Comments on: No whining http://fertilityfile.com/2008/07/01/no-whining/ The inside view from a reproductive endocrinologist Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:40:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: IVF-MD http://fertilityfile.com/2008/07/01/no-whining/#comment-42 IVF-MD Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:29:31 +0000 http://fertilityfile.com/2008/07/01/no-whining/#comment-42 It is logical to believe that a loser pays policy would favor who is more IN THE RIGHT, ie the winner of the case, and not favor someone based on money. This is why it is logically the fair and equitable way to go. A poor plaintiff with a solid case is more likely to win his case. A rich person with a frivolous case is more likely to LOSE his case and have to incur the court costs of the poor person whom he so frivolously sued. If our court system is not able to do its job of deciding verdicts justly based on the facts rather than based on how much money each side has, then that in itself is the problem and needs to be addressed. You are entitled to your opinion, but to me, it is just logical and fair that the side who is found by the courts to be the winner, should be fairly compensated for the costs of defending itself. Nobody is saying that poor people should always pay or that rich people should always pay. It's the LOSER, the one who was in the wrong, the one whose case is judged invalid, the one with the weaker case, the one whom the courts has decided against that should pay. The way the system is now, even if you vindicate yourself and are awarded a judgment successfully exonerating you from the false accusations or false claims, you still are on the hook for all the costs. How can that in any way be fair? And why is it that most other civilized countries have a Losers Pays policy? I do agree with you about letting market-based competition decide what's best for each individual. Nobody should be FORCED to spend on insurance. They can then make up their own minds and buy insurance only if the insurance companies do a good job of creating a worthwhile product with enough value that merits people freely choosing to buy it. It is logical to believe that a loser pays policy would favor who is more IN THE RIGHT, ie the winner of the case, and not favor someone based on money. This is why it is logically the fair and equitable way to go. A poor plaintiff with a solid case is more likely to win his case. A rich person with a frivolous case is more likely to LOSE his case and have to incur the court costs of the poor person whom he so frivolously sued. If our court system is not able to do its job of deciding verdicts justly based on the facts rather than based on how much money each side has, then that in itself is the problem and needs to be addressed.

You are entitled to your opinion, but to me, it is just logical and fair that the side who is found by the courts to be the winner, should be fairly compensated for the costs of defending itself.

Nobody is saying that poor people should always pay or that rich people should always pay. It’s the LOSER, the one who was in the wrong, the one whose case is judged invalid, the one with the weaker case, the one whom the courts has decided against that should pay. The way the system is now, even if you vindicate yourself and are awarded a judgment successfully exonerating you from the false accusations or false claims, you still are on the hook for all the costs. How can that in any way be fair? And why is it that most other civilized countries have a Losers Pays policy?

I do agree with you about letting market-based competition decide what’s best for each individual. Nobody should be FORCED to spend on insurance. They can then make up their own minds and buy insurance only if the insurance companies do a good job of creating a worthwhile product with enough value that merits people freely choosing to buy it.

]]> By: MLO http://fertilityfile.com/2008/07/01/no-whining/#comment-43 MLO Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:40:33 +0000 http://fertilityfile.com/2008/07/01/no-whining/#comment-43 Like many folks you have fallen victim to a fallacy. The majority of frivolous lawsuits do not involve doctor and patients. They involve business to business suits. These suits are very much a game of who has the most money already. To institute a loser pays system would actually entrench further the already wealthy as power brokers. In a democracy or democratic republic such an idea is anathema. The loser pays scenario only give the wealthy more ammunition to keep people down. (Study the labor movement for examples of this. Nothing is that simple.) Most trial lawyers, despite the press to the contrary, are not wealthy. The real enemy for everyone involved - doctors, patients, businesses, etc. - is the insurance block. They have successfully created an environment where everyone else is losing money. Who really wins in malpractice cases? Not the lawyer, not the patient, and not the doctor. Nope, the insurance company increases rates all around because for the patients in general, this procedure is riskier (financially for the insurer) so maybe we won't have to cover it (unless mandated). If it is mandated, then we (the insurers) will up the rates or try to deny things around it to make it hard for someone to actually pursue said treatment. The physician can also increase our bottom line by our increasing base malpractice rates for his specialty. The lawyer? If he is lucky, gets to spend a lot of time in court on appeals and may actually make a percentage of a much smaller settlement than was originally awarded. Get rid of private insurance. Have a two-tiered national healthcare system that builds in a "mistakes hedge" for those who are injured by malpractice or just plain mistakes, and use that. Do not allow Reaganites and Bushites to go anywhere near this. (Old fashioned Republicans still had a sense of the Public Good.) For those who want it, allow market-based competition for second tier (quicker, private, costlier out-of-pocket) healthcare. It does work when done well. But, there has to be a public will to do it. Most people are blinded by the rhetoric of entrenched money-grabbers who have successfully focused on non-issues rather than core issues. Like many folks you have fallen victim to a fallacy. The majority of frivolous lawsuits do not involve doctor and patients. They involve business to business suits. These suits are very much a game of who has the most money already. To institute a loser pays system would actually entrench further the already wealthy as power brokers. In a democracy or democratic republic such an idea is anathema. The loser pays scenario only give the wealthy more ammunition to keep people down. (Study the labor movement for examples of this. Nothing is that simple.)

Most trial lawyers, despite the press to the contrary, are not wealthy.

The real enemy for everyone involved - doctors, patients, businesses, etc. - is the insurance block. They have successfully created an environment where everyone else is losing money. Who really wins in malpractice cases? Not the lawyer, not the patient, and not the doctor. Nope, the insurance company increases rates all around because for the patients in general, this procedure is riskier (financially for the insurer) so maybe we won’t have to cover it (unless mandated). If it is mandated, then we (the insurers) will up the rates or try to deny things around it to make it hard for someone to actually pursue said treatment. The physician can also increase our bottom line by our increasing base malpractice rates for his specialty. The lawyer? If he is lucky, gets to spend a lot of time in court on appeals and may actually make a percentage of a much smaller settlement than was originally awarded.

Get rid of private insurance. Have a two-tiered national healthcare system that builds in a “mistakes hedge” for those who are injured by malpractice or just plain mistakes, and use that. Do not allow Reaganites and Bushites to go anywhere near this. (Old fashioned Republicans still had a sense of the Public Good.) For those who want it, allow market-based competition for second tier (quicker, private, costlier out-of-pocket) healthcare. It does work when done well. But, there has to be a public will to do it. Most people are blinded by the rhetoric of entrenched money-grabbers who have successfully focused on non-issues rather than core issues.

]]>