Does Doctor Dean support ????

[Racenut20]

The cap on malpractice lawsuits?

[maddezmom]

1. here's a good link

it's rather lengthy, but worth reading. :)

http://www.doctorsfordean.org/SanFranciscoMedicalSociety.html

[Racenut20]

2. Thanks, had 4 legislative sessions last year in Fl on this question.

[TeacherCreature]

4. So how do you feel about caps?

My doctor thinks they are nonsense and that the high ticket specialists pay 10 percent in malpractice just like everyone else and should get over it or leave the state already.

[TeacherCreature]

3. no he does not

he favors an arbitration board to throw out frivilous law suits and no caps dictated by the federal government.

[wyldwolf]

5. In the past he cops-out on the issue - wants the states to decide...

Just hours after U.S. Senate Democrats defeated legislation that would limit damage awards in medical malpractice cases Wednesday, the American Association of Health Plans called for candidates to take a stand on the issue.

Democrats who voted down the reform in Congress said the bill would punish individuals to protect groups like the American Medical Association, HMOs, drug companies and manufacturers of medical devices.

Howard Dean, a doctor, ... said the issue is best handled by state courts and legislators, not at the national level.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/0713_malpractice_2003.shtml

[SahaleArm]

6. Good ole states rights - Will this guy ever take a stand? n/t

[wyldwolf]

7. Funny - up until Dean gained so much adoration, a position like this...

...was something democrats assailed.

I guess now it makes sense? :shrug:

Has Dr. Dean showed us the error of our ways?

[AP]

8. Dean's also arguing that panels need to make health care decisions for....

...people.

Democrats used to argue that HMOs sucked, and that, if your physician felt you needed treatment, you got treatment. Now we're arguing that it's OK that patients should be in battles with HMO's who exist to deny service, so long as you don't have recourse through the courts of law but through expedited binding arbitration stacked against your favor.

Yeah for 'New Democrats'!

[askew]

11. This is a state issue, not a federal issue.

Dean is correct that this is a state issue, not a federal issue. He opposes federal caps on malpractice suits, because he feels the fed. law would be found unconstitutional. The federal gov't cannot tell the state courts how to settle their cases, based on their laws, unless there is a federal issue. He also mentioned how reform needs to be a state issue, because some states are having problems with these awards and some are not. I know that CA and NV are having serious problems. He mentioned Maine's system of having an impartial judge screen all cases to throw out the frivolous lawsuits has helped their system immensely.

On a side note, as someone who got laid off from my job with an insurance company because of downsizing due in large part to these suits, I do see that there is a need for some reform. However, I do not think that imposing a federal law on the state court system is the solution.

As for AP's comment about Dean wanting committees to make decisions on medical care. Do you have an actual link for this comment?

[RetroLounge]

9. Does Clark?

Does Kerry?

Does Edwards?

Does Gephardt?

Does Sharpton?

Does CMB?

Does Kucinich?

Doe Lieberman?

[maddezmom]

10. Clark is against caps

http://clark04.com/downloads/pdf/Clark04_CivilJustice.pdf

[HFishbine]

12. Maybe

Clark's position (as defined by your link) is a little ambiguous.

"Wes Clark also believes that the civil justice system, like any other complex mechanism, is not perfect, and that anomolies must be corrected where excesses have been found. He supports responsible, targeted change in the civil justice system to promote fairness and equity for all -- which can and must be acheived without imparing access to the courts for deserving litigants or imposing arbitrary limits on damage awards. Clark opposes malpractive caps that prevent victims from receiving the compensation they deserve."

It seems as if Clark is firmly on the side of protecting victims' access to the courts. However, it also seems as if he leaves the door open to some possible restrictions as long as they are "responsible," are not "arbitrary," and do not deny victims the compensation they "deserve."