Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 460
  1. #51
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    Right now, Obama's efforst are dead in the water. And this is a big problem because his opponents are saying this is the line in the sand - if he fails here, it will be curtains for the filibuster majority in the midterm elections, and quite possibly his second term. I don't see this passing, and I think Obama should just drop that anchor and move onto calmer waters where he has firm command of the ship like foreign affairs.
    I count at least six metaphors in that paragraph. Quite a roll.

  2. #52
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    Call it what you will, but something clearly needs to be done. To be honest, I don't know why the insurance companies are so successful in challenging change. It's either reform yourself or the government is going to do it for you.
    I actually agree with you. You need to know that the insurance companies have been so successful largely to the credit of the Republican Party. It is their support, and their propagation of misinformation to senior citizens and the ignorant that has been key to dealing common sense a blow.

    Right now, Obama's efforst are dead in the water. And this is a big problem because his opponents are saying this is the line in the sand - if he fails here, it will be curtains for the filibuster majority in the midterm elections, and quite possibly his second term. I don't see this passing, and I think Obama should just drop that anchor and move onto calmer waters where he has firm command of the ship like foreign affairs.
    Don't be so quick to say his efforts are dead in the water. Things are FAR from over.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  3. #53
    nightflier
    Guest

    In case you haven't noticed....

    Quote Originally Posted by 02audionoob
    I count at least six metaphors in that paragraph. Quite a roll.
    That is how I rock and roll.

  4. #54
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Well it took longer than I thought to start talking about this topic along political party lines. The soundbites from Congress today were filled with a lot of circular arguments spinning around like cr*p in a flushing toilet...... How's that for a metaphor.......

  5. #55
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Well it took longer than I thought to start talking about this topic along political party lines. The soundbites from Congress today were filled with a lot of circular arguments spinning around like cr*p in a flushing toilet...... How's that for a metaphor.......
    Isn't this how this is breaking down? It certainly isn't by logic that is for sure.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  6. #56
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Well it took longer than I thought to start talking about this topic along political party lines. The soundbites from Congress today were filled with a lot of circular arguments spinning around like cr*p in a flushing toilet...... How's that for a metaphor.......
    I like it. Reminds me of a water park I once went to in NJ.

    Both sides are too busy sticking their tongues out at each other to notice that we're taking on water. It seems that you either have to be on one side or the other. You are not allowed to believe in middle ground. (i.e.: If you are anti-abortion, then you have to be on this side and believe everything from this side. If you are pro-choice, then you fit on that side and must agree with everything that party says) I call BS on the whole shooting match. Tell them to get up off their asses, shake hands, and work together before it's too late. The water keeps rising and no one is even looking for the buckets. Both sides just keep saying that the other side is hiding them.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  7. #57
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    The quest for green knows neither red nor blue.

    Like it or not, both sides are feeding off the trough and neither cares about the common guy. They say they do to get elected and fool a lot of people, but remember, this is a republic, not a democracy.

    Those in the "in crowd" have more than what they want and need and their only goal is preserving that. They won't give anything up personally but always expect their lessors to do the sacrificing.

    We've seen this with the banking and finance industry.
    Who really sacrificed anything real, aside from the lowest people on the rung, the common man who bought the houses? I do believe that those above who were insturmental in creating this mess still got their obscene bonus', no?

    Do you expect any different from the medical industry?

    If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.

    So, unless the veiled intent of this thread was to instigate yet another pissing contest, why not concentrate on what's wrong with the health system and how to correct it. Here'e a few offhand sugestions:

    "defensive medicine" adds to the cost of health care. It's a shame that a whole battery of unnecessary tests need to be used just to stave off a lawsuit when a trained doctor can many times arrive at a solution without redundant tests.

    A little something to ponder...

    Face the fact that, given the sheer numbers of people, someone, somewhere will have an adverse reaction to some medicine. No amount of testing will guarantee 100% safety for 100% of the people. Huge lawsuits tend to make the lawyers rich and inhibit the big companies from releasing new drugs and obviously add to the costs. **** happens. Deal with it. You don't like it? Then don't take any drugs at all.

    Doctors are only human and sometimes even the best can make honest mistakes. How woulf you like to face a huge lawsuit if you make one, and I'm sure every honest person will admit to this. Why peanilize them and induce them to leav ethe profession?

