Super VXer
Originally Posted by Ldub
OK...works for me...
And a TRIPLE sorry to you sir...
I am so clueless that I hadn't yet realized my face needed saving...
I thought this was a conversation with differing viewpoints...
BTW, this thread started off with a random act of stupidity...
Super VXer
That is OK we will all wait...
Super VXer
Having a healthcare degree, working in healthcare and being a Litigation Manager handling medical malpractice litigation for hospitals for over 25 yrs, working for a company that owns hospitals, I have seen, read, reviewed, and heard literally thousands and thousands of medical malpractice allegations. I can offer my opinion from the front row:
~ all political parties are adequately represented in claims and lawsuits brought.
~ there ARE many MANY frivolous claims and lawsuits, where no injury was sustained, nor any negligence committed. Oh the examples I could give....
~ there ARE many MANY legitimate claims and lawsuits, where real injury was sustained, and negligence committed. Oh the examples I could give....
~ MANY people either solely cause or contribute to their own injury by doing illogical things. Oh the examples I could give....
~ TRULY, some things are acts of God or whatever you want to call it...or whatever diety you wish to insert there....but sometimes things happen and it's nobody's fault. Unfortunately, IMHO, too often some in our society do not like that answer, and wish to capitalize and reap monetary gain from such an incident, regardless of no negligence.
~ FAR FAR FAR too many "claimants" try to "hit the lottery" in their financial expectations of a settlement, NOT commensurate with the injury.
~ FAR FAR FAR too many juries do not listen to the evidence of a case, as prescribed by law, and decide based on other factors (such as anger, punish, send a message, etc like Mav mentioned)
~The COST of frivolous lawsuits ABSOLUTELY impacts healthcare costs. No one's mentioned the DEFENSE COSTS associated with frivolous lawsuits, that's where a ton of money is spent. Hospitals and doctors must hire attorneys and claim reps to defend them in a claim or lawsuit, regardless of its merit -->....yes, the attorneys make a boatload of money---> the malpractice insurance company may have to raise premiums to cover these increased costs --> the doctor may have to raise their fees to pay for their malpractice premium -->and then companies may raise healthcare premiums for their employees. This is an over-simplified example, but it does demonstrate how healthcare costs can be affected by litigation costs. My example doesn't address the "corporate greed" argument.
~There's very little effective TORT REFORM in effect, in any State, despite what you've heard.
California has probably the most effective, and has had for about 30 yrs. Claimants and attorneys often find ways "around" tort reform.
Louisiana has a "Medical Review Panel" (MRP) where a claimant must first submit their claim to the 3 member physician MRP for review. The panel then votes if the claim is meritorious and allowed to proceed. But I assure you, after my many years of experienced, 99% of claimants proceed with their claim, despite a finding of no negligence by the MRP.... there's ways around this law. So the MRP system (which is a tort refirm attempt) is often ineffective. A few other States have a similar Panel system (Indiana comes to mind), to some degree more effective than LA.
Tort reform specifics are often misquoted/misrepresented by the media and many advocates, just like the McD's coffee incident has often been mischaracterized. Both "sides" do it, believe me. Opponents of tort reform would have you believe the horribly injured wouldn't be able to collect a dime....when in fact, only certain types of "damages" are ever limited in TR. Pain & Suffering ARE what is limited, NOT the actual medical bills, medical care needed or other financial losses (income, etc...) In a case with very serious injuries, requiring a lifetime of continued medical care and assistance, there's no cap on that amount. In tort reform, there's only a cap on the intangible costs, frequently called pain & suffering.
As we all just saw with the Casey Anthony verdict, we may not all agree on the verdict rendered, based on what we, the public have seen or heard, but it's our system of justice. Just like virtually anything, there's good and bad about it, and there's always going to be good and bad players in it too, on BOTH sides......
~Remember, this IMHO.
VX KAT
....the adventure BEGINS ANEW! ...2015......
Remember that life is not measured in the breaths you take, but rather in the moments that take your breath away.
Super VXer
X2
Super VXer
Nicely stated Sue, well worth the read for those of you who tend to jump over anything longer than three sentences made up mostly of smiley faces, heh.
