Medical Malpractice Lies

(NOTE: While I published this post on Friday evening, I thought it was important enough to move back on top for a while since the issue is critical and the discussion has been great. Mark)

I previously wrote this as a comment to one of our resident right-wingers, JB, two posts down, but thought I'd mention it as a stand-alone post (one of the perks of owning this website) about the fraudulent Republican argument that medical malpractice caps will be the panacea for the rising health care costs or the rest of their many bogus or misleading arguments on the subject.

I find it rather amusing that the same crusaders against abortion rights are more than happy to protect the abortion doctors who botch an abortion on a young girl, injuring her, and sterilizing her for life. Yep folks, that's right. To those who are injured and may not have "economic damages" but are injured for the remainder of their life and cannot have children, well, the most you can get awarded in damages is less than what the typical OB-GYN makes in a year, if the Republicans get their way and continue to lie to the public.

I'm pretty sure that the Democrats don't want to help out the bad abortion doctor butchers, but JB and his friends do.

Also, I find it offensive that while Senate President David Williams is spreading this lie in pushing a cap on damages that a jury can award, his unqualified judge/wife, the Honorable Robyn Williams, was pursuing a medical malpractice case for a 10-year old laser surgery that didn't keep her from getting through college, law school, having 3 kids, and becoming a judge (albeit an unqualified one since she was just another political crony), but happily asked for $1,470,000 in pain and suffering and another $500,000 in "permanent impairment of earning capacity." Yep, $1,970,000 for an injury that seems about as frivolous as anything the Republicans peddle these days.

And don't forget all those plaintiff cases that then private attorney and now Lt. Governor Pence peddled between stints in the U.S. Attorney's office.

Take your trash arguments elsewhere. They'll be ripped up here...

Comments

I think JB is preparing his "But...but...but Clinton got a blowjob!" response right now.

Yep, when all else fails, blame Clinton.

I love this site!!!!! Thank you for speaking the truth on this issue. The Ds in Frankfort don't have a clue how to articulate what you just did in those few paragraphs above!

[James]

What an awesome argument. I'd never heard it put that way before. That makes me mad.

[Daniel]

Thanks for spreading the word.

This is depressing, but so is the news I got tonight.

Dan Kelly is already very busy enlisting support and asking for commitments to support him in the next electoral season, having already contacted some very prominent people (many of whom are life long democrats) to meet with him soon at certain community gatherings.

Lots of people who give their word early will not want to go back on their word of support---some won't go back on their word even if a better candidate comes out later...they will stand by their word.

Very smart politics from a totally self-absorbed, two-faced and condescending legislator.

Don't ever be the front girl who answers the phone when he calls your office. He will be a total a-hole to you, expecting you to clear your boss' schedule because the great Dan Kelly is rolling into town and he is so important!!!

[JB]

Thats it Markos, we tort reformers are also closet partial-birth abortion activists. That argument will sell well at the polls.

Also, in your little hypothetical, the person negligenctly injured by the doctor will still get up to $250,000 in punitive damages + any economic damages under any Republican bill, a small fact you neglect to mention.

By the way, I dont know the details about Robyn William's lawsuit, but it sounds pretty excessive to me.

Hey, JB, if that doctor cuts off the wrong leg, arm, kidney, lung, breast, testicle, whatever from you, will you be happy with $250,000?

Dan Kelly was my husband's attorney.

My husband was a wife beater. He tied me to my bed and raped me with a coke bottle when I was seven months pregnant.

I will never forget the injustice Dan Kelly helped perpetrate on me and my child during that time. He knew the guy was a sicko. It obviously didn't matter to him; my ex paid him, so he performed. I was told that he'd actually talked about how sick my ex was to at least one person in the community (who relayed that to me).

He doesn't have a conscience.

It seems not many people know this side of Mr. Kelly.

He is great at flattering certain people he spies that could possibly help him politically, and he acts accordingly. The hair people come to mind (beauty school people). He has them totally snowed. But they are just the tip of the iceburg.

Maybe some of this will come out if he does have opposition.

I hope he does.

And 'tort reform' is such a deliberately deceitful and poll-tested term. The only 'reform' you are trying to do is to take away constitutional rights of the people and all in the name of the big insurance and corporate America.

The abortion doc example is a good one. We need shove these examples where the sun don't shine.

