US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

which is the REAL reason docs circle the wagons on tort reform, btw. not because they are all living in actual fear of getting nailed with a huge payout, but because insurance alone can comprise 40% of their take home pay. obstetricians, for example, can expect to north of 100k/yr to insurance companies, surgeons close to that, ditto ER docs, internists and family docs considerably less, but still more than 30k i'd wager

in MN two of the four prongs of a malpractice suit (duty, breach, cause, damage) are assessed by a panel of third party experts before the case can even be filed (if that's the word), so frivolous lawsuits get filtered out pretty early on, like so many electrolytes thru a glomerulus

and the last two are usually pretty tough to prove, unless it's a horrible surgical gaffe or blown diagnosis. and even the latter gets hard because of comorbidities that ought to be managed by the patient (smoking, diet, EtOH, drug use, etc).

and, like, a neurosurgeon could do an operation on yr brain while he was off his tits and as long as nothing went wrong, it's not malpractice. fun!

Yeah, our malpractice talk last year said something to the effect of like, counting just the legal fees and settlements and all that (although I'm not sure if it also includes the costs of malpractice insurance), malpractice is responsible for about 1% of the total spending on medicine, and even if you approach the costs of defensive medicine using the most inclusive definition of services performed because of legal C'ingYA, it gets maybe up to about 8%. Which is still 8% of a lot of money, no doubt, but it is basically an adjunct issue instead of the solution to the healthcare crisis. I still would like to see the system become more like the Vaccine Fund, but with a loophole to provide for egregiously malicious conduct, though.

i imagine that out-of-court settlements probably drive a lot of the malpractice premiums?!? i don't do med/mal, so i am hardly an expert on that.

no but that is the thing: out of court settlements still only account for a small portion of cases---most docs never have to settle, nor go to court. what i don't know is how much $$$ actually gets paid out in settlements: could be that the settlements are actually larger than the average award won in court. or that all settlements taken together comprise the lion's share of all malpractice insurance payouts.

thing is, going to court is expensive, and i think lots of docs with otherwise fairly strong cases get strong-armed by their insurers into settling, just because it is the most financially expedient choice for everyone.

another thing i don't know: who's paying the lawyers? is the insurance company only responsible for the settlement/damages, or are they footing the bill for the lawyer, too? if they're paying for the lawyer, then i'd wager that they strongly urge anyone without an airtight case to just go ahead and settle---the cost of a $500/hr mal lawyer could quickly outstrip any settlement.

as i said, i don't do med/mal or insurance defense work so what i know is strictly second-hand. but out here (northern NJ/NYC metro area), insurance companies are NOTORIOUSLY stingy w/ outside counsel.

and yes, the insurance company often does pay the bills for any outside counsel (if they don't have in-house attorneys working on settlements and litigation). the doctor is free to choose his own lawyer (as opposed to an attorney selected by the insurance company), but the malpractice carrier may not pick up any portion of that lawyer's bill.

yeah, that sounds right to me.

"Put the CSPAN cameras in the room as the President said. You start with junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Interstate competition among insurance companies. And many of my members would be lookin’ — would — would be willing to look at equalizing the tax code. Right now, if you’re a corporation and you provide insurance — for your employees, you get to deduct it on your corporate tax return. But if you’re an individual on the individual market, you don’t. Step by step to work on the cost problem. That’s what Republicans are willing to do."

insane lols at this--republicans have no desire to deal with obama on any issues--obstruction as a political strategy has worked pretty fantastically well for them so far why would they stop now?

Max: YA RLY. He just has to give them some of the things they said they wanted, without being overly concerned about whether or not Rs actually vote for those things - then there is a treasure trove of credibility with Inds to be had for saying 'they asked for XYZ and we compromised and accepted XY, which they failed to vote for even though it makes them look like partisan pussies who think you the people are too stupid to notice.'

The best part about that SC LtGov story is that when he was backpedaling he said:

There's no way that I was trying to tie animals to people

on malpractice, i read one proposal by a doctor's group to basically nationalize malpractice insurance, like flood insurance. don't have time to go search for the link right now, but it laid out a case for why it would be a lot cheaper, easier to administrate and would lead to fewer drawn-out court fights. sounded sensible, but i haven't researched it or anything.

I think that is like the Vaccine Fund C-L mentioned maybe?

