Houses passes bill to limit damages from medical malpractice lawsuits

With all the talk about repeal and replace and a single payer system... i.e., government paid doctors and other healthcare providers... this strikes me as a preliminary move to limiting civil liability for a government run healthcare system. By not including any other doctors/healthcare providers, even if they aren't legislated out of business, they sure won't be able to compete on a level playing field. Their business expenses will necessarily be higher.

originally posted by: seasonal
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?

I am sure it was the Daily Mail or the Express. Something on the lines of a holidaymaker upset because she saw a bodybag being hauled out of the hotel after a terrorist attack.

a reply to: stormcell

Can't fix stupid. Would you say this happens all the time or is it a very isolated case.

It is dangerous to take away responsibility from any profession. There needs to be a system to sh-can bad Dr.'s not help protect them.

It depends on the circumstances because some of the medical things are really costly to the patient, lifetime costs, and yes the ones who did the wrong need to pay up.

In addition, for example, when being denied cancer treatment and told to off yourself because that is suddenly legal in your state, SUING THEM ALL IS PARAMOUNT! AND MORE, SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE CRIMINAL.

Doubt this bill is legal or constitutional.

a reply to: Unity_99

It's about a very profitable and powerful profession saving (making) money. The Constitution will be silent on this issue.

a reply to: allsee4eye

That's another problem with the system, it's dysfunctional. It's not working and never will, not like this. It's sickening that companies make so much money and arent being made to be responsible for it.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I sincerely doubt any positive changes in healthcare such as lowering the insurance doctors have to pay for malpractice thereby lowering their charges to patients. That'll never happen. It's a silly, trying to appease some lobbyist quid pro quo bill. Meaningless.

If you ever had to go through the process,you'll see why this is a bad idea,you get injured at work disabled have to learn new trade,income falls from 140k a year to 35k a year,the injured worker may be awarded a said amount,but by the time attys and Drs get ahold of it,you will end up with nothing,what in essence this dose is save Corp money,and increase profit's,the patient never see's the saving's,only stockholders,hope you don't get injured at work,because at the end they literally tell you to F off,and leave you crippled

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So, the children believe that the magnanimous liability companies will lower their premiums to doctor to help their patients premiums. And the magnanimous stock holders will settle for never having a raise. Bedtime stories.

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.

Read it again, doesn't apply to economic damages, just other awards. It wouldn't be. 250K max for everything.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So, the children believe that the magnanimous liability companies will lower their premiums to doctor to help their patients premiums. And the magnanimous stock holders will settle for never having a raise. Bedtime stories.

Pretty sure the market itself would fix that. The company that lowered premiums would become the dominate player if all the other companies didn't follow suit. Same thing happens in every other form of insurance.

a reply to: pavil

Why is car insurance mandatory?

a reply to: MOMof3

States vary on type of coverage and amounts ect....your point?

a reply to: MOMof3

You'd probably be surprised that I'm for a form of Medicare for all.

a reply to: pavil

I lost a house because of 230000 medical bill before Obamacare. Medicare for all or nothing.

a reply to: MOMof3

That should not happen. catastrophic coverage is what all should have with reasonable copays for everyday medical things. Also we should know prices of things before we are treated and if it is covered.