Quote:
Originally Posted by HighEnergy
Yes, I think med costs would go down if malpractice laws and caps had the uniformity that a Federal law would provide. As it is now about 1/2 the states already have damage award caps, but there are no consistent State to State laws.
You'll see the biggest difference from State to State where (if/how) they deal with non-economic damages. "Pain and suffering", "loss of companionship", etc, etc. The fact that States with caps on non-economic damages have about 12 percent more physicians per capita than States without a cap should tell us something.
Face it, attorneys are common parasites, they need to be fenced in by malpractice compensation caps mandated by country wide Federal laws and limitations.
Insurance companies fight legal battles facing vastly different malpractice laws and award precedents on a State by State basis. So yes, their premiums are high. They need to cover their ass for the unexpected since they deal with an ever changing playing field and set of rules. Federal malpractice laws 1) would provide the uniformity insurers need to develop effective policy structure, and 2) keep litigation in check.
For the record, I despise both attorneys and insurance companies. One begets the other.
|
Quoted for truth... and in California we have malpractice caps and it is almost not worth filing a lawsuit as an attorney for medical malpractice in this state. I just turned down a decent malpractice claim because it is too costly to fund the litigation and the payout just isnt worth it. The woman was 70 yrs old and she had no economic damages. However, I do not think that California has lower rates because of the caps. It would have to be a federal law as indicated by HighEnergy.