<3 4ever: http://www.hrsa.gov/Vaccinecompensation/

Obviously a medical malpractice version of this would be on a much much much bigger scale, with much much more potential for complications, but as a model it just seems like the easiest thing.

http://www.care2.com/causes/education/blog/no-sex-please-were-just-kids/

obv not that big of a deal in these troubled times but ~lol~

jeez

What will the Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling really change?
By Nathaniel Persily
.......
The future is also uncertain because this will not be the Roberts court's last word on campaign finance. By treating corporations as a mere species of individual associations, the court has cast doubt on campaign finance regulations that treat corporations as posing a special threat. Most notably, the ban on soft money, which prevents corporate and union contributions to political parties and candidates, might be the next restriction to fall. If corporations are like individuals, how can Congress completely ban soft-money contributions from one while letting the other give within limits? The case RNC v. FEC, now working its way up to the court, poses a very similar question. Given the tone of Citizens United, we should expect a bold response.

http://www.slate.com/id/2242558

Pretty good article here.

re: gbx's article, a friend took me on vacation with him and his parents. in the car, his dad driving, we were in back seat of the volvo, about 7th grade or so. some book that i was reading had the word "fellatio" in it. i pointed it out to my friend, who got a puzzled look- "what is that?" he said. i silently mimed it and he broke up laughing and immediately _yelled_ "HEY MA! WHAT'S FELLATIO?!?" i imagine i went white as a sheet, his mom replied, seemingly sincerely "i don't nicky, what is it?" i don't remember his non-response, or anything else, but... my point is you see what happens when youngsters have access to explicit dictionaries?! they could embarrass somebody.

spending freeze, what a crock of shit

i feel like obama is in full-on "the thick of it" desperate headline-grabbing bullshit mode

"we need to announce a policy"

"like what?"

"i don't fucking know"

This does have the whiff of 'young substitute teacher loses control of class full of meatheads'.

yeah feeling frustrated because one the whole reasons i supported the guy is cause i thought he was immune to this kind of bullshit

btw morbs i can already guess your response to that post so u really dont have to bother

"we need to announce a policy"

"like what?"

"i don't fucking know"

lol'd @ this

btw morbs i can already guess your response to that post so u really dont have to bother

this tho is bullshit, if you have been wrong about stuff you've been claiming on behalf of the admin then you should say "my bad" not "preemptively, fuck you"

i kind of read that more as a "my bad" post vs. a "fuck u" post

yeah feeling frustrated because one the whole reasons i supported the guy is cause i thought he was immune to this kind of bullshit

― max, Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:57 AM (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^ talking about morbs's response to this post which is 99% guaranteed to be on some high horse youre-so-naive shit

I know max but be fair! you did think he was immune to this kind of bullshit - morbs takes a lot of fucking heat for saying shit like "if you think obama is immune to this kinda bullshit you're being naive about politics & politicians" - fair enuf he's a dick about it sometimes but if you tell me metallica sucks and I say no they're just a little lost right now and on their next album they're gonna prove to the world that they actually still rule, and then they release st anger AND THEN fucking death magnetic, well, at that point you're within your rights to say "dude. you were wrong about metallica and I was right. they suck now. admit that they suck and aren't going to get any better, barring a miracle"

Well no, the "aren't going to get any better" part is not set in stone.

metallica will never make a decent record again

hangin my hat on that one

dammit now I have to like the next Metallica album just to spite you

lol @ you having to like that horrible still-theoretical record

The Album That Should Not Be

I don't think I've actually heard an entire Metallica album since Master of Puppets.

Metallica were probably mad that Palin beat them to "Death Panel."

Seriously, we need you ALL, not just Morbs, to address the very real threat of Liverpool FC fans

;_;

there's always victims, gbx- always

"btw morbs i can already guess your response to that post so u really dont have to bother"

max, I'm *really* sorry you weren't right. I remember how I felt when I realized Tip O'Neill and Jimmy Carter were bullshitters.

Badmouthing Tip O'Neill? THAT'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR MY FRIEND

PISTOLS AT DAWN

lol Tip O'Neill.

:-(

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/10344/FE_PR_090401pastpresent_reagantip.jpg

O'neill: one of the kickbacks of my job is Mad Professor sends me as many new pedals as I can fit into the signal chain. shit is like Pat Metheny on 'ludes in my basement man
Reagan: lol

also, just accept whatever rationalization Matt Armstrong comes up with for this and you'll be fine til the next betrayal. (I believe it's Nader's fault)

I'm still just barely holding out hope that something meaningful will get done regarding climate change. Are my hopes perhaps too audacious?

There'll be a climate change come November.