I would take issue with one or two minor points: I think defensive medical costs have been getting quite a bit of discussion of late, so "noone mentions it" is no longer accurate. A few years ago advocates of tort reform, particularly those with limited knowledge pushing for feel good legislation, would talk primarily/exclusively about the cost of the litigation and related insurance. When studies showed that the sum total of this impact, including ALL litigation (not just the frivolous) even in cases of clear and terrible malpracitce, only totaled about .5% increases in overall medical costs, the advocates had to find an argument that could stand up to inspection. Defensive medicine tends to do that. I have heard recent studies peg this cost at 2.5% or so, certainly not negligable.
Super VXer
How medical costs are soaring along with insurance costs doe to govt mandates even a .5% increase is not to be auto excepted. Given we could reduce a lot of these cost by getting the medical community to follow proper anti infection procedures I think we need to start doing the long hanging fruit first
"Take it up with my butt, cuz he's the only one that gives a crap"
Carter Pewterschmidt
Super VXer
That was something else specifically referenced in Hot Coffee. One of the Bush Admin's main reasons cited for pushing tort "reform" was ALL the wasteful court costs associated with frivolous lawsuits in the state of Texas which supposedly resulted in the premiums of EVERYONE going up.
As it turned out though, even after the "reforms" were passed reducing the number of cases that actually went to court (many of which were then/now handled instead through mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems), and reducing damage cap liabilities even for legitimate cases of negligence, healthcare costs for EVERYONE in Texas either remained the same overall or cost even more across the board.
So was it all just lip service in favor of big business? Depends on who you ask I guess.
Super VXer
With Medical Claims there is a certain hubris in parts of the medical community that resist any oversight and any development of "best practices" or "standardization of care".
In my business I have seen several frivolous claims aimed at simply finding the deepest pockets. Sometime these are personal injury claims, sometime its buyers remorse, where someone got what they paid for but found they diidn't make as much money as they though they wold so someone one else must be to blame.
Super VXer
Here if you are found 5% liable and someone else is 95% and they do not have the money to pay the judgement you can be liable for the full award. Trying to fix this now but the lawyers say doing so would hurt the victim. They are worried about the victim here how about when a murdered gets out after 2.5 years because a bad childhood made him do it?
Super VXer
oh, I was referring to LEGAL DEFENSE costs, the amount paid to investigate / defend the claims & lawsuits. Defensive medicine is a whole nutter topic.
"mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems"....you realize you're painting the entire system with a broad stroke? Again, from my FRONT ROW seat and experience with mandatory arb, I LOST MANY cases.
The ARB panel is made up of 3 individuals...one picked by the PLAINTIFF, one picked by the DEFENSE, and the 3rd is PICKED BY THE OTHER TWO...so how is that "favoring the healthcare systems"?
EXTREMELY TRUE, and plaintiff attorneys wll often even ADMIT that's true....they're after the deepest pockets.
That's called "Joint & Several Liability", and it's law in MANY states....so how is that fair to an individual or business that has been found only 5% liable? That's where "for the greater good" philosophy comes into play in a society. But one must realize with "the greater good" comes a cost to all.
Super VXer
Not sure why you're starting to focus so much on semantics. I clearly said "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence".
As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).
Is it possible you're taking my comments too personally because you were one of those people on the front line and you think my comments are being focused directly towards you? If so, I can assure you that's not the case. Seeing as how you said that the company you arbitrated for owned hospitals though, I do have to admit to a slight degree of skepticism regarding how absolutely objective an arbitrator from your company could have been...(possibly favoring the healthcare system). I mean, if we're going to start arguing semantics, being "adequately represented" and being objectively represented can be two very different things.
Now I think that makes the score even as far as questioning personal character as a means of downplaying the validity of points of debate that have been made, so what say we just call it a draw and move on?
Super VXer
Coincidentally, this news story from today was one of the other stories covered in Hot Coffee with regards to mandatory arbitration, and how it resulted in this woman fighting with KBR/Haliburton company lawyers for years just to be able to have her case heard by a jury in a court of law.
