Thank you!

...and you thought the health care plans of the 297 Democratic Presidential hopefuls was going to be expensive!

ow! my neck AND my back!

BREAKING STORY

In a desperate attempt to head off a threat to its livelihood, the American Bar Association denounced the prescribing of money (otherwise known as the "Cash for Rashes") program proposed by the AMA. The ABA went on to state that the practice of medicine itself was interfering in the "natural order" of things and should be abolished.

An ABA spokesman said, "For years, the medical profession has been engaging in a thinly disguised "pre-emptive" strike against disease. Neither the patient nor the physician can know in advance if permanent disability or death will actually occur. It is vital to allow this process to unfold naturally."

"After all, if the patient dies or is disabled, there are plenty of attorneys standing by to assist the patient in recovering for his pain and suffering. Unnecessary meddling by the physician just clouds the relationship between a patient and his malpractice attorney."

Cassandra has had her coffee! (No, Coffee, not Kofi...leave the UN out of this!)

As someone who dabbles in insurance law (between reading and posting on Scrappleface) I must admit that I see the med-mal caps as both good and bad.
Good in that the cases will be settled more quickly, and bad in that it will be more difficult to recover the funds paid out by the health plans.

Always worries me when anyone only "dabbles" in law. Does that make rates lower? :-)

Naw, I just include all my Scrapple-time in my billable hours as "research."

It is amazing how a toothless trailer park denizen's lifetime earnings can be calculated at 10s of millions of dollars after he gets killed in a predictible rollover accident while imitating the dukes of hazard in his pick up truck.

And like a true red-neck, his last words were: Hey y'all! Watch this!

or...

"Somebody hold my beer. I wanta try somethin'"

It is amazing how a toothless trailer park denizen's lifetime earnings can be calculated at 10s of millions of dollars after he gets killed in a predictible rollover accident while imitating the dukes of hazard in his pick up truck.

Posted by: LFC WIth The Lowdown on July 8, 2003 12:43 PM
*****
Meaning You were resurrected,"Jason"?

Amazing
if you needed say 500million to build a ballpark or a skyscraper or such,you dont go to the bank.
No No No
you go to an insurance company for the money.
I have no problem morally with screwing an insurance company.
my only problem is the insurance company doesnt get screwwed,the screwwing gets past on to the consumer.
Probably the only industry in the history of the world thats guaranteed a profit.
If not then they go to the state insurance boards and get a rate hike.

My ONLY, problem with stopping, the over blown cash awards in court cases is, when the Government changes anything, it seems they do it after it has gotten way out of hand, (as it most definately has), but are not satisfied to change it reasonably, but go to the extreme in the opposite direction, and will probably change things to where a deserving person, who was negligently hurt, will receive little or nothing!

Re-establishing the link between recovery and current/future actual damages would go a long way. Also capping or eliminating punitive damages, which are usually the "overblown" part Susan refers to.

The idea behind civil suits was to try to restore the victim (insofar as money can ever do this) to his pre-injury condition. Obviously money can't eliminate the injury, but it can pay for medical expenses. I've never understood how money can compensate for pain and suffering, as they are totally subjective.

I'm in pain! I'm suffering!
Throw money at me, and I'll go away!

Oh wow - NOW I get it...

And don't forget, the lawyer gets 1/3.

Will the cash for pain program be covered by the new medicare "reform" and prescription drug benefit? If so, can we cut out the middleman and can I just write checks to seniors who will be dead in 5-10 years and don't care about future innovations, only the price of current drugs?

Let true market forces regulate the price of drugs. The independent street dealer can often get lower prices than the so-called reputable drug companies.
And if your high on crack, who cares about cancer!

Somehow I'm reminded of the doctor in West Virginia holding up a sign protesting sky-high malpractice insurance rates: "If you're sick or injured, see a lawyer."

Several things, from a another legal dabbler who is billing this time:

Good lawyers get 40% if it requires a trial.

