As usual, you miss the point.

He's gifted that way.

Whatever the explanation for the delay in competent treatment, it is not good enough.  What a fucking shame.

This poor child’s problems stem in large part from having stupid parents.  You don’t allow a two year old to suffer from a fever for two days before deciding to take her to a doctor.  They should have called her pediatrician when she first got sick; he would most likely have told them to take her to an emergency room to be checked out, and called ahead to make sure she was seen quickly.  Next, a Doc In The Box type operation is not someplace to go to in a life-threatening emergency; a fever in an infant should always be considered potentially fatal and dealt with accordingly.  But the most stupid thing they did is race-mix; the article states the girl’s genetic heritage (she’s Eurasian) gave her a flawed immune system.

So, add the final insult of an inappropriate triage decision in the emergency room to a flawed immune system caused by her parent’s race-mixing, parental indifference early in the child’s illness, seeking inappropriate care very late in the course of her initial illness, and this girl suffered the perfect life shitstorm.  Of course the parents will not be held responsible for their stupid actions, only the emergency room and possibly the Doc In The Box will be held responsible.

Back in the Bad Old Days, half of all children didn't make it to their fifth birthday and only ten percent made it to adulthood.  Most of the ones who didn't make it to age five died of diseases that caused diarrhea and/or fever.  Either of these symptoms can very quickly kill a baby or toddler and need to be dealt with immediately.  The child first became feverish on Sunday morning, and they didn’t go to Doc In The Box until Monday.  This is neglect, plain and simple.  These people also showed remarkable stupidity in how they acted once they decided that maybe they needed to pay attention to their child.  I’m not going to go into how unhealthy race-mixing is psychologically, socially, and genetically for the offspring of miscegenating tards; most of you have long since bought the lies about how wonderful and healthy it is to race-mix.

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

As usual, you miss the point.

Let's see, the title of your post was, All Hail The Corporate Health System.  Which I apparently mistook as a criticism of private health care.  Please tell me exactly what you really meant.

As for HK's comment about tort reform, I believe this is a perfect case to illustrate how tort law should work.  If I had my way (and I am not alone), every filing that includes punitive damages would be accompanied by a bond to pay legal fees and court costs if the plantiff loses.  In this case, if the facts show the hospital was negligent, then some smart lawyer would step in, post the bond and sue the hospital for millions.

That's like what is referred to as the "English Rule" on recovery of attorney's fees (except for the bond part).  Why not simply let the prevailing party, whether plaintiff or defendant, recovery reasonable attorney's fees and costs?  That would add a deterrent both to negligent conduct and unwarranted claims.

Fled wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

As usual, you miss the point.

Let's see, the title of your post was, All Hail The Corporate Health System.  Which I apparently mistook as a criticism of private health care.  Please tell me exactly what you really meant.

As for HK's comment about tort reform, I believe this is a perfect case to illustrate how tort law should work.  If I had my way (and I am not alone), every filing that includes punitive damages would be accompanied by a bond to pay legal fees and court costs if the plantiff loses.  In this case, if the facts show the hospital was negligent, then some smart lawyer would step in, post the bond and sue the hospital for millions.

That's like what is referred to as the "English Rule" on recovery of attorney's fees (except for the bond part).  Why not simply let the prevailing party, whether plaintiff or defendant, recovery reasonable attorney's fees and costs?  That would add a deterrent both to negligent conduct and unwarranted claims.

In either case no one would take med malpractice cases any more and the average guy would end up getting screwed, but that's what the corporatists want.  Just because someone loses a med mal case that doesn't meant the case was frivolous and that no negligence was involved.  In Illinois you have to have a doctor's certificate before your case even gets off the ground, meaning some doctor willing to put his name out to the public has to say that he has reviewed the case and believes there may have been negligence.  This gets rid of most of the bullshit cases right off the bat.  There are ways of doing "tort reform" that are already in place and already working.  While Cook County, Illinois has some of the highest jury verdicts in the nation (we fucking hate doctors and try to stick it to them at every turn, unlike the south where people revere doctors and blame getting the wrong leg sawed off on their own shortcomings), most cases never make it to a jury.  They are either settled or dismissed.

ANd of course tort reform never puts any caps on malpractice premiums.  In states that have enacted tort reform malpractice premiums continue to rise.  Why?  Because there is no relationship between premiums and payouts.

HK wrote:

In either case no one would take med malpractice cases any more and the average guy would end up getting screwed, but that's what the corporatists want.  Just because someone loses a med mal case that doesn't meant the case was frivolous and that no negligence was involved.  In Illinois you have to have a doctor's certificate before your case even gets off the ground, meaning some doctor willing to put his name out to the public has to say that he has reviewed the case and believes there may have been negligence.  This gets rid of most of the bullshit cases right off the bat.  There are ways of doing "tort reform" that are already in place and already working.  While Cook County, Illinois has some of the highest jury verdicts in the nation (we fucking hate doctors and try to stick it to them at every turn, unlike the south where people revere doctors and blame getting the wrong leg sawed off on their own shortcomings), most cases never make it to a jury.  They are either settled or dismissed.

