Kerry & Edwards Are Running Close in Wisconsin

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Whether Bush went AWOL or not during Vietnam holds no relevancy to American life. The prevalence of malpractice lawsuits, record numbers of doctors being driven out of practice, rising medical premiums that makes healthcare so expensive and finding a doctor to perform certain risky procedures harder than ever does have an effect on mine and every American's quality of life.

 

Except, Edwards is campaigning on lowering the costs of healthcare for every American. So..........

 

What am I missing here?

[Styles 0]

Go ahead and start naming the Presidents in the past few decades who weren't rich white men. I'm listening.

It's HOW he made his fortune. By exploiting the sick and ruining the lives of good people. Again, I am not saying Edwards is a bad person or did anything illegal, but he bears the burden of contributing to the detriment of American society.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I've posted this already, but it sums up perfectly the problem with John Edwards, poster boy for the "blame someone, anyone for my problems-exploit good people through lawsuits that benefit lawyers and drive our doctors" attitude that America suffers from. It's over a year old but still relevant:

Problem #1: You're casting Doctors and other medical professionals into the underprivelaged crowd.

 

Problem #2: If someone has become successful as a trial lawyer, does that mean that they are not a good person? That they can contribute nothing? That they are completely untrustworthy? Compared to GW, friend of many a Fortune 500 company and CEO?

[Styles 0]

Whether Bush went AWOL or not during Vietnam holds no relevancy to American life. The prevalence of malpractice lawsuits, record numbers of doctors being driven out of practice, rising medical premiums that makes healthcare so expensive and finding a doctor to perform certain risky procedures harder than ever does have an effect on mine and every American's quality of life.

 

Except, Edwards is campaigning on lowering the costs of healthcare for every American. So..........

 

What am I missing here?

That he is a hypocrite and is still very much tight with the trial lawyers. I will not vote for him as my President.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

To instead vote for a man who has done NOTHING to combat the same issue, and is tight with corporate CEOs and made millions on alleged insider trading and corporate welfare?

 

Jeebus, you're a complicated guy.

[Styles 0]

Problem #1: You're casting Doctors and other medical professionals into the underprivelaged crowd.

 

Problem #2: If someone has become successful as a trial lawyer, does that mean that they are not a good person? That they can contribute nothing? That they are completely untrustworthy? Compared to GW, friend of many a Fortune 500 company and CEO?

#1: Doctors make their money helping people, trial laywers make OBSCENE money hurting people.

#2: Of course not. Again, I am not saying he is not a bad person or does not hold good positions. But I can not ignore and will not support what made him so wealthy. Lawsuits are out of control in this country and something needs to be done.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

By the way, during your hysterical rant on the healthcare crisis in America, you mentioned the fact that it's impossible to find doctors to perform surgery, etc.

 

I had a complicated, expensive procedure performed on my elbow in the last year, and I had absolutely no problem finding a doctor to perform it. So, I guess I'm not an average American, or something... since John Edwards' malpractice suits during the late 90's seem to have not affected me quite as much as it's obviously personally affected you.

[Styles 0]

By the way, during your hysterical rant on the healthcare crisis in America, you mentioned the fact that it's impossible to find doctors to perform surgery, etc.

 

I had a complicated, expensive procedure performed on my elbow in the last year, and I had absolutely no problem finding a doctor to perform it. So, I guess I'm not an average American, or something... since John Edwards' malpractice suits during the late 90's seem to have not affected me quite as much as it's obviously personally affected you.

Good for you. I would say you're not in position to have a baby but I have my doubts. Medical schools have extremely low enrollment for OB/GYN which is the main area the lawsuits kick in (i.e. birth defects which are usually just BAD GENESE and not the fault of the doctor...but nothing stops a lawyer from getting the patient to sue. Even if the doctor is perfectly innocent, just the court costs alone to defend himself or even settle are way too high and place such an unescesarry burden. Surgeries on vital organs like heart and brain are in the same position, this is RISKY business, and it's not ALWAYS going to go right. I don't see why this gives John Edwards the right to bankrupt people out of THIRTY MILLION PER CLAIM. It's insane and frivelous and needs to be controlled.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

#1: Doctors make their money helping people, trial laywers make OBSCENE money hurting people.

