Went to RAM last week and parked in the lot to the east of the market (the elevated lot). There is a public sidewalk that goes along the street, and another shady sidewalk that goes adjacent to one of the bank that is closest to RAM. It is open, not labeled as "no trespassing" and in good repair. As it was about 150 degrees in the shade, I took the shortest and shadiest walk between the parking and the market, and away from the fumes on Riverside Ave--the sidewalk closer to the office building.
A RAM security guard came running towards me and told me I had to walk on the streetside sidewalk--when asked why, she said--"people who walked on that other sidewalk fell, and now they are suing the company. So they want everyone to walk on the city sidewalk, so if they fall, they sue the city!"
I looked at both sidewalks, both are in good repair. If someone falls on either, it is obviously NOT because anyone is at fault. I'm glad that the companies on Riverside who are donating parking space have been so tolerant. Maybe just a tiny little sign that says "walk at your own risk!"-
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_dlkAw43cLC0/SUFyA7U9maI/AAAAAAAABlc/wbqcS-Lmj7Q/s800/11-amazing-3d-sidewalk-art-diesirae.jpg)
Quote from: 5pointy on July 25, 2010, 06:09:46 PM
Went to RAM last week and parked in the lot to the east of the market (the elevated lot). There is a public sidewalk that goes along the street, and another shady sidewalk that goes adjacent to one of the bank that is closest to RAM. It is open, not labeled as "no trespassing" and in good repair. As it was about 150 degrees in the shade, I took the shortest and shadiest walk between the parking and the market, and away from the fumes on Riverside Ave--the sidewalk closer to the office building.
A RAM security guard came running towards me and told me I had to walk on the streetside sidewalk--when asked why, she said--"people who walked on that other sidewalk fell, and now they are suing the company. So they want everyone to walk on the city sidewalk, so if they fall, they sue the city!"
I looked at both sidewalks, both are in good repair. If someone falls on either, it is obviously NOT because anyone is at fault. I'm glad that the companies on Riverside who are donating parking space have been so tolerant. Maybe just a tiny little sign that says "walk at your own risk!"-
For all you know there could've been an extension cord running across the walkway, or garbage that tripped the person, or whatever. I'm not saying every lawsuit has merit, but you don't have a clue what the basis for this one is, have no clue how the person got injured, and no idea at all what the facts are. But you're still self-professedly "HOT" at the injured person, despite knowing nothing at all about it?
Sheesh.
I'm of the opinion that most "fall" lawsuits are absolute crap. Some have merit (E.G. wet floors in a grocery store not clearly marked with a "Piso Mojado" sign. Just watch where you're walking, idiots! I've fallen down in public places on many occasions. But I don't blame it on anyone by my own clumsiness.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 26, 2010, 10:53:57 AM
For all you know there could've been an extension cord running across the walkway, or garbage that tripped the person, or whatever. I'm not saying every lawsuit has merit, but you don't have a clue what the basis for this one is, have no clue how the person got injured, and no idea at all what the facts are. But you're still self-professedly "HOT" at the injured person, despite knowing nothing at all about it?
Sheesh.
Calm down. I know what the security guard told me, and I don't think she had a reason to fabricate. When I wanted to walk there, there was no trash, no cords, just sidewalk. She also mentioned that more than one person had tried to sue. Agree with RiversideLoki--I am just tired of the "it's someone's fault" crap.
Quote from: RiversideLoki on July 26, 2010, 09:24:27 PM
I'm of the opinion that most "fall" lawsuits are absolute crap.
People always seem to be of that opinion about any legal protection for anyone else, until they need it themselves.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 29, 2010, 09:22:06 AM
People always seem to be of that opinion about any legal protection for anyone else, until they to make a quick buck.
FTFY
Nice RiversideLoki, lol. People suing for baseless reasons and people like John Edwards are huge factors in why our healthcare is so expensive (without going into details).
Well from the OP the security guard didn't give any details, just said that people were suing the company for falling on their sidewalk. Sounds legitimate to me, I am sure the company briefed the security guard on at least that much, why would the security guard come up with such a story and why would the company have the security try to get people to walk on the city sidewalk otherwise? There is no denying that there are enough uncouth people to make a story like that happen.
Now I echo everyone on here, if there was some direct factor that contributed to those people falling that could have easily been avoided and resulted in some injuries that cost time and money and perhaps emotional damage, then a lawsuit could be in order. I somehow doubt that is the case.
And Stephen, not speaking with doctors in my family, but all my other doctors, most of whom were in favor of the healthcare overhaul (I don't get that) all agree that tort reform is probably the most important way of getting major costs down, and tort reform was nowhere in the bill. I have 3 doctors in Atlanta who are all at least moderately liberal (one is gay, one is a woman from Brooklyn, one probably just feels bad that he makes so much money and is therefore in favor of higher taxes, all demographics that are highly liberal), and they all tell me that lawsuits just kill the industry and doctors. The simplest reform needed is that the loser of a class action lawsuit should be forced to pay remediation/all legal fees for the defense party. That alone would deter many of these unproven "cerebral palsy from vaginal canal birth" claims, etc that lead to most doctors forcing C-Sections because they are afraid that if they perform a normal birth and the baby happens to have cerebral palsy they will be sued out of their profession.
Insurance costs for a C-Section are wayyy higher than a normal birth for the operation part, but malpractice insurance for both is significantly high because of risk of lawsuit for normal birth and risk of something going wrong in operation for C-Section. Therefore nobody except for lawyers (John Edwards in this particular case) and their clients wins. Everyone else loses big time, and just imagine how many lawsuits there are.
Here's a story for you...
Guy walks up to a house on a tree lined canopy street in Central Florida. Knocks at the door but no one is home.
He walks off the steps and heads across the yard to his parked car, crossing the majority of the UNMOWED grass and the sidewalk without problem. On the city strip of grass between the walk and street which also was completely grown over in weeds, he stepped into a sort of bare spot (perhaps to keep sand spurs or beggars lice from messing up his clothes). Suddenly he lunges forward catching himself short of a complete fall and stagger's into the street like he had been shot. WTF?
The bare looking spot he stepped in was once the home of a large elm? tree that had rotted. The city had cut it down but failed to grind the hollow stump. The tall grass was growing down inside and completely covered the thing so as to be invisible.
His catching himself put a major strain on his back, and two disc's were blown out in his back. Even this was in slow-mo as he finished his errands and returned home feeling only a "muscle strain". It wasn't until nature called at about 3 am that he discovered that he COULD NOT get himself out of bed!
City got sued for $10,000 dollars + court and attorney costs.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: simms3 on July 29, 2010, 01:35:26 PM
Well from the OP the security guard didn't give any details, just said that people were suing the company for falling on their sidewalk. Sounds legitimate to me, I am sure the company briefed the security guard on at least that much, why would the security guard come up with such a story and why would the company have the security try to get people to walk on the city sidewalk otherwise? There is no denying that there are enough uncouth people to make a story like that happen.
Now I echo everyone on here, if there was some direct factor that contributed to those people falling that could have easily been avoided and resulted in some injuries that cost time and money and perhaps emotional damage, then a lawsuit could be in order. I somehow doubt that is the case.
And Stephen, not speaking with doctors in my family, but all my other doctors, most of whom were in favor of the healthcare overhaul (I don't get that) all agree that tort reform is probably the most important way of getting major costs down, and tort reform was nowhere in the bill. I have 3 doctors in Atlanta who are all at least moderately liberal (one is gay, one is a woman from Brooklyn, one probably just feels bad that he makes so much money and is therefore in favor of higher taxes, all demographics that are highly liberal), and they all tell me that lawsuits just kill the industry and doctors. The simplest reform needed is that the loser of a class action lawsuit should be forced to pay remediation/all legal fees for the defense party. That alone would deter many of these unproven "cerebral palsy from vaginal canal birth" claims, etc that lead to most doctors forcing C-Sections because they are afraid that if they perform a normal birth and the baby happens to have cerebral palsy they will be sued out of their profession.
Insurance costs for a C-Section are wayyy higher than a normal birth for the operation part, but malpractice insurance for both is significantly high because of risk of lawsuit for normal birth and risk of something going wrong in operation for C-Section. Therefore nobody except for lawyers (John Edwards in this particular case) and their clients wins. Everyone else loses big time, and just imagine how many lawsuits there are.
Come on, if you are who I suspect you are, then your Dad's a friggin' eye doctor...just how much do you possibly have to worry about all these "frivolous lawsuits"? Gimme a break, if he put in the wrong prescription they just bring it back and put in the right lens. Oh my god someone stop the insanity...
In Florida we already have FS 57.105, you get clipped with costs & fees for filing lawsuits without merit. "Frivolous" litigation is a non-issue in Florida, it's just a media tool the medical lobby focused in on to try and lower their own insurance costs. I'm sick of everyone acting like that isn't a blatant money ploy, because it is.
And if that sleazy ploy actually works, then just how fair would it be when the 3% of doctors that comprise 90% of all medical malpractice continue amputating the wrong legs, or leaving foreceps inside the patient after closing? What are you going to tell them, "Oops...better luck next time, don't feel bad about that whole not being able to walk thing, at least I saved $1k on my insurance premiums last year!"? That sounds fair...
You guys need to stop watching so much FOX News...
It almost sounds like people should be allowed to seek their own best interests.
You guys are becoming more libertarian by the minute. :)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 06, 2010, 11:32:50 AM
Come on, if you are who I suspect you are, then your Dad's a friggin' eye doctor...just how much do you possibly have to worry about all these "frivolous lawsuits"? Gimme a break, if he put in the wrong prescription they just bring it back and put in the right lens. Oh my god someone stop the insanity...
Dad's not a doctor and there is no way I would ever disclose who I am on a public forum. The advantage of a forum is that your identity is hidden. I think if there were less personal attacks against various people on the forum people might be more inclined to start being more sociable outside the realms of the computer (I know some people meet up, but it could be a lot more).
