<p>ff–I don’t know. But for every example you offer of a leftist slant, we can probably find another with a slant in the other direction. For example, the mainstream media has just about wet itself over Nancy Pelosi and her airplane request. Even Tony Snow said the tempest in a teapot was ridiculous.
epiphany–I agree with you completely. Hillary can’t win–too many people hate her, and I’m not too happy myself with her support of the war.</p>
<p>The evidence shows that malpractice payouts aren’t why premiums are going up. </p>
<p>A study published by the ultra-conservative Cato Institute (and conducted by an economist from Harvard) found “no significant relationship between increases in medical malpractice payments and medical liability insurance premiums.” </p>
<p>Weiss Ratings (considered by the GAO to have the most reliable insurance industry ratings) found that from 1991 to 2002, the median annual premium increased more in the 19 states with caps on malpractice claims than states without. Rates didn’t go down when payouts did–instead, they rose rapidly. </p>
<p><a href=“Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association”>https://www.cttriallawyers.org/index.cfm/hurl/SectionID=118/MaxRows=10/StartRow=1/ReportID=22</a></p>
<p>In 1986, Missouri enacted a $350,000 cap. Yet between 2001 and 2003, premiums rose 121%. Why? The stock market was down. Insurance companies raise their rates when their stocks and other investments are performing poorly, but when their investments improve, they don’t lower the rates back down again.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/malpractice/nw/?postId=6146&pageTitle=Forget+liability+caps%2C+fo[/url]”>http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/malpractice/nw/?postId=6146&pageTitle=Forget+liability+caps%2C+fo</a></p>
<p>I don’t doubt your statistics conyat–insurance co.s are assuredly in the business of making money. However, docs do stop practicing higher risk procedures as their liability is not totally covered by insurance. They can be sued for much, much more than their malpractice ins. will pay–thus on what may even be a frivolous suit, could lose everything. It also lends to the CYA practice of medicine–many more tests, labs, MRIs, etc than is necessary, just to “cover your ass”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any actual examples of this happening? A physician losing everything due to a malpractice award in excess of his/her insurance coverage? I’d be interested to see the case and what it was about.</p>
<p>It’s mythical. In our state, for four straight years in discussions of liability limits, the Washington State Medical Association was not able to find a single physician - not one - to whom this had happened. </p>
<p>California has had caps for years, and virtually always the highest malpractice premiums in the nation.</p>
<p>I’m not a lawyer, nor have access to those types of statistics. But I stand by my statement, I do know for a fact that physicians are sued for amounts greatly in excess of their coverage–it just stands to reason that it is bound to have happened or will–after all it’s all decided on the whim of a jury who as someone stated much earlier, may vote more from their heart than their head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you understand that there’s a judge in the room who can dismiss a case that doesn’t have sufficient evidence to proceed or that people who lose lawsuits or have excessive verdicts against them can appeal to a higher court. </p>
<p>It’s no more all a whim of a jury than insurance companies forbid doctors from collecting anything from the patient. It’s great that you’re interested in this subject, but why not get facts about the issues instead of just going by what you think “stands to reason”?</p>
<p>It’s no more the whim of a jury that the one which is whipped into a frenzy by a prosecutor in a rape or murder case. It still has be decided unanimously, and can be thrown out by a judge either if the evidence doesn’t support the verdict, or the amount of the claim is considered too much.</p>
<p>I worked for a decade for our state’s Board of Health. The Medical Association pushed a liability cap for years, and Republicans advocated for one. And each and every year, the chairperson of the Senate or House Committee would ask the Medical Association to produce a single witness, or even a single affadavit from a witness, where a physician was bankrupted by an injury verdict.</p>
<p>It wasn’t a matter of statistics. They couldn’t produce one - not a single one - in a state with 20,000 physicians. It doesn’t stand to reason when there isn’t even a single instance of it happening. What could be produced, however, was evidence that 7-8% of hospital deaths were iatrogenic - doctor or hospital caused. </p>
<p>Now let me be clear: I have a friend who was barred from midwifery practice after an adverse outcome in a suit. I have no idea whether that was just or unjust. But the award didn’t bankrupt her, or her insurance company. Meanwhile, we have, in our state, more than 600 physicians who are in treatment for drug-seeking behavior, and several dozen charged with sexual misconduct. Virtually none of them has been barred from practicing by the state medical board. The only way that ever happens is as the result of a successful lawsuit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well yes I guess a physician could refuse to see any patient who has preferred providers, on Medicare, etc. But maybe they actually want to be able to treat patients. I know all the physicians that my family uses (except dentists) accept the co-pay and there are no charges billed over what our insurance allows.</p>
