I just showed you statistics that demonstrate that the raise in insurance rates are not tied to litigation costs, yet you keep repeating that point like a bleeting sheep. I didn’t say we should cap insurance rates either. Let them go up as high as you want, Fair. You are twisting the argument to suggest otherwise. I’m merely saying that the propoganda out there regarding med mal lawsuits is false, and that med mal lawsuits are rarely frivolous and never an easy payday involving huge awards (you ignore these two arguments, which are based on FACT). I’m also pointing out the trends to cap the awards.

Then you continue with arguments about advertisements regarding auto accidents. I can’t argue with you if you want to bring up irrelevant things. It’s like you defending dolphins and me saying that sharks kill humans, so you are wrong because things that swim in the ocean are evil. I have to assume that you are coming from a position with no personal knowledge with these arguments.

You ask who initiates the litigation? The doctors initiate the litigation when they cause harm to a patient and then don’t admit it and fix the problem. The client has to come to us. We are not allowed to go to them and solicit a case. So, first the doctor initiates, then the injured client continues, and the lawyers are brought in. Who financially benefits? The patient and the attorneys for BOTH sides. If you really think that lawyers should all work for free than you really don’t understand free enterprise at all. These aren’t egregious rates either. The amount we are allowed to charge is controlled by law.

So, in closing, if you are going to argue, at least stay on point and use facts, instead of assumptions or suggestive questions.

Bottomline: The high cost of medicine is related directly to litigation, the cost of healthcare, the cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost of MedMal, the cost of Major Med coverage and it is to be expected that each entity would want to protect their share and point to the others as the Devil.

I’m all for Free Enterprise which is why I played the Devil’s Advocate earlier. Many times one man’s argument, which seems to make sense is ridiculous when applied to the other side.

You complain, or state anyway, about the rising rates for MedMal, but then DEFEND caps on judgements. How does THAT logic work?

“Hey! They’re raising rates! Boooooo!!!!”

“Ummm… Let’s not cap what we can pull our percentages from though, okay?”

You do not see MedMal carriers advertising on the back of phone books as Bodily and Personal Injury lawyer’s do. In fact, not one of the hospitals or surgeons ever wanted to carrier MedMal coverage just for chit and giggles or to “cover their bases” as far as their professional career goes.

They carried it for FEAR of being litigated and it’s the COST of litigation and the large summary judgements awarded by a jury of our peers, aka; layman with little or no knowledge of the medical field or legalities involved. They are, as you very, very well know, governed by their EMOTIONS. Pure and simple. Any decent Trial Lawyer knows this and uses/abuses it to their advantage when thier client is on the stand. Play to their emotions and we’ll get a bigger amount for you.

So any time I/we/our carrier was confronted by a trial lawyer asking for hundreds of thousands over the actual damages, they would want to discuss punitive as well as compensatory damages against the physician AND the hospital AND the anethesist AND the janitor AND anyone else they could come up with. Charge them all and let the Judge/Jury figure it out.

Physicians complain about the high cost of Medmal??? I say go without. You and I both realize all insurance, MedMal as well as home/auto insurance, is nothing but a ‘Transfer of Risk’.

We are for Free Enterprise, as you say. So why bust MedMal? If they continue to pay out the funds for awards, are they not allowed to include that in the cost of ‘doing business’ and raise rates? Or raise rates for ‘high risk’ hospitals or surgeons? Or even REFUSE to take on the particular risk?

Free Enterprise? Yes. Both sides please.

I summarize by adding there are no doubt more dishonest attorney’s in America than MedMal carriers or representives of such. There are more Nifong’s in the woodwork than one would want to admit. There are more so-called Attorney’s misappropriating their clients funds, trust accounts and abusing their Executor status.

Defending your career is fine HoP. I get that.

There are decent, honest, upstanding people in your field. I know many. But I also know many whom are not. (And serving time by the way, with one losing his Bar status here locally)

You utter the phrase “free enterprise” which slides of your trained tongue smoothly as if you believe it, than wind up your diatribe with “The problem are insurance companies that raise rates…”. Nice. Sounds as if your against free enterprise for carriers?

Perhaps these same medical practitioneers would rather pay your fees for defense and claims out of their pocket and private assets? Or perhaps a hospital could close it’s doors in the face of a large judgement and the increasing field of Trial Lawyers specializing and seeking out these cases?

Just where do you think these MedMal carriers derive the funds to pay Med claims from? Certainly it wouldn’t be rates, would it?