Wait - where is the argument? Calling Republicans liars and stating that their arguments in favor of tort reform are "bogus" isn't exactly persuasive. Neither is a convoluted hypothetical somehow tying abortion doctors and medical malpractice. Neither are personal attacks and name calling.

This is a serious and complex issue - so why not have a serious discussion? If you disagree with a position - then offer evidence why the position is incorrect. Simply calling the argument "bogus" and letting it stand at that is not good enough.

So if we are going to talk about tort reform and health insurance - lets talk about it.

So which is it, Mark? No limits on med mal cases? Or cap cases like that of David Williams' wife, which you mock, but which she might easily win before a jury? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

The truth is, we all have come to expect health care as a right, but we can pay $150 and sue doctors and hospitals for a bad outcome from a judgment call that wasn't negligent. It's easy to find an expert witness to say the moon is made of green cheese, for $300-500 per hour, to support your claim. So you get to a jury, and who knows what will happen then.

Plaintiff's lawyers say you can't impose a system to oversee med mal, when there's one for workplace injuries, called Workers' Comp. Why the difference?

Get off your high horse and your bias in favor of the plaintiff's bar, which coincidentally pours huge money into the Democratic Party.

I'm an ardent Democrat who sees real problems with the tort system. The plaintiff's bar is hell-bent on killing their golden goose with their arrogance and greed. It can't continue indefinitely. It also plays into the Repubs' hands.

Let's be real. Republicans don't want a real discussion about limiting our constitutional rights. It is about two things: protecting its corporate friends and interests and trying to de-fund traditional Democratic support. That's all it is. Caps have proven ineffective at best and there is certainly no hard evidence justifying taking away constitutional rights. Besides, why carve out an exception to just help doctors. Why not limit damages for abuse of power by police. You can use the same argument taht the threat of a lawsuit causes them to practice 'defensive' law enforcement and thus hurt them in doing real crime fighting. The truth is that the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits are brought by business against business, but since there's no political advantage for Republcians to step in there, they just ignore it. But imagine the burden on small businesses being picked-on by the cadres of lawyers from the white shoe firms hired by a Fortune 100 company. Why not carve out an exceptionf or them.

It's about time someone swung back against these fraudulent arguments and flat-out lies.

I don't hear Republicans complain about greedy plaintiff's lawyers when the lawyer is Steve Pence or David Williams. Apparently, it's okay if the greed comes from one of their own. In fact, it's standard operating practice since these guys are predators in most other ways.

You don't solve any crisis by taking away constitutional rights. You tried to erode our constitutional criminal rights with the Patriot Act. And now you come after our constitutional civil rights with your fraudulent tort reform scheme.

That is an awful and disturbing post regarding kelly's representation of a malicious person... You all need to pause and think how twisted that is...

Why the hell would you not say to that creep; 'tough man you need to find a public defender,' or something??...

The mention of Dan Kelly struck a chord with me.

I was in the courthouse doing some reseaarch several years ago. I did not know Dan Kelly from Adam.

I was trying to find a certain volume of records in the clerk's office when this guy (whom I later leared was Dan Kelly) stood there and gave me "a look".

The look he gave me said I was in his way.

Since then, I've made it my business to learn who he is, and I've made sure I'm "in his way" at every election. From now on I will always vote against him.

I just never have had anyone affect me that way. He was so 'holier than thou'!

Sorry to hear he's reaching out his tentacles for reelection. He doesn't deserve it, that's for sure.

And I venture to say that the ONLY time he cares what the common people think is when there is about to be an election.

I hope someone runs against him.

From my impression, he is for whatever furthers his own interests....no time at all for what is right.

I hope he has opposition, but God help them.

Speaking of Steve Pence and doctors, he defended one in a criminal case in Louisville a few years ago. The doctor's name was James W. Green. He let his unlicensed assistant do surgery on patients; the patients didn't know what was going on and many of the surgeries went badly. Pence defended Dr. Green in his criminal case.

He also defended someone who ended up convicted of attempting to obtain controlled substances by fraud or deceit; now he is leading Kentucky's war on drugs.

Those are just state court cases. Check out who he represented on federal criminal charges.

Republicans attacked Ernesto Scorsone in his campaigns over who he defended in court as an attorney. If Republicans think that's fair game politically then they should be ready to talk about Mr. Pence's former clients.

Since there are public records on all of his court cases, it is easy research to do for anyone who is interested.

I'll tell you why I believe Kelly didn't turn down that client...$$$

Kelly doesn't have a big law practice, but he does apparently do quite a bit of defense work.