That's not always true.

 

#2: Of course not. Again, I am not saying he is not a bad person or does not hold good positions. But I can not ignore and will not support what made him so wealthy. Lawsuits are out of control in this country and something needs to be done.

 

This is very different from saying that he's always lived a privelaged life.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I don't see why this gives John Edwards the right to bankrupt people out of THIRTY MILLION PER CLAIM. It's insane and frivelous and needs to be controlled.

 

And he's arguing that it needs to be controlled.

 

...

 

What am I missing here?

[Guest MikeSC]

Go ahead and start naming the Presidents in the past few decades who weren't rich white men. I'm listening.

It's HOW he made his fortune. By exploiting the sick and ruining the lives of good people. Again, I am not saying Edwards is a bad person or did anything illegal, but he bears the burden of contributing to the detriment of American society.

Only way Edwards can be viewed as being less than stellar is if he was the counsel to Haliburton.

 

Man, if THAT was true, that'd be a hoot, wouldn't it?

 

Fact is, tort reform is DESPERATELY in need of massive reform as filing untold frivolous suits costs nothing, but defending them in court IS expensive. Why do people think Wal-Mart settles case after case out of court, no matter how frivolous they may be (such as the woman who was "trampled" after Thanksgiving)? Because it costs MORE than fighting the suit.

 

Why we don't adopt the British "Loser pays the legal fees of the winner" system is lost on me. Might cut down on a lot of the idiocy.

 

Then again, if Edwards loses, he might go back to the bar and begin the soon-to-be legal assault on fast food.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Tyler, what you're missing is the hypocricy of it all! The man is only calling for reform AFTER he's made his MILLIONS from it. He's not donating all the money he won to help the sick, or donating it to medical schools, he's using the ruined lives of people to fund his presidential campaign. Here's an article I found that gives you some examples of the problem:

 

 

 

Soaring Malpractice Premiums

Bleed Doctors, Rob Consumers

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

by Vicki Lankarge

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums are wreaking havoc in communities throughout the United States.

 

In Beaumont, Texas, for example, the Texas Medical Liability Trust has increased its medical liability rates for all specialists a whopping 120 percent since 1999. It has become so bad in Beaumont that the Texas Medical Liability Insurance Association--the insurer of last resort for doctors with previous malpractice claims against them--is charging individual neurosurgeons upwards of $176,000 a year for a policy that caps malpractice payments at $1 million per occurrence with an overall total cap of $3 million per policy year.

 

The result? There is only one practicing neurosurgeon left in Beaumont.

 

"This is a scary thing," says Kim Ross, vice president of the Texas Medical Association. "What if a patient has a car wreck, needs a neurosurgeon, and there's none available? It's an hour to Houston. That 'golden hour' [when treatment is most beneficial] is lost."

 

It's not any better in Pennsylvania, where 72 percent of doctors polled by the Pennsylvania Medical Society say they have deferred purchasing new equipment or hiring new staff due to sudden, steep increases in their medical malpractice insurance premiums. After absorbing increases between 21 and 60 percent for those premiums in 2001, doctors fear their rates in 2002 could jump another 70 percent.

 

The society says the hefty sums awarded in malpractice lawsuits are driving doctors' medical liability premiums through the roof. Pennsylvania ranks second among states in terms of total payouts for medical litigation; New York is No. 1. (See accompanying chart.)

 

"The numbers are off the charts," says Dr. Howard Richter, the Pennsylvania Medical Society's president. "Combined judgments and settlements for fiscal year 2000 amounted to $352 million--roughly $30 per state resident and nearly 10 percent of the U.S. total."

 

 

Jump in Jury Awards

Jury awards for medical malpractice claims jumped 76 percent from 1996 to 1999, according to the latest edition of "Current Award Trends in Personal Injury" by Jury Verdict Research.

 

As a result, many doctors and patient advocates in states that don't have laws to limit the dollar amount of jury awards fear that increasingly large verdicts threaten their health care system by driving up medical malpractice insurance premiums.

