Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (504169)	8/12/2009 4:00:00 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577883

When the Feds pick your doctor and they are the deep pockets - the math is pretty simple for any lawyer. The feds won't pick your doctor and if they did you just go ahead and try suing the federal government. That WOULD BE de facto tort reform. I actually have a problem with jury awards in the first place - I'd prefer a panel of doctors who know when something was done wrong versus John Edwards types convincing juries about fake science and harm. Look at Florida. Since a malpractice awards cap suits are almost non-existent. No PI lawyer is going to take a case that will probably last 3-4 years to get 25% of $200K. And the insurance companies know to stall. Still the premiums don't come down... Defensive medicine is very profitable medicine.