Bush Takes A Swing At Frivolous Lawsuits

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

What the hell does that mean in relation to a doctor making a mistake? Are you actually suggesting that if we get rid of insurance, doctors will suddenly become infallible?

Not suddenly, but they would have an increased incentive to reduce their mistakes. And if they needed help, the incentive could drive new markets in medical optimization. Both in terms of reducing errors and by precisely defining what constitutes an error or a reasonable precaution.

Quote

So, you go around driving recklessly because you have insurance?

I assert I drive safer than the average person with more insurance that me. If I crash, I pay more. I've got a greater incentive by having less insurance. But like I said, it's irrelevant to the discussion of insurance, because an individual's stated intent is lip service.

Quote

Doctors are not more careless because they have insurance.

Well, they are forced to have a artificially high budget for carelessness.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I assert I drive safer than the average person with more insurance that me. If I crash, I pay more.

That's absurd. No one, consciously or otherwise, calculates their financial exposure to the risk of an accident when driving and modifies their driving habits accordingly.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I don't accept that Doctors would be more careful if they had no insurance... or indeed that they would be any more successful in avoiding accidents if they were uninsured.

I think there is a very high probability that you would see far fewer doctors in practice were they not able to insure themselves.

There are a lot of people who are not willing to take the risk that they will never ever have any money again in their life ever. Remember an accidental death claim in your country costs millions - more than a doctor would ever earn in their entire career. One claim and they might as well quit - they'd be working to fill someone else's account for the rest of their life.

I also think there is a very strong likelihood you would see doctors refusing to carry out certain operations. This is already happening. In an uninsured future you might see people being refused life saving operations because the doctor is unwilling to accept the risk they might move their scalpel just that extra tiny mm too far.

I think the answer is that irrespective of any requirements there may be on doctors to be insured... most would chose to insure themselves in any case. Those that didn't would refuse to act in many circumstances or would find themselves paying off millions in damages for the rest of their lives.

Legislatures require doctors to be insured because if they're not patients who are harmed through their accidents (remember no matter what you do accidents will ALWAYS happen) will be unable to recover damages. The end result is those most harmed by non-insurance are those who do end up hurt by these accidents in the first place.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

That's absurd. No one, consciously or otherwise, calculates their financial exposure to the risk of an accident when driving and modifies their driving habits accordingly.

Now you're arguing against risk homeostasis.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

***
Insurance reduces risk,

No, it does not. Insurance distributes risk among a pool. It does not change the level of risk one bit.

You're standing against economic theory on this one, pal.

Purchasing insurance does not change how a car handles, true. But in aggregate it changes how people drive their cars.

Insurance addresses financial risk, and most assuredly it does reduce financial risk, exactly by the economic definition of risk. Hell they'll even send you a rental car if you crash yours now.

Quote

[from a separate post:]
Not to mention the fact that people get hurt in accidents

Insurance reduces risk, doesn't eliminate it. Presumably no payment is good enough for a dead man.

Quote

But do you have 100grand laying around?

What's it to you? Your question is offensive. How much money do you have in your bank account?

Quote

What if you cause that much damage in a car accident where you're found to be at fault? The injured party should have to wait 30 years to collect?

If they don't want to wait, they can sell their future payments for a fee, or take out a loan and use the payments to pay down the loan. It's none of my business, really.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[masterrig 1]

Granted, manufacturers, doctors, lawyers, anyone in a service business and etc., should be responsible for what they 'deliver'. We as individuals are 'up for grabs', when it comes to lawsuits. I'm just referring to the 'frivilous' 'just out for the money' lawsuits. I just feel, lawsuits should be 'scrutinized' before going to court. With 'greed', playing a large role in our society, I don't see an end to 'frivilous' lawsuits.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I think there is a very high probability that you would see far fewer doctors in practice were they not able to insure themselves.

I'm not proposing to prevent them from purchasing insurance, just against mandating that they do so. In addition to fixing/pre-empting the justice system with more specialized arbitration outfits, as is done in most other major industries.

edit to add
The complaint is that insurance costs are too high for doctors. What makes insurance costs too high? Artificial excess demand will do that. Will reducing artificial excess demand bring down the price of insurance? Yes. All the way to reasonable levels? Can't say, but probably not on its own.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I don't accept that Doctors would be more careful if they had no insurance... or indeed that they would be any more successful in avoiding accidents if they were uninsured.

An accident that a medical service professional cannot avoid is one he should not be liable for. If a patient wants to reduce this risk, he should purchase insurance directly.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You're standing against economic theory on this one, pal.

You're right, I'm putting the real world up against theory.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

An accident that a medical service professional cannot avoid is one he should not be liable for. If a patient wants to reduce this risk, he should purchase insurance directly.

