Poll Says Most Americans Back Medical Liability Reform

[truthpusher]

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2005/02/02/50639.htm

Poll Says Most Americans Back Medical Liability Reform
February 2, 2005

A new survey released by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) reportedly found almost three-quarters of Americans support legislation to reform the nation's medical liability system that is driving up the costs of health care and forcing many good doctors out of practice.

(snip)

The survey confirmed that three out of four Americans (75 percent) recognize the current system interferes with physicians' abilities to provide quality care. Findings include:

* 85 percent of Americans believe the current legal system -- with no
consequences for pursuing frivolous lawsuits and publicity about large monetary awards -- is responsible for rising medical insurance costs.

* 73 percent favor liability reform that includes placing limits on non- economic (pain and suffering) damages.

According to Suter, "The American people - our patients - clearly support medical liability reform. They understand the connection between the current litigious environment and physicians' ability to provide them with quality care.

more:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2005/02/02/50639.htm

[vi5]

1. Ugh...this is pathetic.....

Let some horrid, overtired, pill popping doctor botch some procedure on them and/or a loved one and have them be told their pain and suffering is only worth a certain amount, while that doctor continues to practice medicine without reprimand.

Although, something tells me to doubt a poll conducted by a group of physicians.

[jdj]

33. yes thanks, it's really 85%, not 51% of Americans that are morons.

[Jamastiene]

61. Unfortunately

that seems to be the case. So a doctor can cauterize his initials on a woman's womb and even sew up some gauze inside the wound when the surgery is done causing serious infection or death and a full (or fool) 85% of Americans believe that is A-OK. Huh? Well, I shouldn't be surprised. I live amidst 60% of that 85% and that is how they think.

[tsuki]

57. Was this a poll? A push poll? Is it anymore believable than the

exit polls that we are told are not reliable in the US?

[radfringe]

62. are they on the Poll-Payola?

who paid for the poll and how much did they get?

[One_Life_To_Give]

74. Sensational Cases

A few cases are driving the public perception.

The McDonalds Coffee case. And the warning label now on their coffee cups.

The three pages of Warnings now on every product manual. Now the warning signs and labels for almost everything in CA. They are constant reminders.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Not really trusting a group trying to keep it's cash cow...

It's the fucking insurance agencies that are the problem.

[aikido15]

39. How about the drug companies

The are a serious rip off!

[Liberal Veteran]

41. I agree and I am a pharmacy tech.

I think the profit margins on many drugs is obscene (in the worst way).

[Mz Pip]

3. Who gives the huge awards

in the first place? We the people in the form of a jury.

We have control over the amount of the award.


I do believe that the huge awards are few and far between. They may the papers and are discussed ad nauseum but I doubt they are that commonplace.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[KansDem]

21. During Campaign2000, Bush repeatedly said he trusts the people...

Until they get on a jury, apparently.

[PA Democrat]

64. He trusts juries to condemn a person to die though

I guess juries are OK to mete out THAT kind of "justice".

[KansDem]

69. Good point...

As Governor, he barely spent 15 minutes (if at all!) reviewing a death sentence. Guess he didn't think it necessary to second-guess those juries.

[mediaman007]

63. Add to that the fact that various levels of appeals are still

available after the verdict. If a doctor/hospital can't get their verdict overturned or adjusted they must have done some damage. Lord knows, they didn't lose because they didn't have competant counsel!

[pokercat999]

67. I'm sorry if I sound a little bitter but.

Eight years ago my sister had mis/un diagnosed breast cancer that grew for 3 years while clearly showing on mis/un read mammograms (she had them every year her entire adult life). She had to have a breast removed, then the cancer spread to other parts of her body. She had chemo and I don't know what else for five years until a few days before Christmas in 2004 she passed away. She (now her estate) has a law suit pending against the Dr's. and hospital, I'm sure it will settle for some amount well over $50,000.00. At first thought it would seem the lawsuit would just be her husband looking for a "free lunch" according to most repugs and apparently 85% of the dead heads in this country. However that may be true only if the case is "settled" out of court. I believe this and cases like it need to be in front of a jury for one simple reason. Huge damage awards are the only way we can get Dr's. Hospitals and Insurance Companies and Corporations to change their ways and to make sure all personnel are property trained and that they actually DO THEIR JOBS. If we allow them to "settle" they have no reason to change. The fact that they are willing to settle means the payment is low enough to not cause THEM any pain thus gives them no reason to correct their problem. So the process goes on and someone else's Sister, Wife, Mother dies years before her time and some other poor survivor hits the lawsuit lottery and gets a couple of hundred thousand settlement and these stinking repugs lie their asses off and turn this into a moral issue, and most "mericans" are too goddamn stupid to see the truth. Where are the democrats on these issues, why aren't our politicians screaming on the house and senate floor....because they are only interested in getting re-elected, and corporations pay the way. I'm not an educated person, I've never gone to a university but isn't this just plain common sense, where am I wrong?