Also it is estimated that 25% of practicing physicians are sued annually and upwards of 65-70% of doctors have been sued at least once in their practicing lifetime. Sometimes thats enough to put a doctor out of business for good (which agreed that if it's a legit suit then that is a good thing!), but it is also enough to completely discourage talented young minds from pursuing med school and then residency and then becoming a doctor if the cost is going to continue to be so great even after their schooling. There is a fine line and waayyyyy back in the day consumers got little or no pretection and now it's the flip where businesses and service providers get little or no protection. Did you hear about the lawn mower suit where one guy sued for the mower being too heavy and another guy in another state at the same time sued for the lawn mower being too light and both won? OK!! LoL
Only 0.3% of practicing physicians had 10+ suits filed against them from 1990-2003 with 68.6% only having 1 suit filed against them in the same time. 0.8% received 10+ adverse action suits against them in the same time frame while 43.6% received only 1. The vast majority of doctors are great at what they do, but the majority of doctors still get sued at least once. It's easier to sue a doctor than it is to sue a company that puts you in physical danger (albeit those companies have contracts that limit their liability, but doctors cannot get that same contractual agreement for obvious reasons). I always defend doctors because I think as a group they are some of the kindest people, doing real good truly socially conscious work, more often than most other groups sticking to the straight and narrow and keeping their noses to the ground, but they are so often demonized and for what reason I have no idea...maybe because they usually make a good chunk of change when all is said and done? Of course that is after they spend a fortune to get a decade's worth of extra schooling all whilst not making a dime, and then they usually have to spend another decade paying back loans, and then they can make money. Oh did I mention they are on call 24/7? I don't think they are the bad guys...sorry Chris.
How about some sources for this malpractice data?
And, FWIW, most all the people I know on this forum also know me in real life. This forum is unique in that regard, MJ actually holds weekly meet & greets at 3 Layers which are generally well-attended, including by myself. I think you'll find that most of us online know each other in real life. This isn't your typical anonymous discussion board. ;)
Stephen, while you do have a lot of outside readers passing through that treat this as a news site, when it comes to the forums I think it's fair to say most of the regular posters on here know each other, know of each other, or at least know who everyone is. Kind of like a big sometimes dysfunctional family.
Well then I stand corrected, on that.
But this insurance industry spawned "frivolous lawsuit" B.S. is still a bunch of malarkey...
Sorry Chris, it's not just the doctors, but all of us in business who have to buy horridly expensive insurance policies to protect us from unwarranted lawsuits. All those ads on TV by personal injury attorneys are paid for by insurance company settlements. It is cheaper just to pay them off than to fight the lawsuit.
I own some commercial rental property and require all of my tenants to have liability insurance coverage as a lease requirement. I still pay thousands of dollars a year for my own coverage on top of their coverage because I am always named in a lawsuit as the building owner in any lawsuit against them.
If the insurance companies would stand up and fight most of these cases, after a while the attorneys would stop, but then the companies couldn't get the high premiums they do. Until the law changes (which the insurance industry resists BTW) they will continue to do their profitable dance with the personal injury attorneys.
Chris, I blame both the insurance industry AND the plaintiff's bar. It's a nasty little game they have going at the expense of all of us. They settle for as little as they can and the personal injury lawyer takes 40-50%.
We need tighter legal standard on what constitutes "cause" for lawsuits and an end to "joint and several" liability where I could be deemed 1% at fault and have to pay 100% of the damages because my tenant has declared bankruptcy.
Contingency lawsuits are actually grounds for disbarment in most countries.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 07, 2010, 01:44:47 PM
Sorry Chris, it's not just the doctors, but all of us in business who have to buy horridly expensive insurance policies to protect us from unwarranted lawsuits. All those ads on TV by personal injury attorneys are paid for by insurance company settlements. It is cheaper just to pay them off than to fight the lawsuit.
I own some commercial rental property and require all of my tenants to have liability insurance coverage as a lease requirement. I still pay thousands of dollars a year for my own coverage on top of their coverage because I am always named in a lawsuit as the building owner in any lawsuit against them.
If the insurance companies would stand up and fight most of these cases, after a while the attorneys would stop, but then the companies couldn't get the high premiums they do. Until the law changes (which the insurance industry resists BTW) they will continue to do their profitable dance with the personal injury attorneys.
You aren't looking at the whole picture.
The fact is that the insurance companies fight injured victims tooth and nail, usually pay as little as possible in claims, and then still turn around and gouge you guys on your premiums anyway. You're blaming the wrong party here. Not coincidence either, since the same greedy insurance companies that are raping you on premiums, and then denying claims by injured parties (who wouldn't even have to hire a lawyer in the first place, if they adjusted claims fairly) are the very same people telling you it's lawyers to blame. Meanwhile, nobody seems to notice the insurance industry's profit margins are only growing fatter...
The truth is that an increasingly small percentage of premiums collected are actually paid out in claims, and you're being duped along with the rest of this state as to who is to blame for it. It's not lawyers, it's the insurance industry, which has unilaterally decided it can insure against essentially no risk and still collect premiums anyway. And to add insult to injury, you're being duped by advertising campaigns funded by your own artificially inflated insurance premiums.
You're a businessman you must have some common sense to get where you are, look at the big picture here.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 07, 2010, 02:00:43 PM
Chris, I blame both the insurance industry AND the plaintiff's bar. It's a nasty little game they have going at the expense of all of us. They settle for as little as they can and the personal injury lawyer takes 40-50%.
We need tighter legal standard on what constitutes "cause" for lawsuits and an end to "joint and several" liability where I could be deemed 1% at fault and have to pay 100% of the damages because my tenant has declared bankruptcy.
Contingency lawsuits are actually grounds for disbarment in most countries.
A lawyer gets 33% of a settlement, and 40% of a jury verdict, and in exchange bears all the costs of litigation, including expert witnesses which alone can run upwards of a million dollars in a complex medmal case. If the plaintiff loses, the lawyer eats the loss, and the client pays nothing. Moreover, the 30% comes out of the client's proceeds, the insurance company doesn't pay any "extra" because their unfair denial of the claim forced the victim to hire a lawyer, the victim has the insult of paying for that, not the insurance company.
You're just parroting the B.S. propounded by the insurance companies, that makes it sound as though a lawyer's job is to sit in front of a slot machine all day raking money. That is far from the truth. And again, who would need to hire a lawyer in the first place if the insurance companies just adjusted claims fairly in the first place?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 06, 2010, 11:32:50 AM
You guys need to stop watching so much FOX News...
First of all I do not watch Fox News. If I watch the news, it's CNBC, but I typically read the WSJ. I don't have a beef against Fox though, and it has been proven time and again that Fox viewers are actually the most informed television news audience.
As for my source: Numbers and opinions shaped and taken from "When Good Doctors Get Sued" and the 2003 National Practitioner Databank Report.
Also some more data: In a study published in 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 93% of physicians surveyed reported practicing defensive medicine, or "[altering] clinical behavior because of the threat of malpractice liability." [33] Of physicians surveyed, 43% reported using digital imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances, which includes costly MRIs and CAT scans.[33] Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious.[33] This practice restriction hits rural areas especially hard, as small towns find themselves without practitioners in high-risk areas such as obstetrics and emergency medicine, or practices without competition as physicians consolidate into single practices to distribute the high costs of malpractice insurance premiums. Taken straight from Wikipedia. (Also I have studied John Edward’s legal career enough to know that there is a direct correlation in the decrease in natural births and the increase in C-Sections to his rampage against doctors performing natural births and blaming natural births for cerebral palsy, even though there is no evidence for it).
Also, most western nations have "English rule" laws where the loser of a suit must reimburse the other side for legal fees and court fees. America is not under this "English rule" for the most part, and usually each side covers its own expenses. Finally, the cost of tort litigation exceeds the growth of GDP by 2-3 points annually, which points to an unnecessary growth in lawsuit (there are 15 million filed in the U.S. per year...do we need THAT many lawsuits?)
I am also not one to get upset at insurance companies. I have a chronic disease and so does my father, and our insurance has been more than helpful. I have a warranty for my car, and they have been more than helpful. I know nobody in my personal life that has had any problems with insurance companies. And if there was one group of people that I would place the most amount of trust in, it would be doctors. Every doctor I know is a genuinely decent human being, trustworthy, hard working, and very socially conscious. If there was one group of people I would not trust, it would be lawyers (and politicians…they are one and the same to me).
That’s where I stand, and that’s where millions of other Americans stand, and we aren’t dumb hicks trying to raise a ruckus. You assuming that I am a daily Fox News watcher and questioning my data even though I have not assumed anything about you or questioned your data is not a good way to make your point, and sounds more personal than objective.
And thanks Stephen for pointing out the benefits of anonymity. I know we rarely see eye to eye, but in the many years that I have been following this board (since the early days of metjax.com) I have actually kind of wanted to meet you, but I am never in town anyway.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 07, 2010, 01:44:47 PM
...All those ads on TV by personal injury attorneys are paid for by insurance company settlements. It is cheaper just to pay them off than to fight the lawsuit.
....If the insurance companies would stand up and fight most of these cases, after a while the attorneys would stop, but then the companies couldn't get the high premiums they do. Until the law changes (which the insurance industry resists BTW) they will continue to do their profitable dance with the personal injury attorneys.
Dog, I am with you on this. Generally, insurance companies aren't spending THEIR money settling claims, they are spending the POLICYHOLDERs' money. The more claims are paid, the more premiums they demand. Insurance companies make their money mainly on investment income on cash flow, particularly the time frame between collecting premiums today and paying claims sometime in the future. They are motivated to increase premiums despite their public statements to the contrary. The only real motivation to limit claims is (1) a need to keep premiums somewhat in line with like insurance companies they compete with (2) a claim so high that no premium can be charged that will enable them to recover it (3) pressure from the insured on the claim adjusters to the point that they are so scrutinized they behave better under the magnifying glass.
I also find adjusters so jaded that they think every claim should be settled for nuisance value and/or from overstated fears of losing before a jury (there is risk here, but it can cut both ways, especially in a more frivolous claim) without consideration that by so doing they just encourage claimants and their attorneys to keep filing frivolous claims.
My experience is there is a rise in claims, especially ones like "slip and fall", due to the bad economy. Both claimants and their attorneys are hungry for someone else's money. The fact is almost every claim is settled by negotiation and/or mediation and very few get to court. Most claimants are happy to get reimbursed for some medical bills and a little spending money and their attorneys are happy if they get their hours invested paid for at the equivalent of their billing rates or better.
I believe everyone should have the right to sue and no one should be exempt as negligence, etc. can be found anywhere and much of the "quality", "safety", "reliability" and "fair dealing" in our services and products has been driven by fear of accountability in court. But the bar should be high enough that the claimant and their attorney pursue only the stronger claims. Not sure if "loser pays" cures that, but it might help. The problem with loser pays is matching the resources of the defendant with the plaintiff. They are often unequal in this regard and the less advantaged player is likely to be unable to "play ball" under these rules. I am sure there is someone in academia that has studied this and has devised a fairer and better way to manage the process. Let's see if someone here can make such a suggestion. In theory, the judges should throw out frivolous cases but they seem to believe everyone should have their day in court which I somewhat understand too. That's what the courts are there for, after all.
