Edwards' malpractice suits

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
I agree, part of any punitive cap should be a limit on how much the lawyer gets. He shouldn't get any percentage of the medical damages in my opinion. Some say this will decrease the quality of representation available to victims and I say hogwash. It just means greedy lawyers will fight over clients more than they already do.

Edit:
I would be fine with the costs of prosecution being taken out of the settlement before the cap, however. That way the plaintiff could still afford all the necessary tests and experts.

There is no prosecution in civil cases.

It's abundantly clear you are from NC based on your poor understanding of how delivery and financing of our healthcare system works. Medmal liability is a convenient distraction for those who want to ignore the fatal flaws in our healthcare system. It appears that those problems will largely remain unaddressed up until the point the system collapses. At which time, morons will say it was all the trial lawyers' fault while thinking people will say, "we tried to tell you for years that this system was unsustainable."

Punitive damages are "punishment" . . . you get it?! If you reduce punitive damages you reduce society's ability to deter bad behavior. Accordingly, I'm not sure you should reduce punitive damages.
What should happen is that law firms collect "reasonable" fees on punitive awards, the plaintiff gets some amt for "pain and suffering" (which is not covered by compensatory damages), and then the balance of the judgment goes towards serving the greater good (public health, education, etc) . . . anywhere EXCEPT for the general coffers of the state or local government.

In North Carolina, the nation's biggest tobacco-producing state, three-quarters of the $59 million spent so far has gone to private tobacco producers. The state has paid for tobacco-curing equipment for farmers, a new tobacco auction hall, a video to greet visitors to a state-funded tobacco museum, and $400,000 in plumbing for a new tobacco processing plant. Virginia gave $2 million in marketing "incentives" to a cigarette company called Star Scientific, which took the money and then sued the state to overturn the settlement. Seven states have actually invested the settlement in stocks of the very tobacco companies they sued in the first place: Texas has devoted an estimated $3.6 million to investments in major cigarette manufacturers.

 

[jdbolick]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
There is no prosecution in civil cases.

Prosecution as in execution, genius. It's a synonym and I clearly used the word that way in the context of the sentence you quoted. Try not making an ass out of yourself by assuming the wrong thing when you choose to attack someone.

It's abundantly clear you are from NC based on your poor understanding of how delivery and financing of our healthcare system works.

Because all people from NC are ignorant rednecks? I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning there, and it appears from the context that you're insulting the collective intelligence of North Carolinians.

Punitive damages are "punishment" . . . you get it?! If you reduce punitive damages you reduce society's ability to deter bad behavior.

Let's play a game of fact and reasoning:

Fact - A large percentage of malpractice cases are coming from a small percentage of doctors.

Reasoning - Obviously large jury awards aren't putting these doctors out of business.


Fact - Large pharmaceutical companies have large insurance coverage and don't seem to be going out of business when hit with massive jury awards.

Reasoning - The costs aren't cutting into the company's profits by any significant measure, therefore those billions of dollars must be coming from somewhere else.


Fact - Damage caps in California and other states have already had a measured effect in slowing down the acceleration of insurance costs, sometimes even reducing them to previous levels.

Reasoning - Gee golly shucks, this li'l ol' plan to help out po' people like me get some health coverage just might work.



Think that's enough to stuff the haughty attitude and have a legitimate discussion with me or must this "ignorant redneck" continue to hand you your ass on a silver platter?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let's play a game of fact and reasoning:

Fact - A large percentage of malpractice cases are coming from a small percentage of doctors.
Reasoning - Obviously large jury awards aren't putting these doctors out of business.

Wow, the force is strong in this one. Your fact is sketchy at best. There's anecdotal evidence that a few specialties (OB/orthopedics/neurosurgery) collect more than their share of medmal. But this effect is confounded by the FACT that these specialties perform a lot of procedures many of which are high risk. Accordingly, the likelihood of a bad outcome rises with the complexity and frequency. If you believe most specialty groups that are advocating for healthcare reform . . . bad and good physicians alike are going out of business. I'm not saying they are right but clearly your reasoning is flawed.