[SeekerofTruth]

71. You're not wrong, however here is the other side of the problem

In your sisters case (sorry about your loss), you have every right to get much more than $50k. This is what most people agree with. Where most people disagree with the current system is the frivolous or unfounded lawsuits. Consider the lady who spilled McDonald's coffee on her lap and filed suit because the coffee was too hot and there was no warning label. Even though she lost the suit, how much time, energy and money was spent fighting the lawsuit? Consider the financial burdens to people and companies when hundreds such lawsuits are filed?

Frivalous lawsuits have a major impact on insurance costs. Not just medical, but auto and household as well.

[pokercat999]

73. Actually she won the suit and was awarded $3M.

However that verdict was later overturned by a "judge". One of the main points the jury must have been considering (to find in her favor) was when a bean counter from McDonald's testified in court that although McD's had had numerous complaints about the temp of their coffee and several people had suffered burns of various kinds their numbers were "insignificant" compared to the number of coffees served. In other words losing a few burnt customers over the hottest coffee in the industry wasn't an economical concern to McD's because they felt larger numbers of their customers preferred the dangerously hot coffee. This is a prime example of what the right calls a frivolous lawsuit, however now Mcd's and other fast food coffee cups carry the "hot" label. There are thousands of such examples of how various lawsuits have changed our world. The problem isn't the lawsuit it's usually the corporate response. In the Mcd's case the corporations just labeled the product instead of making it safer by reducing the temp a few degrees.

[zanana]

75. That lady who spilled coffee on herself...

She had 3rd degree burns and have to have several surgeries. Please don't fall into the spin trap the Republicans use time and time again. They take something complicated and try to reduce it to something simple to ridicule people. Don't fall for it.

[northernsoul]

72. favorable verdicts, much less huge rewards, are very rare

most responsible MedMal attorneys only take .5% of the cases that come to them, and of those, they only win at trial 20% of the time (at least those are the numbers here in Minnesota) - and they usually have to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money to fund the litigation. Doing a MedMal practice is hardly the get-rich-quick scheme B*shco would have us believe it is. If you want to get rich quick, become the exec. of an insurance or pharmaceutical company.
I've decide not to go into MedMal myself, because I think it's so hard to have a financially viable practice.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

4. Poll shows most Americans are easily led by RW marketing tactics.

Or that most Americans are dumber than a bag of hammers.

[Karenina]

5. BINGO!

But It is unfair of you to malign the intelligence of hammers.

[HockeyMom]

6. Until THEY need to sue

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

14. You're right. My apologies to the Hammer.

[ThorsHammer]

42. Thank you

[tkmorris]

59. *snort* nt

[kskiska]

8. It's not about malpractice awards

Keep your eye on the ball.

It's all part of the repug plan to stay in power for years and years by denying lawyers' fees so they can't contribute all those big bucks to Democratic causes.

[Al-CIAda]

19. Without a doubt. The people have reached a level of stupidity that

may be beyond repair. Sadly more pain, much more pain is needed to wake them up.

[Wwagsthedog]

7. Maybe those polled should have checked what happened in TX.

After a "medical malpractice reform" amendment to the TX constitution passed a couple of years ago, insurors have raised rates charged for said insurance by 3%. Of note is the fact that voter turnout for this measure and 20+ others was less than 11%. And medical costs here are going through the roof like elsewhere. The ignorance of the American public is astounding. Just follow the mass media road.

[rooboy]

9. Someone please tell me how a 10 year old kid sues for lost income...

when she's left brain damaged by a negligent doctor. I'm starting to believe that people should start wearing tattoos which denote their position on different issues. Then we'll know exactly who to blame when the misery starts.

[SharonAnn]

28. She doesn't get anything for Lost Income. That's the deal! The

insurance companies get to keep all that money for themselves instead of having to pay out any "Pain and Suffering" money for children, non-working spouses, and retired people.