Quote from: simms3 on August 07, 2010, 04:55:21 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 06, 2010, 11:32:50 AM
You guys need to stop watching so much FOX News...
First of all I do not watch Fox News. If I watch the news, it's CNBC, but I typically read the WSJ. I don't have a beef against Fox though, and it has been proven time and again that Fox viewers are actually the most informed television news audience.
As for my source: Numbers and opinions shaped and taken from "When Good Doctors Get Sued" and the 2003 National Practitioner Databank Report.
Also some more data: In a study published in 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 93% of physicians surveyed reported practicing defensive medicine, or "[altering] clinical behavior because of the threat of malpractice liability." [33] Of physicians surveyed, 43% reported using digital imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances, which includes costly MRIs and CAT scans.[33] Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious.[33] This practice restriction hits rural areas especially hard, as small towns find themselves without practitioners in high-risk areas such as obstetrics and emergency medicine, or practices without competition as physicians consolidate into single practices to distribute the high costs of malpractice insurance premiums. Taken straight from Wikipedia. (Also I have studied John Edward’s legal career enough to know that there is a direct correlation in the decrease in natural births and the increase in C-Sections to his rampage against doctors performing natural births and blaming natural births for cerebral palsy, even though there is no evidence for it).
Also, most western nations have "English rule" laws where the loser of a suit must reimburse the other side for legal fees and court fees. America is not under this "English rule" for the most part, and usually each side covers its own expenses. Finally, the cost of tort litigation exceeds the growth of GDP by 2-3 points annually, which points to an unnecessary growth in lawsuit (there are 15 million filed in the U.S. per year...do we need THAT many lawsuits?)
I am also not one to get upset at insurance companies. I have a chronic disease and so does my father, and our insurance has been more than helpful. I have a warranty for my car, and they have been more than helpful. I know nobody in my personal life that has had any problems with insurance companies. And if there was one group of people that I would place the most amount of trust in, it would be doctors. Every doctor I know is a genuinely decent human being, trustworthy, hard working, and very socially conscious. If there was one group of people I would not trust, it would be lawyers (and politicians…they are one and the same to me).
That’s where I stand, and that’s where millions of other Americans stand, and we aren’t dumb hicks trying to raise a ruckus. You assuming that I am a daily Fox News watcher and questioning my data even though I have not assumed anything about you or questioned your data is not a good way to make your point, and sounds more personal than objective.
And thanks Stephen for pointing out the benefits of anonymity. I know we rarely see eye to eye, but in the many years that I have been following this board (since the early days of metjax.com) I have actually kind of wanted to meet you, but I am never in town anyway.
Ok, well, since Rupert Murdoch (a/k/a owner of Fox News) took over the WSJ, it makes Fox look downright liberal.
Secondly, we both know the NPDB publishes those figures annually, so why are you citing to data from 2003? Especially when the modern state of affairs from your very same cited sources looks more like this;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33649310/NPDB-Report
Also, nobody is calling you a hick, or questioning your intelligence, or anything of the sort. Quite the reverse. My issue with you on this topic is that you're obviously too intelligent not to recognize your own flawed argument, which makes debating this for nothing other than pure intellectual exercise feel a bit tiresome. This isn't your typical internet board, when you're propounding arguments based on ca. 2003 data from sources that we all know are updated annually, it just looks silly here.
Even the 2003 data doesn't really say what you think, since there is no underlying analysis of what the actual rate of proven malpractice is vs. the costs of same. That kind of logic necessarily assumes that 100% of all malpractice claims are frivolous or otherwise deserve no compensation, which is clearly impossible.
You really should check out some non-right-wing scholarly information on this issue. This is great beginning reading;
https://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/downloads/dlj54p447.pdf
Lastly, your logic of "well it's never happened to me, therefore it can't be a problem" is a non sequitur. Lots of terrible things happen to lots of people, but won't happen to you. That's no basis for denying that they happen.
Quote from: stjr on August 07, 2010, 05:31:34 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 07, 2010, 01:44:47 PM
...All those ads on TV by personal injury attorneys are paid for by insurance company settlements. It is cheaper just to pay them off than to fight the lawsuit.
....If the insurance companies would stand up and fight most of these cases, after a while the attorneys would stop, but then the companies couldn't get the high premiums they do. Until the law changes (which the insurance industry resists BTW) they will continue to do their profitable dance with the personal injury attorneys.
Dog, I am with you on this. Generally, insurance companies aren't spending THEIR money settling claims, they are spending the POLICYHOLDERs' money. The more claims are paid, the more premiums they demand. Insurance companies make their money mainly on investment income on cash flow, particularly the time frame between collecting premiums today and paying claims sometime in the future. They are motivated to increase premiums despite their public statements to the contrary. The only real motivation to limit claims is (1) a need to keep premiums somewhat in line with like insurance companies they compete with (2) a claim so high that no premium can be charged that will enable them to recover it (3) pressure from the insured on the claim adjusters to the point that they are so scrutinized they behave better under the magnifying glass.
I also find adjusters so jaded that they think every claim should be settled for nuisance value and/or from overstated fears of losing before a jury (there is risk here, but it can cut both ways, especially in a more frivolous claim) without consideration that by so doing they just encourage claimants and their attorneys to keep filing frivolous claims.
My experience is there is a rise in claims, especially ones like "slip and fall", due to the bad economy. Both claimants and their attorneys are hungry for someone else's money. The fact is almost every claim is settled by negotiation and/or mediation and very few get to court. Most claimants are happy to get reimbursed for some medical bills and a little spending money and their attorneys are happy if they get their hours invested paid for at the equivalent of their billing rates or better.
I believe everyone should have the right to sue and no one should be exempt as negligence, etc. can be found anywhere and much of the "quality", "safety", "reliability" and "fair dealing" in our services and products has been driven by fear of accountability in court. But the bar should be high enough that the claimant and their attorney pursue only the stronger claims. Not sure if "loser pays" cures that, but it might help.
So if a customer walks into your business and buys something from you, that money is still THEIR money?
Since when?
So you won't mind if I reach into your cash register and take money out?
After all, it is MINE right?
(What kind of logic is that?)
Quote from: simms3 on August 07, 2010, 04:55:21 PM
Also, most western nations have "English rule" laws where the loser of a suit must reimburse the other side for legal fees and court fees. America is not under this "English rule" for the most part, and usually each side covers its own expenses.
Just noticed this bit.
Look up F.S. 57.105, which in fact does impose exactly the penalties you are apparently unaware already exist in FL.
You, dogwalker, and stjr should really do some reading on this issue, from unbiased sources. You're buying into a skewed version here. Litigation costs have virtually nothing to do with the rise in healthcare costs, and the actions of the health insurance industry have almost everything to do with it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 06, 2010, 06:39:12 PM
Stephen, while you do have a lot of outside readers passing through that treat this as a news site, when it comes to the forums I think it's fair to say most of the regular posters on here know each other, know of each other, or at least know who everyone is. Kind of like a big sometimes dysfunctional family.
That sounds pretty accurate :)
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 07, 2010, 05:36:22 PM
So if a customer walks into your business and buys something from you, that money is still THEIR money?
Since when?
So you won't mind if I reach into your cash register and take money out?
After all, it is MINE right?
(What kind of logic is that?)
Chris, don't be so literal. When I say its the policyholder's money, I mean it comes out of the policyholder's premiums which do start as MY money before I turn it over to the insurer. And, as a policyholder, even if I switch insurers, I will be dinged additional premiums, because the new underwriter will base their premium quote on my loss history prior with any previous insurer. So, there is no escaping that I WILL pay for all my losses, short of those rare instances where they are deemed "shock" claims that exceed stop loss retentions of the primary insurer. Don't believe me, ask your insurance friends.
It's not unlike those who say their is no government money, it's we the taxpayers money. :D
Quote from: stjr on August 07, 2010, 06:11:46 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 07, 2010, 05:36:22 PM
So if a customer walks into your business and buys something from you, that money is still THEIR money?
Since when?
So you won't mind if I reach into your cash register and take money out?
After all, it is MINE right?
(What kind of logic is that?)
Chris, don't be so literal. When I say its the policyholder's money, I mean it comes out of the policyholder's premiums which do start as MY money before I turn it over to the insurer. And, as a policyholder, even if I switch insurers, I will be dinged additional premiums, because the new underwriter will base their premium quote on my loss history prior with any previous insurer. So, there is no escaping that I WILL pay for all my losses, short of those rare instances where they are deemed "shock" claims that exceed stop loss retentions of the primary insurer. Don't believe me, as your insurance friends.
It's not unlike those who say their is no government money, it's we the taxpayers money. :D
Well I was being facetious to make a point. Which is, what makes everyone think that, if we eliminate all ability for an injured party to recover damages from anyone, that your insurance premiums would actually go down?
Didn't we already go through this scam with "No Fault" insurance in this state? Last I checked, my auto insurance premiums are still pretty hefty...
Doesn't it seem far more likely that they'll just get what they want and keep the extra profits?
Here's more good reading on this point;
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=mitchell_nathanson
http://www.floridapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/toxic-free-communities/toxic-free-communities/the-good-hands-company-or-a-leader-in-anti-consumer-practices-excessive-prices-and-poor-claims-practices-at-the-allstate-corporation
http://www.tideroofingtx.com/Documents/BerardinelliExcerpts.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nw&pname=mm_0907_story1.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Domino+strategy%3A+when+Allstate's+claims+adjusters+engage+in+the+...-a075754387
Quote from: stephendare on August 07, 2010, 06:31:25 PM
Quote from: stjr on August 07, 2010, 06:11:46 PM
Chris, don't be so literal. When I say its the policyholder's money, I mean it comes out of the policyholder's premiums which do start as MY money before I turn it over to the insurer. And, as a policyholder, even if I switch insurers, I will be dinged additional premiums, because the new underwriter will base their premium quote on my loss history prior with any previous insurer. So, there is no escaping that I WILL pay for all my losses, short of those rare instances where they are deemed "shock" claims that exceed stop loss retentions of the primary insurer. Don't believe me, as your insurance friends.
It's not unlike those who say their is no government money, it's we the taxpayers money. :D
Actually, the money collected by insurance companies merely serves as a capitalization pool.
http://ifawebnews.com/2010/08/05/allstates-investments-drag-down-quarterly-numbers/
http://www.statefarm.com/about/companie.asp
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0000232016-page.html
http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/Prudential_Bache_Securities_LLC-Business-Continuition-Plan.pdf
Most of them are only halfway in the business of "insurance". They are speculators who invest in real estate and securities. Most of the money they make comes from these investments. If they paid out claims fairly, then the runaway expenses of medicine and litigation would never be anywhere near what they are now.
