Edwards isn’t ready to be part of running the country. It is evident with one answer from the vice presidential debate. He doesn’t feel trial lawyers have anything to do with rising medical and medical liability costs. This is a no brainer….it is directly correlated. Oh and a loop hole to his plan of 3 strikes and your out….each lawyer in the firm has 3 strikes?? or the firm has 3 strikes?? And for what time period would they be out??
I agree that Attorney’s are part of the problem when they take on frivolous law suits and you know it is because it is the attorney may want the experience, notoriety, of course the money. I don’t really know how to overcome this problem other than what was suggested by the Vice President in capping the awards from the courts. I don’t believe it will solve stopping the frivolous law suits but atleast the insurance premiums Doctors and the like have to pay may remain manageable. The bigger picture is that we all ultimately pay for the increase in malpractice insurance through our medical insurance premiums and these premiums are going through the roof. I am lucky to be employed by an agency which pays 80% of medical costs and am grateful for it. Some friends of mine who have lost their jobs through downsizing etc. have no insurance and my friends who do pay are paying upwards of $500 single to $1500. family per month. I can’t imagine paying this much – it is where all savings etc. goes. It’s nuts. I am hoping with the next election that something can be done with frivolous claims, malpractice insurance, pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance for everyone at a reasonable price. Time will tell. It’s a difficult/complicated system.
It would be good if we got control on frivilous lawsuits (and assess fines to those lawyers who bring them), but it would also make sense if we could simply rid the system of incompetent practitioners. Why not fix the CAUSE of lawsuits (medical mistakes) and then establish rational settlement strategies when there has been a medical mistake?
Attacking these two areas, combined with caps on insurance companys’ and providers’ profit margins would put the whole system into a manageable spectrum.
The whole issue needs to be separated from partisan politics.
I pay $36,000 per year for myself and three employees. I pay 100% of the premium.
I won’t be able to continue unless something happens to lower the costs. My E&O which is also affected by trial lawyers was quoted to me this year at
$21,000. Last year I paid $4000(+). I was able to negotiate it down this year to about the same as last year. I consider myself fortunate. I personally will vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket. I trust neither Kerry or Edwards to do nothing more than continue to press for “Hillary Insurance” as someone has suggested, which will be a disaster.
Regarding Dr. Allan’s comments:
Bush and Cheney claim they want to cap economic damages. Cheney said Kerry has voted 10 times against “medical liability reform.”
Did it ever dawn on Bush and Kerry that maybe the reason Kerry voted that way was because the measure Bush and Cheney are proposing is so broad and impractical that it is virtually unconstitutional? Kerry is a lawyer. Bush and Cheny are not.
Bush and Cheney think they have the right to cap everyone’s settlement regardless of the circumstances of their medical liability case. In otherwords, all people can sue, but their settlements can’t be too high. What incentive does this give doctors to
take their professionalism more serious and lawyers to not encourage their clients to sue?
Who will decide the cap? Bush and Cheney, neither of them with any legal practice training or education in the law — or medicine. The two have an “either or” mentality. They either do something drastic or nothing at all. They don’t like consensus with the medical community or the legal community.
If settlements are capped on medical liability suits why shouldn’t they be capped on ALL liability settlements – regardless of how they adversely affect people. This means the concept of gross negligence also will “capped” or virtually a joke.
The government wants to tell us it is okay to sue – but not too much??? This is not the Republican Party way. The party is supposed to let the free market prevail.
Kerry and Edwards’ plan at least makes it encumbent upon the legal profession and other “independent experts- doctors included” to review the cases before they can go forward. Independent experts will weigh each case on medical practice and legal merits not restrict how much money one can receive. If Bush and Cheney have their way there will still be just as many lawsuits – if not more – than there are today. With Kerry and Edwards, legal appropriateness of the case will be handled BEFORE the trial starts.
