Well i certainly believe that Doctors need malpractice insurance, if thats what you guys are getting at.

Malpractice insurance is not something that needs to go away, and even if it did it wouldnt make a lot of difference i dont think.

EDIT: look at my dad as an example. He carries malpractice insurance. He is also working OB which requires LONG and irregular hours which often results in less than 1 or 2 hours of sleep per night. Lets say he ovelooks a drug allergy or something on a patient's chart due to fatigue. Sure, he is a professional and i doubt he would do that, but what if? He has been in practice for 35 years and is very respected by his peers... but anyone can screw up.

insurance is for what ifs

Having dealt with many Doctors, I find most decent wanting to help, certainly GP's. It's when you start dealing with specialist they become arseholes. Neurologist disgust me on more levels than I can post here.

Too many groups take on too many patients, you're lucky if you get 5 minutes per visit at my group. There's as many pharma sales reps in there as patients most the time.

Sadly, a lot of Doctors think they can figure out everything in a few minutes, instead of taking the time to talk in detail, they just order test after test. When the group I saw purchased a MRI, my sister in law that works there said they started ordering many more MRI's, since they now did them in house.

This should scare anyone...

The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.

The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).

I remember a recent discussion with an old doctor friend of mine at the airport one day.

He said when he was just out of medical school back in the stone age, people used to come in with several lbs of fruit and vegetables as payment.

Or if the patient was a mechanic, the Doctor would receive all his maintenance for free minus the cost of parts.

and they made house calls for whatever cash, tangible goods or other services the family could often spare.

what happened to the good old days?

Good question. My dad in residency(doctor) in NY back in the late 50s he would go with the ambulance to calls. They received a call for a women about to give birth. Upon arrival my dad was presented with a black woman very much in labor. He helped deliver the baby. Baby and mom were fine. The father of the child gave my dad all he had in payment for delivering the baby. It was a quarter. .25 cents. On the way out the door my dad put the quarter on the kitchen table. This family would need it much more than he ever would. That is pretty much how my dad handled patients and payments from then on out.

that brings an interesting point.

Being a doctor or nurse used to be about helping your fellow man.

but it has grown to be a big money industry.

surgeons making $800,000/year

it attracts a lot of people who want to do the job because of the lifestyle it has come to offer.

lets face it.

when a kid says "I just got accepted to medical school!"

the first thing that comes to the listeners mind is $$$$$$$

Nobody said we should protect bad doctors. Where did you get that from? Tort reform won't protect bad doctors - but it will protect good ones.

Also - why no response on the previous issues - the "insurance mandate" discussed previously? Do you concede the point that the blog you posted is invalid?

It costs serious money to bring in expert witnesses, pay lawyers, subpoena records, etc in a malpractice suit. If you limit damages, you make it less likely that someone is going to go to the expense of bringing a case and you protect bad doctors. I do not agree with limiting the right to seek relief through our legal system.

And how is it invalid? It shows that there's a history of the government mandating someone purchase health insurance. Is it a direct and exactly the same comparison? No, of course not. But that's not the point. The point is that the framers believed that the government had a basis for being in the health insurance business.

True..the first this is $$$$$ but the reality it is a bit different. The emotional and physical toll it took on my dad who was a ER physician was incredible. He had two congestive heart failures. One silent heart attack. The 12 hour shifts took their toll. Pronouncing children dead and telling the parents took their toll. Telling an elderly women her husband has passed took their toll. The boys detention center across the street would often bring over bodies of boys who hung themselves. He had to legally pronounce them dead. Believe it or not...there is a human inside the doctor who suffers triumph and tribulation just like any other human. They react just the same. It is not like see on TV with George Clooney. Far from it. I know...did a 12 hour shift with my dad once. My dad was known at the hospital by the nurses as "The Baby Saver.' He would not stop until every last resource and bit of knowledge was used to save a baby. Money did not matter. Nothing matter....just life for that baby.

My mother who works in Trauma - that sounds a lot like the things she deals with.

and people say they should make less money?

please.

i say what they do make is barely enough.