Fact - Large pharmaceutical companies have large insurance coverage and don't seem to be going out of business when hit with massive jury awards.
Reasoning - The costs aren't cutting into the company's profits by any significant measure, therefore those billions of dollars must be coming from somewhere else.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. Bristol Myers Squibb has been fined (and agreed to pay) $450m in just the past two months due to SEC issues (damn math is hard) and a shareholder lawsuit. Pfizer paid a tidy sum for allowing its sales reps to make up BS about drug efficacy.

More to the point, the FDA in practice shields Big Pharma from a lot of lawsuits. Most poor (or bad) outcomes from medication is just a natural function of exposing millions of people to a given pharmaceutical . . . poo happens. So the fact you cite . . . basically means nothing. Your reasoning is equally inept. The 5-figure price of Erbitux (Martha's Waterloo) is not designed to recoup the cost of development and marketing. It's designed to finance the develpment and marketing of the next generation of drugs . . . not to mention shareholder return and keeping Dolan in Maybachs.

The implication that drugs are costly isn't exactly news. Currently the inflation of drug prices is the #1 source of the inflation in healthcare costs.

Fact - Damage caps in California and other states have already had a measured effect in slowing down the acceleration of insurance costs, sometimes even reducing them to previous levels.
Reasoning - Gee golly shucks, this li'l ol' plan to help out po' people like me get some health coverage just might work.

Assuming the poor quality K-12 education wasn't totally wasted you why don't you research what CA did. CA did indeed institute a damage cap of 250k (20yrs ago) . . . if you correct for inflation where would that leave us today?? CA also created a regulatory board to control medmal liability rates. Accordingly, CA did much better than states without caps . . . but they also did better than states WITH caps.

American College of Surgeons Curiously this physician group cites the CA reform but omits the medmal insurance commission . . . I wonder why? Oh and if you follow their tables you will notice they avoid mentioning a lot of states . . . I wonder why?

Think that's enough to stuff the haughty attitude and have a legitimate discussion with me or must this "ignorant redneck" continue to hand you your ass on a silver platter?

You're funny . . . I don't know if you are redneck or not but you are definitely ignorant.😉

 

[jdbolick]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Your fact is sketchy at best. There's anecdotal evidence that a few specialties (OB/orthopedics/neurosurgery) collect more than their share of medmal.

ARGH! I'm looking over my quote to see how I possibly could have explained this in a way that you would understand, but given that you didn't know that prosecution is a synonym for execution (how do you think "the prosecution" got its name?), I'm guessing there wasn't anything I could do.

I'm not talking about "certain industries," I'm talking about specific individual doctors being responsible for a high percentage of malpractice cases. This fact was actually one I found out from someone who opposed medical caps because they were trying to argue that the doctors were the problem and we didn't need caps (he was a lib who eventually admitted he was pre-law). I wish I had kept the link, but I argue about an awful lot of things online and I just can't keep track of everything. It is a factual result of a prominent study, however, and I'm sure you can find it with a reasonable exertion of effort.

The point was that if a small percentage of doctors are responsible for a significantly higher percentage of jury awards, and they are, then obviously punitive damages aren't stopping those doctors. What they're doing is hurting people like me who, as far as I know, haven't done anything wrong.

Bristol Myers Squibb has been fined (and agreed to pay) $450m in just the past two months due to SEC issues

And did they file for bankruptcy? Did they not have an insurer? Are they disappearing from the scene or are they going on with business as usual like pretty much every other company that's ever been sued. For Christ's sake, look at the tobacco settlement you already cited and tell me how many of them have gone out of business. BMS and others get out from most of those costs and then pass along the rest to the consumer.

Your reasoning is equally inept.

I love how certain people just claim victory as if that's enough, especially when they have no success at all in countering the opposition's points. Notice how you just totally brushed over the fact that you were the one who claimed that "Punitive damages are "punishment" . . . you get it?! If you reduce punitive damages you reduce society's ability to deter bad behavior." The smartass tone aside, you're now contradicting yourself by saying that the important thing isn't whether or not these commpanies are actually punished, since they seem to be getting away pretty cleanly, but that these companies aren't going out of business because the FDA protects them. Beyond that being nonsense (the FDA is protective, but clearly companies at fault are passing along real costs to insurance and consumers), isn't that defeating your supposed argument about the need for punitive damages? You haven't given even one example yet of punitive damages accomplishing anything at all. I'm amused by the condescension and all, but do you think you might couple that with some actual evidence? I would find that entertaining and perhaps enlightening as well.