Texas woman loses Iraq rape case against KBR APAP – 1 hr 28 mins ago
HOUSTON (AP) — A Houston jury on Friday rejected the claims against military contractor KBR Inc. by a Texas woman who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq.
A federal court jury returned its verdict after starting deliberations Thursday in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones.
Jones, 26, said she was raped in 2005 while working for KBR at Camp Hope, Baghdad. She sued KBR, its former parent Halliburton Co., and a former KBR firefighter, Charles Bortz, whom she identified as one of her rapists. The Houston-based companies and Bortz denied her allegations.
The alleged sexual assault was investigated by authorities but no criminal charges were filed.
Jurors rejected claims that Jones was raped and also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with Bortz, who said the sex was consensual.
"We're very pleased with the verdict," said Daniel Hedges, an attorney for KBR.
Jones was sobbing in the courtroom after the verdict was announced.
Jones' attorney had asked jurors to award her as much as 5 percent of KBR's net worth in actual or punitive damages. That would be more than $114 million, the Houston Chronicle reported.
Attorney Ron Estefan, in his closing arguments, accused KBR of neglecting to enforce its policies against sexual harassment for years by its contract workers in Iraq. The neglect facilitated Jones' rape, he said.
Attorneys for Bortz and the companies argued Jones concocted her story out of fear of gossip among co-workers at the camp.
Jones testified she was drugged and then raped by a group of KBR firefighters. She said Bortz was in her room the next morning. During four days of testimony, she told jurors she has no memory of what happened because she believed she was drugged with Rohypnol, known as the "date rape drug," just before she was sexually assaulted.
The Associated Press usually doesn't identify people alleging sexual assault, but Jones' face and name have been in media reports and she has promoted her case on her own website.
Bortz's attorney tried to show that after the alleged rape, Jones did not appear to act like she had been attacked but instead went to work as normal, joked around and talked about camp gossip. Bortz no longer works for KBR.
Joanne Vorpahl, one of KBR's attorneys, tried to portray Jones to jurors as someone with a history of being dishonest on resumes and job applications, including not disclosing in a medical questionnaire she filled out before leaving for Iraq that she had been treated in prior years for various things, including depression, dizziness and kidney and bladder problems. Jones said those were simply mistakes and she never intended to be dishonest.
Jones also accused KBR officials of locking her in a trailer after she told them about the rape and not letting her call her family. She testified she's been treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, takes medications for anxiety and had to have reconstructive surgery for her breasts, which were disfigured in her attack.
KBR and Halliburton, which split in 2007, were unsuccessful in having Jones' case settled through arbitration as stipulated in her contract.
Due in part to Jones' case, federal lawmakers in 2009 approved a measure prohibiting contractors and subcontractors that receive $1 million in funds from the Department of Defense from requiring employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration.
Super VXer
Not sure why you're starting to focus so much on semantics. I clearly said "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence".
Because semantics can cause some confusion/misunderstanding. All I said was careful, let's make sure you define "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence". I was just trying to define the term "damage cap" so others reading would be clear that there's two types of damages, and there's only a "cap" on one of those.
As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).
Is it possible you're taking my comments too personally because you were one of those people on the front line and you think my comments are being focused directly towards you?
No, not at all. I'm well aware of the opinions/arguments on both sides of this topic, so I don't take any of it personally.
If so, I can assure you that's not the case. Seeing as how you said that the company you arbitrated for owned hospitals though, I do have to admit to a slight degree of skepticism regarding how absolutely objective an arbitrator from your company could have been...(possibly favoring the healthcare system). I mean, if we're going to start arguing semantics, being "adequately represented" and being objectively represented can be two very different things.
Yes, and there's many words that could be inserted into that sentence as well that would change it's meaning. So let's just drop the word "adequately" from my sentence. "All political parties are represented in the claims and lawsuits brought".