    Hospitals bang the local and state governments for indignint treatment. Make it a federal cost and let's see how they handle it.

    Add to this list...
    Last edited by markw; 09-23-2009 at 08:52 AM.

  8. #58
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Like it or not, both sides are feeding off the trough and neither cares about the common guy. They say they do to get elected and fool a lot of people, but remember, this is a republic, not a democracy.

    Those in the "in crowd" have more than what they want and need and their only goal is preserving that. They won't give anything up personally but always expect their lessors to do the sacrificing.

    We've seen this with the banking and finance industry.
    Who really sacrificed anything real, aside from the lowest people on the rung, the common man who bought the houses? I do believe that those above who were insturmental in creating this mess still got their obscene bonus', no?

    Do you expect any different from the medical industry?

    If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.

    So, unless the veiled intent of this thread was to instigate yet another pissing contest, why not concentrate on what's wrong with the health system and how to correct it. Here'e a few offhand sugestions:

    "defensive medicine" adds to the cost of health care. It's a shame that a whole battery of unnecessary tests need to be used just to stave off a lawsuit when a trained doctor can many times arrive at a solution without redundant tests.

    A little something to ponder...

    Face the fact that, given the sheer numbers of people, someone, somewhere will have an adverse reaction to some medicine. No amount of testing will guarantee 100% safety for 100% of the people. Huge lawsuits tend to make the lawyers rich and inhibit the big companies from releasing new drugs and obviously add to the costs. **** happens. Deal with it. You don't like it? Then don't take any drugs at all.

    Doctors are only human and sometimes even the best can make honest mistakes. How woulf you like to face a huge lawsuit if you make one, and I'm sure every honest person will admit to this. Why peanilize them and induce them to leav ethe profession?

    Hospitals bang the local and state governments for indignint treatment. Make it a federal cost and let's see how they handle it.

    Add to this list...
    Mark, I agree with your assertions except one. Nobody wants this to be a pissing contest, so get your self out of that Islamic mindset! This is worth discussing, religion is not. It's a terrible subject to discuss live, and on a forum, as it is easy to get baited into saying something that get's you labeled a this, or a that.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  9. #59
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Mark, I agree with your assertions except one. Nobody wants this to be a pissing contest, so get your self out of that Islamic mindset! This is worth discussing, religion is not. It's a terrible subject to discuss live, and on a forum, as it is easy to get baited into saying something that get's you labeled a this, or a that.
    Well, re-read the previous posts and you'll see that, aside from GM, it sure seems to be gleefully headed towards a partisan pissing contest, not to mention your lead here. ...and that includes your last one liner. Now, stick it back in your pants, and let's see what you have to offer on the subject at hand.

    So far, it seems that the only creative observation came from my last post.

    Where do you see direct issues that should be addressed, and perhaps how?
    Last edited by markw; 09-23-2009 at 11:01 AM.

  10. #60
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Well, re-read the previous posts and you'll see that,aside from GM, that sure seems to be where it was gleefully headed, not to mrntion your lead here.

    Now, stick it back in your pants, and let's see what you have to offer on the subject at hand.

    Where do you see direct issues that should be addressed, and perhaps how?
    My comments, a pissing contest? Mark, really.......are you attempting to re-defining what a pissing contest is?
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  11. #61
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Like it or not, both sides are feeding off the trough and neither cares about the common guy. They say they do to get elected and fool a lot of people, but remember, this is a republic, not a democracy.

    Those in the "in crowd" have more than what they want and need and their only goal is preserving that. They won't give anything up personally but always expect their lessors to do the sacrificing.

    We've seen this with the banking and finance industry.
    Who really sacrificed anything real, aside from the lowest people on the rung, the common man who bought the houses? I do believe that those above who were insturmental in creating this mess still got their obscene bonus', no?

    Do you expect any different from the medical industry?

    If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.

    So, unless the veiled intent of this thread was to instigate yet another pissing contest, why not concentrate on what's wrong with the health system and how to correct it. Here'e a few offhand sugestions:

    "defensive medicine" adds to the cost of health care. It's a shame that a whole battery of unnecessary tests need to be used just to stave off a lawsuit when a trained doctor can many times arrive at a solution without redundant tests.

