Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:45:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> Except that it's self-reinforcing. People win giant lawsuits *because*
>> of the liability laws. People wouldn't sue if they could only get
>> recompense for the actual damage done, and I expect most wouldn't sue if
>> they'd done something stupid if they would lose because they did
>> something stupid. But because the laws are there, companies buy
>> insurance and bump their prices, and because of this people *do* sue.
> 
> Yep, it is a vicious cycle, no doubt about that.
> 
> The whole system is fundamentally broken, I think, at least as regards 
> liability.  There is a place for liability, of course, but we're at a 
> ridiculous place now.  Just ask any doctor about malpractice insurance, 
> especially in fields that are still considered experimental.
> 
> Jim

The cost of malpractice issues is going to show up somewhere, though. If 
you make it so that doctors are not liable for more then lets say 
100grand, what happens to the person that they really screw up? My 
cousin is suing a doctor, it's been in the local paper several times so 
I don't mind mentioning it, because he royally screwed up. Other doctors 
looked at his notes, said they were wrong, they checked the surgical 
site and pointed out all he did wrong. She had a good job, and the jury 
found that, between lost wages and further treatment, with minimal pain 
and suffering, they awarded over 3 million. The state doesn't allow for 
that much. So, instead of taking the money from the doctor, she gets to 
take it from the state in the form of state health care and subsidies: 
also called taxes.

Anyone disabled puts a sink on the economy, in some way. It's mitigated 
by various means. But the current trend of limiting state health care 
due to malpractice while at the same time limiting malpractice law suits 
is just asking for trouble.

I mean, what do you call the student who graduated last of their class 
from med school?

Post a reply to this message