 

To fend off litigation and cope with steep premiums, doctors ultimately are being forced to take defensive measures, such as:

 

Practicing defensive medicine by ordering additional, sometimes unnecessary, medical tests. Insurers may be reluctant to pay for them, but doctors want them in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. According to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, such "defensive medicine" adds $50 billion per year to the nation's overall health care spending.

Deferring the hiring of new staff, or even downsizing staff, sparking patient backlogs and making it difficult for patients to get timely appointments.

Ceasing to practice certain high-risk specialties, such as obstetricians/gynecologists who stop delivering babies because the threat of patient litigation is so high. Richter cites one obstetrics/gynecology group where insurance premiums nearly tripled in 2001 to $1 million. When two of their seven physicians stopped delivering babies, their rates were cut in half.

Moving their practices to regions with lower medical malpractice insurance costs, or stopping the practice of medicine altogether. Regions with high liability costs may have difficulty attracting new doctors, creating a lack of consumer choice of physicians.

 

Situation Critical in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is one state reeling from the effects of the rise in jury awards for medical malpractice claims. Although the state does cap punitive damages, it does not limit "non-economic" jury awards, including damages assessed by juries for "pain and suffering," by far the most common type of jury award.

 

In 2000, Pennsylvania's doctors and other health care practitioners paid $372 million in total lawsuit judgments, according to research conducted by the state's medical society. That figure ranks second only to New York's approximately $633 million in aggregate medical malpractice lawsuit judgments in 2000.

 

As a result of Pennsylvania's liability crisis, patients are suffering, according to the Pennsylvania Medical Society. A recent survey of the society's member doctors discovered that more than 90 percent of them are practicing defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits.

 

There seems to be no limit to the skyrocketing jury awards, says Pennsylvania Medical CAT Fund Director John Reed. "There used to be a gentleman's agreement that lawyers wouldn't go after an award larger than a physician's liability coverage," he says. "Now the gloves are off."

 

But trial lawyers argue that frivolous lawsuits and large jury awards are not to blame for the health care crisis in Pennsylvania--or any other state.

 

"Medical error is the 8th largest killer in the United States," says Mark Phenicie, legislative counsel for Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers. "Juries award large medical malpractice settlements in only the most egregious cases. These kinds of lawsuits are not frivolous. If there wasn't a malpractice that happened initially, there wouldn't be a malpractice case or malpractice verdict."

 

The consequences of the take-no-prisoners approach to jury awards has caused malpractice insurance premiums to shoot up, particularly in the Philadelphia area, where Reed says trial lawyers are deeply entrenched and juries generous. The average annual practice insurance premium for a Pennsylvania physician in 1998 was about $35,000, according to the American Medical Association; Reed says a Philadelphia-area obstetrician is now paying upward of $87,000.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Vicki Lankarge writes for insure.com, the Consumer Insurance Guide.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Okay, and your argument is to vote for someone who is suggesting absolutely NOTHING in reforming this process.

 

....

 

So you're going to go and vote for him?!?!

[Styles 0]

And, yeah Bush IS trying to do something about it:

 

Bush said health care costs are rising partly because of "too many darn lawsuits. "We need medical liability reform to make sure medicine is affordable and available."

 

Bush Pushes Malpractice Award Cap

 

MARK SHERMAN

 

Associated Press

 

 

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - President Bush blamed trial lawyers and Senate Democrats Monday for blocking his proposal to limit medical malpractice awards, kicking off a week that will take him to three states important to his re-election chances.

 

Bush escaped snowy Washington for relatively balmy Little Rock, where he told a friendly crowd of medical workers at the Baptist Health Medical Center that legislation to cap jury awards would help rein in rising health care costs.

 

"The problem is some in the United States Senate don't see it that way," Bush said. Senate Democrats derailed the bill last year, arguing that the legislation would benefit insurers, not patients.

 

"The health care system looks like a giant lottery, that's what it looks like these days with these lawsuits, and somehow the trial lawyers always hold the winning ticket," Bush said.

