An Attempt at a CIVIL Health Care Discussion

DD, I was asking if it was a VA hospital because if so, I don't believe they are excluded from medical malpractice lawsuits.

What would you think is acceptable if you had your leg mistakenly amputated?

I am not sure, but I bet there is a table which would mathmatically deterime a fair amount. I mean if you hit my car and as a result of the accident I had to have my leg taken off, I am sure there is a figure that has been determined and I am sure its a lot less than 300 million. But I would think 1.5 million would be sufficant. It would provide a lifetime income even though the individual is still capable of working in some capasity. But this is not your typical malpractive case, the typical case involves diagnosis which were either missed or not correct or a mistake or test which should have been administered which weren't. Your case would probably involve suing the hospital because this type of case would be the result of an error which would probably have been made in surgical admissions or by a surgical nurse.

The incorrect knee operation was at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Young guy, not a VA hospital.

But tort reform doesn't have to necessarily mean a cap on the amount you sue for. It could simply be a system that puts the person filing the suit 'at risk' for the same amount of money, if it is determined to be frivolous...would stop alot of the nonsense lawsuits, and let the amputated leg go through.

I was in a car accident once, and my attorney told me that he was not allowed to work on contingency in Kansas...meaning that I had to pay for all the depositions and court costs, whether or not I won...he could not pick up the tab, if I lost. This seems like it would prevent people from trying to hit the lottery with a frivolous lawsuit too...but we have attorneys in Kansas openly advertising that they will file suit at no cost/risk to you...so it is not well enforced. Enforcement of this provision alone would stop alot of the nonsense.

Ever buy a ladder? There are 37 stickers in 12 different languages telling you to not be stupid with the ladder. If tort reform doesn't save us a nickel on health care costs, at least we'll use alot less paper for BS stickers, so I think its a worthwhile goal (which congress will never pursue).

"Gee...I wonder how many of those four companies are on the Top 200 Corporate Republican Donors List? FOUR! And I wonder how many CEOs of those companies are some of the biggest donors in Republican history? LOL"

The list of companies who have now filed a write-down with the SEC is now 300...

WHO HAS THE BALL TO RESPOND TO GIVING OUR MONEY TO OUTSIDE COUNTRIES.

[

I was in a car accident once, and my attorney told me that he was not allowed to work on contingency in Kansas...meaning that I had to pay for all the depositions and court costs, whether or not I won...he could not pick up the tab, if I lost. This seems like it would prevent people from trying to hit the lottery with a frivolous lawsuit too...but we have attorneys in Kansas openly advertising that they will file suit at no cost/risk to you...so it is not well enforced. Enforcement of this provision alone would stop alot of the nonsense.

If your atty told you that then tell him or her to eat a dick & fuck off

"WHO HAS THE BALL TO RESPOND TO GIVING OUR MONEY TO OUTSIDE COUNTRIES"

What the hell does this mean, can someone please translate this LOL.

[If your atty told you that then tell him or her to eat a dick & fuck off Originally Posted by Cheaper2buyit

And this is suppose to change the law how?

WHO HAS THE BALL TO RESPOND TO GIVING OUR MONEY TO OUTSIDE COUNTRIES. Originally Posted by Cheaper2buyit

Does Haiti count? Chile?

There is such a list of what is fair regarding the price of disabling conditions and injuries. The disability insurance companies call it a "meat list". That's the name my manager used to call it anyway. The list provides percentages of disability for various losses of different body parts. Loss of one eye equals a certain percentage of loss and the loss of one foot to the ankle equals a different percentage of loss. Each loss would be a percentage of "total disability" and the person would be eligible for that much in compensation less what already paid. This list was used for Workers Compensation and Disability insurance claims though, not for malpractice suits.
Obviously you were trying to provide an example but a person would have to have a hell of a good lawyer to get $1.5 million for the loss of a leg unless you could absolutely prove that you had no contribution to the accident or other cause of the injury. Legs generally go for much less. You might get $1.5 mill if you were made totally blind though (based on what you had made in the past and your age).

Unless I am mistaken, didn't Missouri under the previous Gov pass substantial tort reform aimed at curbing excessive jury awards against doctors? What effect has that had on medical costs in Mo since? I don't have information on that.

Does Haiti count? Chile? Originally Posted by fritz3552

come on get real we gave haiti more money out of our pockets then tax dollars you know i mean hell we use to give old bin whats his name money now look where at you you well you know what i think

And this is suppose to change the law how? Originally Posted by dirty dog

It means get a real law suit or get a lawyer based out of kc mo who can offer what you need

"It means get a real law suit or get a lawyer based out of kc mo who can offer what you need"

It would not matter where the lawyer was from, Kansas is a no fault state, so state law prohibits the attorny from pursuing litigation.

"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. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Unfortunately, caps on damages don't really have any effect on health care costs. Most malpractice lawsuits aren't for millions of dollars; they're more in the $50,000-$500,000 "nuisance" range. No one argues that a clear case of malpractice like amputating the wrong leg (or amputating the leg from the wrong patient!) should not be compensated, and disciplinary action taken against the doctor who did it. But most cases aren't that clear cut; they generally involve delay in diagnosis ("You should have found this cancer when I had that pneumonia 2 years ago") or an unexpectedly bad outcome to an illness or injury ("It's someone's fault that my husband died after nearly blowing his face off by trying to boil gasoline in the garage.") For tort reform to work, it would have to weed out the nuisance cases before lawyers ever got involved.

From http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfetter...conundrum.html:

Let me get this straight: We’re trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it — but the bill exempts lawmakers from it, to be signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that’s broke.

What could possibly go wrong?