Does Massachusetts really limit you to $20,000

[dsc]

in Medical Malpractice cases? The Practice tonight has a case where a guy is suing a doctor and hospital for causing the death of his wife. He can only get $20,000 if the cap is upheld. That seems very low.

On edit This isn't a general thing but only for charitable hospitals. I can see that to some extent but you still have the problem of uncompensated victims.

[unblock]

1. liability caps are fine with me

the day the medical establishment accepts billing caps.

but seeing as how many conditions can easily lead to 6 figure, even 7 figure medical expenses, i see no reason why liability should be limited to anything less.

[AP]

2. Society picks up the bill when people don't compensated for the full value

of their injuries.

In other words, it's a transfer of money from the public to the insurance companies and HMOs.

[dsc]

3. It is a sad state of affairs

But this cap sounds like the worst I have ever heard of.

[DU9598]

4. Iowa

We are fighting them off here. Thank goodness for Governor Vilsack's veto pen.

It amazes me in my research. Most of the "costs" of medical malpractice cases are for ongoing medical care. Until the costs of medical treatment are capped, there should be no damages caps.

Just corporate croynism ... the AMA giving to the GOP for caps.

[AP]

5. They also reflect the value of life and limb. If you live in a poor...

...society, the awards will be lower. If you live in a wealthy society, they will be higher.

But if you want to MAKE society poorer, cap awards at levels that are lower than the values of life and limb.

Transferring loads of social wealth to private wealth without having to work for it or earn it is a pretty good way to screw up the economy.

[Skidmore]

18. They are fine with me too if

they are coupled with transparency and real punishments (e.g. loss of license and barring from practice in any other state) for doctors who are incompetent or demonstrate a pattern of incompetency.

[AP]

19. That addresses some of the social costs for pattern negligence.

However, it's still bad, economicall speaking, for a single non-pattern act of incompetence not to be fully compensated.

Again, not to fully compensate an act of negligence creates social costs that still get paid by someone.

If it's not be the person who caused the act, it's by the person who suffered it, or by society throught opportunity cots, or even direct costs like welfare, if an uncompensated injury drives someone to destitution.

So, if you just took away someone's license, you'd still be subsidizing the cost of the injury so that an insurance company or a hospital wouldn't have to pay the cost.

It's the same thing as if, say, there were a tax on society, the revenue from which went straight to the pockets of HMOs and hospitals. Its the equivalent of society underwriting profits for those companies. It's bad economics.

[YNGW]

6. Question

If we ever go to a single-payer system, would an injured party be able to collect damages? This is under the auspices that all doctors are government employees, that all medical expenses are paid for by the government, and you can't sue the government.

I'm just venturing to guess that if Uncle Sam is picking up the tab, all physicians would eventually be employeed by the government, and that they're going to severly limit rewards paid to patients as a result of physician errors.

[AP]

7. You can't sue the gov't unless the gov't grants the right. They would

almost definitely grant the right.

It makes no economic sense to deny people the full value of their damages.

Society incurs the cost of any shortfall either way. It's better to just pay people for their damages.

[YNGW]

8. Why?

>They would almost definitely grant the right.

It's Lose-Lose to them. Why not just tell Mr. Smith that the good Dr. screwed up, here's your monthly disability check which is less than what you were earning we know, but what are you going to do about it?, now move along.

It makes complete economic sense if your goal is to limit payouts and therefore retain more money and more power and influence. There's a better solution, I'm sure, but I just don't trust the government.

[AP]

9. Because it's a core democratic principle, and because

Republicans would bet on board because they'd see it as an opportunity to bankrupt the government.

[YNGW]

10. I have little doubt...

.... that it would start out the way you state. My concern and belief is that it won't stay that way. It's too costly. One main reason prices are so high now is because of physician's malpractice insurance, and I have little doubt that physicians aren't going to reduce their errors significantly. The one way to reduce costs is to limit damages paid to injured patients, something the government would have to strongly consider should they find that they too are paying out large rewards.

[AP]

11. Ontario (I believe it is) has a state-run auto insurance program.

They pay out all the money they bring in. If there are fewer accidents, they pay out less. There's a real incentive to make driving safer.

their premiums were half what the private companies charged.

Another thing to note is that uncompensated injury from medical negligence has a cost. You still need care, and you still lose value from your life, and lose happiness.

If there's a cap, that misery and those costs don't go away. They get diffused, and society ends up paying them in a broad range of ways. For example, if a person goes on welfar as a result of an injury, society pays for that. If a person loses their ability to work, society loses that person's valuable contribution in the workplace. If that person went to public schools, society loses the opportunity cost of educating a person who ends up getting shut out from applying their knowledge to society.

You got to look at the bigger picture.

It's more economically efficient to compensate people for their injuries.

[YNGW]

13. Still Researching

>You still need care

That's where the rub is for me. Sure you still need care, but will you receive it? At what point do they start rationing out kidney dialysis because you're in the lower percentile of documented cases which will live much longer, so they just let you die? Yes, I believe it can and will come to that. It can be more economical to shove people into a corner or to allow them to die, thus getting them off the government dole.

I'm still studying this, as I have been for at least a decade or more now. I'm not the only one with these concerns. Thank you, I appreciate your imput.

[AP]

14. What I mean is that, if suffere permanent injury and you need ongoing

care, you're going to need that care whether you're compensated for the cost or not.

If you're compensated, you live as normal a life as possible. If you're not, you go on welfare.

It costs society a lot of money (and there's a huge opportunity cost) when people are on welfare.

[SoCalDem]

15. The United pilot who cartwheeled his plane and saved hundreds

had to set up a website to BEG for money to save his grown daughter's life. She has aplastic anemia and needs a bone marrow transplant which costs more than the insurance will pay..

Sioux City has responded in a big way..That town "adopted" him, and the survivors of that horrible crash..

[carpetbagger]

12. Yes.

The government pays out all the time.

[DemPoliticalJunkie]

16. Sounds unusually low????

Is that just for one certain aspect of damages? Like punitive damages?

[AP]

17. Conservatives usually don't cap economic damages because rich people

have higher economic damages because they're rich. An HMO CEO who lost his ability to work because of someone else's negligence would never pass a law which capped his damages for lost future earnings at 20K.

What the cap is non-economic losses, including punitive damages. So if you're a poor person, don't count on your doctor tyring as hard to do the right thing.

[dsc]

20. This was total

though it evidently didn't apply to anything other than charitable hospitals.