My dad never made over 100k a year. People fail to realize malpractice insurance coverage is in the 100k region for million dollar or more policy. That is not a cheap policy.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide a link. I didn't find that specific claim and the fact that they are still around speaks volumes about their actions and the actions of the state.

Well, that's one of the things I'm against. And yes, I'll give it to you that such behaviour is unethical, but it is also necessary; if you dont do it, someone else will and you're out of business.

My point is that so long as the state has the power to intervene on their behalf, it will always be a target, and it will always be like that. Big companies have armies of highly-paid, highly trained professionals whose only function is to manipulate the government you would give power to for their own ends.

I have faith in democracy and the average voter, but let's be honest, they're nothing against purpose-built lobbyists; and that is especially true when you consider the people they are talking to. Politicians are not purpose-built social servants, they are purpose-built vote-getters. All it takes to get them to vote for something that will become law for generations is a good spin-doctor, and that's not taking into account normal Washington politics.

The free market works pretty well for everything else, why not let it run the healthcare system? It isn't perfect, but it generates wealth to enable the successful to help those who slip through the cracks, and it can't be perverted (for long) by convincing words or kickbacks or political stunts. In a free market, at the end of the day the responsibility lies with the consumers, who should be able to take responsibility for themselves and with whom any kind of real responsibility must lie anyways.

We can agree to disagree, but unless you have some system to ensure that only well-qualified saints dictate the terms of national policy, I'll place my faith in the fact that people don't buy bad products twice and that they tell their friends about it.

Oh, well. Even if we don't agree, thanks for listening to my side of the case and taking the time to voice your opposition. I appreciate anyone who doesn't simply accept things without question. We could discuss this further, but odds are I'll just end up repeating myself since I've mostly presented my case already, and nobody wants that. If you've anything further to add, though, I'd be happy to hear it.

Mookie - your killing me here. There is nothing in the entire legislation - and I challenged you to point it out if it were - about insurance or purchasing ANYTHING. It was an tax on those carrying out international trade - nothing to do with insurace or the purchase of a good or service by those involved. Show me otherwise. As for the government being involved in the health care business - they were specifically setting up a hospital for "sick and injured sailors" - man alive - look at the timeframe - this was the beginnings of the formation of the VA. Why would sailors be injured? Could it be from having fought a war? This was taxing international trade to fund a VA hospital - not getting into health insurance. Sheesh.

Really - data and facts? This statement comes right after you link 2 articles - one that states:

"The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true"

and then admits the "experts" they talk to "estimate" amounts ("Insurance costs about $50-$60 billion a year, Baker estimates") with absolutely NO fact based studies to refer to. What is he basing this on? In other words - they disagreed with 2 studies that HAVE been done - so they find a guy to make his own "guestimates" based on their own viewpoints. Yea - thats "data and facts". Oh - the other link - its called a BLOG. Those don't count as data and facts either.

The article you linked was Baker giving his own out of his arse guess on costs, yet it does at least mention 2 studies that point some of the excessive costs. But the point of the article - and yours along with it - fail to have any source other than some fella's personal opinion and guess.

Let's deal in Data and Facts - show me studies that show where such reform would not assist (and its no panacea by any means - I know that) in reducing the costs of health care. Oh wait - you can't - because there aren't any.

Just like there are no references to insurance or the mandated purchase of a good or servince in the 1798 act.

Its sad that healthcare should be profit based in the first place. Your health is a right, not just a privilege like a new car or a T.V.

its a lot like college.

Education and health are two things that should never be profit driven, or allowed to have prices skyrocket like they are currently. I still wonder why our government allows this madness

K-12 education is a right. College is not, and it is entirely profit-driven.

What the heck are you talking about? It's an interview with a professor who studies this stuff. But you discount it because it's posted on a NYT blog. WTF? If you make comments like this, then I think the debate's about done.

There aren't any that you wish to believe. Go ahead and write Professor Baker and tell him what's wrong with his research. Don't worry, I'll wait.

Psst: your Semmelweis reflex is showing...

Done here.