Our constitutional rights as it relates to civil trials is not some fly-by-night creation. Check out the actual language of this right:

"The General Assembly shall have no power to limit the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to person or property."

I hope you see that the framers had such little regard for the legislators touching this issue that they were granted NO POWER in this context.

I'll ask again to anyone on this blog: If a doctor cuts off/removes the wrong leg, arm, lung, kidney, breast, testicle from you, will you be okay with a settlement of $250,000?

$250,000 in pain and suffering for a lifetime of being a paraplegic or quadriplegic or infertile or brain damaged for life or losing your spouse or child because some doctor was drunk or high or incompetent or careless or clumsy - that's how much Republicans truly value life and family and personal responsibility, despite all their talk. They hate the idea of some surgeon or anesthesiologist who makes $500,000 a year or more having to buy insurance to protect people in case he shows up drunk or high or is lazy or careless or incompetent.

If the medical profession would be more responsible about keeping alcoholics, drug users, and people who get old or lazy out of the business, a huge part of their insurance concerns would evaporate overnight. 90%-95% of doctors do not harm people in a way in which they would bear liability under the law. If they didn't coddle the weakest 5% of the herd their risk premiums would plummet.

Doctors and lawyers both go way too far out of their way to keep alcoholics and drug users practicing, and the public often gets hurt as a result, and both professions lose respect as a result, and both pay higher malpractice premiums because of it. Unfortunately, the public doesn't raise hell over it, and the lawyers and doctors who have to financially help bear some of the cost don't either.

I have a real problem excepting any group from the common sense malpractice laws we have.

If a doctor cuts off the wrong leg, he should be liable.

Frivolous lawsuits go nowhere, and attorneys who accept a frivolous lawsuit bears the brunt of the costs.

The system weeds out the frivolity from the serious. People are just misled from the stories on such things as the McDonald's Coffee case. If people were familiar with what really happened there, they would be up in arms.

It's all about sound bites.

It's never about principle anymore when a R makes an argument. It's instead about what plays well to the electorate and how to keep power they so greedily covet.

The fire and brimstone crusading Rs-both state and fed-have become fare worse sell outs than the Ds they crusaded against 11 years ago.

From Delay, to Bush, to Rove, to Cheney and Halliburton, to Frist, to Fletcher, to D. Williams, to Brock, to McCarthy, to Kelley, and most especially to McConnell, all are profligate sell-outs.

R's are a ghost of the party they presented to the public with the Contract for
America. Can we sue for breach?

Transfer of dollars from the "haves" to the "have nots" seldom happens in a state court and less in a federal court. Power and corruption make the plaintiff's lawyer z marginal player in this democracy. The people don't understand this. It's hopeless in my view without a Press that understands the issue. Mark gets it, as well as readers here. It's the press and not the plaintiff's lawyers that have credibility on this issue. Don't send them out to fight this battle..they've been depreciated and are ineffective.

Meanwhile, wealth is transfered only by inheritance. That's why we have the permanent underclass in Kentucky. The State won't cough up enough for education; why do you think these greedheads would give us money for anything other than a random lottery payout now and then?

The statistics and jury data are easy to track these days. The only check on Corporate greed is the court system. Regulations are worthless under Bush. Not much hope on this front. The Justices are greedhead puppets and the academics appear impotent protecting a "chair or two". Not much hope for now, unless some risk takers with all the skill sets, step up to take the abuse it will take to change the system.

[Chris]

The argument that lawsuits are linked to medical malpratice insurance rates has been proven to be false time and time again. Just look at the states with caps. The insurance rates do not go down!

Below is Sen. Obama's solution to correcting the real problem, medical errors.

Upgrading health-care technology would save many lives, much money
(Reprinted from the Chicago Daily Herald)

Over the last few decades, tremendous advances in science and technology have led us to a moment of unparalleled promise in health and medicine. Today, cures and treatments that were once barely imagined are now imminently possible.

And yet, while some of the biggest potential breakthroughs continue to lie just around the corner, our ability to solve one of our biggest medical challenges still seems far away. Today, the greatest single threat to the health of our nation is not a scarcity of genius or a failure of discovery; it is our inability, after years of talk and gridlock, to finally do something about the crushing cost of health care.

A new study tells us that the United States spends more on health care per person than any country in the world - and yet we're not getting more health care for all that extra money. Forty-five million Americans are uninsured, and health-care costs are increasing at almost double-digit rates. And millions of Americans are suffering from diseases such as diabetes or AIDS that could have been prevented or delayed with the proper care.