 

That could be seen as a jab at Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina, who is a senator and a trial lawyer. Edwards finished second in the Iowa caucuses last week.

 

Edwards' spokesman Roger Salazar said, "The difference between George Bush and John Edwards is that while Bush sides with his insider friends in 'big insurance,' Edwards trusts regular Americans who serve on juries to do what's right for children and families."

 

The issue also allowed Bush to frame an argument that pits doctors, hospitals and insurers - strong supporters of the administration - against trial lawyers, who generally support Democrats.

 

Legislation that passed the House but not the Senate last year would limit the pain and suffering portion of malpractice awards to $250,000, and punitive damages to either the same amount or twice the patient's actual financial loss. The bill, intended to supersede state laws, also would curtail lawyers' fees and patients' ability to file suit over old cases.

 

Bush chose Arkansas because the state last year enacted a tort reform law, aides said. The state's two Democratic senators, Blanche Lincoln and David Pryor, opposed the federal legislation, though Bush mentioned neither by name.

 

The 2004 campaign also is a factor in Bush's travel schedule. The president narrowly carried Arkansas in 2000. He will travel on Thursday to New Hampshire, which he also won by a small margin, and on Saturday to Pennsylvania, which he narrowly lost four years ago.

 

With 43 million Americans uninsured, Bush offered several ideas for confronting the issue - most of them repackaged ideas he had previously advocated.

 

Faced with record budget deficits, Bush chose measures that would require little government spending. They include:

 

_Setting medical malpractice limits;

 

_Helping small businesses band together to negotiate for lower insurance rates;

 

_Offering refundable tax credits to help low-income Americans buy health insurance;

 

_Creating tax incentives to encourage the use of health savings accounts, which would let people save money for future medical expenses tax-free;

 

_Harnessing medical technology to prevent medical errors.

 

Both sides have produced studies and statistics to back their arguments. On Monday, Bush said soaring insurance premiums are leading doctors to practice medicine defensively, which he said drives up government's health care costs by $28 billion a year.

 

Bush said health care costs are rising partly because of "too many darn lawsuits. "We need medical liability reform to make sure medicine is affordable and available."

 

Last year, however, Congress' General Accounting Office said it found no conclusive link between rising insurance premiums and doctors quitting their practices. The investigators also didn't find a connection between caps on damage awards and slower growth in premiums and payments by insurance companies.

[Guest MikeSC]

By the way, during your hysterical rant on the healthcare crisis in America, you mentioned the fact that it's impossible to find doctors to perform surgery, etc.

 

I had a complicated, expensive procedure performed on my elbow in the last year, and I had absolutely no problem finding a doctor to perform it. So, I guess I'm not an average American, or something... since John Edwards' malpractice suits during the late 90's seem to have not affected me quite as much as it's obviously personally affected you.

Good for you. I would say you're not in position to have a baby but I have my doubts. Medical schools have extremely low enrollment for OB/GYN which is the main area the lawsuits kick in (i.e. birth defects which are usually just BAD GENESE and not the fault of the doctor...but nothing stops a lawyer from getting the patient to sue. Even if the doctor is perfectly innocent, just the court costs alone to defend himself or even settle are way too high and place such an unescesarry burden. Surgeries on vital organs like heart and brain are in the same position, this is RISKY business, and it's not ALWAYS going to go right. I don't see why this gives John Edwards the right to bankrupt people out of THIRTY MILLION PER CLAIM. It's insane and frivelous and needs to be controlled.

You know, everytime I go to a hospital, there are always nurses (my mother teaches nursing and, thus, I've heard these stories from her former students all of the time). I suppose there is no shortage of nurses, either, huh? I mean, yeah, those nurses work OBSCENE hours --- but I'm sure that's just peachy.

 

Heck, I always had a teacher in school. I guess that shortage of teachers mantra is just a scam, too.

 

Malpractice insurance and fear of litigation has skyrocketed medical costs. Doctors will order TONS of tests SIMPLY to cover their butts, shooting the prices through the roof of basic care. They keep fewer and fewer nurses because overhead is high, which means stays in the hospital --- not pleasant under the best circumstances --- are LESS pleasant. And, yes, specialists in certain fields are getting progressively more difficult to find. West Virginia, I know, has a MAJOR problem with that as doctors are scared to practice there due to the ridiculous malpractice claims against them.

