Comments on: Malpractice Rant #XXXXX

By: Aporkalypse

Aporkalypse — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:23:41 +0000

First, I guess I’d like to know how doctors make (100s of times) what you make. Since the average physician salary is $140,000 are you making less than $1400? If so, maybe getting a job would help.
———————-
I know no physicians with less than a million in coverage, that’s pretty much a standard minimum these days.
—————————-
Again, if insurance cos were ripping everyone off why have 75% of them stopped providing malpractice insurance in the last 5 yrs? Why are physicians in some areas completely unable to obtain coverage? That makes no sense. The Prop 103 issue is far more complex than that, BTW. Rates dropped when all legal hurdles to MICRA were passed, two years prior to Prop 103.

By: arf

arf — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:26:58 +0000

yawn.

Same old, machi.

A couple of people write letters to the Wash Post, therefore it’s true.

People in California sue more…..for smaller amounts. That puts the lie to the claim that tort reform limits the “right to sue”. Their (California) overall malpractice premium run higher than my state.

If there were no tort reform in their state, the premiums would be orders of magnitude higher……if you could get insurance at all.

By: machi

machi — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:32:38 +0000

arf and others should look at these two excellent letters inthe Wash Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37926-2004Jul8.html

excerpts:
” California provides another cautionary tale. In 1975 California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, yet premiums for medical malpractice in California grew more quickly from 1991 to 2000 than in the nation — 3.5 percent vs. 1.9 percent. Between 1975 and 1993, California’s health care costs rose 343 percent.

Only after insurance reform was enacted did malpractice insurance rates drop. Whatever improvements have been made in California regarding malpractice insurance are the result of insurance reform, not tort reform. ”

The insurance companies rip us off and arf wants to blame the patients and their advocates.

I know – don’t say it again – “I’m ignorant”

By: fed up

fed up — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:46:57 +0000

sure I might be “ignorant” but I know now how I can get some payback for my thousands of dollars that my family must pay to have medical care.

don’t take it personally but I need the money more thsn you. it’s not pretty… but it’s reality. not bad for being an ignorant customer. Amen to JOHN EDWARDS and KERRY

By: arf

arf — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:51:06 +0000

You should sue the school system that left you so ignorant.

By: fed up

fed up — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:18:40 +0000

I would rather sue doctors who make 100x the money than I make. if you wouldn’t charge so much maybe people would not wan’t to sue you.
my cable tv costs 60 dollars in a month. my phone costs 60, my electric bill costs 150. my medical insurance bills are 600 per month. that’s why I wan’t to sue you becuase you charge so much.

By: arf

arf — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:44:48 +0000

why don’t you sue the bacteria?

By: John Doe

John Doe — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 00:38:37 +0000

Sepsis kills 200,000 Americans a year. Those deaths are not acts of God, they are basically legal homicides. Maybe we should try reducing the amount of medical malpractice in this country.

By: arf

arf — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 20:17:21 +0000

Whatever.

The point is, they do not have less litigation in the UK because of a single-payer system, it is because the UK has “tort reform” far harsher than ANYTHING ever proposed in the USA.

And, not surprising, the person who calls himself a lawyer “researching” medical/legal reform has nothing to back up his statements.

Typical.

Mapractice limits of less than a quarter mil…….I think the worst I ever had was $300K and I thought that was unacceptable. Every other practice, in several states, over about 20 years, has been one million/three million. Of course, some docs go bare. I don’t think that constitutes “malpractice coverage” though.

By: .ca .co.uk

.ca .co.uk — Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:05:29 +0000

“There is less malpractice litigation in the UK because the government limits access to jury trial, contingency fees are prohibited, and the loser pays court costs and legal fees for the prevailing side. ”

Well then I guess Canadians and the Brits just have/elect better governments and lawmakers !