These health care issues are as complex as are the solutions. But one way we can start cutting costs is by bringing the health-care system into the 21st century. In our lifetimes, we've seen some of the greatest advances in the history of technology and the sharing of information. Yet, in our health-care system, too much care is still provided with pen and paper. Too much information about patients isn't shared between doctors or readily available to them in the first place.

Mistakes are easily made - medical errors alone kill up to 98,000 people a year, more people than the number who die from AIDS each year.

But embracing 21st century technology is not just about reducing errors and improving the quality of medical care. It's also about cost.

We spend nearly $1.5 trillion a year on health care in America. But one out of every four dollars is spent on non-medical costs, like bills and paperwork. Bank transactions now cost them less than a penny. Yet, because we haven't updated technology, health-care transactions still cost up to twenty-five dollars.

That's why I'm pleased to join Republican and Democratic senators in introducing the Wired for Health Care Quality Act of 2005.

This legislation will help bring down costs, improve quality, and bring the health-care system into the 21st century. It establishes a National Coordinator for Information Technology to help promote the use of health technology all across the nation. It would make sure that no matter where a patient is treated, information can be shared by doctors to make sure the right care is given. It provides support and funding to help hospitals buy and put these IT systems into place. Finally, it makes sure that doctors are using these systems to actively measure, monitor and improve the quality of care Americans receive.

It is estimated we would save $140 billion per year from this use of technology in our health-care system, a savings that could be passed along to families to cut the cost of an insurance policy by more than $700.

But this will not only cut costs, it could save thousands of lives. Just imagine if every doctor could sit by a patient's bedside with a laptop and pull up their entire medical history with the click of a mouse.

We know all of this is possible - so what are we waiting for? It's time for this country to start taking on the big challenges again - and it doesn't get bigger than ensuring that every American finally has access to health care they can afford. It won't be easy or come quickly, but taking steps to bring our health-care system into the 21st century is a great place to start.

RE the 'Judge' Williams' surgery -- if memory serves me right, and there was a Lex H-L story about it, she was the one who insisted on having a 2nd "enhancement" surgery too soon after the basic lasik surgery, and that's why there was scarring? The doctor who did her surgery was the first in the state to do lasik, has literally hundreds (thousands?) of satisfied customers, and has taught at UK most of the other lasik doctors in Kentucky how to do the procedures. Her lawsuit, IMO, is bogus because it was her own decision to proceed against doctor's advice. Since the injury has not slowed her lifestyle in any way, the amount sought seems extraordinarily high. Maybe she and David are counting on the local jury to hand them the money, i.e. all politics are local.

Medical malpractice only touches the very tip of the iceberg of injured patients. Ask any plaintiff's attorney how many cases he/she turn down every month. One lawyer told me they take one case out of every 65 that call them. For every one that goes to court, scores of cases go nowhere.

The insurance companies are scamming the doctors to pay for their bad money management and lousy investments. The docs have set themselves up as infallible gods. When they fail badly and do get sued, juries punish them for their arrogance. The general public fails to take responsibility for our own health - obesity, smoking, sedentary life style, then we bitch because the doc can't restore us to our 25 year old bodies. Everybody has a piece of the action in this problem.

Dr. Dan Mongiardo's legislation on admitting mistakes made a great deal of sense to me. Often, patients just want honesty from their doctors. We patients know not everything can be cured and that doctors are human beings. (even if doctors don't know these things).

Malpractice legislation is like tax reform. Someone pays - and it is seldom those who can afford the bill who get tagged. We need real health care reform without the blathering about "socialized medicine". It is shameful that the US pays the most and ranks about 17th of industrialized nations for health care.

Don't forget. The defendant's lawyer ALWAYS gets paid. The plaintiff's attorney pays for the experts (who are not that easy or cheap to find) and for the depositions and takes the risk of losing all that with a bad jury verdict.

You make a good point about people failing to take responsibility for their own health. This is the real crux of the health care problem. We can't simply cut off those who cannot afford health care, even if they have chosen to live an unhealthy lifestyle. At the same time, those receiving free health care through various governmental programs should have an incentive to quit smoking, exercise, eat properly, etc (other than the incentive of living longer, which many people seem to ignore). While tort reform may or may not alter health care costs in the short term, we should be looking long term at improving the overall health of our citizens.

