For RR, Esq.

[Larry Gude]

Wash Post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61927-2005Jan9.html

Everybody should read this. Tort reform. You will not believe the numbers.

 

[Lenny]

Wash Post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61927-2005Jan9.html

Everybody should read this. Tort reform. You will not believe the numbers.

The United States has more lawyers than it needs (Manhattan alone has more lawyers than Ball of Britain). These lawyers must find ways to make a living and the tort system is the best-paying crap shoot in town. But before we blame the vast number of one and two man practices, look at the tort factories whose only business is the burgeoning greed of the American public.

If a losing lawyer had to pay the entire expense for the other side, we'd see tort lawyers become much more selective in the cases they file.

 

[Larry Gude]

People...

In 2003, according to Tillinghast, the tort system cost $246 billion -- meaning that the average American paid $845 for it via more expensive goods and services.

$246 b b b B B BILLION...

Defense is only $400 or so.

 

[rraley]

While it's a good article, it still does not address the fact that lawsuits are only responsible for 0.5% of the 17% national increase in malpractice rates. We have to understand that this spike in malpractice insurance for doctors (whose average income is close to $150,000) is relative to their jobs and their income. And we should relate the increase in malpractice rates to increases across the board of any type of insurance over the past several years. This isn't about bad lawyers or bad doctors; this is about the nature of insurance. It goes up sadly and I think that people making $150,000 can deal with it.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think that people making $150,000 can deal with it.

When you're making $150,000 we'll revisit this discussion.

 

[Larry Gude]

Rr...

...come on! You know better than to make a straw man argument like that.

it still does not address the fact that lawsuits are only responsible for 0.5% of the 17% national increase in malpractice rates.

Only responsible for a small part of the increase? Why, do you suppose, one has malpractice insurance AT ALL?

100% of it is to protect him, the doc, from financial insolvency due to losing a malpractice suit. I take little comfort in the fact that the latest increases are stock market related.

some numbers:

http://www.bonesofpa.com/malpractice.shtml

some insight to the whole issue:

http://www.bonesofpa.com/malpractice.shtml

Your folks insure your home against fire because they can't afford to pay for it themselves. Our house costs us about $800 a year to insure. It went up some as well due to the same reasons all insurnace has gone up recently.

People also have auto insurance because they can't typically afford to pay for it, an accident, out of pocket. Our largest fleet truck costs about $5,000 a year for insurance. It's a 1989 Mack with 300,000 miles on it.

I can promise you my house is worth a hell of a lot more than that truck.

Why the big diff?

'The house doesn't run anyone over' you say.

Yes and also, the loss of the house is fixed whether I, a neighbor or family member dies in the fire. It is a known cost.

The truck will very likely cause no where near as much damage as the house fire BUT the cost is unknown and unpredictable therefore more risky. Why?

Lawsuits that run FAR in excess of the property value.

 

[Lenny]

While it's a good article, it still does not address the fact that lawsuits are only responsible for 0.5% of the 17% national increase in malpractice rates. We have to understand that this spike in malpractice insurance for doctors (whose average income is close to $150,000) is relative to their jobs and their income. And we should relate the increase in malpractice rates to increases across the board of any type of insurance over the past several years. This isn't about bad lawyers or bad doctors; this is about the nature of insurance. It goes up sadly and I think that people making $150,000 can deal with it.

Once you get to South Bend, try using that type argument in a legitimate class. The professor (if he's a professional) will cut you to pieces.

 

[Larry Gude]

Rr...

people making $150,000 can deal with it.

Before you run off to your $120,000 education I think some greed needs to be instilled in you.

$150,000 is nice but it ain't all that hell of a lot of money and absorbing a 33% increase (in Maryland) on a $30,000 premium...

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Maryland_MedMal_Report_2004.pdf#search='Maryland%20average%20cost%20of%20malpractice%20insurance'

...or about $10,000, well, that ain't chicken feed my man.

 

[rraley]

Once you get to South Bend, try using that type argument in a legitimate class. The professor (if he's a professional) will cut you to pieces.

Actually, they would enjoy that argument by my estimation (the faculty, especially political science professors, which I am majoring in, is overwhelmingly liberal).

On to more substantive points...

I am not sure about the numbers that Mr. Gude are providing them (there is no article by which to place them in context), but this is what I gather from them. First of all, the results look rather skewed or unreliable (I don't know how reliable the Bones Society is or how truthful doctors' offices are about how much their medical malpractice insurance costs). I also am not sure if it is a good idea to use only one type of doctors (orthopaedic physicians in this case) when discussing malpractice rates. But this is what immediately jumps out at me and it is using case-studies.

Maryland has rather lenient laws when it comes to torts and other lawsuits. A lawyer-hating Republican would say that Maryland is one of America's "trial lawyers' dreams." According to the numbers of the Bones Society, the malpractice costs for an orthopaedic physician in Maryland is $19,500. Ok, not the lowest (of course that physician is by no means in the poorhouse), but not the highest. Now let us compare this average cost to the average cost of an orthopaedic physician in Texas, where tort reform is at its toughest: $20,550. Hmmm, there seems to be no correlation between tough tort reform and lower rates...just some food for thought.

 

[Larry Gude]

OK youngin'...

I'm getting no credit from you for open mindedness. Hell, I added a RALPH NADER link for crying out loud!

There is no such thing as a 'lawyer hating Republican'. What Republicans don't like, and, BTW, what you shouldn't like either, is the unpredictability of our current system.

