South Carolina Doctor Proposes not Treating Trial Lawyers

[Amiens]

Here's the story,

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ma14m.html

What do you all think?

Crystal

[mommax3]

As the spouse of someone who was only eight months out of residency the first time he was sued (albeit not personally, since he is military, but named in the suit nonetheless) due to an extremely rare and almost always fatal malformation of the placenta, I could get on board with this. I like how the surgeon explains it as a failure to communicate. If someone comes in with the mindset that they are owed a good outcome, no matter what occurs, why should my husband have to treat them, (in non-emergency situations) knowing that by doing so he could be in effect putting his livelihood in their hands? There are lawyers out there who don't really care about the facts of the case, or the people involved, they just want to get a piece of the award and will sue if they think one may be offered.

Sally

[Meenah]

My husband has fired quite a few patients over the years. As long as he has another doctor to accept them it isn't a problem. He was once sued by a patient's family. He diagnosed the man (smoker for 40+ years) with lung cancer. The family said the man didn't realize how serious it was and they sued. Thank goodness the medical records were clear, and he had documentation that he referrred the patient to Oncology, etc. The case actually went to trial!!!! My husband won, but it was horrible. Initially the Insurance Co. wanted to just settle, but my husband refused. He said that would be admitting wrongdoing. Geez, it was expensive and wasteful, the family even had a video they showed of the man, stating he didn't know how he sick he was (he never quit smoking) or he would have quit smoking!!!! Can you believe such idiocy.
Luanne

Re: Lawyers vs Insurance companies and solutions

Not all states will cap awards for pain and suffering, and maybe they shouldn't. However, perhaps what should be capped or given a ceiling is the amount of money a malpractice lawyer can make on a suit. Let's say a jury awards 9 million to a patient. OK fine. But why should the attorney get 3 million of that. They sue because it is a gold mine for them. Limit what they can make per suit and many suits will go away.

[PrincessFiona]

I think nervoustic has a great idea! I think the proposed non-coverage of these lawyers is a tad extreme...but at the same time, as a physician I wouldn't want to treat one If anything, I'd be afraid of getting sued. Of course, more than 40 million hard working americans don't have health insurance coverage...so perhaps we could lump the med malpractice lawyers in with these 40 million plus that many see as being too undeserving of health insurance because they 'only' work in service industry jobs, etc.... : At the end of the day, I really think all americans have a right to basic health coverage though...
(though I don't advocate socialized medicine)

kris

BAAAAD IDEA!!!!

Forgive me, but I must say the last suggestion is (IMHO) a VERY bad idea. First off, it smacks the face of capitalism. The rule as it should be is what the market will bear. I do not think we should punish anyone for wanting to make more money. Going down that road split Germany in two and only a few years ago was the wall brought down.
Secondly, in order to achieve this end, one would have to create YET ANOTHER law for the books. There have already been FAR too many laws created that prohibits our freedoms and rights. This one will not only trigger the further destruction of our economic superiority but will have broad reaching effects in other areas as well. Who is to say how much ANYONE should earn? Some people think that Doctors make too much money. Should they be able to cap that amount as well?
I think the idea of not treating the insurance execs and lawyers is the best. The only other idea that I could even begin to entertain would be professional juries. But then again, there goes the idea of a jury of your peers.

[PrincessFiona]

Well,

I guess it all depends on what side of the aisle you stand on with this issue. I personally believe that we are smart enough to learn from countries that have socialized systems and would be able to establish a system where people like you and I could continue to have their private insurance companies and people who are less fortunate would have either a govt. funded or subsidized insurance to fall back on.

At the end of the day, we already have a two-tiered system of medicine in the USA....there are the haves and the 42 million have-nots...80% of whom also work, btw..so we're not talking bottom dwellers. We watched our neighbors last year as the husband lost his job (outsourcing)....they went form living in a very nice home to losing their house, declaring bankruptcy and even losing one car. They had 5 chidlren to take care of...they ended up moving in with her family in Michigan and he finally found a 3/4 time job that did NOT offer health benefits. 4 months later, the sahm of 5 was diagnosed with ALS and she has NO health insurance. She doesn't qualify for much govt help because her husband is working....

The family has already been bankrupted once, they are facing the certain death of the mother and no health coverage in a country that is truly so great and does have such a good health care system. Why are we willing to pay anything for new fighter jets and tanks, but not to give the basic healhtcare rights to our citizens?

