Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
We're Number 37
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4
Awesome vidoe addition to the Health Care debate |
Anonymous
| Look out Cyprus, we're gunning for ya. |
Anonymous
| We are #1 for malpractice suits!! hmmmm |
Anonymous
You know whythat is? Lots of people don't want to sue their doctors, but they have children with very expensive, lifelong medical conditions, and no way to care for them. If there were more of a sfatey net for children born with disabilities (like the ones people sue OBs for, wvwn when it might not really have been their fault) then there wouldn't be a need for so many lawsuits. |
Anonymous
It's true. But it's not the size of the damages awards, which are about the same in Britain. It's that we suck so much more that more patients sue. Hmmmm... |
Anonymous
The AVERAGE settlement is the same. The NUMBER of settlements are much much higher here. BTW, American doctors are some of the best in the world. We would have fewer suits if patients had to ante up the legal costs like they do in Europe. And if the patient loses the case, he would have to pay the legal costs of the doctor. That would make you think long and hard before going ahead with something like a lawsuit. |
Anonymous
Agree. I do wish that after the settlement, the blaming stopped. I would sue my OB if I had a child to take care of with high medical bills. Even if I KNEW that it was not the OBs fault. I would just not want the whole family to be out on the street b/c of a child with special needs. But I sure as hell would not be running around convincing people, or worse myself, that it was the doctors fault. I would at some point have to admit to myself that life happens. Obama's plan has nothing to do with "free" long term care for special needs kids. |
Anonymous
No, and no one said it did. But one of the reasons we have so many malpractice suits, especially for OBs, is because most people's insurance won't cover the enourmously high cost of caring for kids who have a life time of care ahead of them. Making it harder for parents of kids like that to sue might stop the excessive suing, but WON'T address the underlying issue, and WON'T help those kids, and families, get the care they need. |
Anonymous
|
Visited some friends in the UK with a profoundly disabled son and they told us they had received government funding to build a lift to carry him from his bedroom to the bathroom. The catch? They had to promise not to put him in an institution for at least 5 years. It was cheaper for the government to help them keep him at home than to pay for him to be in an institution.
I have no idea whether any of this figures into the health care reform plan but I find the logic behind it compelling. |
Anonymous
|
I think we at 37 because American Dr's go into medicine for status and $$$. I think Insurance and Drug Companies are pigs.
Americans are greedy. However, I still want to know why drs don't respect mental illness, especially in their own families?? |
Anonymous
What is the underlying issue? |
Anonymous
Envy of MDs a bit? |
Anonymous
I thought I detected more resentment than envy. Either way, questioning the motive sidesteps the issues raised by the first poster. |
Anonymous
|
Nicholas Kristof has an editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13kristof.html) in today's Times that movingly personalizes the problem of those uncovered by insurance. Does it change anyone's views?
At least, you have to admit that his last-ditch solution (go to jail) is available to more people that joining the army. |
Anonymous
Or perhaps dealt with prejudice from the medical community. Or perhaps knows some MDs who clearly have mental health issues and do nothing about it. |