The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Conversely, doctors could stop killing and maiming people through malpractice and their insurance rates would go down, too.

hypocritsezwhat?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

I relate this because I wonder, why is it necessary to "force" the AMA to police its own? And who would do that forcing -- government? Please.

I agree with your cynicism, but something has to be done. On one hand we have all this litigation running amock, driving up medical costs and on the other hand we have doctors still screwing up - badly. All this litigation is not forcing doctors to clean up their act.

Basically you have doctors and lawyers milking the system and the patients are getting screwed. For the doctors some sort of stricter policing action needs to be enforced. Just like with the teachers unions, these guys have figured out a way to protect the incompetant doctors.

Maybe we should put Phd's in biochemistry on their review boards instead of doctors. Something needs to be done to weed out the bad doctors and punish doctors who screw up. The trial lawyers have not solved the problem, they have just lined their pockets, so we need another solution.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Good point. You can only get an honest assessment about the benefits and drawbacks of tort reform by listening to industry groups and insurance carriers.

No by listening to nonbiased groups and to the doctors. Industry groups and insurance carriers are just as reliable as the lawyers (which means they are not reliable).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
No by listening to nonbiased groups and to the doctors. Industry groups and insurance carriers are just as reliable as the lawyers (which means they are not reliable).

How are the doctors reliable? They aren't going to want to say that insurance rates are high because it's just plain expensive to pay off mutilated people and their families, and the families of dead people.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How are the doctors reliable? They aren't going to want to say that insurance rates are high because it's just plain expensive to pay off mutilated people and their families, and the families of dead people.

Mutilated sounds so harsh. I believe the AMA-approved term is "differently treated".

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
No by listening to nonbiased groups and to the doctors.

Yeah, doctors are never biased when talking about malpractice issues.

What did you think I meant by "industry groups" in this context?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How are the doctors reliable? They aren't going to want to say that insurance rates are high because it's just plain expensive to pay off mutilated people and their families, and the families of dead people.

They are the most reliable becuase they have the most interest in fixing the problem. They want lower rates. Insurance companys are not reliable, because they want profits. Lawyers are not reliable because they make to much money off of litigation. The doctors are in the best position to decide who is driving up their insurance rates.

The insurance companys and the trial lawyers are each pointing at eachother. The doctors are in the best position to tell who is full of it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yeah, doctors are never biased when talking about malpractice issues.

What did you think I meant by "industry groups" in this context?

I can see why you are sceptical of insurance companys but why doctors? Why woud they point their fingers at trial lawyers if the insurance companys are the problem. If trial lawyers are not the problem, and they implement legislation to deal with the false lawyer problem (and the insurance companys are really the problem), then they are still stuck with high insurance rates.

Doctors hate insurance companys just as much as they hate lawyers. So when they say insurance companys are not the problem, lawyers are, I tend to trust them.

Another way to look at is if you come across a farmer, whose farm is surrounded by foxes and cougars, and his chickens are getting eaten. The foxes are accusing the cougars of eating the chickens and the cougars are accusing the foxers of eating the chickens. If the farmer tell you that the cougars are not eating the chickens, but the foxes are, who would you trust in this case? Of course the farmer. If he tells you foxes, and you kill them, and it is really the cougars, he is still screwed. If he tells you the cougars are not the problem, the only reason he would tell you that is if the cougars are not the problem. He has no reason to lie.

But both the foxes and the cougars are unreliable because they have a strong reason to lie.

In this case the farmer is the doctors (because they are the ones having to pay the high insurance rates), the insurance companys are the cougars and the lawyers are the foxes. And not surprisingly on this board full of foxes, I am being told that cougars are really the problem.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
They are the most reliable becuase they have the most interest in fixing the problem. They want lower rates. Insurance companys are not reliable, because they want profits. Lawyers are not reliable because they make to much money off of litigation. The doctors are in the best position to decide who is driving up their insurance rates.

The insurance companys and the trial lawyers are each pointing at eachother. The doctors are in the best position to tell who is full of it.

It seems like the lawyers are pointing the finger at the doctors, too, in the cases they file.

Are you really this blinded by the interests of your buddies?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
They are the most reliable becuase they have the most interest in fixing the problem. . . . The doctors are in the best position to decide who is driving up their insurance rates.

