More debate onthe "three strikes" ammendment in Florida:
"The new amendment and another one - both pushed by trial lawyers - would force doctors and hospitals to release records of medical mistakes and would revoke the license of any doctor hit with three malpractice judgments. Doctors, hospitals and the state agencies say they are ambiguous and can create confusion.
The amendments are the latest twist in the medical malpractice fight in Florida. The Legislature, which approved a half million dollar cap on some types of malpractice awards two years ago to stem skyrocketing premiums and bring down medical costs, again will find itself thrust in the middle when lawmakers return to work March 8.
Doctors and hospitals are hoping the Legislature will pass bills to resolve questions they have about the amendments. But trial lawyers see the concerns raised by medical professionals as a smoke screen to get lawmakers to water down the new rules."
Link...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
How are they going to feed their kids? Repay their loans? Buy their mercedes? If you give doctors a magic wand that would get rid of all sickness in this country, how many of them would use it? Doctors are not soldiers praying for peace so they can go home and do something else. There's no money to be made with healthy people.
See how easy it is to attack people? Of course, the big difference between ddl's argument and mine is that if malpractice goes away, lawyers can always make money sueing tobacco companies. What are doctors going to do if lung disease, heart disease and obesity go away? Golf all the time?
The fact is that if you believe the insurance industry argument that medical malpractice claims are driving up medical malpractice insurance rates (a questionable argument), than it makes good sense to get the handful of doctors who are responsible for the vast majority of malpractice out of the risk pool. Here in Illinois, 3.6% of docs are responsible for 47% of malpractice cases, according to federal records.
The best argument for the law is not to lower insurance rates, but to protect public safety. If "three strikes you're out" is a good policy to protect us from felons, it makes sense to apply the same standard to quacks who endanger the public with their negligence. I hope other statesd follow suit.
If it's really the case that only a small number of doctors are causing the majority of malpractice, why don't lawyers form an insurance company to insure the ones who don't commit malpractice?
Post a Comment