> Speaking completely anecdotally for a minute, hasn't it been said that the > rising cost of medical care in the U.S. is at least partially caused by the > skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance? Even if a suit ends up getting > dismissed or the person filing the lawsuit doesn't win, the malpractice > insurance company still has to pay for a lawyer to defend the doctor. > > Some sort of screening or arbitration system might work, but only if the > cost was significantly less that legal fees. And since the majority of > those who make the laws are lawyers themselves, what are the odds of *that* > happening? > > Reggie Bautista
Bingo! Lawyers win every time! In PA for some reason all the insurance companies were raising their malpractice rates Jan 1, 2002. The doctor's groups trotted out doctors who have already closed shop and moved or were planning to Dec. 31, rather then stay in the state. (The state had laws favorable to the suit bringers.) All the doctor's wanted was laws that at least matched the average of other states. Of course the other side was bringing out "citizen rights" groups saying that the quality of health care would decrease and other claims. Judges can't just throw out obviously frivolous lawsuits because they aren't experts in these areas. Sexual harassment suits are the same. A friend was sued three times in two years (his company). As best as he and the lawyers could determine, there was no truth to the claims. Some of it was completely arbitrary "They were looking at me walking down the hallway." One of the women had sued four other companies for the same thing, something obviously not mentioned on her job application. But still the lawyers said it was better to just settle. All told 500k gone over three years with the fees and settlements and everything else. Then the women would put his company down on their next job application and he couldn't say anything! Kevin T. Benjamin Franklin where are you?