Lawsuits w/ lousy MERITS are way out of hand. Lawsuits based on exagerated compensatory damages are only partially out of hand. Punitive damages are way out of hand. Personally, I prefer O. W. Holmes approach -- rules of law for as much as possible. Did you cross the railroad w/o looking first - you lose. Did you slip and fall on something you would have seen had you looked down? Yes, you lose. Why did everything have to become a jury issue? Was it unreasonable to try to trim the hedges with the lawnmower? I don't know, let it go to the jury.

If you want to change this, you must go to a loser pays in every case. Nothing else will really work.

Caps on P&S; are OK in theory (I more prefer them for punitive damages, when juries really get stupid), but I really do think $250,000 is a little low in some cases. Consider this case, based on a true case I know about: a 23 year old woman had a hysterectomy, and the doctor had sewed a nerve improperly, ie, negligently. Her vagina was in constant pain or it was radiating and tingling (the bad way, like your arm after its been slept on all night); she had to sit on tubes, she had NO sex life at that point (she was married), and no chance for improvement. I think HER HUSBAND should have recovered millions in pain and suffering.

Remember, men are pigs. No exceptions.

I've heard about something called a contingency case (I think that was it, anyway): If you don't win, the lawyer gets nothing. If you do win, you get nothing!

And some really tasteless lawyer jokes: (if you are a lawyer, do not sue me for emotional trauma)

How do you tell whether it is a skunk or a lawyer dead in the road?

The skunk has tire skidmarks in front of it!

What is it if you have a lawyer up to the neck in concrete?

Not enough concrete!

(No lawyers were injured in the making of this post.)

KJ:

re: Remember, men are pigs. No exceptions.

Yes, but they're such lovable pigs...

I resemble that remark.

I know them all, but many people do. Here is one most people haven't heard. Stop me if you have:

Two tigers just finished attacking a tour group and are walking through a jungle path single file. One tiger feels a wet scrape across his butt (I don't want this to get the dreaded brackets later). He ignores it and keeps walking. Over the next few minutes, it happens a few more times. Finally, he can't stand it anymore. He stops and looks back at the other tiger.

"Have you been licking my butt?"
"Yes" the other tiger replied.
"Why?"
"I think the guy I just ate back there was a lawyer. I'm trying to get the taste out of my mouth."

Another problem with juries: do you really want to trust your fate to twelve people who aren't clever evough to get out of jury duty?

Some Random Guy...some of us don't run from our responsiblities.

Lawyers write the laws. They will write them to benefit themselves. They will write them to obscure the meaning and import of such laws as if their livelihood depended on it (which it does).
So tell me lawyer sirs, where doth my logic fail?

Only in morality and the triumph of justice over legality will our society be redeemed.

Lawyers are checked by judges, and judges are elected or appointed lawyers. Choose well and vote with a conscience. Otherwise we have a legal system and not a justice system.

Cassandra:

Boys are pigs.

Men are men.

Jury picking 101: This comment is limited to personal injury cases, but that and OJ are what most people hear about.

You start with generalities. If you don't learn anything about a particular juror, then you rely on the generalities. Obviously, specific knowledge about someone is always better than generalities.

If you are the plaintiff, you are looking to get rid of educated people (teachers and college professor don't count, you believe them to be OK with income redistribution). However, if your client didn't follow the rules, teachers may be bad. Teachers like rules. Minorities (but not Asian) are preferred to whites - but you can't admit you picked someone for this reason - that's bad. People who have made PI claims in the past are good. People who have been sued are bad. Police are bad, unless your case requires the jury to believe the testimony of a police officer. All other things being equal, you prefer a female to a male (more emotion). People who handle claims, either for insurance or for companies, are bad. Manager who deal with whining employees are bad. If you have real injuries (broken bones), doctors are ok, but if you are exagerating, doctors are bad. Your ideal jury is essentially dumb, uneducated, poor, liberal, minority, female, and claims oriented. Strike everyone else, and hope your jury has as many of these as possible.

The jury comment was, in fact, a jest. I've never been called for jury duty. After 20 years as a registered voter I find this disappointing.

I do believe, however, that both sides would have issues with me being on the jury.

Fr. Sarducci,
Morals are nothing more than standards of behavior adopted by society at large. They are tribal customs. Sometimes they are codified into statutes, sometimes they remain unwritten rules. But in no way are the unwritten rules superior to, or very different from, laws.