    A little something to ponder...

    Face the fact that, given the sheer numbers of people, someone, somewhere will have an adverse reaction to some medicine. No amount of testing will guarantee 100% safety for 100% of the people. Huge lawsuits tend to make the lawyers rich and inhibit the big companies from releasing new drugs and obviously add to the costs. **** happens. Deal with it. You don't like it? Then don't take any drugs at all.

    Doctors are only human and sometimes even the best can make honest mistakes. How woulf you like to face a huge lawsuit if you make one, and I'm sure every honest person will admit to this. Why peanilize them and induce them to leav ethe profession?

    Hospitals bang the local and state governments for indignint treatment. Make it a federal cost and let's see how they handle it.

    Add to this list...
    Medical errors are devastating and add to the overall cost of healthcare. Only 2 to 3% of medical errors result in medical malpractice lawsuits. The DIRECT cost of medical malpractice lawsuits is one-half of one percent of the total cost of healthcare - that's 0.5%. This figure represents jury verdicts, settlements and costs of litigation. Again, that's 1/2%.

    The estimated cost of "defensive" medicine in the U.S. (not just Mass.) is $60 billion which represents roughly 3% of the total cost of healthcare. This is an area that can be improved upon, but to devote all efforts on 3% doesn't get you very far in savings.

    I've represented only one plaintiff against a doctor. A medical device manufacturer was a defendant as well after a piece of the device broke off into my client's spine and couldn't be safely removed. The jury found that the doctor misused the device and returned a verdict against the doctor, but in favor of the device manufacturer. It cost over $80,000 to bring the case to trial which is actually not as much as most medical malpractice claims. My firm carried these expenses. Obviously, it has to be more than a close call before pursuing one of these cases.

    Almost every state in the U.S. has special laws applicable to medical malpractice lawsuits. In my state we have to hire an expert or experts practicing in the same field as the defendant doctor who can testify that the defendant doctor breached the applicable standard of care. The opinions of these experts have to be presented in affidavits first, before the case goes to trial and then again live at trial. Some states require that expert affidavits be attached to the complaint. In my state, most med mal cases are thrown out before reaching trial not because there was no error or injury, but because the only expert that was willing to testify didn't meet the strict requirements. Most plaintiff's lawyers have stopped taking med mal cases altogether. In fact, most of the injured patients who come to us are referred to larger firms who can afford to have the case reviewed by doctors. The remainder are screened out because the particular problem or injury was a known risk of the procedure or the injury was so minimal that the potential damages don't justify the cost.

    You're more than welcome to chip away at your right to a trial by jury in civil cases, but I will continue to fight for it. Spend a few days in the trenches and you might change your mind. I will admit that the system is not perfect (let's shed some light on medical malpratice insurers). But there's no way I'm going tell somebody "sh*t happens, deal with it" even if I don't think they have viable claim. Many injuries or diseases can occur without error or negligence on the part of the doctor and are part of the known risks of certain procedures. It's unfortunate if they occur but I don't think it's worthy of a "sh*t happens" response and we all have to "deal with it" because it requires more care and more cost.

  12. #62
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    I can I see I gored someone's ox.

    It's too bad the doctor misused the article, but was that the manufacturer's fault?

    Did you go after the doctor himself, or the manufacturer's deep pockets?

    Is this the same as an unintended or unexpcted drug interaction, which was the main thrust my original statement?

    Re-read my article about extra MRI's, othe rredundant tests, and hospital admissions instead of worring about your own profession's livelihood. That may be a part of the problem.

    Not all lawyers are as altrustic as you. If you've got a TV, you can see tons of seedy lawyers advertising for anyone and looking for any angle to bring a lawsuit against anyone with money.

    When you read the article, you'll see that "protecting" oneself from possibly malicious and invalid malpractice suits does add considerably to the cost of medical treatment. From the article:

    "In a study published last year by the Pacific Research Institute, the total impact of the current tort system on medical expenditures was estimated to be $124 billion annually, with an additional $38 billion in reduced access to health care.6 A study conducted as early as 1987 estimated that expenditures resulting from defensive practices comprised over 15% of all health care dollars spent."

