Re: Tort Reform
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Sun Aug 15 07:36:05 2004
I can also say that no-fault auto insurance has NOT elimated lawsuits...
just modified the ground rules.
art
At Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Larry Glazerman wrote:
>
>Joe:
>
>I'm not a lawyer, but your explanation of the tort system is right on. I
>think this illustrates a point I have tried to make for some time:
>
>I believe that we have two goals:
>
>1. Quality assurance in health care
>2. Compensation of injured parties in an appropriate fashion.
>
>I would suggest that the tort system accomplishes neither of these goals.
>Bad doctors are NOT removed from the system (primarily because of the fear
>of lawsuits), and injured parties are NOT compensated appropriately. Too
>much of the compensation goes to the lawyers, experts, etc. I truly believe
>that some sort of no-fault compensation system would do a better job of
>achieving these two goals.
>
>--
>Larry R. Glazerman, MD
>Ob-Gyn at Trexlertown, PC
>610-402-0161
>l.glazerman@rcn.com
>
> _____
>
>From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
>DoctorJoe@aol.com
>Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:05 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>Subject: Re: Tort Reform
>
>In a message dated 8/14/04 15:51:35, dpriver@aol.com writes:
>
>It is interesting, isn't it, that a permanently damaged newborn is only
>able to be compensated if fault can be found in the care provided. From
>a morality perspective, why shouldn't a baby damaged in the absence of
>fault be equally entitled to be compensated?
>
>You're missing a connection here about what the law of torts says.
>
>If I'm walking down the street and trip over my own fat feet and break my
>arm, I have to deal with it myself (insurance, out of pocket, whatever). If
>I'm walking down the street and YOU break my arm, I can make a claim against
>YOU to pay for it. In fact, if my insurance company pays for it, THE
>INSURANCE COMPANY can sue YOU to get their money back. The point is, if you
>do something that's YOUR FAULT, you are responsible for it.
>
>If you have a damaged baby through the fault of nobody in particular ("act
>of God"?), then you use your insurance, out of pocket, and any public funds
>available (Medicaid, Medicare, SSDI, whatever) to deal with it. However, if
>it's the DOCTOR'S fault, then HE pays, or at least you try to make him pay.
>And the same thing applies here - if your insurance company pays for the
>baby, then they can sue the doctor to recover their payments.
>
>So, you're not happy that lawsuits recover MORE than you think the baby
>deserves? What about parents (and relatives and insurance companies and the
>government) who put out loads of money and their own effort for years and
>years? That adds up to lots of moola, not counting all their own time they
>put in (even at minimum wage, it'll add up over 20-30-40 years). I think you
>have to do a pretty detailed accounting to see if what you think is really
>what is.
>
>Joe P.
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
|
|