 

And he claims to want reform? I take that as seriously as the Boston Red Sox owner claiming that he'd support a salary cap after undergoing a massive spending spree this off-season.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Limiting malpractice payouts?! WOW! What a concept! But then John Edwards and his buddies could only leach and make like TWENTY MILLION instead of thirty, we couldn't have that...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So is Edwards.

 

...

 

And he's actually trying to help combat the costs of healthcare in other significant ways, too!

 

...

 

 

....

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

 

 

Bush isn't proposing anything of the sort.

 

I ask again. What am I missing here?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Then again, if Edwards loses, he might go back to the bar and begin the soon-to-be legal assault on fast food.

-=Mike

Uh.. I thought that "woman spills hot coffee on lap" stuff happened and was done with.

[Styles 0]

DID YOU READ THE AP ARTICLE?!?!! And as Mike said, Edwards has NO CHOICE but to publicly denounce the practices of trial laywers because he knows it's his achillies heel. I don't buy it for a second either, and neither should you...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So if you hear Bush speaking out about corporate accountability, do you rush to the boards to call him a hypocrite?

[Styles 0]

Another article on Bush's proposal. He wants to limit the lawsuits to 250,000. Now what person needs more than that? Oh, wait, what would the trial lawyers get? John Edwards is proposing nothing of the sort. Yeah, he'll "do something..."

 

Bush seeks to contain 'junk' medical lawsuits

 

 

By Joseph Curl

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 

 

 

President Bush yesterday renewed his call to contain "frivolous" malpractice lawsuits that he says are driving up health care costs.

His speech in Little Rock, Ark., was a demonstration of the power of the bully pulpit in an election year: Traveling to the home state of one potential Democratic rival, Wesley Clark, Mr. Bush criticized trial lawyers — the former profession of another rival, Sen. John Edwards — while focusing on the key issue of health care.

Speaking to doctors and staff at Little Rock's Baptist Health Medical Center, the president called on Congress to pass his proposal to limit medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 in order to keep down the cost of health care.

"We got too many darn lawsuits, too many frivolous and junk lawsuits, that are affecting people," Mr. Bush said. "People [are] just filing these lawsuits right and left, and it's running up the costs."

Noting that medical liability premiums for Arkansas physicians rose more than 150 percent last year — which has driven some doctors out of the state — the president said his plan would reserve punitive damages for cases in which they were justified and limit them to "reasonable amounts."

"See, lawsuits not only drive up premiums, which drives up the cost to the patient or the employer of the patient, but lawsuits cause docs to practice medicine in an expensive way in order to protect themselves in the courthouse," he said.

"Ninety percent of Arkansas doctors say the fear of lawsuits [has] caused them to do unnecessary procedures," the president said, and such "defensive medicine" drives up the government's health care costs by $28 billion a year.

Mr. Bush, who has said repeatedly that he is not ready to begin running for re-election but has made several recent stops that smack of campaign politics, chose Arkansas because "it's a national problem that requires a national solution, and the president takes this message everywhere," said Bush spokesman Scott McClellan.

The problem, however, is far worse in nearly a dozen other states.

But Mr. Bush's stop gave him a chance to upstage the state's home candidate, Mr. Clark, and criticize another contender, Mr. Edwards. The senator from North Carolina, who has moved up in the polls for today's New Hampshire primary after finishing a surprisingly strong second in Iowa, became a multimillionaire as one of the country's most successful personal injury lawyers, winning huge damage awards against corporations and hospitals on behalf of individuals.

"The health care system looks like a giant lottery. That's what it looks like these days because of these lawsuits. And somehow, the trial lawyers always hold the winning ticket. Lawyers walk away with up to 40 percent — 40 percent — of every settlement and verdict, which adds up to billions of costs, billions of unnecessary costs," said Mr. Bush, who never mentioned either Democrat by name.

The Clark campaign had no comment about Mr. Bush's visit; a spokesman for Mr. Edwards did not return phone calls.

