The problem is what do we do about it? You’ve told us caps for decades, and there’s no evidence that works. Yet that remains THE SOLE LEGISLATIVE goal of every one of your proposals. So why are you still yammering on about it? Your solution has been proven over decades not to work!

And you’re right, we don’t need Gerry Spence initially. We need you. But when you’re trying to pay those medical bills, and your mortgage, and for all the things your kid needs, you damn sure do need Gerry when that Mack Truck’s insurer says he wasn’t at fault.

Physicians like to think that life is merely keeping you alive, and everything else is just superflous and unimportant. It ain’t.

Maybe you invest in the hottest company of the decade where you work, the company touted on the front page of every business magazine, and it turns out the books have been cooked and there’s not a dollar left.

Maybe you get hit by a car, and drain your savings on the medical bills and can no longer work.

These things happen, and they happen all the time.

That’s why we need Medicare/Medicaid. The same reason we have insurance for anything else. Yeah, people should buy on their own, but the fact is we won’t let people die in the streets in this country, so we’re going to pick up the tab one way or another. Might as well have them pay for some of that cost.

Your arguments about “avoiding blame” above all else are just as ridiculous as those that Matt make.
ATTENTION PHYSICIANS! For a limited time only, we’re going to allow you work for 10 cents an hour in sordid working conditions but … YOU CAN AVOID BLAME!
Great ad campaign. Pass those around to the hospitals for me, will ya?

Kind of like saying lawyers only have to prove one element of a tort to be successful in court. I have damages, therefore my malpractice claim against my attorney should be successful.

In reality, there are many facets to making the practice of medicine desirable – both in general, and in a specific state. Many doctors would accept less reimbursement or would work in a less desirable area for a decrease in liability risk. Conversely, if you pay doctors double what they’re making now, many would probably accept increased liability risk.

Bottom line is that the more facets of medical practice you make undesirable, the less likely you’ll have medical care available.

Then again, you can always call Gerry Spence when you get a flat driving down the highway and become a hood ornament on a Mack truck. He’ll know how to fix your ruptured spleen and your kid’s subdural hematoma. No problem.

Suggesting defensive medicine is a litigation problem suggest all doctors care about is avoiding blame that results in litigation. I don’t think this is so and Matt is right the statistics in Texas in California don’t bear that out.

” In the same light, clinical pathways which have been developed to help improve both efficiency and patient care have not been accepted in the courts.”

This statement doesn’t make sense. The “courts” don’t accept or reject these on a wholesale basis. Remember, PHYSICIANS establish the standard of care.

The answer to what it appropriate medical care and what is defensive can be established by evidence based studies. These studies allow a definition of what is the standard of care and establish guidelines of how to procede. These guidelines unfortuantely are fought by plaintiffs attorneys because because they decrease the ability to debate what the “standard of care is”. I would have thought that they would have been embraced by the legal community because then there would be a cut and dried point to start in the instance of malpractice but it is not turning out that way. In the same light, clinical pathways which have been developed to help improve both efficiency and patient care have not been accepted in the courts.

In short, there are answers to all these issues, the problem is that attorneys do not want to accept them.