Malpractice premiums are out of control because our legal system is haywire, Dubya says. But is that the case? Frankly, all of the data I've seen up to date has indicated otherwise.

To decide this issue, I would like to see these questions answered (please back with unbiased authority) based on the past 10 years:

By how much has the mean malpractice insurance premium increased?

By how much have mean health care expendatures increased?

By how much have mean doctors' salaries increased?

By how much have mean lawsuit settlements/pay outs increased?

I think if we have answers to these questions, we can decide whether lawsuits are the real issue or not.

I've heard some evidence on the radio that in states that have enacted limits on recoveries for medical malpractice, the malpractice premiums have not dropped significantly, if at all. Which seems pretty counterintuitive to me.

Texas is one of those states, and I can confirm that the malpractice insurance rates have not changed from what I heard last. The limit was put in place about a year ago. You have to realize though, that one of the reasons why insurance goes up is because insurance companies are having to spend bookoos of bux when someone hits the jackpot on malpractice lawsuits. By making a limit on the jackpot, you will naturally make insuring more profitable. This, in turn, will alleviate the needs for making rates as high.

Medical malpractice suits should not be about hitting the lottery. It's a good law, and one that I voted for. Capitalism should dictate which direction rates will go next. We'll compare malpractice insurance rates in states that have made a limit on these lawsuits and compare it to the insurance rates in the states that didn't and see how it looks in a few years. It won't be long before we see a difference.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Medical malpractice suits should not be about hitting the lottery.

Exactly! I think punative damages should go somewhere other than to the plaintiff. After all, they're meant to punish the defendant, not compensate the plaintiff. Maybe punative damages to go straight to paying off the national debt. Anyway, if the plaintiff isn't getting the money, juries would be less inclined to hand out the massive payoffs, I think.

The problem is lawyers. People sue, lawyers cost too damn much, so the insurance companies settle. In order to pay for the settlements that might happen, the insurance companies have to raise the price. I think a salary cap on lawyers might help considerably. Then again, it would never pass.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
The problem is lawyers. People sue, lawyers cost too damn much, so the insurance companies settle. In order to pay for the settlements that might happen, the insurance companies have to raise the price. I think a salary cap on lawyers might help considerably. Then again, it would never pass.

There wouldn't be so many lawyers if there weren't so many people interesting in hiring them. Please don't restrict my salary - my vet bills are astronomical.

It's less on the insurance company's side than it is on the plaintiff's. On one side, you have very good and expensive lawyers, so you only use em for really big jobs. On the other side you have the lawyers who "don't get paid unless you collect money." Something needs to be done. Either restrict the insurance lawyers or restrict the personal lawyers, or both. I guess the other option would be to make sure each case is tried. But that would be so time consuming. On the other hand, many of the less legit claims would be thrown out.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
There wouldn't be so many lawyers if there weren't so many people interesting in hiring them.


GOOD POINT.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
It's less on the insurance company's side than it is on the plaintiff's. On one side, you have very good and expensive lawyers, so you only use em for really big jobs. On the other side you have the lawyers who "don't get paid unless you collect money." Something needs to be done. Either restrict the insurance lawyers or restrict the personal lawyers, or both. I guess the other option would be to make sure each case is tried. But that would be so time consuming. On the other hand, many of the less legit claims would be thrown out.

I think we should go to a "loser pays" system and be done with it.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
The problem is lawyers. People sue, lawyers cost too damn much, so the insurance companies settle. In order to pay for the settlements that might happen, the insurance companies have to raise the price. I think a salary cap on lawyers might help considerably. Then again, it would never pass.

Uh huh, and there should be a character cap on how much ignorant people are allowed to type on public forums.

Originally posted by Leper
Uh huh, and there should be a character cap on how much ignorant people are allowed to type on public forums.
You're just finding-that-out....here....huh?

Insurance-rates have nothing to do with litigation-efforts. As usual.....as during the '80s, anyhow......insurance-companies are expecting the public to subsidize their investment screw-ups!!!!! (http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0730-03.htm) Much like the DEA's entitlement to job-security, insurance-companies feel they've got some Divine-Right to consistant, uninterrupted profits.

After all.......when gouging isn't gettin' the job done, just get your boy-in-the-Oval-Office to provide a few subsidies.....compliments of U.S. tax-payers!! (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Nightline/Politics/medicare_040325-1.html)

"The bill passed the House and Senate and was signed into law on Dec. 8. "Our government is finally bringing prescription drug coverage to the seniors of America," Bush said at the bill signing.

Bush and Republican leaders said the new law would cost $400 billion, providing drug benefits to seniors beginning in 2006, as well as subsidies to insurance companies and HMOs. It would also allow the first steps to allow private plans to compete with Medicare.

Certainly at the time the president never anticipated headlines like these, from recent newspapers in swing states Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania: "The Medicare fiasco; President's political dream scheme is becoming a nightmare," wrote the Sarasota Herald-Tribune; "Bush's Medicare dream turning into a nightmare," wrote the Detroit Free Press; "Medicare law has become stumbling block for Bush," wrote the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Bjorklund said Foster told her that Medicare Adminstrator Thomas Scully — a Bush political appointee — had called him into his office and told him he couldn't give cost estimates to Congress anymore without Scully's prior appoval.

Why Foster's calculations may have been witheld soon seemed clear. A few weeks after the Medicare bill was signed into law, the bill's estimated cost began to rise. The Bush administration began publicly it would cost $534 billion for the next 10 years — about $140 billion more than it had told Congress it would cost."

Originally posted by Karankawa
Texas is one of those states, and I can confirm that the malpractice insurance rates have not changed from what I heard last. The limit was put in place about a year ago.

........And, if that doesn't work, you can always rely on federal-subsides to get you by!!!!!! (http://www.consumersunion.org/other/sesstx699.htm)

"SB 445 (Moncrief/Gray) One of the most significant victories of the session for Texans, considering that 10% of U.S. uninsured kids live in Texas (1.4 million uninsured children). Funded by proceeds from the tobacco settlement, working families earning less that two times the poverty level ($33,400 for a family of 4) will be able to get health care coverage for their children ages 0-19 through the Children's Health Insurance Program. The federal government will match every 26 cents of state funds put into this program with 74 cents of federal funds. Gov. Bush signed the bill, which requires the Health and Human Services Commissioner to implement the program by September 1, 2000."

Medical malpractice suits are merely one component of rising insurance costs. Costs of medical care is another component. Costs have been rising at near double digit rates for nearly 10 years now. They will continue to rise given the demographics of the nation and advances in medical science, and the publics demand for premium health care.
As to the notion that bad investment decisions were made the article offers no evidence to support that idea.

We need to limit the amount that malpractice suits can be. All these lawyers that are fat with cash are the problem.

How many people do we all know that ever sued a doctor? As much as I'd like to blame lawyers and malpractice insurance, I don't think that's it.

Do people with insurance actually shop price anymore? Now doctors can charge what they want because we don't have to care about the costs any longer.

Is anyone old enough to remember when the doctor or dentist lived on your block and hung a shingle out front. If malpractice insurance is making them go broke, how come they don't live in middle class neighborhoods anymore.

(this is based on no prior knowledge, research or solid information and is probably irrelevant)

I see that John Ritter's family is suing the hospital that treated him before his death. Something about treating him for a heart attack when he had a ruptured artery.

Personally I think more auto mechanics should be sued for malpractice than doctors!