Who sells malpractice insurance to patients?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Who sells malpractice insurance to patients?

The doctor does, it's built into the cost of medical service. You don't get a chance to decline it. It isn't sold separately because it isn't sold separately.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Who sells malpractice insurance to patients?

The doctor does, it's built into the cost of medical service. You don't get a chance to decline it. It isn't sold separately because it isn't sold separately.

nathaniel

Ok, I get it. Make health care more expensive for individuals. That'll fix the problems with the system.

[mr2mk1g 10]

That's the point though - Doctors are not robots, they're human. To err is to be human. Humans make mistakes, ipso facto doctors make mistakes.

No matter how careful a group of people are, someone somewhere will make a mistake. If that mistake ammounts to negligence and injury comes as a consequense of that mistake the doctor may be held financially liable.

If the patient has insured against the doctors negligence the patient's insurance company will pay out and then simply then sue the doctor - that's how it works. The fact that the patient has insurance is no defense for the doctor against being sued by the insurance co. and when the patient takes out their insurance a term of the contrac they sign assigns their right to sue over to the insurance company.

If the doctor has not taken out insurance against such a lawsuit then they're going to find themselves in possably millions of $$ of debt. Patient insurance will do nothing to adress that fact.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

You're right, I'm putting the real world up against theory.

You're putting your perception of the real world up against the basic theory of economics.

What do you say to someone who believes in perpetual motion? or who disbelieves the laws of thermodynamics?

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The doctor does, it's built into the cost of medical service. You don't get a chance to decline it. It isn't sold separately because it isn't sold separately.

That's basically what happens. The cost of the treatment goes up to cover the medical insurance. You've just got the name of the person taking the insurance out wrong.

At present the doctor takes out the insurance and passes that costs onto the patient in his fees. How different is that in terms of the cost to the doctor or the patient to what you're suggesting here?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Ok, I get it. Make health care more expensive for individuals. That'll fix the problems with the system.

If doctors didn't pay for insurance for their patients, presumably they could offer lower prices.

Just moving around the payments doesn't change who ends up footing the bill. What it does change is that all of a sudden people can decline to pay. The slackening of demand would put a negative pressure on insurance prices.

Your accounting is flawed.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

At present the doctor takes out the insurance and passes that costs onto the patient in his fees. How different is that in terms of the cost to the doctor or the patient to what you're suggesting here?

Because when the patient pays he can decline insurance altogether and still get medical service.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Because when the patient pays he can decline insurance altogether and still get medical service.

exactly - and then sue the doctor when he's negligent.

end result - no doctor will treat him.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You're putting your perception of the real world up against the basic theory of economics.

No, I'm putting economic reality against economic theory.

Risk homeostasis is NOT a basic theory of economics. In fact, it shouldn't even be called a theory. It's hypothesis refuted by a large body of empirical evidence. The majority of leading economists discount that supposed theory.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

No matter how careful a group of people are, someone somewhere will make a mistake. If that mistake ammounts to negligence and injury comes as a consequense of that mistake the doctor may be held financially liable.

And that's where precautions come in. If insufficient or inappropriate precautions are taken, then there is negligence. Forcing people to take insurance widens the tolerance they have in their practices for such negligence because the insurer will foot the bill. It's called a moral hazard in economics.

And as insurers foot the bill, the price of insurance goes up.

We see the price of insurance going up.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

(emphasis mine)
The second law of thermodynamics is NOT a basic theory of physics. In fact, it shouldn't even be called a theory. It's hypothesis refuted by a large body of empirical evidence. The majority of leading physicists discount that supposed theory.

Alright then.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

exactly - and then sue the doctor when he's negligent.

No...see the insurance wasn't bought against negligence, its against accidents. Like we said.

Insurance can't protect against negligence, only cover it up and allow it to fester.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

And that's where precautions come in. If insufficient or inappropriate precautions are taken, then there is negligence.

That's simply not how medical negligence works. I think that's the basic misconception that forms the foundation for your argument.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Insurance can't protect against negligence, only cover it up and allow it to fester.

No, it mitigates financial hardship as a result of negligence. On one hand you're trying to claim that getting rid of insurance will reduce the risk of negligence. And at the same time claiming that insurance doesn't protect against negligence.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

No...see the insurance wasn't bought against negligence, its against accidents. Like we said.

Insurance can't protect against negligence, only cover it up and allow it to fester.

You're working with a fundamentally flawed concept of what negligence is.

Insurance is against negligence. Accidents can be negligent. Negligence is often an accident.

Insurance doesn't protect the negligent against negligence - it protects the victim of the negligence from the consequences of the negligence.