    There's a lot more there.
    Last edited by markw; 09-23-2009 at 01:04 PM.

  13. #63
    nightflier
    Guest

    Someone mentioned "the ruling class"....

    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    If progress is to be made here it will only be when the ruling class is forced to use the same health plan as joe sixpack.
    ...and let them eat cake?

    So far the only two real options that anyone has proposed are:

    1. Do nothing and let the sky fall (and maybe then someone will do something).
    2. Revolution / off with their heads and all that ensues.

    Neither of these is realistic or desirable.

  14. #64
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    It's too bad the doctor misused the article, but was that the manufacturer's fault?

    Did you go after the doctor himself, or the manufacturer's deep pockets?

    Is this the same as an unintended or unexpcted drug interaction, which was my original statement?

    Re-read my article about extra MRI's, othe rredundant tests, and hospital admissions instead of worring about your own profession's livelihood. That may be a part of the problem.
    I went after both (which I thought was clear from my third paragraph). The doctor obviously misused the device, but I thought the device was defective. And we had enough evidence for the judge to let the question go to the jury. It was a "fad" device that isn't used anymore. Believe it or not there are devices and drugs that come and go based on hype from the manufacturer. Obviously, the jury found that the device wasn't defective, but that the doctor misused it causing it to break. In simple terms, we won against the doctor but lost against the manufacturer. I accept the jury's decision. It's done. My client got her day in court.

    You can re-read my post. I rarely handle med mal claims. I'll add that I rarely handle medical device claims and I've never handled a drug claim. I'm often concerned about my personal livelihood, but I'm concerned about my clients too. If my "worry" has ever caused you a problem, then I apologize for not being able to apologize. I usually try to respond to shots taken at our (not "mine" but "ours") civil justice system. There are forces like the US Chamber of Commerce that constantly barrage the public with misinformation using catch phrases like "lawsuit lottery", "jackpot justice", "tort hell" and the like. If you don't like our civil justice system then amend the Constitution, the Constitutions of all 50 states and disregard 400 yrs of common law going back to England. If you want to scrap it that's fine, but I think it's a fair and noble system.

    I admit that statistics show that health care providers spend too much on defensive medicine, but the GAO's report on this problem says that the data is mostly inconclusive and unreliable. The $100 billion reported for Mass. is inconsistent with other reports that say $60 billion NATIONALLY which of course would include Mass. That's as far as I got with your article with the limited time I have.

    I'll read yours and exchange links to articles with you if you're interested and don't mind waiting closer to the weekend. In the meantime, here's a link to an article that has internal links to some studies that may or may not pass scrutiny.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/bu...tion%22&st=nyt

  15. #65
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    ...and let them eat cake?

    So far the only two real options that anyone has proposed are:

    1. Do nothing and let the sky fall (and maybe then someone will do something).
    2. Revolution / off with their heads and all that ensues.

    Neither of these is realistic or desirable.
    Nice, catchy rhetoric. What else do you have to offer?

  16. #66
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    I went after both (which I thought was clear from my third paragraph). The doctor obviously misused the device, but I thought the device was defective. And we had enough evidence for the judge to let the question go to the jury. It was a "fad" device that isn't used anymore. Believe it or not there are devices and drugs that come and go based on hype from the manufacturer. Obviously, the jury found that the device wasn't defective, but that the doctor misused it causing it to break. In simple terms, we won against the doctor but lost against the manufacturer. I accept the jury's decision. It's done. My client got her day in court.

    You can re-read my post. I rarely handle med mal claims. I'll add that I rarely handle medical device claims and I've never handled a drug claim. I'm often concerned about my personal livelihood, but I'm concerned about my clients too. If my "worry" has ever caused you a problem, then I apologize for not being able to apologize. I usually try to respond to shots taken at our (not "mine" but "ours") civil justice system. There are forces like the US Chamber of Commerce that constantly barrage the public with misinformation using catch phrases like "lawsuit lottery", "jackpot justice", "tort hell" and the like. If you don't like our civil justice system then amend the Constitution, the Constitutions of all 50 states and disregard 400 yrs of common law going back to England. If you want to scrap it that's fine, but I think it's a fair and noble system.