[rooboy]

54. I know that's the deal. I don't understand why Americans don't get it. n/t

[VegasWolf]

10. Yes, but all means, trust the Corporations to do the right thing. Crazy!

[dweller]

11. just who in the hell is American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP)

and how much does the WH pay them?

dp

[Psephos]

20. ACEP is the credentialing organization for ER docs

All medical specialties have similar organizations. They serve several goals. One is to promote the interests of its professional members. Another is to oversee and credential training programs ("residencies") in teaching hospitals. A third is to serve as a clearinghouse for new information and techniques. A fourth is to provide continuing education for already established doctors.

ACEP is not overtly political or partisan; its politics (like every other organizations) follow its own self-interests. When I worked in the ER, as I recall, the majority of the docs were Democrats, for what it's worth.

[jdj]

36. not overly partisan?

"The President's call for liability reform that enjoys the support of a
majority of Americans is long overdue. We call on members of Congress to work with the Administration on a solution that can be signed into law this year."

mmmhmm.

[Psephos]

37. I wrote "overtly," not "overly" - read more carefully :-)

[daleo]

49. That sounded pretty overt to me.

The tone of the article is hardly neutral.

"According to Suter, "The American people - our patients - clearly support medical liability reform. They understand the connection between the current litigious environment and physicians' ability to provide them with quality care.

"Already, there are reports of emergency physicians and other medical specialists who are unable to get medical liability insurance at all, which means they can't practice medicine. Without liability reform, there is no end to this growing crisis, and patients will continue to suffer.

"Overwhelmed with patients and under funded, many emergency departments across the United States are at the breaking point, and others have been forced to close. In some states, specialists are refusing to take emergency call, retiring early, or leaving for states with lower premiums. Without liability reform, these doctors will continue to be forced to choose between caring for their patients and leaving the practice of medicine.

"The President's call for liability reform that enjoys the support of a
majority of Americans is long overdue. We call on members of Congress to work with the Administration on a solution that can be signed into law this year.""

[Psephos]

52. I did read the article

And the very first thing I said about the ACEP is that is an organization whose goal is "to promote the interests of its professional members."

They see it as in their interests to further tort reform. It's not about their personal politics, it's about their professional self-interest. This is hardly surprising; can you think of many organizations that don't promote their own interests?

ACEP is not a 527 or a PAC or a nonprofit lobbyist co-op or the PNAC or the DAR or a think tank or any other overtly political organization. That doesn't mean they can't or won't have political interests.

I'm not here to defend them, nor to attack them. They are what they are; I was answering someone's question.

Peace. :-)

[daleo]

53. That's all I was pointing out too.

Peace right back at you. :hippie:

[AP]

12. I wonder if the poll question used the same causality language the article

uses?

How many people are going to answer "no" to a survey question that asks, Do you "support legislation to reform the nation's medical liability system that is driving up the costs of health care and forcing many good doctors out of practice"?

This article reads like a press release from a PR firm that spun out some crappy survey just for the purpose of propagandizing in favor of facism.

[KissMeKate]

13. cut off bad doctors- solves problem

liability reform in Texas DIDNT lower insurance rates.

[ThorsHammer]

44. Good idea; the lawyers aren't always without blame either

I wish there was some way to regulare bad doctors, and also stop frivolous suits. Neither side is entirely good or bad, but it's the extreme elements from each that are causing the problems.

[ninkasi]

46. It sure didn't...

they had their hands out asking for increases right after it was passed, too. No matter what we do, insurance companies are going to stick it to the consumer, and pay big bucks to the Greedy Old Pigs to see that it stays that way.

Nobody represents us anymore. We just work to create the money for the rich to enjoy, and they resent every cent that they begrudgingly dole out to us. It's getting worse and worse, and between the neocon hawks clamoring for more war, and the nut case fundies trying to ban tolerance, and the rich stealing more of our money, this country has become a miserable, sad place to be in.

I miss the old America.

[Sandpiper]

15. And we all know that Insurance Industry Push Polls

Are nothing but the unvarnished truth.

[WyLoochka]

16. This piece is so despicable

The Insurance Journal is bald faced lying and they know it. Med mal lawsuits are not "driving up the costs of health care and forcing many good doctors out of practice."

Many good doctors have left medical practice because the money they used to make goes more and more to insurance companies and their executives.

The totally unnecessary, private insurance middle men are driving up health care costs and doctors out of practice.