I was called for jury duty once. When I raised my hand to the question "anyone know anything about the law" and announced the firm I worked for, which had defended cases brought by the plaintiff's attorney, he practically told me to go ahead and leave right then. He struck me from that jury. That was my one and only chance.

The funny thing is, even though my then firm (and I when I worked there) regularly represents the insurance company that was involved in that case (I knew this b/c the defense firm at that trial only has one "client" - that insurance company), my incentive was to give the plaintiff as much money as possible. That other defense firm was a competitor - their cases were cases my firm could have had. Why would I favor them. I would give the plaintiff $10million for his sore neck, then call the insurance company and say "I hear you got nailed. You know, that has never happened to you in the cases I have tried for you. You should send more of them my way."

Hey I like this. Physician heal thyself. I will be writing prescriptions for cash all day long.
YEEEHAAAAAA.

Danjo
GO MARINES!

SRG

I would argue that morals have an emotional overtone, moreso than laws, which should logically extend from the major tenents of law.

However, I think I understand your point.

Perhaps if you see with your own eyes, not in a church, as what you think are the results of your prayers, stuff that just shouldn't or wouldn't ordinarily happen, you might shift off of your sociological view a bit. Mine did.

Danjo...

My dear silly boy, what do you think a color xerox machine is for anyway? A hint tho... they stopped making denominations larger than 100's a long time ago. Woah thats a mistake to try to use a $5,000.00 dollar bill at a convenience store to buy milk.

If, All men (gener inclusive) sin; and
If, Churches/religios organizations are run by men;
Then, Chruches/rel.org. will regularly behave as sinful men.

Fr. g-S makes a good point. Men will always seek justification for their sins, and often will wrap themselves in the cloak of a church. That doesn't make the "religion" wrong. It is simply the tool of the sinner.

If, boys are pigs, and
If, men are men,
Then, men are adults pigs.

No exceptions.

Oops, I missed a step.

add as line 2, "Men are adult boys"

KJ:

I tried to respond to your "boys are pigs" twice, but bailed both times. I'm still thinking about it. Had to discard a few really bad metaphors.

Cassandra-
I was responding to Post of Fr. guido Sarducci at July 9, 2003 09:23 AM above. Even if he is right, I am still right.

I SEE EVERYTHING, I KNOW EVERYTHING [said with bad highland accent as I spin while holding sword {I'm a profession on a closed course - do not try at home}, see flash of ghostly light and dead headless immortal on ground]

there can be only ONE...

KJ:

I was confused - it was actually Fr. Sarducci I was trying to respond to in his response to your original post: Remember, men are pigs. No exceptions.

Posted by KJ at July 8, 2003 09:16 PM

I'm so confused...nevermind...if I respond to a response to a response, where does that leave me???

Arthur Rowe, it is painfully obvious that you know nothing about the insurance industry by your idiotic comments: Probably the only industry in the history of the world thats guaranteed a profit. If not then they go to the state insurance boards and get a rate hike.

As if! The volumes of stupidity in just these two comments leaves me breathless and unable to respond further. Get an education on the subject first before you open your ignorant pie hole!mething

Mr. Rowe is incorrect.

I represent professionals sued for malpractice. In the last year, 2, not 1, 2, insurance companies that wrote policies to professionals in Georgia went broke. I have clients being sued for lots of money and they now have no coverage. Clients who paid their premiums, and now have to pay me (or someone else) to defend a case, pay any damages or settlement themselves, have no coverage and must pay premiums again (for a new policy w/ someone else) b/c their current coverage is worthless. This is not unusual. I can name a number of other insurance companies that have gone belly up in the last few years.

And to top it off, the real tragedy is my bills might not get paid.

Pardon my ignorance about very large sums of cash, but where does all that money go?

Is money like ball point pens (of "Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy" fame) that quitely slink off to its own dimension to enjoy a respite from being endlessly chased and handled?

Methinks it be sopped up by the lawyers, see my post above.

Cassandra, do you consider pigs cute or are they lunchmeat on legs?