    I admit that statistics show that health care providers spend too much on defensive medicine, but the GAO's report on this problem says that the data is mostly inconclusive and unreliable. The $100 billion reported for Mass. is inconsistent with other reports that say $60 billion NATIONALLY which of course would include Mass. That's as far as I got with your article with the limited time I have.

    I'll read yours and exchange links to articles with you if you're interested and don't mind waiting closer to the weekend. In the meantime, here's a link to an article that has internal links to some studies that may or may not pass scrutiny.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/bu...tion%22&st=nyt
    Your particular instance actually doesn't fit into my scenario. Since the doctor used the product improperly, either intentionally or not, your client deserved a remedy.

    My main gripe is those that go fter a drug company that afer rigirous study and testing and FDA approval, find themselves at the mercy of a law firm that's heading a class-action suit against an heretofore unsuspected reaction and where the acual "victims" get a pittance and the lawyers get a fortune.

    If the company did it's due diligence and FDA signed off on it, then the company should be free and clear, unless it's proven they intentionally withheld info.

  17. #67
    nightflier
    Guest

    My point was that...

    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Nice, catchy rhetoric. What else do you have to offer?
    ...you haven't offered anything tangible, either. The problem is that our politicians are not willing to sit down and hammer something out. How do we solve that problem? We can all stand around and complain ad infinitum, but this reform bill is languishing in Congress, now.

  18. #68
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Some good points made here today. i would like to add that i have tried to stay non-partisan in this and believe blame is to be laid at the feet of both political parties.

    I am not buying the arguement that alot of the medical testsare "defensive' because of the fear of malpractice suits. I think it is a redherring to deflect the fact that alot of the labs who conduct these tests are either directly or indirectly owned by many of the doctors who use them. They are just lining their pockets further.

  19. #69
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    And my point is...

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    ...you haven't offered anything tangible, either. The problem is that our politicians are not willing to sit down and hammer something out. How do we solve that problem? We can all stand around and complain ad infinitum, but this reform bill is languishing in Congress, now.
    ..that it seems that all you want to do is hammer politicians here. That's pretty much what's going on in Washington, isn't it?

    As far as tangible, I think I've offered some positive input into the discussion as opposed to simply *****ing about it.

    Unless, of course, you simply want to admit that all you really want to do here is have a pissing contest, and I think I brought that up earlier. Thanks for proving my point.

    What, exactly does that bill contain? Do you know? I don't, and I don't buy a pig in a poke. That's how the unions got control of GM and Chrysler and the rich bankers all got their bonus' while the rest of us suck wind.

    Now, what else have you got... to contribute to the discussion.
    Last edited by markw; 09-23-2009 at 03:44 PM.

  20. #70
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Your particular instance actually doesn't fit into my scenario. Since the doctor used the product improperly, either intentionally or not, your client deserved a remedy.

    My main gripe is those that go fter a drug company that afer rigirous study and testing and FDA approval, find themselves at the mercy of a law firm that's heading a class-action suit against an heretofore unsuspected reaction and where the acual "victims" get a pittance and the lawyers get a fortune.

    If the company did it's due diligence and FDA signed off on it, then the company should be free and clear, unless it's proven they intentionally withheld info.
    I really can't counter your main gripe. Class actions, mass tort suits, and multi-district litigation often have numerous problems and unfair results. Congress recently passed class action laws that address some of the problems in the federal system, but those laws don't effect lawsuits in state court except in limited circumstances. And you're right about the recovery and how it's split between class members and the lawyers representing the class. That's why there are "opt-out" procedures that may be best for the seriously injured.

    Class action lawsuits were "designed" for large groups of people who suffered common injuries or damage where the damage is not enough to justify a single person bringing suit. For example, if all the customers of Bank X are suddenly and without notice deducted $5 per month as extra service charges that they didn't bargain for (nothing mentioned in their account agreement), a single customer wouldn't be able to get anyone to represent her. It wouldn't make economic sense. A class action could stop the conduct but it probably won't give everyone's $5 back. The lawyer's fee is going to be based on the value of the relief they obtained for the class. The fee will probably appear obscene compared to the relief of an individual class member, but the conduct is stopped.

