Re: Tort Reform
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Mon Aug 16 07:20:05 2004
Also, no fault auto insurance did NOT result in lower insurance premiums
... a sobering thought.
"The general conclusion from this paper is that the introduction of
no-fault insurance did not lead to any significant reduction in
insurance premiums."
Lilly, C. and Webb, B. (1983). No-Fault: A Review of Its Cost'.
Journal of Insurance Regulation. December 1983, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.
176-203
art
At Sun, 15 Aug 2004, art fougner, md wrote:
>
>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
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