I did business with a few doctors in Muncie, and from a couple of different angles.
One of them, a family doctor, could only collect 30% of whatever he billed the insurance company no matter what his prices were or how fairly he charged. In order to be paid fairly he had to charge one amount as his 'standard fee' and then gave huge 'discounts' when people paid with cash.
Also, while at the law firm, I did my fair share of insurance settlements for personal injuries. The insurance companies do not pay for the very things they insure. It was shocking.
You can see this kind of shenanigan happening right now on the Gulf, where BP was out on the beach the day after the platform exploded, paying out a thousand dollars apeice to people to limit their damages.
No, Im afraid I have to agree with Chris here.
The only good guys are the attorneys who fight these bloodsucking monsters.
Even more absurd than their passing their investment losses along to policyholders are their ever-shrinking gross claims ratios, meaning roughly 1/4 to 1/3rd (and growing) of each dollar collected in premiums is retained as pure profit.
So not only do they get to invest their liquidity pool in the meantime, but by fighting claims tooth & nail these people are actually turning insurance into negative protection, e.g. it actually costs more than it's worth. Originally, a claims ratio of 100% wasn't considered awful, now Allstate (one of the worst offenders) has around a 70% ratio and dropping.
But yeah, it's all all the bloodsucking lawyers that cause high premiums, right? It's not the fact that these companies are wrongly denying claims that then forces their insured to retain a lawyer in order to collect what was rightly contractually owed in the first place. Or the fact that they're charging far more in premiums than they ever pay in claims, and then still running around acting like they're broke, in order to increase their profit margins?
I agree with Stephen 100%, these guys just take your money and weasel out of paying anything they can. Then they vilify the only mechanism by which anyone can make them do what they're supposed to do, namely the court system. And the right-wing politicians, being pro-business under all circumstances no matter what (remember that wonderful televised apology to BP?) buy into the whole charade and keep passing legislation that further reduces everyone's rights against unnecessary rate increases and the wrongful denial of claims.
Everyone can keep drinking the koolaid for now, but eventually there will be no right to recovery left to take away, which naturally will result in less caution and care being taken in the running of medical facilities, fewer payments of rightful claims, and the opening of a pandora's box of negligent business practices once nobody has to pay for anything no matter how badly they screwed something up.
Well "to hell with it" you say! You'll just cancel that worthless insurance, since they won't pay anyway, right? WRONG. Thanks to the wonderful insurance lobby, there are myriad statutes which legally require you to purchase insurance coverage to operate many types of businesses, or just to drive your car. So you're stuck.
After all the "reform" in "tort reform" is complete, then imagine how shocked everybody'll be when their insurance premiums are still higher than ever. Because, of course, that was never the real problem to begin with...
The only difference will be that they now have much less incentive to pay your claim...
Even more shocking...
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/27/as-insurers-game-the-medical-loss-ratio-key-members-of-congress-weigh-steps-to-fight-back/
So yeah...CLEARLY it's all the "frivolous lawsuits" causing the cost of healthcare to rise, right? NOT.
Sheesh, people! Take a look at some of the actual statistics and data in this whole mess before you run off believing all the B.S. that the insurance lobby and its bought legislators try to feed you. Litgation isn't the problem here, and never was.
Continuing with all this "tort reform" mess is simply going to make your claims less likely to be paid, it's not actually going to lower your rates. The problem to begin with is that these companies continue jacking premiums at a rate that far outpaces their expenses, and far outpaces anything that is rationally necessary.
Quote from: stephendare on August 07, 2010, 06:31:25 PM
One of them, a family doctor, could only collect 30% of whatever he billed the insurance company no matter what his prices were or how fairly he charged. In order to be paid fairly he had to charge one amount as his 'standard fee' and then gave huge 'discounts' when people paid with cash.
This is 100% true. I think the national average for insurance reimbursements is actually closer to 70 or 80 %, though. Just imagine Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements! They are as low as 10-20% and average somewhere between 40-50%. Now that is not a good thing for anyone, and that is a major reason why I don't trust the government to get involved in the healthcare industry.
Yea I guess out of the hundreds of insurance companies out there, of course there are some unscrupulous ones. I also agree that it should be law that insurance companies do not turn away patients because of a pre-existing condition and that people should be able to shop around more for policies that might be cheaper or better (cross state lines...in Alabama for instance, people have 1 choice so it is essentially a monopoly), and I think people should have ownership of their policies so that they don't have to go through all that trouble every time they move or change jobs, and a host of other changes. HMOs have largely backfired on their original purpose ironically, and even more ironically, the person that criticized them the most in recent years, Ted Kennedy, basically created them.
All that is not to say that insurance companies, which are for profit, are not evil for trying to profit. If lawyers are socially allowed to make huge profits on their clients' claims, even if the claims are illegitimate, then insurance companies should be able to make whatever profit they can in the boundaries of the law and within morally just standards (most people break those, not just insurance companies, trial lawyers may be the biggest culprits).
All that this argument has come to is one side on the defense of their position and the other side criticizing the defense side's sources, as usual. It's fun for a little bit, you have to pick your battles or you will wear yourself out on this board. There is no way I am touching the debate on pensions, LoL. And I still stand that we need to benefit the doctors as much as possible (not the insurance companies and DEFINITELY not the lawyers). The doctors are the most "just" and reasonable people out of those groups, and they are the ones actually working to heal people.
Quote from: simms3 on August 07, 2010, 08:58:10 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 07, 2010, 06:31:25 PM
One of them, a family doctor, could only collect 30% of whatever he billed the insurance company no matter what his prices were or how fairly he charged. In order to be paid fairly he had to charge one amount as his 'standard fee' and then gave huge 'discounts' when people paid with cash.
This is 100% true. I think the national average for insurance reimbursements is actually closer to 70 or 80 %, though. Just imagine Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements! They are as low as 10-20% and average somewhere between 40-50%. Now that is not a good thing for anyone, and that is a major reason why I don't trust the government to get involved in the healthcare industry.
Yea I guess out of the hundreds of insurance companies out there, of course there are some unscrupulous ones. I also agree that it should be law that insurance companies do not turn away patients because of a pre-existing condition and that people should be able to shop around more for policies that might be cheaper or better (cross state lines...in Alabama for instance, people have 1 choice so it is essentially a monopoly), and I think people should have ownership of their policies so that they don't have to go through all that trouble every time they move or change jobs, and a host of other changes. HMOs have largely backfired on their original purpose ironically, and even more ironically, the person that criticized them the most in recent years, Ted Kennedy, basically created them.
All that is not to say that insurance companies, which are for profit, are not evil for trying to profit. If lawyers are socially allowed to make huge profits on their clients' claims, even if the claims are illegitimate, then insurance companies should be able to make whatever profit they can in the boundaries of the law and within morally just standards (most people break those, not just insurance companies, trial lawyers may be the biggest culprits).
All that this argument has come to is one side on the defense of their position and the other side criticizing the defense side's sources, as usual. It's fun for a little bit, you have to pick your battles or you will wear yourself out on this board. There is no way I am touching the debate on pensions, LoL. And I still stand that we need to benefit the doctors as much as possible (not the insurance companies and DEFINITELY not the lawyers). The doctors are the most "just" and reasonable people out of those groups, and they are the ones actually working to heal people.
The doctors are no "better" than the lawyers or insurers, that's another myth.
They scam the system with double-standard billing systems, just as Stephen has described, and as you have already acknowledged, in order to operate profitably in the cost-bloated present structure of the U.S. healthcare system. I'm not blaming them for it, the insurance companies have necessitated everyone acting this way. And again, you ought to quit knocking lawyers, since malpractice litigation actually accounts for less than 2% of healthcare costs, even according to your own cited sources.
So I'm not sure why, when I just cited the same sources you cited, which clearly indicate that the litigation expenses that you're laying blame on actually only account for 0.06%-2% of healthcare spending, you're somehow still blaming lawyers for the 114% rise in healthcare costs over the past several years.
So now that we've dispensed with that bunch of utter B.S., ironically enough using the very same sources you initially cited, perhaps you could do me the favor of explaining what justifies the other 113.4%?
And while you're at it, could someone explain why the entire republican party and several posters on this board are focused on 0.6% of the problem and ignoring the other 113.4%? I mean, forget your ideology here for a second, even if everyone in the country conceded every point in your argument and eliminated civil lawsuits altogether, it still wouldn't do a damned thing to actually fix the problem.
So I don't get it. Why the silly fixation?
So read something which includes the actual facts, then tell me again how tort reform is going to fix healthcare...
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html
My favorite quote in the piece;
Quote
Why, then, the insistence on tort reform?
For one thing, it's more easily grasped than the more complicated arguments for health care reform.
And another good point;
Quote
There's no evidence that these caps on non-economic damages reduce the frequency of (malpractice) claims," said Chandra of Harvard.
And this pretty much sums up the true problem;
Quote
professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of "The Medical Malpractice Myth," theorized that having "a common enemy" keeps insurance and pharmaceutical companies -- the real culprits behind rising costs, he said -- from fighting among themselves.
My original response was more focused on the original subject of liability insurance. Somehow we got diverted to health insurance which is somewhat of a different animal. On that, I think we can agree that insurance companies, lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, and medical providers are all in the game to profit handsomely. The real losers are the policyholders who pay for all these players financial gains. [By the way, doctors are best friends with lawyers when they profit from providing "expert" testimony about those "injuries" that are fully attributable to that "slip and fall" or workers comp claim against a business. So, don't think the medical profession can't be guilty of driving up premiums derived from these cases too.]
Nothing wrong with profits if they are derived from a process transparent and efficient to their customers. But, it really isn't anymore. Who to blame? Politicians working for an electorate looking for over-simplified answers and gimmicky solutions that really don't work for anyone and end up costing us even more money through super-complex administration (I think some medical providers today would place this far over the costs of malpractice threats and would share with the insurance companies that this is a common enemy to all health care costs) that fails to deliver on promised "value adds", unproductive and misguided regulatory enforcement, and political mandates such as making the insured pay or subsidize the uninsureds. Add policyholders who don't ask questions or attempt to understand their coverages and what they are, or are not, getting for their money. They expect to be paid for every problem life deals them, no questions asked. Maybe the dumbing down of America is the real issue here. (Although, in fairness, many policies are so complex today that it often may take a lawyer to understand one. At least readable summaries should be required.)