[truthpusher]

18. Agreed, but we need to know about this stuff...

...places like this are the Kool-aid factory's and soon this will all be filtered as 'real science' to all of the media outlets. As well, You know Rush and his ilk will be puking this up all over the place tomorrow.

[0007]

17. An insurance poll? I've seen two polls and NO WAY the

people wanted tort reform.

[stevebreeze]

22. repeat a lie often enough and many will believe it is the truth

reality...most of the cost of malpractice suits are in economic damages in the form of health care cost...want to lower the cost of lawsuits? lower the cost of health care...maybe the way every other industrialized country in the world has with single payer national health care!

Beyond that where is the poof of the allegations? There is no great loss of physicians, there is no great rise in the number of lawsuits, there is no great rise in the cost of individual lawsuits. Why does the media let these hacks get away with this shit?

[Corgigal]

23. seems like the good citizens

of the USA forgot why we even have a justice/civil system in the first place. Look up the history of how and why it started in the UK. If we don't allow any outlet for our grievances then it will turn around again. Oh well, the rich will fear us even more then they already do.

[w4rma]

24. push poll. (nt)

[hector459]

25. First EDUCATE the American public about what medical liability is

then talk about reform with them.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. www.insurancejournal.com

'Nuff said.

[flaminbats]

31. amen..

100% of American's support favor liability reform that includes no limits on economic (pain and suffering) damages on them. :tinfoilhat:

[gatorboy]

27. So why is gas so high?

Oil companies getting their pants sued off? Haven't heard about it...

[Psephos]

38. The short answer is...

that, because of its exploding economy, China is buying a lot more oil than it has in the past, and world production is just barely meeting world demand. Law of supply and demand.

I'm sure there's plenty of room for mischief in there, too, but that's the single biggest factor.

[bvar22]

45. Hardly Supply and Demand.

The International Oil Industry is not a Free Market, though you won't hear the republicans (or the Democrats) mention THAT market when extolling the Beatitudes of the Free Market.

The Oil supply is controlled by a Cartel, a tight monopoly. The colluding heads meet and decide how much the World will pay for a gallon of gas. bush* and cheney* are IN on the scam, and apparently so are most of the Democrats.

[Psephos]

51. Not quite

If your theory were true, then why did oil plunge to about $12/barrel in 1999? Surely you remember filling up your gas tank at 80 cents/gallon, as I do.

Remember, I did say that there's plenty of room for mischief (i.e., manipulation), but most economists point to increased demand due to the recovering economy of the US and the huge growth of Chinese manufacturing to be the current principal cause of high prices.

The oil supply is not controlled by a tight monopoly (a monopoly, by definition, only has one supplier). It is instead controlled by a fractious oligarchy supplemented by a lot of small players whose collective weight is considerable. Neither OPEC, nor any secret cabal, sets the market price; that's determined by the marginal contributions of big producers outside of OPEC including North Sea producers, Russia, Mexico, and so on. Oil futures are openly and transparently traded on the major commodity exchanges, which prevents any single party from dictating prices. Instead, the price rises or falls based on the bids of financial speculators who buy futures based on perceptions of coming demand, and disruptions in production, ranging from insurgent destruction of Iraqi wellheads to uncertainty over Russian national confiscation of the major private Russian oil firm. If you've never read how futures markets work, check out this Wikipedia article. It's a fascinating subject. Despite perceptions to the contrary, the biggest social good that comes from futures markets is that they allow both producers and buyers of commodities to hedge their prices, and therefore, reduce risk. In other words, they allow for a smoothing out of price peaks and valleys over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_market

OPEC members produced only 38% of world oil in 2003. Nonetheless, OPEC sets targets, and can influence the price, although not as much as is popularly supposed.

Moreover, OPEC members routinely cheat on their quotas and lie about it to each other, although their discipline has firmed up a bit after rising prices took some of the incentive out of it. The instability of cartels was actually predicted by a number of economists when OPEC looked monolithic, and its subsequent humiliation in the late 90s was a turning point in oil market theory.

Here's a good article from The Economist if you're interested.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%29%28%28%2DP%21%3F%23%21%20%20%20%0A

[Betty]

29. How about insurance reform

as in, let's get rid of the asshole middleman insurance industry that is draining our medical insurance dollars. I heard on the radio today that less than 2% of the money we spend on medical expenses goes to malpractice settlements. How much goes to the insurance industry? Way more than 2%, I am sure. And I am sure that the insurance industry has given major money to bush.