<p>
The hallmark of a propaganda victim: “I know it for a fact, even though I can’t point out a single instance that it actually has happened… so if it hasn’t yet it must be that it will in the future.” I don’t blame you for your misplaced certainty, mkm56 - the propaganda mill works 24/7 on this one and has been extremely effective in selling its message. It’s just that as a person who is an attorney (though not an injury attorney) I know enough about what actually does go on in the legal system to know that your sincerely held belief is in fact entirely false, and that the studies (Mini cites to one of many) all show the same thing.</p>
<p>Kluge, I know because my husband was sued for millions beyond his coverage–by an illegal alien’s family whose mother walked out of the hospital, refusing treatment and died 2 days later at home. Yes I know. I said Dr.s are sued for these excessive amounts–I don’t know if any have been awarded in these amounts. This case was absolutely ridiculous, yet a judge allowed it to go to court. It wasted court time for weeks, lost patient care time and months of agonizing worry because of a frivolous suit brought by family members hoping to get rich quick off of Mom’s death. Yes, the outcome was just and the jury found no fault–but I am still angry about this 5 years later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personal experience is great in a discussion, when it’s properly labelled. Thank you for your disclosure.</p>
<p>ETA: I hadn’t read your post just above when I posted this, but thank you for sharing that experience too.</p>
<p>I can well understand your anger, I really can, and note your proof that the bankruptcy of docs through frivolous lawsuits doesn’t happen.</p>
<p>Honestly, over four years and with 20,000 docs, and thousands of lawsuits, we couldn’t find a single one, and neither could the state medical association. Meanwhile, California, a “capped” state, has much higher insurance premiums than we do.</p>
<p>Thank you for your understanding. I have to admit that personal experience has also “colored” my personal opinions on illegal immigration.</p>
<p>This is off the subject currently, but this coincides with my observation made earlier today regarding the criticisms of Edwards.</p>
<p>It’s an entry from the Huffington Post, a liberal blog but not main stream media. If you go to the page there are more links to the original articles.
<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>"Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are consistently called “rock stars” by journalists describing their public appearances on the campaign trail. John Edwards doesn’t get those kinds of props from the journalists. But, we’re finding that the right wing loves to talk about John Edwards.</p>
<p>Usually the tactics they are using on John Edwards would be reserved for the General Election.
However, they’ve gone hard and early on the former Senator from North Carolina.</p>
<p>A few weeks ago, the Carolina Journal, a monthly publication of the John Locke Foundation printed this article on Senator Edwards’ new home in North Carolina. It was an attempted smear to cast Edwards as an elitist out of touch with the average person. However, a closer look at the Locke Foundation shows that they are a conservative organization who aligns themselves with some of the most right wing groups in Washington. This link shows organizations who they suggest their readers to consult for information on “important issues.” Among this A-List of conservative groups is the Heritage Foundation, which is a juggernaut of the right wing movement."</p>
<p>I think John’s campaign workers can do a better job of smearing him than the right-wing conspirators can:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070206_Edwards.htm[/url]”>http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070206_Edwards.htm</a>
<a href=“http://www.Catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070208_edwards_tolerates.htm[/url]”>http://www.Catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070208_edwards_tolerates.htm</a></p>
<p>Here is John showing leadership qualities in his statement regarding the ladies’ lovely anti-Catholic bigotry sentiments:</p>
<p><a href=“johnedwards.com”>johnedwards.com;
<p>
</p>
<p>From the NYTimes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I finally got the links to work, I think.</p>
<p>Oops:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>Apparently, Edwards did fire them, but then rehired them under pressure from the “progressive community.” Leadership?</p>
<p>
As delineated in a completely “non-slanted” report by the “non-partisan” political-left-eye of America, NPR’s <em>AllThingsConsidered</em> yesterday evening. </p>
<p>…I was listening.</p>
<p>The “mainstream media” I was referring to were CNN and the network news stations, which I happened to be listening to. These entities are commonly categorized as left-slanted, but I still maintain they are not. Their negative coverage is equal opportunity, at least in my opinion. As for NPR, I won’t argue with you. It’s lovely to be able to turn on the radio and hear someone other than Rush or Sean or any one of the many other slobbering, raving lunatics that populate the airwaves!</p>