Comments on: You Get What You Pay For http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/2009/01/you-get-what-you-pay-for/ A blog from inside the emergency department Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:07:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matt http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/2009/01/you-get-what-you-pay-for/#comment-6564 Matt Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:38:47 +0000 http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/?p=1946#comment-6564 Or are you disagreeing with me that doctors sold tort "reform" during the last "crisis" on the premise that there were physicians "disappearing" from states without it, and rural areas couldn't get specialists without "reform"? Again, do I really need to cite that? Don't you read your own lobbyists and your own insurers press releases and literature? Or are you disagreeing with me that doctors sold tort “reform” during the last “crisis” on the premise that there were physicians “disappearing” from states without it, and rural areas couldn’t get specialists without “reform”? Again, do I really need to cite that? Don’t you read your own lobbyists and your own insurers press releases and literature?

]]> By: Matt http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/2009/01/you-get-what-you-pay-for/#comment-6563 Matt Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:36:15 +0000 http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/?p=1946#comment-6563 Do you need a citation for MICRA in California? Really? I thought that was common knowledge among physicians? What's so nirvanaesque about Texas? Doctor growth that doesn't keep pace with the population growth? Strong insurance company lobbyists who stick it to the elderly and kids? I guess everyone has a different idea of heaven. Whoever said plaintiff's attorneys were altruistic? They get paid to do a job, same as doctors. Why should they lose money on such a case? Particularly $100,000 or more, which is what insurers claim it costs to take a case to trial. It's no cheaper for the other side. You need to read the article more closely. The plaintiff's attorneys don't BELIEVE that, it's the economic reality. And if you're a plaintiff with an injury that is devastating enough that the noneconomic cap might apply, why would you pursue the case if you don't have significant noneconomics? It's a waste of your time since all your economic loss is probably medical bills, which is going right back to your provider! As for cites, can you point me to one plaintiff's attorney saying a physician should provide limitless care to everyone regardless of cost? I'm doubting it, if it's similar to your belief in the necessity of defensive medicine, which is based solely on thin anecdotal evidence. You're the one who is applauding laws making it harder for the weakest members of our society to get access to a courtroom to make their case and if they can, arbitrarily limiting their recovery regardless of the negligence or their injuries so your insurer can save money and MAYBE pass it on to you. Where's the glass house? Do you need a citation for MICRA in California? Really? I thought that was common knowledge among physicians?

What’s so nirvanaesque about Texas? Doctor growth that doesn’t keep pace with the population growth? Strong insurance company lobbyists who stick it to the elderly and kids? I guess everyone has a different idea of heaven.

Whoever said plaintiff’s attorneys were altruistic? They get paid to do a job, same as doctors. Why should they lose money on such a case? Particularly $100,000 or more, which is what insurers claim it costs to take a case to trial. It’s no cheaper for the other side.

You need to read the article more closely. The plaintiff’s attorneys don’t BELIEVE that, it’s the economic reality. And if you’re a plaintiff with an injury that is devastating enough that the noneconomic cap might apply, why would you pursue the case if you don’t have significant noneconomics? It’s a waste of your time since all your economic loss is probably medical bills, which is going right back to your provider!

As for cites, can you point me to one plaintiff’s attorney saying a physician should provide limitless care to everyone regardless of cost? I’m doubting it, if it’s similar to your belief in the necessity of defensive medicine, which is based solely on thin anecdotal evidence.

You’re the one who is applauding laws making it harder for the weakest members of our society to get access to a courtroom to make their case and if they can, arbitrarily limiting their recovery regardless of the negligence or their injuries so your insurer can save money and MAYBE pass it on to you. Where’s the glass house?