[bleedingheart]

30. For one..this is an insurance journall...which means it is full of

propaganda...

second...people who believe this line of bullshit aren't paying attention..

[Skeptic2]

32. You know, for a forum called "Democratic Underground"...

...I sure do not see a lot of trust in the people here.

Sure, in THEORY, many posters here speak about what "the people" want all the time (mostly, "the people" want Bush out of office, or to get out of Iraq, etc.); how one must save "the people" from the neocons, or from the rich, or from the coroporations, or whatever.

But whenever someone notes that a large number of people disagree with these very same posters about something (e.g., about whether one should limit medical liability, or whether the Iraqi elections are a success, etc.), the automatic reply is a bunch of sneering comments to the effect that OF COURSE they do--"the people", after all, are stupid, brainwashed, ill-educated, etc., etc., and therefore have no idea what to think.

What kind of "concern for the people" is THAT? "I love you, my stupid, brainwashed, inferior friends! Now, let me explain why you are all wrong about..."

[jdj]

34. polls. how many people were asked? what was the polling

method? what regions were polled, what time of day...wireless or landline, on the street or mail in questions?

Is this your poll?

Don't take it personally, we just think ALL polls are bullshit.

800 people, by telephone.

Shit, they have 23,000 members, why don't they just poll their own members, they'd get even better numbers.

So 800 people out of a nation of 300 million is supposed to be representative. Mmmmhmmm.

[daleo]

50. The sample size isn't too bad

A well done random sample of 800 is fairly respectable. But there are all sorts of ways to bias a poll - just quoting sample size and theoretical sample error doesn't tell you much. Some of the more obvious tricks:

- leading wording of questions.
- clever ordering of questions.
- skew possible range of responses in desired direction.
- biased sample frame.
- quoting only survey items that flatter your position in reports.

As always, one should consider the source when interpreting a poll. If the questions, possible answers, sample frame construction, etc. are not given then you have good reason to be suspicious.

[Psephos]

55. Good post n/t

[orleans]

58. right. like if i decided to take a poll and asked people

"if you were able to read authentic, signed documents--such as letters--written by george w. bush that clearly stated his concern for the american people was obscured by his concern for his friends that were connected to the numerous industries that support his political endevors...how satisfied would you be knowing this man will not be looking out for your best interests or the best interests for this country? very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?"

it's called "push polling" and it works. remember what happened to max cleland?

[daleo]

70. That's a good example of the ploy. n/t

[Psephos]

35. Your flaming will not help you win any arguments here

Basically, you're doing the same thing you're accusing others of doing.

Nothing wrong with making a point, even if controversial; just figure out a way to make it without baiting your audience. (Although I think that was the whole point anyway.)

[aikido15]

40. Trolls...

:nuke: 'em all.

[Bridget Burke]

47. Thanks for your opinion.

It will be given due consideration.

[oasis]

65. Only an ignorant, braindead, dumbfuck works against his own best interest

okay?

[98geoduck]

43. What you don't know, WILL hurt you.

[daleo]

48. Consider the source - The Insurance Journal.

I imagine every polling trick in the book was used to get this result.

[orleans]

56. put a cap on the fucking insurance agencies

and the amount of money they can charge their doctors to insure them.

just because bush puts "tort" reform in place doesn't mean the insurance companies will stop raping their clients (doctors). if this "law" gets signed onto it will mean two groups will be getting screwed: the physicians and their patients.

bush and his limp-noodle of a wand is trying to conjure up some major magic for his pals (and top donors) in the insurance industry.

[xxqqqzme]

60. this is not about liability reform

it is about the destruction of the jury system. There will B no need 4 juries anymore in civil actions because there will B no more civil actions.

it is another piece of the constitution being shredded.

Use the language 2 our advantage.

[JLaw82]

66. repubs hate civil jury system for a lot of reasons

First and foremost, they need to help out big business, insurance companies, HMOs, physicians, who don't want to be held responsible for their actions when they maim or kill a human being. Got to keep those campaign contributions (bribes) coming in.

Secondly, they want to strike back at one of the Democratic Party's biggest group of donors, trial lawyers. What better way to hurt the Democrats than by dealing a financial blow to their biggest contributors.

As a trial lawyer, it makes me shiver to think about what these cretins will do to a system where the common man has always been able to seek redress against the rich and powerful.

[annabanana]

68. BIG STINKIN LIE!!.........the link is an insurance house organ.