An Attempt at a CIVIL Health Care Discussion

Gryphon, were you going to answer the question I asked you above?

I read the article about why they are recording the hit. Seems that they were getting a 28% subsidy from Medicare for eligible costs but were able to deduct 100% of the costs. The new bill only allows them to deduct their actual out-of-pocket costs. don't know why it was this way in the first place. must have had a good lobbiest Originally Posted by KCJoe

Link please.

I'm shocked that a FREE MARKET company would lobby for a taxpayer funded subsidy. Shocked I say! LOL

Gryphon, were you going to answer the question I asked you above? Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Because they don't have ads for class action lawsuits on TV, they don't have malpractice attorneys' pictures on all three sides of the phone book cover, and they don't have > 90% of all the lawyers in the world.

Because they don't have ads for class action lawsuits on TV, they don't have malpractice attorneys' pictures on all three sides of the phone book cover, and they don't have > 90% of all the lawyers in the world. Originally Posted by Gryphon

Do you know this for a fact? Or is this just more conjecture?

I was home sick one day and had the tv on while laying in bed suffering. there were so many ads by lawyers, that I felt I needed to sue someone even though I didn't have cause.

I was home sick one day and had the tv on while laying in bed suffering. there were so many ads by lawyers, that I felt I needed to sue someone even though I didn't have cause. Originally Posted by KCJoe

Why chase ambulances when you can go on TV and convince people to call you?

Do you know this for a fact? Or is this just more conjecture? Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

Let's look at some numbers. Canada, the 14th colony, had its peak in number of medical malpractice suits filed in 1996, when there were 1,415 suits filed. Link: http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth21_e.php
At that time the population of Canada was 28,846,761 (Link: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/englis...population1996), giving a per capita rate of lawsuits of one for every 20,386 people. For the same year the U.S. had 84,741 lawsuits (Link: http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/Na...tice-Facts.cfm) for about 260,000,000 population (exact figures not available because the census is every ten years. Link: http://www.fathersforlife.org/popula...ures_80-96.htm). That gives one malpractice lawsuit filed for every 3,068 population. Therefore the average American is almost seven times as likely to file a malpractice lawsuit as a Canadian. Why is this? I can only conjecture. But being able to sue McDonalds successfully for having spilled coffee on your own lap just might have something to do with it.

But being able to sue McDonalds successfully for having spilled coffee on your own lap just might have something to do with it. Originally Posted by Gryphon

That has absolutely nothing to do with medical malpractice.

Of course not, but it illustrates my point that this is a litigious society. Insane damage awards for self inflicted injuries send the message, "Hey, you could get lucky too." You originally asked my opinion of why there are more lawsuits in the U.S. than elsewhere, then wanted supporting evidence. Since you chose to go after the McDonalds reference, I presume you can't refute my numbers. Oh, and I chose 1996 because Canada had the highest rate of malpractice suits in its history that year; more recent data would be even more lopsided.

Gryphon, I don't think there is any doubt we are a litigious society. If someone "harms" us, anymore people's first instinct is not to "kick their ass", but to sue them. I would rather see a cap on a lawyer's fee than a cap on punitive damages. I think we do need some tort reform, but I wouldn't expect this to lower any costs associated with health care. Why? Past practices. When an American country moves their manufacturing plant overseas to cut costs, do we ever see those savings passed on to the consumer/customer? Why would anyone think it would be different with health care?

What should happen when a doctor amputates the wrong leg? It has happened. So now some person has no legs (after the second surgery amputated the correct leg) and the question is how should that person be compensated?

I know some of you here would just say, "tough shit, you're out of luck," but I GUARANTEE if that happened to them or a loved one, they would be filing a civil suit faster than Usain Bolt running a 100m dash at the Olympics.

The McDonald's case is pretty interesting though. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article about it. Now I am not an attorney, but I would have to assume this lawsuit is not the norm.

Liebeck v. McDonald's

Gryphon, also my point is that most of the industrialized world has universal health care of some form. Governments will protect themselves from litigation as a result. Sort of like the military being protected against lawsuits. The governments of the universal health care countries will provide the malpractice insurance so the laws protect the government/people.

"Sort of like the military being protected against lawsuits"

You do know how they military protects itself, don't you? I think there has been a little wiggle room lately, but when I was there, the response was indeed 'tough luck'. I know someone who had the wrong knee operated on (similar to the amputation example). His only recourse: tough luck.

Lots of people use the military system as a success story, and example of the government doing a good job with health care. I guarantee they do a terrible job - I could rattle off a half dozen personal experiences of very bad care.

I know someone who had the wrong knee operated on (similar to the amputation example). Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Was this a VA hospital?

"What should happen when a doctor amputates the wrong leg? It has happened. So now some person has no legs (after the second surgery amputated the correct leg) and the question is how should that person be compensated?"

No one is saying that there should not be some compensation, tort reform does not eliminate compensation or punitive damages, it only limits the amount of the damage, so you don't end of with 300 million dollar verdicts.

"Was this a VA hospital?"

Probably was, another fine example of government health care in action. Have you ever received service at a governemnt medical center or for that matter a county one like Truman Medical, good luck seeing a doctor without a minimum of a 4 hour wait and then when the doctor shows up for their 3 minutes with you, it will take you 10 minutes to figure out what the hell language they just spoke to you in.

"but I wouldn't expect this to lower any costs associated with health care. Why? Past practices. When an American country moves their manufacturing plant overseas to cut costs, do we ever see those savings passed on to the consumer/customer? Why would anyone think it would be different with health care?"

Which is exactly the fear of many americans should the gorvernment take over the health care system, past experience i.e. Post Office, Medicare, I.R.S., Welfare system, shoot actually it would be easier to name the programs operated by the government that do work well.......... National Park service, hmmmmmm can't think of any others.