I don't think this would affect doctor's salaries negatively at all. As a matter of fact, it might make things better. As it is, hospitals and doctors have to simply write off patients that can't pay...like the 19 yr old that my husband treated for two weeks in the ICU last year.....she eventually died of an overwhelming infection (which is horribly tragic, btw) and the hospital and my hubby will not be paid for this...As a result, health care costs for you and me are higher....I think that it is one of the reasons that costs are so high for those of us who are insured. Hospitals and docs don't get paid for treating the uninsured or underinsured, so they have to take it from those of us who are....maybe our costs would go down?

One problem that we do have in this country though is an unwillingness to put price controls or at least set some kind of limits on certain expenditures. Already, the new prescription drug plan is failing for exactly this reason.....drug prices went up 3% last month and now seniors who are able to enroll in this during the trial period are no longer saving any money......

Capitalism is a good thing, but just like anything else it does require a certain set of checks and balances to keep those who are overwhelmed by the money and power from abusing it. Companies have a greater responsiblity to this country and to the people that they employ....I'm disturbed by the trend of big corporate CEO salaris (in the tens of millions) when these same CEOs are cutting back health benefits/salaris for the employees that do the hard work of greeting the public every day.

What is the alternative to finding a system where all individuals can access some type of health care insurance? Can we morally justify denying people needed basic healthcare in such a wealthy country?

Anyway...I love to debate these issues and I have fun with it...and I also accept your point of view as being a valid one. I certainly am not advocating socialized medicine and honestly wouldn't trust our govt. to manage any kind of health insurance program....at the same time, I don't think that businesses could be entrusted with this responsiblity without a system of checks and balances applied towards maintaining honesty.

that's my .02

kris

????

WOW! One quick question; what has this to do with Doctors not treating trial lawyers? You covered nearly every pet peeve of mine but said nothing about the topic. I can see you and I are going to have MANY debates.

[PrincessFiona]

Re: ????

WOW! One quick question; what has this to do with Doctors not treating trial lawyers? You covered nearly every pet peeve of mine but said nothing about the topic. I can see you and I are going to have MANY debates.

8) Probably nothing I think sometimes I just like to hear myself talk My mil just left after a 3 week stay...

I'm open to debating any issues as long as you understand that I don't take it personally and have a great deal of respect for the opinions of others that differ from mine....I don't think that everyone has to agree with me.....but that sometimes gets lost in the heat of a debate

kris

No worries

Like I said, I can see you and I will have MANY debates in the future. I too look forward to it.

[Meenah]

So what is wrong with Socialized medicine!!!

sigh!

Luanne123
I think the question you should ask yourself is "What is RIGHT with socialized medicine?"
Nothing is wrong so long as you dont mind waiting years for the specific proceedures and having a dental program that is horrific.
Then again, this is just MHO.
A

sigh!

Luanne123
I think the question you should ask yourself is "What is RIGHT with socialized medicine?"
Nothing is wrong so long as you dont mind waiting years for the specific proceedures and having a dental program that is horrific.
Then again, this is just MHO.
A

[PrincessFiona]

Luanne (and by the way, check your PM box )

The problems that I saw with socialized medicine when we were in the UK were the long waiting lists for elective procedures or certain tests. That being said, if they thought that you had a serious illness (ie brain tumor) you could still get an MRI that week7...Also, I remember once Thomas was called to an MI only to discover that the crash cart was out of MEDS. The patient died and we commented that it was govt. sponsored population control ...of course, the woman who died was 85 years old....She was on a geriatric wing of the hospital that was much less aggressive. They don't spend as much money in the last months of life that we do...If grandma has terminal cancer she is not placed on dialysis, etc, etc...she is allowed to pass peacefully.

There are fewer opportunities for physicians to practice in the UK....what I saw was that you were either a GP (general practitioner) or you worked in the hospital and had a clinic right there. Salaries were still above 100k and they had no student loan debt, overhead, malpractice, etc...

I honestly don't know what the best answer is, but I think it's a shame that we can't look at all options openly and honestly. Which brings me to the other question..what is right with socialized medicine? All individuals are entitled to basic healthcare coverage and that healthcare is upheld by minimum standards of care. You wil not have to declare bankruptcy or lose your house if your child develops cancer, has an accident or if you are downsized out of your job and then become seriously ill. Morbidity and Mortality rates in countries that have socialized medicine are not higher than they are in the US and lifespans are not shorter...

As to the dental thing....The brits have the best teeth around...The NHS pays for everything until you are 18 and then it is dirt cheap compared to how much we hemmorhage here....The majority of the people in the US have either no or very little health coverage. Even the best plans max out at $1000/yr per person.....any costly dental work that you can't afford means extracted teeth.

I'd love to see something in the middle...similar to germany perhaps, but with the modern structure of private practice that we have here.

kris