It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Houses passes bill to limit damages from medical malpractice lawsuits

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Now add to that interstate insurance policies and allow competition across state lines and maybe we'd actually see a drop in insurance costs.




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The GOP has wanted to do this for years. Protect the powerful and the rich against the weak and vulnerable.



Yea this is industry protection and one could even say from lack of competence as much as anything.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: SwissJoe

You are correct. I used to be a paralegal for one of the top 10 medical malpractice attorneys in the usa. We were plaintiffs side usually wrongful death. Doctors kill patients through gross negilgence all the time in california. They get a hit on their insurance for 250k for the death of a patient under circumstances that would put them away for life for manslaughter or worse and they get to keep practicing. Most of these cases besides the kaiser ones (theyre a mess) were for plastic surgeons in beverly hills. Most common causeof death. They screwed up the intubation. Youd be surprised how many doctors are out there practicing that have killed their patients due to avoidable (usually lazy) circumstances. And the average patient has no idea their doctor is basically guilty of multiple manslaughters. Most of the time since the patient is a retiree there are no econonic damages.


We have stories in the UK. The nurse put the intubation tube into the airway instead of the digestion system, or poked a hole right through the airway into the body cavity. "Lessons have been learned" is the mantra, which really now just seems to be a wind up.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: allsee4eye

Silly idea.

If someone is injured in an operation and can only sue for let's say $250,000. They could need a lot more $$ to get right. Or they could be f'd for life.

Want to guess who pays when someone can't work? Want to guess who pays medical when someone can't work (and get company medical coverage) and you want to guess who pays for food-housing? Tax payers.

The swamp continues to GROW!!!


The $250,00 cap is only for "noneconomic damages, such as emotional suffering". If someone is permanently unable to work or something, they could still claim whatever the economic loss is.



I know a guy who had cancer in one of his testicles. The doctor accidentally removed his only healthy testicle by mistake. He was fairly young, recently married and he and wife were devastated they could never have children now. $250K isn't enough. When you consider that his medical costs probably ran around $250K, I think his suffering was worth more than that.

Anyway, they guy won $5 million, in the end. Maybe too much?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

I would also think this is from wrong things being cut off or cut out-and all the twisted things that happen.

As far as someone seeing a body bag-would that not go through a jury? If so then the jury is the system we have.

Do you have a source of body bag being carted by someone or is it just an example of extreme?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Now add to that interstate insurance policies and allow competition across state lines and maybe we'd actually see a drop in insurance costs.



We picked up Blue Cross out of Texas a few months back. Just saying we are already getting cross state and really didn't save much.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

This is why we are #1 in cost and # 37 in health outcomes.....



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3

When you grow up children, kiss butt and be a DC lobbyist.


If I'm not mistaken, I think those jobs are reserved for retiring, butt kissing, D.C. politicians.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I hear across state lines all the time. I wonder who is going to take less money because they are now selling a policy 500 miles SW now.

Are we supposed to believe that an insurance Co is magically going to have hospitals charge them less? Or is there going to be a magical group of insured people who never get sick? I fail to see how this will lower costs.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Now add to that interstate insurance policies and allow competition across state lines and maybe we'd actually see a drop in insurance costs.


There aren't any federal laws prohibiting interstate insurance policies right now.

The only laws prohibiting it right now comes from state legislatures who have passed laws to protect their citizens from being sold inferior policies and currently, it's a state's right to do so.

Are you talking about enacting federal legislation that would remove a state's right to regulate insurance sold within its borders?

Furthermore, there are currently several states that have already opened their markets to interstate insurance sales and it hasn't lowered anything other than standards.

And many insurance companies aren't interested in investing the time, money & effort in setting up shop and establishing provider networks, pharmaceutical providers and care centers in a new states for a limited and unpredictable market.

Basically, You get what you pay for and allowing someone to sell it to you from out of state isn't going to significantly lower the cost unless what they're selling you is actually worth significantly less.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
I think it's a good idea. One reason medical costs are so high is because of abuse of lawsuits. It is a good first step in curbing the high medical costs.


A better first step would be to pass a bill to directly limit high medical costs. All this limits is the amounts insurance companies have to pay out. Another win for the insurance companies.

A buddy of mine was telling me about a guy he knew that needed some surgery, I forget what. He shopped around. He found that for the price of the surgery in the US, he could fly round trip to the Philipines, get the surgery, have a three week vacation in the Orient, and still be $3,000.00 ahead.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

That is not what was lobbied for, so it won't happen.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
I'm sure this will do a lot to lower premiums and deductibles.


When you grow up children, kiss butt and be a DC lobbyist.


Insurance against malpractice suits is a component of the increase in care costs over the past 20 years.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

How much, on average? I hear that all the time, but never hear how much.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MOMof3
I'm sure this will do a lot to lower premiums and deductibles.


When you grow up children, kiss butt and be a DC lobbyist.


Insurance against malpractice suits is a component of the increase in care costs over the past 20 years.


I'm sure it is, but rather than limit the damages an injured person/victim can sue for, why not impose steep fines and loss of licenses for the attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits?

The injured person has already been victimized and the lawyer, who is only in it for the money, knows damn well when he a party to a frivolous suit.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

I have yet to see any #'s on the horrible abuse.

Our system depends on juries, and people usually get it right.

Of course you have the really odd jury decision from time to time. The judge can also corral the jury. Our process is designed to work. Circumvention of it because of lobbying is a shame.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I agree wholeheartedly!



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MOMof3
I'm sure this will do a lot to lower premiums and deductibles.


When you grow up children, kiss butt and be a DC lobbyist.


Insurance against malpractice suits is a component of the increase in care costs over the past 20 years.



Not really
It has more to do with the protected professions

While the majority of wages for Americans has declined thanks to Globalism, Pharma, Insurance and Healthcare continue to climb because of bribery.

Either American Wages need to climb to be able to afford rising healthcare costs, or Pharma, Insurance and Healthcare need to take a paycut like everyone else.

What is happening is they are running out of other peoples money to prop them up.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
#1 Tort reform

Tort reform refers to proposed changes in the civil justice system that aim to reduce the ability of victims to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive
 


#2 Medicines/prescription: cost/pricing/profit caps
 


do away with free-enterprise concerning medicine patents and profit margins...and do away with them Trillion $ malpractice suits by persons deliberately exposing themselves into 'Tort' litigation in elective medical procedures



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

You say trillion $$ malpractice suits---I would like a source.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join