Democrats, including Mr. Edwards, warn that Mr. Bush's proposed cap on awards would prevent seriously injured patients from getting fair compensation and would not guarantee doctors malpractice insurance at a fair price.

Mr. Bush is standing "with his insider friends in the insurance industry and standing against seriously injured children and families," Mr. Edwards said last year when the president visited Pennsylvania to deliver a speech on the topic.

Democratic lawmakers in the Senate last year thwarted Mr. Bush's plan to limit noneconomic damage awards — mostly for "pain and suffering" — to $250,000. The proposal also would reduce lawyers' fees and curtail patients' ability to file suit over old cases.

Mr. Bush noted the case of Dr. Sara McBee, a Fayetteville, Ark., practitioner who was delivering between 80 and 100 babies a year until her insurance premiums more than doubled in 2002.

"Dr. McBee has stopped delivering babies as a direct result of too many junk lawsuits. And that's not right. That's not right," Mr. Bush said. "We can have balance in our society when it comes to having a good legal system and a good medical system. It's not that way today. The pendulum has swung way, way too far," he said to applause.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He's been in office for 3 years and he's done what about the problem?

[Styles 0]

So if you hear Bush speaking out about corporate accountability, do you rush to the boards to call him a hypocrite?

I believe lawsuits have a much more pernicious influence on American life. Corporate accountability IS being accounted for, the criminals are being put on trial once found out about. There are NO rules for the trial lawyers who can do whatever they want basically...

[Guest MikeSC]

Then again, if Edwards loses, he might go back to the bar and begin the soon-to-be legal assault on fast food.

                  -=Mike

Uh.. I thought that "woman spills hot coffee on lap" stuff happened and was done with.

You missed the "McDonald's addiction" cases of last year? I can remember two that were filed against McDonald's. They were dismissed --- but tobacco suits started the same way and they just kept filing them. After all, it doesn't cost the lawyers a thing to file suits against McDonald's.

 

It's coming. Lawyers are going to claim that McDonald's food is addictive and that the assorted fatties of the world deserve monetary compensation for their suffering. They will then make sure that the biggest idiots in the world are on the jury (my brother is a defense lawyer and, flat out, admits that is the target for most lawyers) so they can be more than easily manipulated so they can weave a sob story and have juries give decisions without the actual basis of fact.

 

Such as they did with breast implants (which, unless you actually study the issue, you'd think were bad --- until you realized that the rate of illness in women with implants was virtually identical to the rate of illness in women WITHOUT them). People with IQ's above room temperature are needed to actually decide cases, and those are the people they don't want involved in cases.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

There are NO rules for the trial lawyers who can do whatever they want basically...

 

...I'd suggest you withdraw that statement.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

DID YOU READ THE AP ARTICLE?!?!!

Did you?

 

Congress' General Accounting Office said it found no conclusive link between rising insurance premiums and doctors quitting their practices. The investigators also didn't find a connection between caps on damage awards and slower growth in premiums and payments by insurance companies.

[Styles 0]

He's been in office for 3 years and he's done what about the problem?

Proposed a helpful plan, that like most bills is being moved slowly through Congress. That's more than Edwards has done, or even proposed to do...

[Guest MikeSC]

So if you hear Bush speaking out about corporate accountability, do you rush to the boards to call him a hypocrite?

No, because Bush hasn't done anything to kill corporate accounting.

 

Now, if I were to hear Clinton say it, yeah, I'd probably call him on it.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So he proposed a plan.

 

Shit, I can propose a plan, doesn't mean it's going to pass.

 

He certainly hasn't emphasized it at all, and nothing is coming into fruition from this plan. He's had 3 years to accomplish this goal, and has done next to nothing. So, why are you so high on him again?

[Styles 0]

So he proposed a plan.

 

Shit, I can propose a plan, doesn't mean it's going to pass.

 

He certainly hasn't emphasized it at all, and nothing is coming into fruition from this plan. He's had 3 years to accomplish this goal, and has done next to nothing. So, why are you so high on him again?

Because unlike Edwards he is not a trial lawyer.