As you might expect, the populace wants cheap but perfect state-of-the-art medical care fully paid for by insurance companies while fully reserving the right to sue insurers and/or medical providers for any practices they disapprove of. Add the political twist that no one in this country should be denied access to health care, a noble but expensive proposition. Maybe, some of us are unrealistic at what it costs to deliver all this and/or unwilling to save and invest an appropriate amount in our own health. I am constantly amazed to see people think nothing of spending thousands on maintaining a vehicle but unwilling to spend a few dollars on a copay for their health!
We need to "blow up" all the current systems and start over from scratch but, as the health care reform debate showed, while most can agree on that goal, too many special interests in every quarter vested in the status quo guarantee that the extensive changes needed will never come to be. Instead, we end up with compromises that just compound the inefficiencies and costs of the existing systems.
Quote from: stjr on August 08, 2010, 12:29:29 AM
My original response was more focused on the original subject of liability insurance. Somehow we got diverted to health insurance which is somewhat of a different animal. On that, I think we can agree that insurance companies, lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, and medical providers are all in the game to profit handsomely. The real losers are the policyholders who pay for all these players financial gains. [By the way, doctors are best friends with lawyers when they profit from providing "expert" testimony about those "injuries" that are fully attributable to that "slip and fall" or workers comp claim against a business. So, don't think the medical profession can't be guilty of driving up premiums derived from these cases too.]
Nothing wrong with profits if they are derived from a process transparent and efficient to their customers. But, it really isn't anymore. Who to blame? Politicians working for an electorate looking for over-simplified answers and gimmicky solutions that really don't work for anyone and end up costing us even more money through super-complex administration (I think some medical providers today would place this far over the costs of malpractice threats and would share with the insurance companies that this is a common enemy to all health care costs) that fails to deliver on promised "value adds", unproductive and misguided regulatory enforcement, and political mandates such as making the insured pay or subsidize the uninsureds. Add policyholders who don't ask questions or attempt to understand their coverages and what they are, or are not, getting for their money. They expect to be paid for every problem life deals them, no questions asked. Maybe the dumbing down of America is the real issue here. (Although, in fairness, many policies are so complex today that it often may take a lawyer to understand one. At least readable summaries should be required.)
As you might expect, the populace wants cheap but perfect state-of-the-art medical care fully paid for by insurance companies while fully reserving the right to sue insurers and/or medical providers for any practices they disapprove of. Add the political twist that no one in this country should be denied access to health care, a noble but expensive proposition. Maybe, some of us are unrealistic at what it costs to deliver all this and/or unwilling to save and invest an appropriate amount in our own health. I am constantly amazed to see people think nothing of spending thousands on maintaining a vehicle but unwilling to spend a few dollars on a copay for their health!
We need to "blow up" all the current systems and start over from scratch but, as the health care reform debate showed, while most can agree on that goal, too many special interests in every quarter vested in the status quo guarantee that the extensive changes needed will never come to be. Instead, we end up with compromises that just compound the inefficiencies and costs of the existing systems.
You didn't read the prior link at all, did you?
You are still parroting the right-wing B.S. that simply isn't backed up by any data. How many links need to be posted showing that less than 2% of healthcare spending is related in any way to civil liability in general, and virtually nothing is related to "frivolous" lawsuits, while a 114% increase in healthcare costs has occurred which has nothing whatsoever to do with litigation, before you'll finally open your eyes on this one?
I'll say it again, even if the entire country agreed with every point in your incorrect argument, then wow...congratulations, it wouldn't do a damned thing to fix the problem, which isn't 0.6% it's the other 113.4%...
Litigation has nothing to do with it, the insurance companies have everything to do with it.
And P.S., expert witnesses are paid by the lawyers everyone vilifies, not by defendant doctors or insurance companies. Actually, if you factored the fees doctors receive for being expert witnesses in PI and medmal cases into the general healthcare revenue, I highly suspect that in aggregate they'd probably exceed the value of medmal jury verdicts. Meaning lawyers as a whole probably pay more into the current healthcare system than they take out.
Of course, none of which would be necessary anyway if insurance companies would fairly adjust claims.
"Tort Reform" is a non-sequitur, and makes no sense. You're removing all accountability from people who make mistakes, at the expense of the general public, and it won't do anything about healthcare costs. As I've demonstrated extensively already. The whole thing is an insurance-industry scam and has nothing to do with what's wrong with our current healthcare system.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 08, 2010, 08:32:27 AM
You didn't read the prior link at all, did you?
You are still parroting the right-wing B.S. that simply isn't backed up by any data. How many links need to be posted showing that less than 2% of healthcare spending is related in any way to civil liability in general, and virtually nothing is related to "frivolous" lawsuits, while a 114% increase in healthcare costs has occurred which has nothing whatsoever to do with litigation, before you'll finally open your eyes on this one?
I'll say it again, even if the entire country agreed with every point in your incorrect argument, then wow...congratulations, it wouldn't do a damned thing to fix the problem, which isn't 0.6% it's the other 113.4%...
Litigation has nothing to do with it, the insurance companies have everything to do with it.
And P.S., expert witnesses are paid by the lawyers everyone vilifies, not by defendant doctors or insurance companies. Actually, if you factored the fees doctors receive for being expert witnesses in PI and medmal cases into the general healthcare revenue, I highly suspect that in aggregate they'd probably exceed the value of medmal jury verdicts. Meaning lawyers as a whole probably pay more into the current healthcare system than they take out.
Of course, none of which would be necessary anyway if insurance companies would fairly adjust claims.
"Tort Reform" is a non-sequitur, and makes no sense. You're removing all accountability from people who make mistakes, at the expense of the general public, and it won't do anything about healthcare costs. As I've demonstrated extensively already. The whole thing is an insurance-industry scam and has nothing to do with what's wrong with our current healthcare system.
Chris, what are you talking about?! It is you who is not carefully reading posts here. I have never said anything about litigation being a major factor in heath insurance premiums. In fact, I stated that administrative costs and covering the uninsured where major factors in addition to everyone wanting the best, latest and greatest medical technology without wanting to contribute fairly to paying the freight for it. And, I already defended a person's right to sue. Quote
I believe everyone should have the right to sue and no one should be exempt as negligence, etc. can be found anywhere and much of the "quality", "safety", "reliability" and "fair dealing" in our services and products has been driven by fear of accountability in court. But the bar should be high enough that the claimant and their attorney pursue only the stronger claims. Not sure if "loser pays" cures that, but it might help.
QuoteWho to blame? Politicians working for an electorate looking for over-simplified answers and gimmicky solutions that really don't work for anyone and end up costing us even more money through super-complex administration (I think some medical providers today would place this far over the costs of malpractice threats and would share with the insurance companies that this is a common enemy to all health care costs) that fails to deliver on promised "value adds", unproductive and misguided regulatory enforcement, and political mandates such as making the insured pay or subsidize the uninsureds.
QuoteMaybe, some of us are unrealistic at what it costs to deliver all this and/or unwilling to save and invest an appropriate amount in our own health. I am constantly amazed to see people think nothing of spending thousands on maintaining a vehicle but unwilling to spend a few dollars on a copay for their health!
That doesn't mean the system isn't abused. Every system has bad apples abusing it and the legal system is no different. Nor are the medical providers, insurance companies, the government, or the policy holders. Freeloaders can be found everywhere. I didn't quantify that abuse. I just noted it happens and we need to wring it out of the system wherever we can. Nowhere did I say this was a major cause of increased premiums. Further, my comments about litigation only extended originally to liability claims and the joint benefits lawyers AND insurers derive from the claims process.
As to the doctors testifying, the fees paid for them to be expert witnesses is not the issue. It's the cost to the casualty insurance system that their testimony generates, such costs going to pay ongoing medical expenses to said doctors. I merely questioned situations where this testimony exaggerates the claim to the cost of the system, and ultimately to the policyholder who pay the premiums that support it. And, the testimony I was referring to was for liability and workers comp claims. It had nothing to do with health insurance.
So, again, Chris, what the heck are you referring to?
Quote from: stjr on August 08, 2010, 05:59:42 PM
That doesn't mean the system isn't abused. Every system has bad apples abusing it and the legal system is no different. Nor are the medical providers, insurance companies, the government, or the policy holders. Freeloaders can be found everywhere. I didn't quantify that abuse. I just noted it happens and we need to wring it out of the system wherever we can. Nowhere did I say this was a major cause of increased premiums. Further, my comments about litigation only extended originally to liability claims and the joint benefits lawyers AND insurers derive from the claims process.
As to the doctors testifying, the fees paid for them to be expert witnesses is not the issue. It's the cost to the casualty insurance system that their testimony generates, such costs going to pay ongoing medical expenses to said doctors. I merely questioned situations where this testimony exaggerates the claim to the cost of the system, and ultimately to the policyholder who pay the premiums that support it. And, the testimony I was referring to was for liability and workers comp claims. It had nothing to do with health insurance.
So, again, Chris, what the heck are you referring to?
I was referring to this portion of your statement.
To begin with, doctors' expert testimony doesn't "increase claims costs to the system." The claim is already whatever it is beforehand, the reason doctors testify for a plaintiff is generally to describe and prove it to a jury. What increases costs to the system are insurance companies that instead of paying claims, make bogus low settlement offers, or refuse to pay at all. That then necessitates the entire process of instituting a lawsuit.
And further, there is very little "abuse" in the system. At the end of the day, the buck stops at the jury box, which is generally filled with people like simms who are convinced that if they deny the recovery their insurance rates will go down. It's already incredibly hard to obtain any sizeable jury verdict in Florida, regardless of how badly injured and how badly disabled the victim may be for the remainder of their life expectancy.
This assumption that there is all this "abuse" as you put it, in the system, is just untrue and that impression is a product of the insurance companies' own making.
Funny, if there are very few jury awards in Florida then how do the trial lawyers pay for all of the TV and billboard advertising? Eddie Farah alone spends well over $1 million per year on advertising.
Point !
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 09, 2010, 02:38:26 PM
Funny, if there are very few jury awards in Florida then how do the trial lawyers pay for all of the TV and billboard advertising? Eddie Farah alone spends well over $1 million per year on advertising.
Simple, he makes it work on volume.
He has a lot more clients than your typical attorney, due to the same advertising you mentioned. Your logic is the same as saying "Well WalMart's markups must be huge since they're making so much money" when in reality they're making the money on volume, not on making a huge profit on every single sale.
Again, all this anecdotal evidence is right-wing B.S. logic that doesn't hold up when you look at the actual data related to allegedly "frivolous" lawsuits. The truth is that it simply isn't a real problem at all. What it is, however, is a distraction from the real problems.
Settlements?
