[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Star Trek Viewer

But med mal is just a particular form of negligence.

Also, why wouldn't you trust the government's statistics?

What statistics? I haven't seen any. Are you reffering to the sites linked to on the other site linked on the thread? (did that make sense?!)

Originally Posted by Star Trek Viewer

So why not limit insurance premiums? "Tort reform" isn't "insurance reform." I think the insurance industry is one of those most in favor of tort reform.

Basically the conservatives and corporatists who want tort reform want the insurance companies to pay out less without necessarily limiting the amount of profit that insurance companies make as a whole. I feel that if there are imbalances in the amount of rates per payout, then it is the insurance companies' heavy burden to show that the imbalance is justified before shifting the economic risk to the insureds.

I addressed this in an earlier post. I agree. If savings from payouts are not passed down to the doctor in the form of lower premiums, then down to the patient in the form of lower medical bills, then the whole thing only serves to make the fat cats even more fat! The entire idea behind tort reform, in regards to malpractice cases, is to help lower medical cost for you and I.

Regulation in general could be the answer. In my example with title insurance, it is being discussed whether or not that insurance industry should have such a high profit margin (it's crazy high when compared to most other insurances)

I have a feeling that malpractice insurance profit margins are similar to most other types of insurance. If that is the case, then the only way to lower premiums would be to lower the cost (for the insurance provider). One of the most effective ways to do that would be to cap awards.

Originally Posted by Star Trek Viewer

Furthermore, government does not exist to protect corporate interests over popular interests. The interest of the people is more in line with the insured rather than the insurer. Corporations have corporate lawyers and big money on their side. In the end, the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people -- not for those with high-powered lobbyists hired by others with deep pockets who could well afford to make less.

I agree. See above. I do not support creating laws that serve only to increase profit margins for insurance companies. I think any tort reform that is to be seriously considered NEEDS to have language or a clause that makes it clear the savings are to be passed down to the consumer. Perhaps in order to do that more strict regulation of the insurance industry as a whole needs to take place?

[Star Trek Viewer]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

What statistics? I haven't seen any. Are you reffering to the sites linked to on the other site linked on the thread? (did that make sense?!)





I addressed this in an earlier post. I agree. If savings from payouts are not passed down to the doctor in the form of lower premiums, then down to the patient in the form of lower medical bills, then the whole thing only serves to make the fat cats even more fat! The entire idea behind tort reform, in regards to malpractice cases, is to help lower medical cost for you and I.

Regulation in general could be the answer. In my example with title insurance, it is being discussed whether or not that insurance industry should have such a high profit margin (it's crazy high when compared to most other insurances)

I have a feeling that malpractice insurance profit margins are similar to most other types of insurance. If that is the case, then the only way to lower premiums would be to lower the cost (for the insurance provider). One of the most effective ways to do that would be to cap awards.




I agree. See above. I do not support creating laws that serve only to increase profit margins for insurance companies. I think any tort reform that is to be seriously considered NEEDS to have language or a clause that makes it clear the savings are to be passed down to the consumer. Perhaps in order to do that more strict regulation of the insurance industry as a whole needs to take place?

I think that we do have much ground in common, then.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Star Trek Viewer

I think that we do have much ground in common, then.

Me too.

Here is what I think is crazy. And I'll illustrate a hypothetical situation.

I make about 60k a year. If I remain at my current place of employment I'll make about a 4% increase every year. What will I earn over the next 30 years? I don't want to do the math, but I am trying to make a point. Whatever that number is, it would be around what I would expect to make over my entire working age. If I were to die because some bonehead Doctor gave me the wrong drug during a surgery, what would my family be entitled to?

I know pain and suffering, for my family, can not have a simple price tag, but compensating for what I would have provided for my family could have some equation. Without taking into account the 4% annual raise, I would have earned $1.8 million over 30 years. Lets say double that, make it $3.6 million, would that be a fair award for my wrongful death? I think awards in those areas, in the millions of dollars, are fair. What I have a problem with is when someone is awarded HUNDREDS of millions. I don't want to be unfair to the elderly, since they are probably NOT able to work, retired, or about to retire. I'm NOT saying a lower award would be justified, but the "pain and suffering" portion of an award needs to have a reasonable cap.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

What does the last sentence have to do with malpractice insurance premiums? The rest is stating the obvious, except the "doctors being gods" part. I don't know anyone that feels that way.

Hmm... the last part about cars just means peoples attitudes towards doctors. If they can afford such nice cars then they must be doing well. Beneath the surface who knows. Maybe the doctor is only just able to make the payments. But on the surface it doesnt look that way. Oh and yes there is the stereotype of the doctor leaving early to get in a round of golf. Unfair but stereotypes generally are.

As for 'gods', yes society is changing but if say a doctor cured your mother of a very bad disease you would probably hold him/her in extremely high esteem. Yes ok that doesnt make them gods. In part I took that from a drama about doctors.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Samuel

Hmm... the last part about cars just means peoples attitudes towards doctors. If they can afford such nice cars then they must be doing well. Beneath the surface who knows. Maybe the doctor is only just able to make the payments. But on the surface it doesnt look that way. Oh and yes there is the stereotype of the doctor leaving early to get in a round of golf. Unfair but stereotypes generally are.

As for 'gods', yes society is changing but if say a doctor cured your mother of a very bad disease you would probably hold him/her in extremely high esteem. Yes ok that doesnt make them gods. In part I took that from a drama about doctors.

I was wondering why you mentioned Doctors driving nice cars, when the complaint is insurance premiums for those Doctors being so high! I thought you might have meant "those insurance guys driving Porches"