Re: Tort Reform
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Mon Aug 16 09:41:14 2004
we have no fault in NY - land of HIGH premiums and many lawyers. wonder
if that's the connection?
art
At Mon, 16 Aug 2004, David Priver, MD wrote:
>
>It's important to remember that the concept of no-fault is extremely
>threatening to many powerful industries, such as the entire court and
>legal system as well as the insurance industry, so they are bound to be
>issuing misleading statement about premiums, etc. If you want to know
>how no fault actually works, check on the results in Michigan where no
>fault auto insurance has been in effect for years. The premiums are
>indeed lower and there are far less cases which go to court.
>
>At Mon, 16 Aug 2004, art fougner, md wrote:
>>
>>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
>>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
|
|
