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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (72494)	9/23/2009 8:46:02 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Your statement implies that malpractice is common with most physicians and hospitals. Defensive medicine merely protects doctors from suits that claim he/she should have known or tested for every unknown. Defensive medicine isn't designed to protect a patient from illness, it is designed to protect the doctor from unscrupulous attorneys. Medicine in most cases is not an exact science, however many malpractice attorneys enjoy making money on the Monday morning quarterbacking. Certainly there is more malpractice than is discovered and certainly more malpractice is accused where none exists. I do not buy the defensive medicine argument. If doctors were truly practicing defensive medicine, there would not be so much malpractice.

To: Little Joe who wrote (72494)	9/23/2009 10:11:27 AM
From: jrhana	9 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 224748

Based on 26 years as an emergency room physician, I completely disagree with this: <It is my opinion that malpractice law suits are not usually frivolous> The overwhelming majority of lawsuits I were familiar with were completely bogus. The physician did absolutely nothing wrong, but the lawyers were easily able to manipulate the system for big bucks. There were a very few legitimate case that were always settled quickly. However, settling a case usually had little to with guilt as the insurance companies were always deathly afraid to take a case to a jury no matter how strong. In medical school, they do nothing to prepare you for the ugly reality of the legal system. When in practice, physicians find themselves trying to fight for their survival in a nightmarish game they know nothing about. And all the rules are against you. The deposition process is crazy because the lawyers have computers generating questions that no matter what you say, it will be held against you. Every question is a trick question. Say yes and you're guilty. Say no and you're guilty. Try to explain and they shut you up. Going to court is like rolling the dice. And the outcome in court depends only on whether the jury of uneducated TV soap opera watchers likes you are not. And the physician is completely alone. The defense lawyers don't care. The defense lawyer has the best deal of all. He makes money no matter what the outcome. And his only job is to save the insurance company money. That's what he's paid for. The defense lawyers make it very clear to you that they think all doctors are garbage, and that he could not care less about the doctor's reputation or well being. They just shrug their shoulders and say "Well of course you are innocent but a jury will never believe you" Once again the majority of medical malpractice cases are completely bogus. Of that I have zero doubt. Incidentally, even when a case is legitimate, they often go after the wrong doctor because he has more insurance. The less insurance you have the less likely you are to get sued. And try to keep your name of the chart. If your name is on the chart, they will sue you if they find out you have insurance. And as they are experts at manipulating the truth, they will find a way to make you appear guilty even when you had little or nothing to do with the case.

To: Little Joe who wrote (72494)	9/26/2009 7:01:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

I do not buy the defensive medicine argument. If doctors were truly practicing defensive medicine, there would not be so much malpractice. That doesn't follow at all. The vast majority of doctors could practice some degree of defensive medicine, with a decent sized majority going to truly excessive lengths, without greatly reducing actual malpractice, let alone reducing malpractice cases and awards. It is my opinion that malpractice law suits are not usually frivolous and that there is far more malpractice that occurs that ever gets reported. I agree. A majority of the cases probably are not frivolous. That's esp. likely to be true about a majority of the cases that win in court. But a few frivolous cases that win or get a settlement can have a serious impact, and even those that don't get a dime still have an impact because of the time, money, and stress to mount a defense. Also the problem isn't just frivolous cases. Serious cases of real malpractice that result in too high of payouts, and questionable but non-frivolous cases, esp. ones that result in some payout have an impact. If you add overcompensated serious cases, to questionable and frivolous cases you probably have a pretty large percentage. And even if it isn't so large, it doesn't have to be very large to cause problems.