By: dx

dx — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:55:03 +0000

I’ll grant defensive medicine is a problem for the costs patients see – but that’s not the only problem on the table. If you’ve read the article, maybe you can explain to me how California’s plan is good for the patients who have been wronged and have no further recourse. (Also, you’d know that insurers are still jacking up malpractice rates, despite that reform.) If patients don’t have access to the courts after they’ve been wronged, what protection do they have against those wrongs? Or are you arguing that we need to sacrifice a few hundred thousand patients every year to preventable medical errors, just so the rest of us can keep or make more money? I’m fine with reform that saves money, so long as it also protects patients from further harm. California’s law doesn’t do that, nor does any proposal from any of the doctors who are so upset about malpractice. If you have an idea that does both, I’m glad to hear it.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:15:48 +0000

Malpractice reform helps everyone EXCEPT the lawyers. Lower prices for procedures and tests, fewer unnecessary tests, lower overall healthcare costs, lower insurance premiums, fewer denials of treatment. $200 billion is estimated to be wasted on defensive medicine as a result of an excessive litigious environment. It does indeed necessarily help the patients (but not the patients who sue for whatever reason because they want a quick buck).

Comments on: Why healthcare is so expensive – maybe

By: dx

By: Peter