Perhaps the insurance contract should exclude ANY coverage for non-economic damages. Allowing insurance coverage for “pain & suffering” and other non-economic loss should be an option available to insureds (in any profession), but should not be mandatory! This would allow new, young professionals to buy less expensive coverage… assuming they have little in current personal wealth to protect. Just a thought…
This medical liability problem doesn’t just affect doctors. We specialize in insurance for non-profit nursing, retirement homes, and home & community-based services. Their premiums have gone out of sight even with no claims, (some have experienced 300% in 4 years!!!)Plaintiff attorneys are being trained on how to take them to the cleaners. Yes, some organizations have not/do not offer quality care but 99% of them are and they are trying to serve the frail elderly and low-income elderly. Turns out that we as society, our parents and family members, and our future retirement is suffering while attorneys get rich off of lawsuits on the backs of organizations that are trying to help the poor and frail. We are all aging and at the rate the premiums are going, there will not be many choices for the elderly frail, sick, and/or low-income. Bush-Cheney is our best hope!!
If everyone is so worried about the victim not getting a big enough settlement they should simply cap how much an attorney gets paid for each case. Especially class action law suits. It is ridiculous that an attorney can file a class action win 400 million for the victims take 300 million of it and then give each victim $700. That would reduce the settlements simply because more would be going to the victims.
Gwen,
We are all aging and with the huge deficits Bush is building with his tax breaks for the rich (would the poor Doctors fall in that category of making more than $200k/year?) none of us working stiffs will be able to recieve Social Security or Medicare when it comes time for us to retire. Once these programs are gone because of the Bush deficits you won’t have to worry about collecting premiums from your nursing homes. Once these government programs are gone- so are your nursing homes. The elderly will be living on the street in a cardboard box not in a nursing home.
Get a Clue!
My theory is that punitive damage awards are meant to punish the defendant rather than to reward the plaintiff. As such, punitive damages should be paid to the jurisdiction in which the case is tried. Contingency fee lawyers should get paid as a percentage of the monetary damage award settlements that they win. The entire punitive award should go to the jurisdiction.
With respect to class action suits, the legal fees should be capped at percentage of the award given to any single member of the class. If the cap is 5x the amount of a single member, then if there are 95 members of the class, the lawyers’ fees would be capped at 5%.
Edwards isn’t ready to be part of running the country. It is evident with one answer from the vice presidential debate. He doesn’t feel trial lawyers have anything to do with rising medical and medical liability costs. This is a no brainer….it is directly correlated. Oh and a loop hole to his plan of 3 strikes and your out….each lawyer in the firm has 3 strikes?? or the firm has 3 strikes?? And for what time period would they be out??
I agree that Attorney’s are part of the problem when they take on frivolous law suits and you know it is because it is the attorney may want the experience, notoriety, of course the money. I don’t really know how to overcome this problem other than what was suggested by the Vice President in capping the awards from the courts. I don’t believe it will solve stopping the frivolous law suits but atleast the insurance premiums Doctors and the like have to pay may remain manageable. The bigger picture is that we all ultimately pay for the increase in malpractice insurance through our medical insurance premiums and these premiums are going through the roof. I am lucky to be employed by an agency which pays 80% of medical costs and am grateful for it. Some friends of mine who have lost their jobs through downsizing etc. have no insurance and my friends who do pay are paying upwards of $500 single to $1500. family per month. I can’t imagine paying this much – it is where all savings etc. goes. It’s nuts. I am hoping with the next election that something can be done with frivolous claims, malpractice insurance, pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance for everyone at a reasonable price. Time will tell. It’s a difficult/complicated system.
It would be good if we got control on frivilous lawsuits (and assess fines to those lawyers who bring them), but it would also make sense if we could simply rid the system of incompetent practitioners. Why not fix the CAUSE of lawsuits (medical mistakes) and then establish rational settlement strategies when there has been a medical mistake?
Attacking these two areas, combined with caps on insurance companys’ and providers’ profit margins would put the whole system into a manageable spectrum.
The whole issue needs to be separated from partisan politics.
I pay $36,000 per year for myself and three employees. I pay 100% of the premium.
I won’t be able to continue unless something happens to lower the costs. My E&O which is also affected by trial lawyers was quoted to me this year at
$21,000. Last year I paid $4000(+). I was able to negotiate it down this year to about the same as last year. I consider myself fortunate. I personally will vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket. I trust neither Kerry or Edwards to do nothing more than continue to press for “Hillary Insurance” as someone has suggested, which will be a disaster.
