babylonsister (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 12:54 AM
Original message
Tort Reform. This is what rethugs want, all those brainless people
at the town halls?
Does this mean if someone is horribly injured by someone during an accident and a doctor does the wrong thing, like take off a leg, or a boob, or an arm, when your appendix was at risk, we should forgive doctors?
I'm dumbfounded at their dumbness.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6451599DUmmies need to make up their "minds". If they want to continue to participate in the multi-million dollar malpractice
lottery, they should not be pushing for socialized medicine. Before O-care converts America into an overgrown version of Bulgaria,
DUmmies need to take a peek at what happens in Bulgaria when a $50 a week O-doc forgets to plug in the heart-lung machine.
The bloodsucking vultures of the trial lawyer industry have taken that peek, and that's one reason they are unlikely to allow their
jug-eared jihadi protege to make any substantial changes in the financial structure of the current healthcare model. Forty percent
of a fountain of cash is still a lot of cash.
byebyegop (148 posts) Thu Sep-03-09 12:57 AM
1. Correction, this is what insurance companies want and Republikkkans are their political arm. n/t
The mindless teabagger zombies just do what they are told.
sharesunited (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:04 AM
3. Standardization, to the greatest extent possible, of medical malpractice injuries and compensation.
Look to Canada for the model.
Hello_Kitty (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's not about protecting doctors at all. They don't give a shit about doctors.
The corporatocracy wants to eradicate the ability of ordinary citizens to use the courts. Caps on malpractice, mandatory arbitration clauses, venue rules, etc., are all ways that the plutocrats protect their wealth while still availing themselves of the courts to go after YOU. But there's no explaining it to dumbass teabaggers.
DUmmies just don't understand, they can't have their government-salaried, clock-in, clock-out, don't-give-a-damn
public servant O-docs, and still have their dreams of million dollar malpractice suits. The stalinist model DUmmies love
doesn't include it.
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:07 AM
7. So sorry, but I heard a 'doctor' at a town hall railing about tort reform
today. Nothing about the bigger picture, but what he wouldn't have to deal with. That disgusted me.
Hello_Kitty (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:10 AM
10. Oh I know. I know doctors just like him.
Fortunately I know others who are able to see the big picture. My GYN, I'm proud to say, is a proponent of single payer and posts materials in support of it in her waiting room.
If my doctor's dream was to qualify for civil service, I would find another doctor.
grantcart (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:06 AM
6. Tort Reform would save less than 1% of total health costs
Some type of tort reform is needed for OBGYN where it has reached epidemic proportions and is abused.
babylonsister (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:09 AM
8. Huh? OBGYN and epedimic proportions?
Are you talking about babies who die?
I'm not getting that argument.
Sometimes babies die. It should be regarded as an incredibly sad event, not as a chance to cash in.
On the other hand, DUmmies fiercely support the killing of infants, even to the point of promoting
the murder of babies who survive botched abortions, so why would they sue?
obliviously (810 posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:26 AM
19. Ok the lawyers are a sacred cow who else should we exempt?
This DUmmy is catching on.
Hello_Kitty (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:34 AM
22. The problem with malpractice insurance is with the insurance cos. and not the awards.
The reason that premiums went up so much is that the carriers didn't do a good job of underwriting when malpractice insurance first came out and they made bad investments with the premiums. The awards have never been the problem. It's ridiculously hard to win a suit, even if it's clear that the doctor or hospital screwed up. The burden of proof is very high and juries are notoriously sympathetic to the defendants. Doctors and nurses are right up there with cops, in terms of public esteem. Which means that juries will err in their favor more often than not. I have an attorney friend who does medical malpractice. She's a crackerjack lawyer and she says that she turns down most potential clients because she knows she can't win or get a settlement unless it's an airtight case of negligence.
This is a bouncy lie. No lawyer would discuss professional concerns with a DUmmy. Most of the lawyers
DUmmies know are criminal lawyers, appointed
for them by the court.
bridgit (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-03-09 01:21 AM
18. Yep, reduced liabilities & settlement; no more high-$'s for having the wrong leg taken off...
But that seems just the camel's nose I'm sure it will spread like crabgrass and touch upon plenty of other liabilities corporate America should be bearing but they refuse to do so - enter tort reform - HCR is just the springboard to what they really want imo