Insurance is a transfer of risk, not a Right. If the cost of coverage is more than they can afford, the physician/hospital raise their rates as well to compensate. MedMal carriers and the medical field would rather not have a relationship this turbulent. And I’ve been privy to the Loss Ratios of certain hospitals and individuals and what carriers have paid for damages INCLUDING what the representing legal team receive. It is the legal field which makes the insurance carrier and the medical field bed partners.

Split hairs, but if it weren’t for lawsuits (and the DEEP POCKET Syndrome which follows), the medical field would never contact us, and the MedMal coverage would have never been developed to the point we find it today.

Keep litigating. The MedMal carriers will either choose to continue with the product or increase rates due to the increased cost of being able to keep paying claims. Medical folks will have to pay more, which in turn will, as we all know, be passed on to the regular guy.

MedMal carriers would just as soon have less litigation, which would result in less costs for them as well as for the physicians. And believe me, the physicians would just as soon have less litigation as well. The litigators? They don’t want caps on judgements, and still advertise on the backs of phone books and daytime TV will still carry those ads which state, “Have you been involved in an accident? Chances are someone owes you money…”

I wonder just who initiates, and who really benefits financially from litigation of the medical field…

1st, aren’t you for for free markets? Aren’t you anti-nanny governments? Then explain to me how that fits with litigation caps.

2nd, what “notoriously outlandish” awards are you talking about? Is this the drycleaner thing again? Oh, how about the McDonalds coffee argument! Irrelevant. I’m talking about medical malpractice cases. Read my post and you’ll see that med mal cases are not financially viable unless they are strong cases. Otherwise, they cost too much to bring the case and the risk is too high. We can discuss outlandish awards in another post.

3rd, why do you think legislators won’t pass statutes limiting med mal litigation? Its already happened in Florida, Wisconsin, and at least 17 other states. Interestingly, in states without caps, awards increased 48.2% in 12 years (1991-2002), but states WITH caps still went up 35.9%. The caps aren’t the solution because litigation isnt the problem. The problem are insurance companies that raise rates regardless of caps. These stats are according to WeissRatings, which is now owned by TheStreet.com.

As for MedMal rates, perhaps the physicians would like to self insure? Or pay for your defense costs out of pocket? Or pay damages straight from their private assets?

I’ve seen many claims, some good, some not so good, from the MedMal side and most are generated by litigious attorneys for absorbitant sums of cash to line their OWN pockets. Not to right a wrong or stand up for the poor and innocent and feel good about yourself. Money drives all.

btw, legislation for capping judgemets will never pass any State Legislative since the majority of politicians are attorneys and they won’t bite the hand which feeds them.

Like Colonel Jessup ‘sez…and I paraphrase…

“Even though you don’t like us and hate what we stand for. You need us there while you sip your cocktails at your Firm’s Christmas Office Party while valets park your Beemers and wives compare diamonds. Your home is being paid for with the very blanket of MedMal coverage I provide.”

That being said, maybe everyone would rather have HillaryCare and Socialism taking away your medical choices. One step further would be the Gov’t intervening in the law profession as well. Good for the goose good for the gander, right?

Two words… Ni-Fong.

I would love to see your take on the ACLU and defending NAMBLA and repeat pedophiles.

Harry Reid calls illegal aliens “Undocumented Americans”. ACLU sues ranch owners who protect their land from teh illegal crossings and THEY lose their land to the illegals and lawyers fees and court costs?

yeah the inurance companies have some bad apples for CEO’s but so do the LawDwgs, including the ACLU.

How about protecting MY Rights from illegals and sex offenders and protecting us from rogue attorneys, politicians, and certrainly you would agree, the frivouous lawsuits like 56 million dollars suits for a dry cleaner losing a pair of pants???

’nuff said. Your post is noted though.

My father was a veterinarian and was sued a number of times which were unsuccessful but he paid lawyers for defending him.

There are g00t and bad in everything. Your view of health insurance is equal to my view of many attorneys and their actions.

Between the two… Both need to make a profit and certainly Class Action suits have made many an attorney an unGodly/obscene amount of money. And the cost of a hospital stay is vastly outweighing inflation. Maybe next time a discussion on MedMal might be worthy. I placed that coverage as well and was privy to a number of MedMal claims including the amount of cash made (and paid to) by attorneys to defend both parties.

A viscious cycle. Hospitals/Physicians – Health Insurors – Patients – Attorneys. Like ticks on a dog, each feed off of each other and biatch about each other.

This was off the cuff and a coffeehouse reply, with no intent of insensitivity or personal injury to any parties involved.

Except for the ACLU. (American Communist Lawyers Union)

Sorry to rant on your blog. I enjoy your schtuff.