opinion)
good medicine == evidence based medicine
defensive medicine == bad medicine
evidence based medicine == rewards>risks plus costs
defensive medicine == (rewards + countless paperwork + extra hospital days + extra tests +extra administrators)>(100*risks + 50*imagined risks + 200*legal precedent +200*professional witness opinion)
Last edited:
Freezer:
Then when do you stop on your differential diagnosis? You haven't found the most likely source of the problem when your going down the list, at what point do you stop.
I submit the following:
defensive medicine = good and thourough care.
Your attempt to confuse readers to support your point with "evidence based medicine" is, as usual, nonsense. Your differential diagnosis is based upon evidence of symptomatology. You apply the appropriate diagnositic tools based upon the most likely causes. As you eliminate etiologies, you search for less likely culprits.
The foregoing analysis is judged by your peers and by the standard of care. Thats how the tort system evaluates your conduct or lack thereof. I don't see a problem with this.
The irony is that what you are advocating is less care for your patients. I suggest you reread your hippocratic oath, pumpkin. There, is that simply enough language for you.
As an addendum to your edit, the real reason you do not like defensive medicine is because it cuts into your profit margin. If you take your equation as printed in your edit, I would add the following sum to the end of your analysis = healthier patient.
I mean really, we all practice defensive driving. Whats wrong with you practicing defensive medicine.
Eddie
Then when do you stop on your differential diagnosis? You haven't found the most likely source of the problem when your going down the list, at what point do you stop.
I submit the following:
defensive medicine = good and thourough care.
Your attempt to confuse readers to support your point with "evidence based medicine" is, as usual, nonsense. Your differential diagnosis is based upon evidence of symptomatology. You apply the appropriate diagnositic tools based upon the most likely causes. As you eliminate etiologies, you search for less likely culprits.
The foregoing analysis is judged by your peers and by the standard of care. Thats how the tort system evaluates your conduct or lack thereof. I don't see a problem with this.
The irony is that what you are advocating is less care for your patients. I suggest you reread your hippocratic oath, pumpkin. There, is that simply enough language for you.
As an addendum to your edit, the real reason you do not like defensive medicine is because it cuts into your profit margin. If you take your equation as printed in your edit, I would add the following sum to the end of your analysis = healthier patient.
I mean really, we all practice defensive driving. Whats wrong with you practicing defensive medicine.
Eddie
Last edited:
Actually, Edwin defensive medicine INCREASES my profit margin
Tests used in management are generally attributed to defensive medicine....not those used to establish a diagnosis....so your premise is not correct, Sir
Tests used in management are generally attributed to defensive medicine....not those used to establish a diagnosis....so your premise is not correct, Sir
proper allocation of resources also is involved in good medicine.....
unless you live in Utopia, which liberals seemingly do, we do not have an endless supply.......and for me to uphold my hippocratic oath, I have to recognize this...
I suppose defensive medicine could be hospital admissions for all of us from day 1 of life.....the point is, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere....and right now the aforementioned are factors in a formula where they do not belong..
i don't understand how anyone could not see this
unless you live in Utopia, which liberals seemingly do, we do not have an endless supply.......and for me to uphold my hippocratic oath, I have to recognize this...
I suppose defensive medicine could be hospital admissions for all of us from day 1 of life.....the point is, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere....and right now the aforementioned are factors in a formula where they do not belong..
i don't understand how anyone could not see this
First of all, its Edward not Edwin.
Secondly, lets play your little scenario out. Additional diagnostic testing, on the surface, would appear to indicate additional profit from you if you get kickbacks for such tests. However, your leaving one little old player out of the equation. Yes, both of our favorite people, the health insurance industry.
Once your secretary calls BC/BS to obtain pre-certification for the battery of tests you want to do when practicing defensive medicine, you are subject to the 18 year old adjuster looking up in her manual whether or not such tests are called for given the particular situation.
If Susie says such tests which you deem appropriate for the situation are not authorized where does that leave you? No profit there sweetness. Then you do not do the tests and your patient croaks from some disease the tests would have revealed. All of a sudden you get certified mail from the Clerk of Courts.
It pains me to say this, but I feel for your dilema. The real bad guy is Susie. Instead of going after the carriers for practicing medicine, the easier target (like Iraq instead of bin Laden) are the lawyers who sent you the certified letter.
Thirdly, the law does not require that you do an MRI on a person who comes into your office with symptoms of a head cold. I mean be real. You sit there and say we have to take advantage of all available resources in the practice of defensive medicine.
I know you think the world is black and white but, thats not what the law requires. It requires you to take REASONABLE steps in diagnosing a patient who presents with certain symptoms. Not every test known to mankind. The line between malpractice and poor result is drawn with the appropriate standard of care is crossed.
Based on your earlier posts, you do view the world in a most unreasonable fashion and do see things as black and white. Accordingly, your opinions expressed here and in past posts is not surprising.
But don't worry. You have already won the war with your lobbies bs caps etc. You and the health carriers win. Victims of malpractice lose.
Edwin, I mean Edward
Secondly, lets play your little scenario out. Additional diagnostic testing, on the surface, would appear to indicate additional profit from you if you get kickbacks for such tests. However, your leaving one little old player out of the equation. Yes, both of our favorite people, the health insurance industry.
Once your secretary calls BC/BS to obtain pre-certification for the battery of tests you want to do when practicing defensive medicine, you are subject to the 18 year old adjuster looking up in her manual whether or not such tests are called for given the particular situation.
If Susie says such tests which you deem appropriate for the situation are not authorized where does that leave you? No profit there sweetness. Then you do not do the tests and your patient croaks from some disease the tests would have revealed. All of a sudden you get certified mail from the Clerk of Courts.
It pains me to say this, but I feel for your dilema. The real bad guy is Susie. Instead of going after the carriers for practicing medicine, the easier target (like Iraq instead of bin Laden) are the lawyers who sent you the certified letter.
Thirdly, the law does not require that you do an MRI on a person who comes into your office with symptoms of a head cold. I mean be real. You sit there and say we have to take advantage of all available resources in the practice of defensive medicine.
I know you think the world is black and white but, thats not what the law requires. It requires you to take REASONABLE steps in diagnosing a patient who presents with certain symptoms. Not every test known to mankind. The line between malpractice and poor result is drawn with the appropriate standard of care is crossed.
Based on your earlier posts, you do view the world in a most unreasonable fashion and do see things as black and white. Accordingly, your opinions expressed here and in past posts is not surprising.
But don't worry. You have already won the war with your lobbies bs caps etc. You and the health carriers win. Victims of malpractice lose.
Edwin, I mean Edward