Assuming the poor quality K-12 education wasn't totally wasted you why don't you research what CA did.

For the record, if you want to compare awards/scores/achievements/dicks, I'm more than ready. I enjoy a good insult as much as the next guy, but be careful that you don't bite off a hell of a lot more than you can chew. Pretty much anyone, even those who would agree with you, would agree that I'm a formidable opponent. While I appreciate the style in casually dismissing an opponent, just be sure you keep in mind that it's an act and not reality. If you lead yourself too far down this road you're liable to get so humiliated that you'll need a new username to keep from being reminded of it every time you post.

CA also created a regulatory board to control medmal liability rates. Accordingly, CA did much better than states without caps . . . but they also did better than states WITH caps.

Let me see if I understand your logic. California enacted A and B. They did better than states that did just A (and states that did just B I might add). States that enacted A also did better than those that didn't. So this is an argument against A? Did you think that flowery language and a haughty attitude would keep poor little me from understanding the faulty logic there?

If you want to ask whether or not I'd support insurance reform in addition to medical damages, I would. But the facts show that A, or caps on damages, has a significant real world effect. So what in the world is your objection beyond the desperate attempt to seem more intelligent than everyone else?

you are definitely ignorant.

Actually I think someone who believes he knows something about this issue and goes around calling others ignorant but doesn't know the repeat doctor fact has a lot of room to be talking. What am I ignorant about? Not only have you failed to point out any area I wasn't aware of, but I brought up things you apparently didn't know, and you were even so kind as to make my point for me. Caps work, you said so yourself and you've given absolutely no argument whatsoever against them.

 

[jdbolick]

Let me clarify a few points for anyone who might be keeping score.


#1) The idea behind medical caps is to reduce the costs passed on to consumer through a rise in insurance premiums and rising costs in other products used to compensate for liability losses.

#2) Insurance reform goes right to the source of the former issue, limiting rises in premiums directly rather than having it result from a market effect.


Clearly insurance premium mandates are going to be more successful in affecting premium rates because you're setting something into law that directly affects them instead of depending upon the market to set those boundaries. Duh. What insurance reform doesn't do is to address where the rest of those liability losses come from, and where exactly does one imagine that those costs go? Could it be that these giant companies feel that they deserve punishment for their wrong-doing and don't pass those costs on to consumers? Furthermore, could it be that doctors don't have a harder time even getting insurance (not the question of cost, but of qualification)? If you want to go along those lines, why not limit the costs of consumer coverage as well as doctors' premiums? That would again directly address the issue. A plus B plus C.


#3) Has anyone seen BaliBabyDoc say anything at all about why damage caps are bad?

I haven't. The only thing I've seen between insults and condescension is the statement that reform and caps together have produced more significant results than caps or reform alone. Let's talk about that math for a second. A + B produces a greater result than either A or B, but somehow that's an argument against implementation of A. Doesn't make much sense to you, audience? Me either, but clearly I'm just an ignorant hick from North Carolina and no one from this state knows anything (except Edwards apparently, although he was born in S.C. so I guess that's why).

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Riprorin
While we're suing everybody, why don't we sue the AHA for putting their "Heart Check" seal of approval on high-sugar, empty calorie foods and the AMA for telling people not to eggs and to eat margarine rather than butter?

And can we sue the government for the food pyramid?

Can you give an example of a high-sugar, nutrient poor food that has an American Heart Association seal on it?

The AHA "heart check" seal was on such nutrituous foods as Count Chocula, Fruit Loops, and low-fat pop tarts. I don't know if it's still on those foods though.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Intelligent people do their own research on diet and nutrition and don't blindly follow the whims of the AHA and AMA. The whole anti-fat craze (with the exception of trans-fat) is misguided. Americans are eating less fat than ever yet they are getting fatter and fatter.

Dude sometimes I cannot tell if you are mocking yourself . . . or just mocking yourself.

What you call the whims of the AHA and AMA are typically best evidence with a few notable exceptions (AMA giving a temporary seal of approval to Sunbeam).

To the contrary the anti-fat craze took off b/c people embrace simple messages (vis a vis GWB's success) and messengers. It's the same reason the anti-carb craze has taken off. Both are ridiculous in and of themselves.