Mississippi recently passed medical tort reform. As a result, premiums for doctors are decreasing in 2006. And more insurance companies are now in the state.

Mark, instead of accusing tort reformers of being abortion advocates, what say you about this:

"One year later, the story is very different. Mass Mutual Insurance Group, St. Paul Travelers, World Insurance Co. and Equitable Life Insurance Co. are returning to Mississippi. State Farm Insurance eased its growth restrictions for homeowners' insurance and lowered its rates on property insurance.

The Medical Assurance Company of Mississippi, which writes 60% of the medical malpractice coverage for doctors in the state, had raised its rates 20% the year prior to the tort reform legislation. After its passage, MACM did not raise its rates at all. "Those people who said tort reform would not work and actively fought any civil justice reform," Mississippi Insurance Commissioner George Dale said. "I think this indicates they were wrong." MACM also recently announced an end to its moratorium on new business; it also just declared it will cut its rates for 2006."

Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110007260

How about actually addressing the points in the article? Because your little pasted thing from some website didn't answer any of Mark's points at all. Just throw out a red herring issue, and hope somebody will chase it, right?

[clay]

All bad economics hinges on confusing aorrelation and causation. Just because something occurs simultaneously with another activity or phenomenon doesn't mean it causes it. For example, do rooster's crowing cause the sun to come up? They correlate. Same with health insurance premiums and medical malpractice lawsuits. They correlate but have no causative relationship that can be seriously called substantive.

[The Blues Man]

Well, let's see. You use an extreme abortion doctor example of why it is "amusing" that Republicans favor caps, then generalize that since that is wrong, all cases of caps on medical malpractice is wrong. Then you resort to ad hominem attacks on Judge Williams and Lt. Governor Pence. In short, you have not countered the Republican position at all, and instead have exposed yourself as a very shallow man. So folks, here is bluegrassreport.org the place where "trash arguments" will be ripped up, (but not really ripped up,) and refuted by other trash arguments. Thank you, Mark, for being here and performing this public service.

[clay]

Look, numerous serious studies of the causes of higher medical insurance premiums have concluded lawsuits represent only a tiny fraction of the cause. The real cause? The stock market crash of 2000 and 2001. Insurance companies were, naturally, heavily invested in the market and too a severe beating. There response for recouping their stock losses, unsurprisingly, was to raise premiums, sometimes dramatically.

But this would force R's to face real data and craft real solutions instead of playing to their party's bases, beating up on trial lawyers. Three-fourths of R political strategy is picking bogeymen to blame for the countries problems. Actual causitive relationships are of little interest to them.

My favorite last year was that soaring divorce rates in the Red States was caused by the threat of gay marriages. Of course that's the cause, right? Despite the seeming ly flawless logic, instead it proved to be Evangelical Christianity's insistence on abstinence. As a result, Red Staters got were getting married much younger so they could finally have sex without fear of burning in Hell. Post-adolescents getting married, having sex, and trying to play house, proved a disasterous recipe for successful marriage, and divorce rates soared. But facing up to such data would mean pissing off the luny-right that loves bigotry against gays to reality-based conversations.

Let's see, your points seem to be:

1) Republicans spread a lie that malpractice reform will be a "panacea" for rising health-care costs. I believe the main argument is actually that rising malpractice premiums are driving doctors in many specialties out of the state -- including OB/GYNs in particular. There's also the fact that many medical malpractice carriers have been going under in recent years. While the downturn in the stock market certainly played a role in that, the fact is, money doesn't grow on trees. More and higher payouts in med mal claims, and higher defense costs, played a role in it too.

2) Malpractice reform protects abortionists, so it's bad for that reason. That's a pretty flimsy position. How many abortion-related malpractice claims are there? I suspect juries in the, what, two (?) Kentucky Counties that have abortion clinics would be happy to tee off on such a doctor, caps or not.

3) Although reform is bad, David Williams' wife's claim is frivolous, and should not be tolerated. Huh?

Doctors are not leaving the state as suggested, at least according to the state's own medical license board. See new post at the top.

Mark

[Andrew Spark]

I think we need to be planning to control, monitor and regularize health care process.

[Robert]

The healthcare of our people are decided by a bunch of politician, who have no idea what is going on

[vincent]

Medicine should only be used if necessary, a healthy life style should be more appropriate

[Smith]

i have no Words Except nuthing is better than Cure so just take care of yourself and be save from medical attentions.
http://www.evision.com.pk