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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (10134)	3/8/1998 4:14:00 PM
From: Jack Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Duncan, You wrote: "You have convinced me that greedy, unethical doctors need to be reined in and that only the government can do so." I'm surprised that you have so much faith in the government. Do you believe that the government should also control attorneys and the legal system? National Legal Insurance? RE: greedy and unethical doctors, I'm sure there are some, but I know of only a few who are might be considered to be either greedy or unethical. Most doctors work very hard and take their responsibility very seriously. Their "greed" perhaps consists of griping about being forced into a position where they must give marginal care at markedly reduced compensation. You can argue that they got paid too much before, but that's a different issue. I am bitter about managed care not because of its effects on doctors (sorry, providers) but because of its effects on patients. Socialized medicine won't be great, but you can make a case that it would be better than HMO medicine, where only profit seems to count. And yes, the threat of litigation does help to avoid gross negligence, but at a cost which is very high, especially with regard to unnecessary tests. I am on record about the type of system I favor: A basic government plan for everybody with no frills, and choice of whatever non-government plan you wish to pay for yourself. This would be a real free market choice, not special favors for HMOs and false claims that everyone will get great care at bargain basement prices. Jack

To: Zoltan! who wrote (10134)	3/8/1998 5:09:00 PM
From: halfscot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

That's why we need more, not less, malpractice suits. If Janice ever doubted then this proves you are truly an attorney. :) (BTW, my best friend is an attorney and I give him hell all the time and he usually agrees his ilk are mostly pond scum) :::))) We Do? Could you please explain why? We already have malpractice suits galore...so much so we see suits beyond frivolous trying to find something with which to make money-not make the product or service better as we would be led to believe by the sanctimonious and pious legal spokespeople. Some of my physician friends pay over $100,000/year for malpractice insurance. Is it any wonder I heard a report on the radio several months ago where it was reported the average income of attorneys now exceeds the average income of physicians? While uncomfortable with eliminating the ability for those legitimately wronged to file malpractice suits I'm even more uncomfortable with the present system. We must have a better system of protecting the medical profession (everyone, actually) against obviously frivolous lawsuits. Do you have any suggestions? I would think a form of 'loser pays' to be a good start. halfscot