Dr. Atkins was called a quack (which he was) for saying you can eat all the fat you want in any form you want . . . to lose weight and live a healthier, happier life . . . just don't eat carbs. That was total BS in the 60s/70s and it's total BS now.

The true message of the low fat diet proponents was to consume little if any saturated fat (which your body can make itself), eat low amounts of cholesterol (which your body makes and recycles), but include generous amounts of monounsaturated fats (olive oil) and other essential oils found in marine life (DHA/EPA).

When the food pyramid put fats and oils at the top people thought that meant you couldn't eat a bunch of nuts. But the true meaning was to avoid fried foods, the skin off of flesh foods, and other sources of saturated fat. It's hard to draw a picture of that so they included a picture of nuts. Bad move but such is life when you are talking to people that don't like to read.

Atkins flips the pyramid 180 degrees but he was horribly misguided. It's not that people need less bread per se. They need less processed grains. It's not that people need less fruits and vegetables. They need less fruit juice, canned fruit in heavy syrup, canned veggies, and fried veggies.

Before he went to the great big buffet in the sky, Atkins started to write books that better reflected the science of diet and nutrition instead of the pop sci BS that made him rich. Any intelligent person that read his first book and his last will understand. Granted, most intelligent people shouldn't bother reading Atkins.

I'm 44, my % BF is 9%, my blood pressure is 90/58, my resting pulse is 56, my cholesterol is <200 with HDL at 70 and triglycerides at 50, so you don't have to lecture me.

And I'm not a low-fat (although I don't eat any trans-fat), low-cholesterol diet.

p.s. Here's the AHA list of recommended foods:

Link

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

I'm 44, my % BF is 9%, my blood pressure is 90/58, my resting pulse is 56, my cholesterol is <200 with HDL at 70 and triglycerides at 50, so you don't have to lecture me.

And I'm not a low-fat (although I don't eat any trans-fat), low-cholesterol diet.

p.s. Here's the AHA list of recommended foods:

Link

Not bad :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur
And it's all Edwards' fault!


Damn his hide! :|

Is that what Rip is working so hard to say??? If no Edwards the U.S. would be Lawsuit free???

My God, he must be the only Suit in America :roll:

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Intelligent people do their own research on diet and nutrition and don't blindly follow the whims of the AHA and AMA. The whole anti-fat craze (with the exception of trans-fat) is misguided. Americans are eating less fat than ever yet they are getting fatter and fatter.

Dude sometimes I cannot tell if you are mocking yourself . . . or just mocking yourself.

What you call the whims of the AHA and AMA are typically best evidence with a few notable exceptions (AMA giving a temporary seal of approval to Sunbeam).

To the contrary the anti-fat craze took off b/c people embrace simple messages (vis a vis GWB's success) and messengers. It's the same reason the anti-carb craze has taken off. Both are ridiculous in and of themselves.

Dr. Atkins was called a quack (which he was) for saying you can eat all the fat you want in any form you want . . . to lose weight and live a healthier, happier life . . . just don't eat carbs. That was total BS in the 60s/70s and it's total BS now.

The true message of the low fat diet proponents was to consume little if any saturated fat (which your body can make itself), eat low amounts of cholesterol (which your body makes and recycles), but include generous amounts of monounsaturated fats (olive oil) and other essential oils found in marine life (DHA/EPA).

When the food pyramid put fats and oils at the top people thought that meant you couldn't eat a bunch of nuts. But the true meaning was to avoid fried foods, the skin off of flesh foods, and other sources of saturated fat. It's hard to draw a picture of that so they included a picture of nuts. Bad move but such is life when you are talking to people that don't like to read.

Atkins flips the pyramid 180 degrees but he was horribly misguided. It's not that people need less bread per se. They need less processed grains. It's not that people need less fruits and vegetables. They need less fruit juice, canned fruit in heavy syrup, canned veggies, and fried veggies.

Before he went to the great big buffet in the sky, Atkins started to write books that better reflected the science of diet and nutrition instead of the pop sci BS that made him rich. Any intelligent person that read his first book and his last will understand. Granted, most intelligent people shouldn't bother reading Atkins.

My approach is fairly consistent with this article.

Link

The concern about fat, except for trans-fat, is way overblown, imo. It's good for the food conglomerates who sell high margin processed foods though.

From my experience, when you ask a MD about nutrition, the usual response is a platitude like "eat a balanced diet".