At present, everyone makes a ton of money, 'evil' Republican insurance companies, 'evil' Democratic ambulance chasers, everyone that is except plaintiff and you and me; we're picking up the tab, the WHOLE tab, in higher prices.

BTW, congrats on Notre Dame!

 

[rraley]

Thank you Larry about ND and let me reinerate that I do consider you very highly in terms of open-mindedness; I just used that term to add some political satire to my post.

 

[Lenny]

Actually, they would enjoy that argument by my estimation (the faculty, especially political science professors, which I am majoring in, is overwhelmingly liberal).

On to more substantive points...

I am not sure about the numbers that Mr. Gude are providing them (there is no article by which to place them in context), but this is what I gather from them. First of all, the results look rather skewed or unreliable (I don't know how reliable the Bones Society is or how truthful doctors' offices are about how much their medical malpractice insurance costs). I also am not sure if it is a good idea to use only one type of doctors (orthopaedic physicians in this case) when discussing malpractice rates. But this is what immediately jumps out at me and it is using case-studies.

Maryland has rather lenient laws when it comes to torts and other lawsuits. A lawyer-hating Republican would say that Maryland is one of America's "trial lawyers' dreams." According to the numbers of the Bones Society, the malpractice costs for an orthopaedic physician in Maryland is $19,500. Ok, not the lowest (of course that physician is by no means in the poorhouse), but not the highest. Now let us compare this average cost to the average cost of an orthopaedic physician in Texas, where tort reform is at its toughest: $20,550. Hmmm, there seems to be no correlation between tough tort reform and lower rates...just some food for thought.

Son, you had impressed me earlier with sparks of intellectual maturity beyond that of the typical middle-aged liberal. But you then burst the bubble when you pulled out that traditional Democrat tactic of villanizing the victim.

But you failed to follow your party's platform. Had you paid attention to the Democratic platform, you'd have noticed that those with an annual income of $200,000 were the declared villans. You decided that $150,000 was a better threshold for villany. I hope your scholarship for a political science degree is non-refundable.

 

[Lenny]

Son, you had impressed me earlier with sparks of intellectual maturity beyond that of the typical middle-aged liberal. But you then burst the bubble when you pulled out that traditional Democrat tactic of villanizing the victim.

But you failed to follow your party's platform. Had you paid attention to the Democratic platform, you'd have noticed that those with an annual income of $200,000 were the declared villans. You decided that $150,000 was a better threshold for villany. I hope your scholarship for a political science degree is non-refundable.

Maybe this is an indication that you REALLY ARE the future leadership of the Democratic Party as Vrai said. You've already escalated the villany-threshold for no particular reason other than you want to win an argument.

 

[rraley]

Lenny I think that you take some things out of context and are not the nicest person in articulating disagreement...I said that $150,000 is a good salary to live off of; I didn't make those who make that amount the villians. What I am saying is that I won't allow doctors, who by most accounts like very comfortable lives compared to others, to be made the victims in the issue of tort reform.

 

[Lenny]

Lenny I think that you take some things out of context and are not the nicest person in articulating disagreement...I said that $150,000 is a good salary to live off of; I didn't make those who make that amount the villians. What I am saying is that I won't allow doctors, who by most accounts like very comfortable lives compared to others, to be made the victims in the issue of tort reform.

Try living off $150,000 a year when you first pay $20-40,000 for malpractice insurance, then pay for office rent and equipment, the office help to keep the office open, the medical licenses and the continuing medical education necessary to keep the license.

When the malpractice insurance for that $150K a year doctor is there SOLELY to pay off the mega-million dollar a year lawyers, something is wrong!

Some of us live in reality, not theory!

 

[ylexot]

I just got this in my email and thought it was appropriate.
http://www.sickoflawsuits.org

Personal injury lawyers and uninjured plaintiffs are gaming our legal system in an attempt to get rich. Their never-ending lawsuit schemes are taking compensation away from those who are truly injured and destroying our healthcare system in the process.

No part of our healthcare system is safe from attack. Everyone from doctors, to hospitals to the makers of our medicines is being sued.

Why should you care? Because it's patients who ultimately are hurt by these abusive lawsuits. Injured patients are denied the justice they deserve and the compensation they need when uninjured plaintiffs sue just to get rich. And all patients pay the price in higher costs for healthcare, less access to care and slowed medical innovation. Abusive lawsuits and the fear of lawsuits are jeopardizing the healthcare we all depend upon.

Join us if you agree that justice for those who are truly injured and healthcare for the public good is more important than profits for personal injury lawyers.

 

[Larry Gude]

rr...

I won't allow doctors, who by most accounts like very comfortable lives compared to others, to be made the victims in the issue of tort reform.

They won't be. You support a party that has a bedrock longterm goal of socialized (free) medicine.

I personally know a doctor who moved out of state, Maryland, specifically because of the excess horseshit in Maryland. It's a business decision.

Doctors who stay will charge more, the anithesis of your party goal.

The end result will be public pressure to subsidize doctors, as Maryland just passed over the veto of the governor, to stay in state.

Doctors will never be the victims. The people are and will continue to be as lower quality doctors who are willing to put up with more and more government strings and edicts set up shop. Try making an appointment for a physical. We have a problem in Maryland.

And the legislature just moved us one step closer to socialized medicine rather than deal with the real issue; excessive insurance cost due to an out of control tort system.