ANd of course tort reform never puts any caps on malpractice premiums.  In states that have enacted tort reform malpractice premiums continue to rise.  Why?  Because there is no relationship between premiums and payouts.

I like the Illinois requirement for a doctor to testify that there could be negligence before a case can be filed.  Unfortunately, if you could meet the doctors here in CA who are writing medical marijuana recommendations for hangnails and are running them through like cattle, you wouldn't have much confidence in this requirement as a deterrent to frivolous claims.

I would not suggest that all negilgence cases require a bond for legal fees, only those seeking punitive damages.  If the patient is made whole (in the monetary sense) and all future medical expenses are covered, then go ahead and sue.  The alternative would be for all punitive awards to go to the state.  After all, the supposed justification for punitive damages is to punish the wrong doer, not to enrich the plaintiff.

The argument that premiums for malpractice are not affected by caps on awards is a red herring.  The real cost of lawsuits is in defensive medicine practiced by doctors who are afraid of getting sued.  This is where the premiums are drastically affected.

opsec wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Because there is no relationship between premiums and payouts.

Any links for this?

Interesting thread.

Other research indicates that although medical malpractice caps reduce the burden on insurers, they do not alleviate the growing problem of skyrocketing insurance premiums.  One report reveals that limitations on medical malpractice awards produced payout averages 15.7% lower than those of states without caps between 1991 and 2002.  This statistic is true despite the fact that many of the states did not institute the limitations until near the end of the reporting period.  Meanwhile, the median annual premium in states with caps increased an alarming 48.2%.  Surprisingly, the median annual premium in states without caps increased more slowly: by 35.9%.  In other words, the median medical malpractice insurance premiums were actually higher in states with caps.  This is contrary to the goal of the limitations on medical malpractice awards.

http://wiki.injuryboard.com/help-center … -caps.aspx

This is also interesting: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ … are-costs/

Another good read: http://www.protectpatientsblog.com/2010 … alpra.html

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

phreddy wrote:

As for HK's comment about tort reform, I believe this is a perfect case to illustrate how tort law should work.  If I had my way (and I am not alone), every filing that includes punitive damages would be accompanied by a bond to pay legal fees and court costs if the plantiff loses.  In this case, if the facts show the hospital was negligent, then some smart lawyer would step in, post the bond and sue the hospital for millions.

Yes yes. But no need to have to shop for a lawyer willing to post the bond. I am sure Em can explain how such cases with high probability of winning can be rated by wall street, the loans traded by the banks then combined and made into securities to be speculated upon.

Doesn't the fact that this is already happening (without tort reform) make you feel warm and fuzzy?  Now that Wall Street is backing the ambulance chasers surely we can expect more ethical behavior from them and fewer bogus cases.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

headkicker_girl wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Doesn't the fact that this is already happening (without tort reform) make you feel warm and fuzzy?  Now that Wall Street is backing the ambulance chasers surely we can expect more ethical behavior from them and fewer bogus cases.

The only problem I have with the practice is that it's uregulated.  Otherwise, if a law firm wants to borrow money to fund a case it's no different than any other business expense.

I think it fucks up an already fucked up system if the lawyers own an interest in the litigation they run.  It should be the client's case.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

headkicker_girl wrote:

Fled wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

The only problem I have with the practice is that it's uregulated.  Otherwise, if a law firm wants to borrow money to fund a case it's no different than any other business expense.

I think it fucks up an already fucked up system if the lawyers own an interest in the litigation they run.  It should be the client's case.

The lawyers already own an interest.  It's called an attorneys' lien.

That's a completely different animal which is more akin to having collateral in any judgment won.  It is not litigation finance. 

I have no doubt that there are cases where a client sincerely wants to sue and no one other than the lawyer is willing to put up the money.  That's where contingent fees come into the picture, and even they are clearly a mixed blessing.  I've leveraged greed of the contingent fee lawyer many times to push down hard on a settlement figure, so I've put it to work for my own clients. 

I understand the pros and cons of allowing the lawyer to finance litigation as it has been debated for years, and the trend is to allow it.  I just think its greatest impact is to churn litigation.

Emmeran wrote:

Tort reform is a red herring, has no place in the discussion.

Well who fucking made you king of the thread?

It's not a red herring because if the idiots on the right had their way damages would be capped at $250K for all injuries and this poor kid would have to live with shitty prosthetics for the rest of her life because someone fucked up on triage.  My point, which is obvious and tangentially related, is that hospitals/doctors do fuck up big time and this kid should have recourse.