Regarding Dr. Allan’s comments:
Bush and Cheney claim they want to cap economic damages. Cheney said Kerry has voted 10 times against “medical liability reform.”
Did it ever dawn on Bush and Kerry that maybe the reason Kerry voted that way was because the measure Bush and Cheney are proposing is so broad and impractical that it is virtually unconstitutional? Kerry is a lawyer. Bush and Cheny are not.
Bush and Cheney think they have the right to cap everyone’s settlement regardless of the circumstances of their medical liability case. In otherwords, all people can sue, but their settlements can’t be too high. What incentive does this give doctors to
take their professionalism more serious and lawyers to not encourage their clients to sue?
Who will decide the cap? Bush and Cheney, neither of them with any legal practice training or education in the law — or medicine. The two have an “either or” mentality. They either do something drastic or nothing at all. They don’t like consensus with the medical community or the legal community.
If settlements are capped on medical liability suits why shouldn’t they be capped on ALL liability settlements – regardless of how they adversely affect people. This means the concept of gross negligence also will “capped” or virtually a joke.
The government wants to tell us it is okay to sue – but not too much??? This is not the Republican Party way. The party is supposed to let the free market prevail.
Kerry and Edwards’ plan at least makes it encumbent upon the legal profession and other “independent experts- doctors included” to review the cases before they can go forward. Independent experts will weigh each case on medical practice and legal merits not restrict how much money one can receive. If Bush and Cheney have their way there will still be just as many lawsuits – if not more – than there are today. With Kerry and Edwards, legal appropriateness of the case will be handled BEFORE the trial starts.
Perhaps the insurance contract should exclude ANY coverage for non-economic damages. Allowing insurance coverage for “pain & suffering” and other non-economic loss should be an option available to insureds (in any profession), but should not be mandatory! This would allow new, young professionals to buy less expensive coverage… assuming they have little in current personal wealth to protect. Just a thought…
This medical liability problem doesn’t just affect doctors. We specialize in insurance for non-profit nursing, retirement homes, and home & community-based services. Their premiums have gone out of sight even with no claims, (some have experienced 300% in 4 years!!!)Plaintiff attorneys are being trained on how to take them to the cleaners. Yes, some organizations have not/do not offer quality care but 99% of them are and they are trying to serve the frail elderly and low-income elderly. Turns out that we as society, our parents and family members, and our future retirement is suffering while attorneys get rich off of lawsuits on the backs of organizations that are trying to help the poor and frail. We are all aging and at the rate the premiums are going, there will not be many choices for the elderly frail, sick, and/or low-income. Bush-Cheney is our best hope!!
If everyone is so worried about the victim not getting a big enough settlement they should simply cap how much an attorney gets paid for each case. Especially class action law suits. It is ridiculous that an attorney can file a class action win 400 million for the victims take 300 million of it and then give each victim $700. That would reduce the settlements simply because more would be going to the victims.
Gwen,
We are all aging and with the huge deficits Bush is building with his tax breaks for the rich (would the poor Doctors fall in that category of making more than $200k/year?) none of us working stiffs will be able to recieve Social Security or Medicare when it comes time for us to retire. Once these programs are gone because of the Bush deficits you won’t have to worry about collecting premiums from your nursing homes. Once these government programs are gone- so are your nursing homes. The elderly will be living on the street in a cardboard box not in a nursing home.
Get a Clue!
My theory is that punitive damage awards are meant to punish the defendant rather than to reward the plaintiff. As such, punitive damages should be paid to the jurisdiction in which the case is tried. Contingency fee lawyers should get paid as a percentage of the monetary damage award settlements that they win. The entire punitive award should go to the jurisdiction.
With respect to class action suits, the legal fees should be capped at percentage of the award given to any single member of the class. If the cap is 5x the amount of a single member, then if there are 95 members of the class, the lawyers’ fees would be capped at 5%.
That would be a great Idea! It would eliminate the whole lottery trial system where you can get rich quick by suing