]]> By: WhiteCoat http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/2009/01/you-get-what-you-pay-for/#comment-6536 WhiteCoat Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:12:55 +0000 http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/?p=1946#comment-6536 Ahhhh. Another post with inflammatory rhetoric and not one single citation. A judge would laugh at a legal brief of similar qualities. Actually, Texas is more of a modern example of "tort reform nirvana." Now that there are caps and plaintiffs attorneys can't make those 7 figure contingency fees, <a href="http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/research/project/20" rel="nofollow">all the altruistic, justice-oriented plaintiffs attorneys stopped taking cases</a>. According to the cited article, the plaintiff attorneys believe that only the gainfully employed deserve representation. Elderly and "stay at home moms" who are victims of malpractice get the shaft - no one will take their cases. Kind of ironic that plaintiff attorneys expect medical professionals and hospitals to provide limitless care to everyone regardless of costs, but how plaintiff attorneys think it is entirely appropriate to close up shop overnight when megaverdicts dry up, isn't it? Who's there to represent the injured elderly and indigent patients in Texas during their time of need??? The injured patients suddenly aren't worth the attorneys' time any more. Some justice. Don't throw stones when living in a glass house, Matt. Ahhhh. Another post with inflammatory rhetoric and not one single citation. A judge would laugh at a legal brief of similar qualities.
Actually, Texas is more of a modern example of “tort reform nirvana.”
Now that there are caps and plaintiffs attorneys can’t make those 7 figure contingency fees, all the altruistic, justice-oriented plaintiffs attorneys stopped taking cases. According to the cited article, the plaintiff attorneys believe that only the gainfully employed deserve representation. Elderly and “stay at home moms” who are victims of malpractice get the shaft – no one will take their cases.
Kind of ironic that plaintiff attorneys expect medical professionals and hospitals to provide limitless care to everyone regardless of costs, but how plaintiff attorneys think it is entirely appropriate to close up shop overnight when megaverdicts dry up, isn’t it?
Who’s there to represent the injured elderly and indigent patients in Texas during their time of need??? The injured patients suddenly aren’t worth the attorneys’ time any more. Some justice.
Don’t throw stones when living in a glass house, Matt.

]]> By: Matt http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/2009/01/you-get-what-you-pay-for/#comment-6525 Matt Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:33:42 +0000 http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/?p=1946#comment-6525 Wait a minute. Cali is tort reform nirvana with the most draconian reforms in the country. You physicians said that was the key to attracting you and making a state desirable. A place with great "reform" is where you said you were all fleeing to and that place would have all the trauma docs it could handle even out in the sticks! Was that not true? Were those just empty political promises designed to help your insurer while the patient got nothing back? Say it ain't so, doc. Wait a minute. Cali is tort reform nirvana with the most draconian reforms in the country. You physicians said that was the key to attracting you and making a state desirable. A place with great “reform” is where you said you were all fleeing to and that place would have all the trauma docs it could handle even out in the sticks! Was that not true? Were those just empty political promises designed to help your insurer while the patient got nothing back? Say it ain’t so, doc.

]]> By: rlbates http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/2009/01/you-get-what-you-pay-for/#comment-6499 rlbates Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:58:23 +0000 http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/?p=1946#comment-6499 I agree. I think it will only get worse before it ever gets better. I agree. I think it will only get worse before it ever gets better.

]]> By: throckmorton http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/2009/01/you-get-what-you-pay-for/#comment-6498 throckmorton Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:29:55 +0000 http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/?p=1946#comment-6498 This is not just in California. SCHIP has resulted in many parents dropping conventional insurance for the Medicaid reimbursing programs. With the lower revenue and higher costs in the practice of medicine, SCHIP which was hoped to increase access for pediatric care seems to be backfiring. This is not just in California. SCHIP has resulted in many parents dropping conventional insurance for the Medicaid reimbursing programs. With the lower revenue and higher costs in the practice of medicine, SCHIP which was hoped to increase access for pediatric care seems to be backfiring.

]]> By: Pink http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/2009/01/you-get-what-you-pay-for/#comment-6495 Pink Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:47:53 +0000 http://www.epmonthly.com/whitecoat/?p=1946#comment-6495 It's starting here in Galveston too.... http://medheadlines.com/2009/01/22/world-renowned-childrens-burn-hospital-closing-in-galveston/ Just heard on the news that the hospital is definitely closing per the meeting cited in article linked above. It’s starting here in Galveston too….

http://medheadlines.com/2009/01/22/world-renowned-childrens-burn-hospital-closing-in-galveston/

Just heard on the news that the hospital is definitely closing per the meeting cited in article linked above.

]]>