I was not an arbitrator, and the arbitrators are NOT employed by the company or individual lawfirm selecting them. They are independent...most often attorneys or judges in the area. I was providing FACTUAL info....And to reiterate what I said, a 3 person arbitration panel is PICKED in the manner I described....One arbitrator is selected by the defense, , one by the plaintiff, and then those two individuals select the 3rd member. I believe it would be hard to argue that's not a fair system, or that it's stacked in ANYONE's favor....as each party gets to select one member (so that's 50/50) and those two select "a neutral third" as it's called. Yes, you could still argue the first two arbitrators are colored by who selected them, but the "Neutral third" is an attempt to cancel out any such bias.
Now I think that makes the score even as far as questioning personal character as a means of downplaying the validity of points of debate that have been made, so what say we just call it a draw and move on?
And if you re-read my comments, you'll see I readily agree there's many legitimate claims, and many frivolous claims. So I'm not downplaying the validity of anyone's points, I just proffered additional factual info since I happen to know info that other's reading this may not, and felt it added important substance to the discussion.
And I'm sure neither of us want "a lot of people to believe the spinned version" of ANY story.
Actually, if you re-read all my entries in this thread, don't believe you can opine what my beliefs are on this subject. I simply put forth factual info, I chose not to provide any personal opinions. Although I see how some could try to guess my opinions based on who I worked for and what I did. I understand that.
There's no "draw" as I wasn't debating, dueling, sparing or fighting...anyone.
Super VXer
As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).
I didn't make any comment or opine in any way on this.
"mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems"....you realize you're painting the entire system with a broad stroke? Again, from my FRONT ROW seat and experience with mandatory arb, I LOST MANY cases.
The ARB panel is made up of 3 individuals...one picked by the PLAINTIFF, one picked by the DEFENSE, and the 3rd is PICKED BY THE OTHER TWO...so how is that "favoring the healthcare systems"?
That sure seemed like a defensive rebuttal (based on a personal FRONT (capitalized even) ROW seat) to my comment(s) on mandatory arbitration to me.
From your comparison: your categorization of my comment as a "broad stroke" generalization as opposed to your front-line personal experience.
It's also coincidental you should suggest how neutral all arbitrators much obviously be because that's something else that was discussed in the show. The specific example given was how even supreme court justices in the state of Mississippi were selected and financially backed by large corporations to campaign for office based on their past records of voting either for or against businesses involved in litigations of almost any kind. The specific judge interviewed was even the basis for the story The Appeal by John Grisham.
As I said before, objectiveness and "mandatory arbitration" being what they are, we all know how the systems are set up. Rationalizations are powerful things as they pertain to who's signing the paychecks. Not saying you were one who would have been consciously swayed (or subconsciously for that matter), but given your earlier defensive rebuttal, let's just say I remain somewhat skeptical of the objectivity of the system. Especially since you're not the only person who's had a few front line dealings with insurance companies and their agents, since "insurance" is pretty much what we're talking about here.
Hot Coffee - HBO. Worth a watch IMO.
Last edited by Y33TREKker : 07/08/2011 at 06:10 PM
Super VXer
And if you re-read my comments, you'll see I readily agree there's many legitimate claims, and many frivolous claims. So I'm not downplaying the validity of anyone's points, I just proffered additional factual info since I happen to know info that other's reading this may not, and felt it added important substance to the discussion.
And I'm sure neither of us want "a lot of people to believe the spinned version" of ANY story.
Actually, if you re-read all my entries in this thread, don't believe you can opine what my beliefs are on this subject. I simply put forth factual info, I chose not to provide any personal opinions. Although I see how some could try to guess my opinions based on who I worked for and what I did. I understand that.
There's no "draw" as I wasn't debating, dueling, sparing or fighting...anyone....thas why I always remember to STOP after replying once to anything opined by the capt of the debate team...when my memory kicks in, I realize that nothing I'll ever post will change his pov on the subject, & vice versa...
While I can see his point with regard to "victims", I'd be appalled if he could give any credence to my theory of natural selection being a valid enhancement to the shallow end. (Remember the original thread?)
I've always regarded his style of discussion as "twist & spin,winner take all", the actual point is of no consequence...takes all the fun out of it for me.
I just put up a post it note to myself..."don't take the bait".
Posting Permissions