The money goes a lot of places. First, insurance companies invest premiums. Like all investments, they have risk. So bad investment decisions have a role in insurance company decline. Claims are where much of the money goes, some to lawyers (both the Claimant's and, when litigation happens, the defense firms). Of course, there is overhead just like in any business. Profit margin is important, as is market share. An insurance company is not a sure money maker if you don't sell enough policies. That requires buildings, employees and lots of advertising.

Lawyers, like ALL busiensses, will often look after themselves when they have the political power to do so. Why do you think state law requires you to go to the eye doctor if you break your glasses more than a year after your last prescription? Do you think a consumer group pushed for that legislation? Why do you have regs requiring anyone who touches your hair to have a stupid cosmetology license? Is a bad hair cut such a major social problem that we have to have barriers to entry for someone who wants to braid hair for a living? And lawyers do it, too. Why do you have to get a law school degree from an ABA accredited school (in most states), AND pass the bar exam? If you can pass the ACCREDITED school, isn't that enough? If not, why have accreditation? If you can the bar exam, isn't that enough? No, b/c existing lawyers don't want too many new lawyers.

Like I said, you want to change the litigation system, make the loser pay for the winner's attorney's fees everytime. You sue GM for defective design when you broke your neck taking that curve at 90 and loose -- pay that big firm's attorney's fees of about $150,000. GM loses, well they can pay the 33-40% contingency fee, too. That will stop frivilous lawsuits, b/c as long as getting attorney's fees from you opponent requires you prove the suit was "frivilous" the Judges just won't give you that except most extreme cases.

Those of us in medicine have for years noted that patients with cases in pending legislation often get remarkably well after a settlement, a phenomenon we call the "greenback poultice".

Oops. (I was multitasking.) I intended to say, "pending litigation".

Re: the sword wielding, spinning, Scotsman.

There should have been only one. Unfortunately, they made sequels.

And as for the TV show...looks like at least 1/4 of the planet's population is Immortals. And I found it even more difficult to suspend disbelief to accept that both they and the watchers could have kept any mildly competent intelligence service from discovering their existence.

The first movie was a wonderful, silly little fantasy action movie. We watched it all the time in college.

The second was one of the worst movies of all time, up (down?) there with Bullworth, Battlefield Earth and Vanilla Sky; They Live was also really bad, but it is MST 3000 type bad -- funny bad.

The third one was better for no other reason than it ignored the fact that the second one existed.

I never watched the TV show.

Managed care plans will be pushing for "generic cash". This will consist of brightly colored bills with pictures of trains and a fat guy on them.

Fr. Sarducci:

Yes - I think pigs are pretty cute. Not too sure about hogs.

Re: Highlander: the TV show was worth watching just to see Adrian what's-his-name (there's my sexist women-are-pigs comment for the day). SRG is right, though, there were entirely too many Immortals, but I was busy watching other things...

I can't believe I said that - I just lost all respect for myself as a human being.

Highlander had too many Immortals? Yeah .. right. Next you're going to tell me that Baywatch had too many, uh, ... stupid surfers? What did Baywatch have? I was busy watching other things...

......"Highlander: the TV show was worth watching just to see Adrian what's-his-name...

YO! Adriiiaaaannnn! yeah, baby! Must see TV.

Cassandra - As long as we are being sexist - I still want to explore the unknown with that alien vixen "Jolene Blalock" from Star Trek.Pointy ears and all. Cold shower must have cold shower...

Sun-Commander T'Pol.....YUMMMMMMMMMMMM!

*pant*
*drool*

(I am a pig)

The line between hogs and pigs is 180 pounds. Anything under is a pig, anything over is a hog/lunchmeat on legs.

I hadn't heard that lawyer joke, actually. Here are some more tasteless lawyer jokes:

Q: How many lawyers does it take to cover a floor?

A: Depends on how thin you slice 'em.

Q: What is a Senator?

A: A failed lawyer.

Q: What is the problem with lawyer jokes?

A: Lawyers don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a boxing referee?

A: A boxing referee doesn't get paid more for a longer fight.

(the last two are from http://www.workjoke.com/projoke40.htm)

Oh, and it's a contingent fee, not a contingency case, as I said earlier.