Of course settlements. That's the dirty little dance that the plaintiff's attorneys and the insurance companies have going and we all pay the price in our premiums. The attorneys and the insurance companies are NOT opponents.
But Stephen, they wouldn't be able to hold on to those tender parts if we weren't so frightened by the lawyers. IMHO they are partners in an extortion racket.
AND my wallet is an extremely sensitive part of my anatomy! ;D
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2010, 10:09:23 AM
But Stephen, they wouldn't be able to hold on to those tender parts if we weren't so frightened by the lawyers. IMHO they are partners in an extortion racket.
AND my wallet is an extremely sensitive part of my anatomy! ;D
Lawyers don't "threaten" anyone. The threat is really to the public at large, when someone acts in a negliglent fashion, you're injured as a result, and then they or (more likely) their insurance carrier unilaterally declare that you're going to have to suck it up since compensating you for your loss would hurt profits. How is that fair to anyone?
You seriously make zero sense. I've already posted much of the actual data in this debate, and you keep coming back to nonsensical right-wing anecdotal B.S. that sounds halfway catchy but doesn't actually add up. I really am starting to believe the quote from that U Penn professor who said the attraction behind tort reform is that certain factions can't understand the more complicated issues.
And I lent one of my vacant offices to a private investigator so he could videotape an "injured and disabled" client of a prominent law firm load heavy boxes on a truck.
There is little admirable in either camp and you are right about the insurance companies when it comes to injury claims.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2010, 10:01:51 AM
Of course settlements. That's the dirty little dance that the plaintiff's attorneys and the insurance companies have going and we all pay the price in our premiums. The attorneys and the insurance companies are NOT opponents.
I can assure you that's total bunk. Plaintiffs attorneys and insurance companies most certainly ARE opponents.
Where do you come up with this utter nonsense? I bet I can guess...
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2010, 10:20:41 AM
And I lent one of my vacant offices to a private investigator so he could videotape an "injured and disabled" client of a prominent law firm load heavy boxes on a truck.
There is little admirable in either camp and you are right about the insurance companies when it comes to injury claims.
Do you have any idea what the man's job was?
Being able to lift a box doesn't mean he's able to perform his profession. What if the guy was an airline pilot, and because of the injury he's unable to get his FAA medical certificate renewed? (Actual case). What if he's a surgeon, and because of neurological damage his hands tremble? (Actual case). What if he's a bus driver, and because of a back injury requiring fused discs he cannot sit for 8 hours at a time? (Actual case).
All those people could certainly lift some silly boxes, but that doesn't mean they're fit to perform their jobs. This is why all the anecdotal B.S. you right-wingers spew is really so crazy. It's like you're replacing actual logic with this "feel good" "downhome commonsense" crap, except that's not actually how the world works, and it's usually so completely off base that it's not even funny.
Every injury, incident or bad outcome does not result from negligence.
Current "tort reform" measures that are being talked about now such as caps on awards are scams put out by the insurance companies and will not result in fewer lawsuits or lower premiums.
It is indeed a complicated subject and there are no simple answers, but our current arrangement is not good and is being abused by both the insurance companies and the personal injury industry at our expense.
And WOW! I've NEVER been accused of being right-wing before. It's a funny feeling. :D
Sorry Chris. That was exactly the job that was claimed he could no longer do. Irony was that the rented warehouse where he was working was owned by Eddie Farah. (who was not representing him BTW)
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2010, 10:32:33 AM
Sorry Chris. That was exactly the job that was claimed he could no longer do. Irony was that the rented warehouse where he was working was owned by Eddie Farah. (who was not representing him BTW)
What was the job, lifting boxes?
So if you lift some boxes one day, that means you can do it 365 days a year?
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2010, 10:28:57 AM
Every injury, incident or bad outcome does not result from negligence.
Current "tort reform" measures that are being talked about now such as caps on awards are scams put out by the insurance companies and will not result in fewer lawsuits or lower premiums.
It is indeed a complicated subject and there are no simple answers, but our current arrangement is not good and is being abused by both the insurance companies and the personal injury industry at our expense.
And WOW! I've NEVER been accused of being right-wing before. It's a funny feeling. :D
Nobody said every injury is the result of negligence. What does that have to do with anything?
We're talking about the ones that actually are the result of negligence, and the behavior of the parties afterwards. That's a nice little anecdote, but as usual, not relevant. And I do not agree that any "personal injury industry" exists to any extent that wasn't created by the insurance companies' own unethical claims handling practices.
QuoteAnd I do not agree that any "personal injury industry" exists to any extent that wasn't created by the insurance companies' own unethical claims handling practices.
And if you will add that the industry was also formed by the plaintiff's attorneys unethical behavior creating "negligence" where there wasn't any to get a settlement, then we are in perfect agreement.
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 10, 2010, 10:40:35 AM
QuoteAnd I do not agree that any "personal injury industry" exists to any extent that wasn't created by the insurance companies' own unethical claims handling practices.
And if you will add that the industry was also formed by the plaintiff's attorneys unethical behavior creating "negligence" where there wasn't any to get a settlement, then we are in perfect agreement.
The "industry" was formed by the development of unethical insurance adjustment practices that force a disproportionate number of claimants to retain an attorney just in order to get a claim paid.
Yea Stephen thanks...I'm one of the "kids" on this forum and sometimes can come across as immature I imagine, but I have just been kind of baffled by how someone is pushing their argument and bringing partisan lines into it and personal attacks. That's all I was saying. Maybe I'm not the youngest person in this thread after all ::) He thinks my pointing out his personal attacks is a personal attack on him! :D I am just done arguing this point; none of us are going to see eye to eye and it's a waste of my time to have this back and forth...
Quote from: simms3 on August 10, 2010, 10:37:31 AM
Chris, instead of all these vitriolic attacks on "right wingers" you could just make your point and be done with it. You sound like the most bitter person I could possibly imagine. I know most people on this forum probably fall into the middle or middle left political spectrum, but for those of us who are middle right, you sound like a little cry baby all the time with your wha wha attacks on evil "right wingers" and Fox News. Get over it because nobody who already disagrees with your points is going to suddenly agree with you when you are trying to level insults (that imo aren't insults). I don't hear people calling you a Commie leftist who is brainwashed by MSNBC, so don't do the same with us. Ya hear?
Typical.
When your argument is disproved by the data, you resort to attacking the opponent in your debate.
And save yourself the carpal tunnel, I couldn't possibly care less what you think of me. *yawn* (ya hear?)
It might be interesting to see how the developed, industrialized countries in Europe and Asia handle the same problems. It is my understanding that they do not have our big insurance companies or specialized personal injury attorneys. (Don't know for sure)
Do they have a huge number of people who are not compensated after they have been injured by someone's negligence? Do their insurance companies have a different standard for paying claims? Does their legal system have a different method of arriving at what is fair without the battle-to-the-death method that we use?
I know that since they have universal medical care that medical costs are not an issue, but what about disability or pain & suffering? How do people there pay lawyers to take their cases if contingency fees are not allowed?
Chris, do you know of any comparative studies? Was anything like this covered in your law school courses?
While browsing in the "new non-fiction books" section of the downtown library this past week, I picked up a copy of "Delay, Deny, Defend" by Jay M. Feinman, a distinguished law professor at Rutgers University who has written several books on the law for non-lawyers. I would not have picked up this book except for our discussion in this thread.
His writing is simple, clear and direct. He traces the change in insurance companies policies and procedures back to the early '90's when they began to regard the claims offices as profit centers.
Instead of making their insured whole as they have promised to do they are now evaluating their employees on how much they can reduce the claim amounts as established by computer programs. Claims adjusters are no longer experienced professionals, but clerical types who enter data into "expert" systems that are tuned to make any claim as inexpensive as possible.
He points to State Farm and Allstate as pioneers and worst offenders in this recent effort and has many examples to illustrate the methods used to deny, delay and defend (litigate) as many claims as possible. He also includes a chapter on the inflated charges of "insurance fraud" and shows how if you have three or more family members in an older car who are injured in an accident the computer program will flag your claim as fraud and their fraud unit will investigate you.
The book and subsequent reading on various web sites has turned my head around completely about the probity of the insurance companies and I didn't have a high regard for them in the first place. I had no idea that they had changed so much in so short a period of time.
Chris's opinion of them is fully justified.
QuoteThe "industry" was formed by the development of unethical insurance adjustment practices that force a disproportionate number of claimants to retain an attorney just in order to get a claim paid.
Dog Walker...............your right on the money! Lawyers are a boil on the backside of humanity! Sorry Chris!
It looks more like a conviction of insurers than lawyers.
Quote from: buckethead on August 23, 2010, 08:41:21 PM
It looks more like a conviction of insurers than lawyers.
Maybe they are symbiotic. One can't survive without the other! :D
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 23, 2010, 04:23:47 PM
While browsing in the "new non-fiction books" section of the downtown library this past week, I picked up a copy of "Delay, Deny, Defend" by Jay M. Feinman, a distinguished law professor at Rutgers University who has written several books on the law for non-lawyers. I would not have picked up this book except for our discussion in this thread.
His writing is simple, clear and direct. He traces the change in insurance companies policies and procedures back to the early '90's when they began to regard the claims offices as profit centers.
Instead of making their insured whole as they have promised to do they are now evaluating their employees on how much they can reduce the claim amounts as established by computer programs. Claims adjusters are no longer experienced professionals, but clerical types who enter data into "expert" systems that are tuned to make any claim as inexpensive as possible.
He points to State Farm and Allstate as pioneers and worst offenders in this recent effort and has many examples to illustrate the methods used to deny, delay and defend (litigate) as many claims as possible. He also includes a chapter on the inflated charges of "insurance fraud" and shows how if you have three or more family members in an older car who are injured in an accident the computer program will flag your claim as fraud and their fraud unit will investigate you.
The book and subsequent reading on various web sites has turned my head around completely about the probity of the insurance companies and I didn't have a high regard for them in the first place. I had no idea that they had changed so much in so short a period of time.
Chris's opinion of them is fully justified. QuoteThe "industry" was formed by the development of unethical insurance adjustment practices that force a disproportionate number of claimants to retain an attorney just in order to get a claim paid.
I'm glad you came around, I was frankly a little surprised to see you on the other side of this debate. Normally I find myself agreeing with you, and your views have always seemed well-thought out.
The puzzling thing about tort reform is that the actual data on the subject is so completely opposite to the picture that the insurance companies and politicians have painted for the public. The insurance lobby is behind all of it, and this shouldn't be a shock, since the judicial system is the only fly in the ointment when it comes to wrongfully denying and lowballing claims. The sad thing is that so many believe that nonsense without researching any of it. The real data is 180 degrees opposite from the right-wing tort reform nonsense, it doesn't take very long to spot the scam once you look at any real info.