The doctors are in the best position to tell who is full of it.

Yeah, the doctors never commit malpractice. They're gods, so it's unpossible. It must be the patients, who hire the lawyers, to bring the frivolous lawsuits.

BTW, How can the insurers be directly to blame? I have no doubt the insurers overcharge and underpay, unless only the stupid insurers go into med. mal ins., but the rates bear at least some relationship to costs, and teh costs go up because of lawyers and the juries they seduce. So maybe we should blame the juries.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It seems like the lawyers are pointing the finger at the doctors, too, in the cases they file.

Are you really this blinded by the interests of your buddies?

Yes but it is the insurance companys are charging the exhorbinant rates. The first one you think they would blame is the insurance companys. The lawyers are not sending them the insurance bills.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
Another way to look at is if you come across a farmer, whose farm is surrounded by foxes and cougars, and his chickens are getting eaten. The foxes are accusing the cougars of eating the chickens and the cougars are accusing the foxers of eating the chickens. If the farmer tell you that the cougars are not eating the chickens, but the foxes are, who would you trust in this case? Of course the farmer. If he tells you foxes, and you kill them, and it is really the cougars, he is still screwed. If he tells you the cougars are not the problem, the only reason he would tell you that is if the cougars are not the problem. He has no reason to lie.

But both the foxes and the cougars are unreliable because they have a strong reason to lie.

In this case the farmer is the doctors (because they are the ones having to pay the high insurance rates), the insurance companys are the cougars and the lawyers are the foxes. And not surprisingly on this board full of foxes, I am being told that cougars are really the problem.

I'd trust the maimed chickens.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I can see why you are sceptical of insurance companys but why doctors? Why woud they point their fingers at trial lawyers if the insurance companys are the problem. If trial lawyers are not the problem, and they implement legislation to deal with the false lawyer problem (and the insurance companys are really the problem), then they are still stuck with high insurance rates.

Doctors hate insurance companys just as much as they hate lawyers. So when they say insurance companys are not the problem, lawyers are, I tend to trust them.

Another way to look at is if you come across a farmer, whose farm is surrounded by foxes and cougars, and his chickens are getting eaten. The foxes are accusing the cougars of eating the chickens and the cougars are accusing the foxers of eating the chickens. If the farmer tell you that the cougars are not eating the chickens, but the foxes are, who would you trust in this case? Of course the farmer. If he tells you foxes, and you kill them, and it is really the cougars, he is still screwed. If he tells you the cougars are not the problem, the only reason he would tell you that is if the cougars are not the problem. He has no reason to lie.

But both the foxes and the cougars are unreliable because they have a strong reason to lie.

In this case the farmer is the doctors (because they are the ones having to pay the high insurance rates), the insurance companys are the cougars and the lawyers are the foxes. And not surprisingly on this board full of foxes, I am being told that cougars are really the problem.

What if the famer's breath smells like chicken?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
I can see why you are sceptical of insurance companys but why doctors? Why woud they point their fingers at trial lawyers if the insurance companys are the problem. If trial lawyers are not the problem, and they implement legislation to deal with the false lawyer problem (and the insurance companys are really the problem), then they are still stuck with high insurance rates.

Doctors hate insurance companys just as much as they hate lawyers. So when they say insurance companys are not the problem, lawyers are, I tend to trust them.

Another way to look at is if you come across a farmer, whose farm is surrounded by foxes and cougars, and his chickens are getting eaten. The foxes are accusing the cougars of eating the chickens and the cougars are accusing the foxers of eating the chickens. If the farmer tell you that the cougars are not eating the chickens, but the foxes are, who would you trust in this case? Of course the farmer. If he tells you foxes, and you kill them, and it is really the cougars, he is still screwed. If he tells you the cougars are not the problem, the only reason he would tell you that is if the cougars are not the problem. He has no reason to lie.

But both the foxes and the cougars are unreliable because they have a strong reason to lie.

In this case the farmer is the doctors (because they are the ones having to pay the high insurance rates), the insurance companys are the cougars and the lawyers are the foxes. And not surprisingly on this board full of foxes, I am being told that cougars are really the problem.

Of course, the whole time the farmer and his family have chicken every night and keep cashing checks from the insurance company for the lost chickens.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What if the famer's breath smells like chicken?

Spanky's farmers are vegetarians.