    As for drug companies, I think you covered both sides. Often it's discovered in the litigation context that drug companies have defrauded the FDA with biased studies, etc., but the US Supreme Court has said that individuals are preempted from suing drug companies for defrauding the FDA even where the particular fraud covered up the specific injury suffered by the individual. (The case can go forward in some instances. The plaintiff just can't argue, recover damages for or mention the fraud.) And, the Supreme Court has come very close to preempting all drug and device claims where FDA approval has been obtained. The current state of the law is in flux. A recent S.Ct. case involving Medtronics' pacemakers effectively shut down lawsuits over devices approved by the FDA (it came out after my case), but a more recent case against a drug manufacturer which seemed very similar was allowed to go forward. I don't have a firm grasp of the distinction yet.

    The unforeseen interaction or reaction brings up an interesting and arguably esoteric point. The cornerstone of negligence is foreseeability. If you run a red light, it is foreseeable that you could hit someone and cause serious injury. However, lawsuits against drug companies are based on product liability laws. In some states, product liability is strict liability (meaning you put it out there and it did this therefore you're liable). Other states' product liability laws retain aspects of negligence law where the plaintiff has to prove a manufacturing defect or a design defect, etc. and then the law has to evolve to fit not just machines that the law was intended for during the industrial revolution, but also drugs and food.

    We probably need to get back to health care reform before NF needs a healthy dose of health care. I went beyond the only point I really wanted to make which is medical malpractice lawsuits are not as big a problem as some interests make them out to be.

  21. #71
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Some good points made here today. i would like to add that i have tried to stay non-partisan in this and believe blame is to be laid at the feet of both political parties.

    I am not buying the arguement that alot of the medical testsare "defensive' because of the fear of malpractice suits. I think it is a redherring to deflect the fact that alot of the labs who conduct these tests are either directly or indirectly owned by many of the doctors who use them. They are just lining their pockets further.
    Believe it or not, that's the only reason for defensive medicine. That's because some well-dressed, smooth-talking lawyer will play the shoulda/coulda/woulda card if something untowards happens. Didn't you read the article?

    Malpractice premiums speak for themselves. In some cases they are getting lower, but they still can make up a sizable chunk of change and don't kid yourself, "defensive medicine" is a reality no matter who owns the labs.

    Speaking of which, who should own medical testing labs? Accountants? Lawyers? Mechanics?
    Last edited by markw; 09-23-2009 at 04:30 PM.

  22. #72
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Believe it or not, that's the only reason for defensive medicine. That's because some well-dressed, smooth-talking lawyer will play the shoulda/coulda/woulda card if something untowards happens. Didn't you read the article?

    Malpractice premiums speak for themselves. In some cases they are getting lower, but they still can make up a sizable chunk of change and don't kid yourself, "defensive medicine" is a reality no matter who owns the labs.

    Speaking of which, who should own medical testing labs? Accountants? Lawyers? Mechanics?
    C'mon, Mark. You know that medmal insurance companies took a hit in the stock market just like every other insurance company and that their rate increases can be attributed, at least in part, to their losses. In addition, many health care providers joined together and formed associations to become self-insured which put some regular insurance companies out of the medmal business which in turn eliminated competition and competitive rates. Read the Government Accounting Office report on Medical Malpractice Pressures on Access to and Cost of Health Care. You should be able to easily find it online. (I'm not suggesting it because it's favorable to my profession. In some respects it's not. In other respects no conclusions are reached which is frustrating.) Premiums don't always reflect risk.

    Oh, lab technicians should at least run, if not own, a lab.

  23. #73
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Believe it or not, that's the only reason for defensive medicine. That's because some well-dressed, smooth-talking lawyer will play the shoulda/coulda/woulda card if something untowards happens. Didn't you read the article?
    MarkW

    I looked at the article but I also consider its source-A medical group.....