The real-world data proves dispositively that malpractice lawsuits have nothing to do with healthcare costs. The insurance companies simply played the "blame the lawyer" game with the AMA when they started catching flak for jacking premiums without justification, and the medical lobby bought it hook line and sinker. The insurance industry has successfully managed to have everybody blaming lawyers whenever they get a rate increase notice on their dental insurance.
The whole thing's a giant scam, and the true problem in healthcare, casualty, malpractice, and pretty much everything else, is the greed of the insurance companies. Despite the line of B.S. everyone has been fed, there isn't anyone else to blame. The marketplace has been largely deregulated, and now you have thousands of insurance companies all competing for the same customers. Then each and every one of them has to turn around and show their investors an 8%-10% annual increase in profit, or the market considers their financial performance unsatisfactory.
The problem is that the population isn't growing that fast. The industry, in return, has resorted to business practices that amount to nothing more than the routine disregard of their contractual obligations to policyholders. Profits skyrocketed when claims adjusting became nothing more than fraud-with-a-smile, but that only further fueled market expectations of future growth.
In return, the companies resorted to all sorts of other tacts, e.g. eliminating virtually all customer service, outsourcing jobs, that kind of thing. People ignored all of this with the typical "Well who cares, it's not me!" logic, but eventually the industry had no option but to start jacking premiums. When people demanded to know "why?" the true answer would have been "because I reported an $XXX operating profit last year and so this year I need to report $XXX +10% or my share price gets killed and I can't cash in on my $100mil worth of stock options".
But rather than saying that, it's easier to blame lawyers and point back to some anecdotal one-in-a-million case against McDonalds from 1993 as evidence of "runaway juries" and the need for tort reform. Nobody ever mentions the millions of cases annually where an insurer wrongfully denied a claim, or refused to pay the full value of the loss for no good reason, despite being contractually obligated to do so, and the policyholder was then forced to sue the insurance company to collect what they were rightfully owed. I guess the public isn't so fascinated when things work like they're supposed to. Which is what happens most of the time.
You will like this article, Chris. Lawyers, insurance companies, and medical providers - maybe everyone is leaching off of the consumer. Add the politicians who are enriched by all their special interest groups plying them with campaign monies and its no wonder things are getting worse instead of better. Quote
Sutter Health's Market Power Is Questioned
Insurers say the Northern California hospital chain uses its market clout to raise prices
By Peter Waldman
After Dr. Mark Logsdon tore a ligament in his knee skiing at Lake Tahoe in March, he returned home to Sacramento and had an MRI scan at Sutter Davis Hospital. Sutter's price for the knee scan was $1,271, payable by Logsdon and his insurer. The same MRI at a local office owned by Radiological Associates of Sacramento would have cost $696, or 45 percent less.
Logsdon didn't know something his insurer does: Sutter Health, the nonprofit that owns Sutter Davis, charges 40 percent to 70 percent more than its rivals for a typical procedure, and it requires insurers to keep its rates secret. Sutter, with 2009 revenues of $8.8 billion, can charge these prices because it has acquired more than a third of the medical-care market in the region from San Francisco to Sacramento. The company has taken over more than 20 hospitals in the past 30 years, according to executives at Aetna (AET), Health Net (HNT), and Blue Shield of California who asked not to be named because their agreements with Sutter ban such disclosures. The executives say operating so many of an area's most popular hospitals, doctor groups, and testing facilities gives Sutter the ability to stare down insurers and employers.
The pricing power of local hospital systems has received little attention in the national health-care debate, says Stanford University economist Alain Enthoven. In 2009, as consumer prices fell for the first time in 54 years, the U.S. health bill rose 5.7 percent, to $2.47 trillion, a record 17.3 percent of the economy. "Provider consolidation is driving up health-care costs," Enthoven says.
Sutter Chief Executive Officer Patrick Fry says his company conducts itself properly in a competitive envi ronment. "I don't see Sutter Health as having market power, given the choices that employers can make," he says. "The market has a lot of room to make a lot of decisions."
Federal investigators in five statesâ€"Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshireâ€"are probing proposed hospital takeovers and consolidating medical practices for evidence of antitrust violations. "The enforcement pendulum has now swung back to where it should be," says Matthew J. Reilly, assistant director of the Federal Trade Commission's competition bureau.
Sutter spokesman William Gleeson says Sutter knows of no antitrust investigation of the company. While it may have higher "unit" prices than its competitors, it is not the most costly for patients over the long run because its integration of hospitals and doctor groups allows it to provide more efficient care, says CEO Fry.
The U.S. has 5,800 hospitals, divided about evenly between nonprofits and for-profits. Nearly 3,000 changed owners from 1994 through 2009, says research firm Irving Levin Associates. Most were rolled into regional chains like Sutter.
The new health-reform law aims to achieve $500 billion in savings over the next decade to help pay for extending coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. Yet it doesn't address the problem of market concentrationâ€"and may make it worse, says Dr. Robert Berenson, a physician and analyst at the Urban Institute. The clout of hospital and physician groups in California is a "cautionary tale for national health reform," he adds, because incentives in the reform law to improve treatment by promoting doctor-hospital alliances could strengthen providers' bargaining leverage.
Higher prices for medical services stemming from hospital mergers that took place from 1997 to 2006 add $12 billion to annual health costs, according to a study last year by Cory Capps, a former Justice Dept. economist. Capps, now a private consultant, says that because of the ability of powerful hospitals to encourage the use of additional medical procedures and the merging of doctors' groups, he might have underestimated the impact by $6 billion to $10 billion annually.
Basic economic theory suggests that competition should narrow big price gaps for the same service. In the U.S., which spends more on health care than any other nation, Sutter and other large local providers show why the theory fails in a system where insurers or third parties foot most of the bills. As it grew, Sutter pursued a strategy to raise prices and make itself "indispensable" to insurance plans, internal company documents produced in a 1999 California state antitrust suit show. Sutter has 24 hospitals, 17 outpatient surgery clinics, and a 3,500-doctor network, making it the largest provider in an 11-county region that is home to 10 million people.
Sutter boasts 35 percent of the revenue and 36 percent of beds in the region, according to a state database. The tallies of 2008 data exclude Kaiser Permanente, whose hospitals are only available to plan members. "They are able to dictate terms," says Jeff Emerson, head of managed care for Aetna, the nation's third-largest health insurer. "Sutter says to all of its payers, to the best of our knowledge, 'These are the terms by which you will deal with Sutter. Take it or leave it.' "
Some business groups agree. "Instead of leveraging its system to be more cost-effective, we've seen Sutter leveraging its system for monopoly pricing," Peter V. Lee told Bloomberg in May, while he worked at Pacific Business Group on Health, a coalition that includes Chevron (CVX), Walt Disney (DIS), General Electric (DIS), and Wells Fargo (WFC). Lee in June became director of health-care delivery system reform for the federal Health & Human Services Dept.
Sutter charges more than many rivals for a wide range of services, from colonoscopies to births (table), according to prices posted on an Aetna website in May, before they were removed. After the removal, the site responded to inquiries about Sutter prices with the message: "Facility does not permit Aetna to disclose fees." Sutter spokesman Gleeson says the company doesn't allow its prices to be disclosed because the data are often misleading and don't reflect the variables of each patient's case.
Cost never occurred to Logsdon, the Sacramento doctor who wrecked his knee skiing. He says he was "shocked" to discover later that the MRI cost nearly twice as much at Sutter Davis as it would have at Radiological Associates, where he is chairman of the oncology division. He says he went to Sutter Davis for convenience. "I guess I'm a textbook case of why policymakers say they need to make patients feel the cost of these things."
The bottom line: The big hospital chain controls a third of health-care resources in parts of Northern California. Insurers worry that lets it control prices
(http://images.businessweek.com/mz/10/36/popup_mz_1036_16compsutter.jpg)
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_36/b4193015983853.htm
Quote from: Dog Walker on August 23, 2010, 04:23:47 PM
While browsing in the "new non-fiction books" section of the downtown library this past week, I picked up a copy of "Delay, Deny, Defend" by Jay M. Feinman, a distinguished law professor at Rutgers University who has written several books on the law for non-lawyers. I would not have picked up this book except for our discussion in this thread.
His writing is simple, clear and direct. He traces the change in insurance companies policies and procedures back to the early '90's when they began to regard the claims offices as profit centers.
Instead of making their insured whole as they have promised to do they are now evaluating their employees on how much they can reduce the claim amounts as established by computer programs. Claims adjusters are no longer experienced professionals, but clerical types who enter data into "expert" systems that are tuned to make any claim as inexpensive as possible.
He points to State Farm and Allstate as pioneers and worst offenders in this recent effort and has many examples to illustrate the methods used to deny, delay and defend (litigate) as many claims as possible. He also includes a chapter on the inflated charges of "insurance fraud" and shows how if you have three or more family members in an older car who are injured in an accident the computer program will flag your claim as fraud and their fraud unit will investigate you.
The book and subsequent reading on various web sites has turned my head around completely about the probity of the insurance companies and I didn't have a high regard for them in the first place. I had no idea that they had changed so much in so short a period of time.
Chris's opinion of them is fully justified. QuoteThe "industry" was formed by the development of unethical insurance adjustment practices that force a disproportionate number of claimants to retain an attorney just in order to get a claim paid.
I really have to say you are an honorable person. I sometimes find myself in debates with folks about one thing or another, and sometimes it becomes clear after awhile that maybe their reasoning wasn't fully thought out, or else they just weren't aware of all the facts. Sometimes I am the one making that realization.
But for whatever reason, most people today just refuse to acknowledge it, and refuse to question their own beliefs at all, which is rather silly and really makes you wonder why they wanted to discuss it in the first place. It takes character to keep an open mind, a quality I'm appreciating more and more as it gets ever harder to find.
This debate was so annoying I had dismissed this place as turning into another Jacksonville.com or News4Jax.com comments section, and had stopped visiting. I really don't enjoy people who relish being presented with every available fact before refusing to acknowledge any of it, and we have to deal with so much of that nonsense in daily life that there isn't any reason to ruin your free time as well. But when I was told about your post and got around to reading it, I was very pleasantly surprised. If it had gone the other way, I'd have done the same for you. That's what separates this site from the others, people who have open minds and the ability to learn from each other.
Quote from: stjr on September 05, 2010, 12:33:48 PM
You will like this article, Chris. Lawyers, insurance companies, and medical providers - maybe everyone is leaching off of the consumer. Add the politicians who are enriched by all their special interest groups plying them with campaign monies and its no wonder things are getting worse instead of better.
Great article, but it has nothing to do with lawyers or lawsuits.
Actually your article is exactly what I've been saying all along, namely that providers and insurers are jacking prices up unnecessarily for no legitimate reason, simply to make more money. The current issues with the healthcare system are caused by outsized corporate profits, anticompetitive behavior, and the "anything goes" pro-business legislative environment of the past decade, which have created an artificially bloated cost structure.
I'd love to see someone tackle the real problems, which are nicely outlined in the article. But the insurance and healthcare lobbies are probably too powerful to expect any real change. But still, as it relates to this topic, it's really quite obvious when you get into the real issues that lawyers have nothing to do with it. That's just propaganda.
Thanks for the compliment, Chris. I've been smacked in the face by reality enough times now that I try to stay open minded enough to be convinced by new information. It hurts less than being smacked in the face.
I've been on both sides of litigation and from those experiences still think that some reform is needed to the system. I can point to instances of problems and abuses on all sides, but don't know enough to propose systemic solutions. Surely we can learn from other legal systems how they handle the same issues and incorporate the best practices.
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 05, 2010, 12:58:58 PM
Thanks for the compliment, Chris. I've been smacked in the face by reality enough times now that I try to stay open minded enough to be convinced by new information. It hurts less than being smacked in the face.
I've been on both sides of litigation and from those experiences still think that some reform is needed to the system. I can point to instances of problems and abuses on all sides, but don't know enough to propose systemic solutions. Surely we can learn from other legal systems how they handle the same issues and incorporate the best practices.
I agree with you, it's just that from what I've seen the vast majority of litigation that people would consider "frivolous" tends to come in the form of bogus defenses, unnecessary motion practice, and discovery games played by corporate (and government) litigants. I do not believe a legislative agenda that curtails the right to sue insurance carriers will do anything other than ensure that nobody's claims get paid. That is something of a no-brainer. If a lawsuit is truly frivolous, it gets dismissed and the litigant gets taxed with costs and fees under F.S. 57.105. Granted that is only a Florida statute, so the federal courts and other state jurisdictions may work differently. But in this state, unsupported suits have been a virtual non-issue since 1999/2000 when that statutory revision went into effect.
Another problem you run into is that you can't change the law for each and every situation, and you have to understand that the vast majority of the time things work as intended. If you start restricting everyone's rights, you wind up throwing out more babies than bathwater. That 1993 McDonalds case and the anecdotal tidbits that people always bring up are statistical outliers that aren't representative of what normally happens. And the whole healthcare debate is just ludicrous, litigation has nothing to do with the current problems. The whole tort reform battle cry generally is a non-issue and a deliberate mis-laying of blame by the insurance lobby.
Another problem in these discussions is that a plaintiff thinks he should win and a defendant doesn't think he should have to pay, that's pretty much a universal. So just by nature, one of the two is going to leave feeling screwed, unless the case settles, then they both feel screwed. That is par for the course, and the truth is that we are adults and we don't always get our way. I guess what I'm saying is everyone really shouldn't be so convinced by limited anecdotal experience that the entire system is flawed. Just by nature, one party in every case is probably going to think the system sucks. You have to recognize this is the nature of a justice system, that's not a flaw, it's just how the system has to work in order to serve its purpose. Everyone doesn't always get their way.
This is like the old saying "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Not sure that there is a "perfect solution" but what we have does tend to work out pretty well. People forget there are probably 10,000 lawsuits filed for every 1 that makes the news for one reason or another.
I was the security guard on duty that day. I lied, there was no lawsuit. Sorry for all the fuss I caused
Ahahahaha!
Quote from: 5pointy on July 25, 2010, 06:09:46 PM
Went to RAM last week and parked in the lot to the east of the market (the elevated lot). There is a public sidewalk that goes along the street, and another shady sidewalk that goes adjacent to one of the bank that is closest to RAM. It is open, not labeled as "no trespassing" and in good repair. As it was about 150 degrees in the shade, I took the shortest and shadiest walk between the parking and the market, and away from the fumes on Riverside Ave--the sidewalk closer to the office building.
A RAM security guard came running towards me and told me I had to walk on the streetside sidewalk--when asked why, she said--"people who walked on that other sidewalk fell, and now they are suing the company. So they want everyone to walk on the city sidewalk, so if they fall, they sue the city!"
I looked at both sidewalks, both are in good repair. If someone falls on either, it is obviously NOT because anyone is at fault. I'm glad that the companies on Riverside who are donating parking space have been so tolerant. Maybe just a tiny little sign that says "walk at your own risk!"-
So what is the status of the lawsuit with the city? 3 years later.
Shipyards-$36,500,000 taxpayer money gone.
The recent Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel Berkman Floating dock compromise next to Shipyards III misrepresented by OGC during the 2013 FIND grant application cycle. Our ad valorem property taxes.
Palms Fish Camp-WTF-ASK-RICO active lawsuit next to a FIND project.
Visit Jacksonville- Our child molesters get pensions too with Board approval and community support.
Weather should be breaking. Who wants to Make a scene, provide a spark by kayaking and fishing under the brand new No Fishing signs that was never before the Jacksonville Waterways Commission and launch at a kayak location that will be getting a Mayor Brown Kayak logo with the full support of councilman Don Redman and Dave Roman that will allow everyone to continue in joining Mayor Brown in Making Downtown a Destination and not a pass through on our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative in our new DIA zone?
Quote from: Noone on March 27, 2013, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: 5pointy on July 25, 2010, 06:09:46 PM
Went to RAM last week and parked in the lot to the east of the market (the elevated lot). There is a public sidewalk that goes along the street, and another shady sidewalk that goes adjacent to one of the bank that is closest to RAM. It is open, not labeled as "no trespassing" and in good repair. As it was about 150 degrees in the shade, I took the shortest and shadiest walk between the parking and the market, and away from the fumes on Riverside Ave--the sidewalk closer to the office building.
A RAM security guard came running towards me and told me I had to walk on the streetside sidewalk--when asked why, she said--"people who walked on that other sidewalk fell, and now they are suing the company. So they want everyone to walk on the city sidewalk, so if they fall, they sue the city!"
I looked at both sidewalks, both are in good repair. If someone falls on either, it is obviously NOT because anyone is at fault. I'm glad that the companies on Riverside who are donating parking space have been so tolerant. Maybe just a tiny little sign that says "walk at your own risk!"-
So what is the status of the lawsuit with the city? 3 years later.
Shipyards-$36,500,000 taxpayer money gone.
The recent Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel Berkman Floating dock compromise next to Shipyards III misrepresented by OGC during the 2013 FIND grant application cycle. Our ad valorem property taxes.
Palms Fish Camp-WTF-ASK-RICO active lawsuit next to a FIND project.
Visit Jacksonville- Our child molesters get pensions too with Board approval and community support.
Weather should be breaking. Who wants to Make a scene, provide a spark by kayaking and fishing under the brand new No Fishing signs that was never before the Jacksonville Waterways Commission and launch at a kayak location that will be getting a Mayor Brown Kayak logo with the full support of councilman Don Redman and Dave Roman that will allow everyone to continue in joining Mayor Brown in Making Downtown a Destination and not a pass through on our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative in our new DIA zone?
Can someone translate?
Quote from: MEGATRON link=topic=9246.msg322076#msg322076 date Can someone translate?
/quote]
2010-604
2010-856
2011-364
2012-202
2012-273
Legislative actions over administrations and councils that leads to a conspiracy that could deny Public Access and Economic opportunity as it relates to our new DIA zone in picking and choosing the winners and losers and this can be shown through Trusts, Foundations, Boards, in an abuse of the PUBLIC TRUST that has resulted in direct personal gain of taxpayer money for family, friends especially as it relates to our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative.
Next Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting 14 days out. Anyone care? Will be making a Donation to 2009 -442 The Artificial Reef Trust Fund. est. by ordinance. Is there just one MJ'er that wants to make a donation? I'll deliver it personally on your behalf. Right now there is an opportunity for 6 artificial reefs in the River south of the Fuller Warren Bridge. That's a fact. Economic Development with the snap of a finger. Numbers given a $100k or less with a lot of inkind donations. FDOT is aware of this.
RAM is just one piece of an economic puzzle as it relates to the TIF floating dock that is only opened when RAM is open. Is JEA building a dock on the Southbank.
Hope this helps. There is a lot more.
Ben- JCCI- We need to kayak Downtown before 2025.
Quote from: MEGATRON on March 27, 2013, 08:54:40 AM
Quote from: Noone on March 27, 2013, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: 5pointy on July 25, 2010, 06:09:46 PM
Went to RAM last week and parked in the lot to the east of the market (the elevated lot). There is a public sidewalk that goes along the street, and another shady sidewalk that goes adjacent to one of the bank that is closest to RAM. It is open, not labeled as "no trespassing" and in good repair. As it was about 150 degrees in the shade, I took the shortest and shadiest walk between the parking and the market, and away from the fumes on Riverside Ave--the sidewalk closer to the office building.
A RAM security guard came running towards me and told me I had to walk on the streetside sidewalk--when asked why, she said--"people who walked on that other sidewalk fell, and now they are suing the company. So they want everyone to walk on the city sidewalk, so if they fall, they sue the city!"
I looked at both sidewalks, both are in good repair. If someone falls on either, it is obviously NOT because anyone is at fault. I'm glad that the companies on Riverside who are donating parking space have been so tolerant. Maybe just a tiny little sign that says "walk at your own risk!"-
So what is the status of the lawsuit with the city? 3 years later.
Shipyards-$36,500,000 taxpayer money gone.
The recent Jim Love, Kevin Kuzel Berkman Floating dock compromise next to Shipyards III misrepresented by OGC during the 2013 FIND grant application cycle. Our ad valorem property taxes.
Palms Fish Camp-WTF-ASK-RICO active lawsuit next to a FIND project.
Visit Jacksonville- Our child molesters get pensions too with Board approval and community support.
Weather should be breaking. Who wants to Make a scene, provide a spark by kayaking and fishing under the brand new No Fishing signs that was never before the Jacksonville Waterways Commission and launch at a kayak location that will be getting a Mayor Brown Kayak logo with the full support of councilman Don Redman and Dave Roman that will allow everyone to continue in joining Mayor Brown in Making Downtown a Destination and not a pass through on our St. Johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative in our new DIA zone?
Can someone translate?
THE ST JOHNS RIVER AN AMERICAN HERTIAGE RIVER A FEDERAL INITIATIVE ETC ETC