    I am not dismissing that some of the tests are not as result of the fear of a malpractice suit but my point is that alot of the overtesting is not for the reasons the medical community would have you believe. Some of it is greed and some of it is pure lazy medicine. I am fortunate to be in good health and do not need to see a doctor often. When I talk to those that do, their primary complaint is that they spend an hour in the waiting room-another 20 minutes sitting alone in an examine room and 5 minutes with the doctor who asks a few questions,perform a few range of motion tests or puts a stethoscope to the chest and then they order a battery of tests. After the tests are done a follow up phone call is made or worse an letter in the mail saying the tests (hopefully) were negative and to let them know if the problem persists. Later a letter is recieved that shows them that several thousands of dollars were spent on these tests and a couple of hundred for the doctor visit. In that all too common scenario that type "defensive medicine" IMO is just covering for the lack of time the doctor is actually spending with the patient. Now if you want to talk about why we have a system that encourages/promotes/limits the doctor to spend such little time with the patient then that is a different story. I just think it is a lazy arguement/excuse that lawsuits are a driving force in the cost of healthcare. Lawyers with frivilous lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits are a problem in almost any industry and affect the cost of the product. I don't think the medical industry is any different but they hide behind it more than any other group.

    As for who should own the labs. I don't have an answer other than to say there are alot of industries where there are laws that prohibit a group that might have a conflict of interest from owning certain other business'. An easy fix IMO to the healthcare problem is eliminate doctors and hospitals from owning these labs and I bet you would see an immediate reduction in the amount of testing.

  24. #74
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    OK, moving on.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    MarkW

    I looked at the article but I also consider its source-A medical group.....

    I am not dismissing that some of the tests are not as result of the fear of a malpractice suit but my point is that alot of the overtesting is not for the reasons the medical community would have you believe. Some of it is greed and some of it is pure lazy medicine. I am fortunate to be in good health and do not need to see a doctor often. When I talk to those that do, their primary complaint is that they spend an hour in the waiting room-another 20 minutes sitting alone in an examine room and 5 minutes with the doctor who asks a few questions,perform a few range of motion tests or puts a stethoscope to the chest and then they order a battery of tests. After the tests are done a follow up phone call is made or worse an letter in the mail saying the tests (hopefully) were negative and to let them know if the problem persists. Later a letter is recieved that shows them that several thousands of dollars were spent on these tests and a couple of hundred for the doctor visit. In that all too common scenario that type "defensive medicine" IMO is just covering for the lack of time the doctor is actually spending with the patient. Now if you want to talk about why we have a system that encourages/promotes/limits the doctor to spend such little time with the patient then that is a different story. I just think it is a lazy arguement/excuse that lawsuits are a driving force in the cost of healthcare. Lawyers with frivilous lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits are a problem in almost any industry and affect the cost of the product. I don't think the medical industry is any different but they hide behind it more than any other group.

    As for who should own the labs. I don't have an answer other than to say there are alot of industries where there are laws that prohibit a group that might have a conflict of interest from owning certain other business'. An easy fix IMO to the healthcare problem is eliminate doctors and hospitals from owning these labs and I bet you would see an immediate reduction in the amount of testing.
    You don't think it has a significant inpact on the cost of insurance. A lot of "small" things do add up to a big one.

    Are you implying that doctors make or charge too much money? Perhaps they do make more than otners but when you take into account their responsibility and training (both initial and ongoing), what would you suggest they be paid? And, as for their charges, hav eyou ever checked their P & L to see exactly how much they really wind up with? After all, those clean offices, fancy equipment (which need maintenance) and staff cost money, too.

    One would think you would want to attract the best and brigtest to the profession, no? How else would you attract them? Do you expect them to all do it for altrustic reasons devoid on any thought to monetary compensation?

    Apparantly, the providers aren't exactly sitting pretty either

    Again, since you dn't want doctors and hospitals to own and operate medical labs, who do you have left? Plumbers? (not that there's anything wrong with that)

    Ok, you've spent aq lot of time and effort to state you don't think my items amout to much. I disagree, but that's a valid opinion.

    You say doctors charge too much and order un-necessary tests. Is that it?

    What else do you have to add to the list of things that make up the high cost of medical care?
    Last edited by markw; 09-24-2009 at 04:21 AM.

  25. #75
    3LB
    3LB is offline
    cunning linguist 3LB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,737
    The cost of prescription drugs is astounding. Isn't there laws in place to prevent an industry from price gauging. Funny thing is, as soon as a drug becomes 'over-the-counter' its price goes down. I remember that about Motrin.
    Repost this on your wall if you love Jesus.

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •