is Democratic ticket a nightmare for physicians!!!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Vukken99

Membership Revoked
Removed
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Now we got a ex-trial lawyer running as a vice-president for the democratic ticket....

Millions of dollars in verdict and lives of many physicians ruined.

Many filing for chapter 11.........

It is uncertain future for physicians as a professional group.

Less we have control of our field...less gratitude from patients.

And, Medical Students who live in the idealistic Ice cream castles.....

With the malpractice insurance premium soaring higher...

I wonder what would come next.......

Members don't see this ad.
 
Kerry just assured himself that not a single physician will vote Democrat...even the independent voters like me. It looks like Dubya gets my vote (I can't stand Bush, but I can't stand malpractice lawyers even more).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm a registered Democrat and I'm pretty anti-Bush, but I'm probably not voting for Kerry because Edwards is one of the reasons why malpractice is such a big problem in medicine right now. Is it just me or is there really a couple of fools to choose from this election? What happened to all the good presidential candidates?
 
America has the best illusion of freedom.

Sure we have the freedom to choose - between two sucky choices. Geez. Gotta... vote... bush...
 
Thanks for asking this question. After i saw this on the news i was going to ask the same one.

Ive heard that Bush has attempted a few times to push through Mal Practice reforms but they were rejected by congress or something.

I tend to go Demo but im leaning to Bush too.

Im curious if the AMA has a choice, im sure they will after awhile.
 
Vukken, that is all quite true.

Count me in. I'm not exactly a conservative, let's-go-back-to-the-1950's republican but med mal will sway me to support Bush this election.
 
To all the Surgery audience....

I think we should send a clear message during this election to push for
malpractice reform.....

We should be united......

Think about this...how would a Physician survive a 15 million dollar lawsuit????
if you get sued in this fashion...no insurance company would insure this physicians...

I wonder if many average americans can actually make 15 million in their entire lifetimes....Worse yet...the Lawyer gets half...so 7.5 million for the lawyer...

How many appy and gallbladder that is I wonder????

We can't continue to support such a craziness...this is the only country inthe world allowing this to occur....

Young physicians should be united...and work hard...to support malpractice reform all the way.....
 
Kind of off the topic but I thought that this might stoke the fires some more. I read this from the New York Times and it is pretty interesting.

Am Law 100: Veil of Tiers
Alison Frankel
The American Lawyer
06-29-2004

Partnership isn't what it used to be.

It's better. Much, much better.

The median profits per partner figure at America's 100 top-grossing law firms in 2003 was $792,500, up almost 9.3 percent from 2002. The average was even more astonishing: $930,700, up about 10 percent. Ten years ago, million-dollar partner paydays were limited to two or three firms. No more. Thirty-two of the firms on this year's chart enjoyed average profits per partner of $1 million or more, and they aren't just the usual New York and Los Angeles suspects. Bingham McCutchen, Dechert, and Howrey Simon Arnold & White were all over $1 million for the first time, each with profitability jumps of 14 percent or more. Partnership was very, very good to a lot of big-firm lawyers in 2003.

And yeah...I'll be voting for Bush too.
 
In order for a Lawyer to proceed a case he or she needs the help of another physician....expert witness who gets paid like 15k to sell his or her soul....

What kind of greedy imbecile would go for a quick pay check....?????

We have to push for malpractice reform......

Also I dont think we should be voting blindly on this issue...we should make our
voices heard to the running candidate so they can address this issue as their highest priority.

I dont even trust AMA, AOA and the other resident organization.
 
Foxxy Cleopatra said:
Vukken, that is all quite true.

Count me in. I'm not exactly a conservative, let's-go-back-to-the-1950's republican but med mal will sway me to support Bush this election.


Don't think of voting for Bush as voting for '50s era republicans (although Ike wasn't too bad a President). Think of it as voting for '60 democrats - like JFK. Bush is actually pretty close to JFK in his policies, he's just better at National Defense.

If you doubt my comparison, try reading JFK's inagural address - or, print it out, remover any identification and ask a college senior to tell you if it was written by a republican or a democrat.

For example:

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans?born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage?and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4

This much we pledge?and more.


http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
 
I'm a democrat. I'm a physician. I will, without a doubt, vote for Kerry/Edwards NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POSITION IS ON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. Gotta prioritize.

And isn't it at least remotely possible that Edwards sued some really BAD doctors?? We all know at least a few...

And what about Bush's stance AGAINST stem cell research, fellow physicians?? *****ic. (thanks to Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, I'll likely soon have Secret Service agents at my door for that comment).

Dubya doesn't deserve another 4 years. What a disaster...
 
Astroman said:
I'm a democrat. I'm a physician. I will, without a doubt, vote for Kerry/Edwards NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POSITION IS ON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. Gotta prioritize.

And isn't it at least remotely possible that Edwards sued some really BAD doctors?? We all know at least a few...

And what about Bush's stance AGAINST stem cell research, fellow physicians?? *****ic. (thanks to Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, I'll likely soon have Secret Service agents at my door for that comment).

Dubya doesn't deserve another 4 years. What a disaster...

If you are going to have a career in medicine, and you don't understand that having an anti-doctor/pro-mal-practice-lawyer is extremely bad for the health care system, I truly feel sorry for you.


(BTW, Bush is not against stem cell research at all. He funds the research through federal dollars. Do you understand?)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Open political forum is important.

And, I respect people's conviction on their political choices but.....

There is a cost on everything....

I knew years back when my professor of neurosurgery used to do research abroad instead of doing it locally because of so many regulations...

in early 80s they used to do hydrocephalus shunt experimentations on canine specimens....but that is illegal now...

Stem cell research I dont think we are going to be holding back for long on that.

But it is pretty much in their early stages anyhow technology wise, even but major advances or work in this area has been done in Europe for parkinsons and other neurological conditions...

But, the issue is we have to cut down on lawsuit without major merit....

Sure, we have seen bad doctors but I dont think the legal system is the answer for reform in medicine. I believe we have to emphasize on reform in the medical education at the level of state level and national level..

I am sure there are better solutions but making a greater damage to all members of our profession for few mistakes is not just
 
Yes g3pro, I understand quite well.

These are Bush's own words on August 9, 2001 during his highly anticipated speech (from Crawford, TX of course) on the subject of stem cell research:
"I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing (embryonic) stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made. Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life. I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma."

Research funding for EXISTING lines only?? 206 members of Congress, (including 36 Republicans, some pro-life on issues such as abortion and euthanasia) sent a letter to Bush asking him to reverse his anti-funding policy because not enough embryonic stem cells lines are available to conduct research. According to an NIH analysis, although there were reportedly 64 stem cell lines available for federally funded research when Bush signed his policy, only 19 stem cell lines currently are available for federally funded research.

So, true. Dubya is technically not against stem cell research, but his position in favor (LOL) of the research is so weak and fence-straddling that even Nancy Reagan publicly condemns it (she broke the #1 rule of Republicans: Thou shall not speak unfavorably of another Republican).

And g3pro, don't feel sorry for me. Truly.
 
Astroman said:
Yes g3pro, I understand quite well.

These are Bush's own words on August 9, 2001 during his highly anticipated speech (from Crawford, TX of course) on the subject of stem cell research:
"I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing (embryonic) stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made. Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life. I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma."

Research funding for EXISTING lines only?? 206 members of Congress, (including 36 Republicans, some pro-life on issues such as abortion and euthanasia) sent a letter to Bush asking him to reverse his anti-funding policy because not enough embryonic stem cells lines are available to conduct research. According to an NIH analysis, although there were reportedly 64 stem cell lines available for federally funded research when Bush signed his policy, only 19 stem cell lines currently are available for federally funded research.

So, true. Dubya is technically not against stem cell research, but his position in favor (LOL) of the research is so weak and fence-straddling that even Nancy Reagan publicly condemns it (she broke the #1 rule of Republicans: Thou shall not speak unfavorably of another Republican).

And g3pro, don't feel sorry for me. Truly.


And why is it the federal governments job to fund stem cell research? Private labs can still investigate, they have been, and apparently haven't had great success. Why will my tax dollars work where my venture capital dollars didn't?
 
What is the advantage of opening completely new lines of stem cells?

Stem cells can replicate themselves infinitely. If you need more stem cells, you grow them.
 
I'm just a lowly med student, so I certainly don't have full understanding of the plight of physicians in todays current litigious environment, but... I seem to recall that John Edwards, while running for president, proposed a three strikes and your out for trial lawyers who present frivilous lawsuits. Again, I am not an expert on medical economics, but it seems that malpractice could be lowered if the amount of lawsuits that insurance companies have to deal with is minimized.
 
Got a bit of a funny story as it relates to this topic.


I go to med school in NC and we had been throwing around ideas for graduation speakers in one of our class meetings. The guy in charge of this has come up with a prelim list and he begins to read it off.. .Some complete ***** on the suggestion group had included John Edwards as a possible speaker. I almost fell out of my seat when his name was read. Something about a med-mal/personal injury lawyer speaking at a med school graduation just doesn't seem right :D
 
flighterdoc said:
And why is it the federal governments job to fund stem cell research? Private labs can still investigate, they have been, and apparently haven't had great success. Why will my tax dollars work where my venture capital dollars didn't?

Have you ever heard of the NIH?

100's of millions of dollars every year for research that Industry IS NOT going to pay for. with out federal funding venture capitalists a$$hole$ would rather be studying the new penis pills instead of coming up with an AIDS vaccine or treatments for Alzheimers.

-----------------------
oh yeah,

And GWB is no JFK
 
g3pro said:
What is the advantage of opening completely new lines of stem cells?

Stem cells can replicate themselves infinitely. If you need more stem cells, you grow them.

No, Stem cells cannot replicate themselves infinitely. If they did then there wouldn't be much controversy over the issue, would there?

Most of the Cell line we have access to are in bad shape, and cannot be used 4 research.

2ndly growing more stem cells is not as easy as you make it sound.
 
LuckyMD2b said:
Have you ever heard of the NIH?

100's of millions of dollars every year for research that Industry IS NOT going to pay for. with out federal funding venture capitalists a$$hole$ would rather be studying the new penis pills instead of coming up with an AIDS vaccine or treatments for Alzheimers.

-----------------------
oh yeah,

And GWB is no JFK


Yes, I've heard of NIH. What have they cured, lately? And my question was Why is it the federal governments responsibility to fund stem cell research?

And don't be so quick to decide between JFK and GWB. I've met them both, have you?
 
ortho-mdmba said:
We are also the only professional group that is willing to get paid less for what we do. Our own self-righteousness is killing us. Everyone gets rich for all the "good" that they do. The trial lawyer get a third to half of the award, the company that donates to a impoverished minority community gets increased business from that community, other minority communities, the progressive white community and other people/businesses that want to look progressive. About Merck curing river-blindness.... do you have any idea how much they made in direct benefits and brand equity from that move... estimated to be in the billions from increased business!! Lets start thinking....

The age of this la la land stuff that we are saving the world is OVER. Lets get practical because our profession is under attack. Medical malpractice reform should be at the TOP of your priorities.

Yes... agree 100% ...the only professional group that is willing to get paid less for what we do. Our own self-righteousness is killing us.
 
flighterdoc said:
Yes, I've heard of NIH. What have they cured, lately? And my question was Why is it the federal governments responsibility to fund stem cell research?

And don't be so quick to decide between JFK and GWB. I've met them both, have you?

Why shouldn't the federal government fund stem cell research, is the real question? i'll tell you why, it's because the pro-life crowd is scared that government funding would be a validation of the pro-choice movement. It's not about spending money.

What has the NIH cured lately is a pretty ignorant statement for somebody in medicine and old enough to have met President Kennedy. The NIH represents our nations commitment to the advancement of medical science, all scientific advancement is based upon all scientists that have come before. No one knows what advances the research being done today can contribute to in the future.

I never had the opportunity to meet any president. And maybe that's why I'm a populist and your an elitist. Personality-wise i think the GWB is probably a nice and likeable guy. I just don't agree with his politics which from my point of view is more like an 80's Republican than a 60's democrat. But this is 2004 this election is bigger than Edwards or malpractice.

I think that our responsiblity as doctors is to be advocates for our patients, and not for our pocket books. If tax $ go towards real prescription drug benifits for medicare and increasing medicaid coverage, it's worth it.
 
LuckyMD2b said:
Why shouldn't the federal government fund stem cell research, is the real question? i'll tell you why, it's because the pro-life crowd is scared that government funding would be a validation of the pro-choice movement. It's not about spending money.

What has the NIH cured lately is a pretty ignorant statement for somebody in medicine and old enough to have met President Kennedy. The NIH represents our nations commitment to the advancement of medical science, all scientific advancement is based upon all scientists that have come before. No one knows what advances the research being done today can contribute to in the future.

I never had the opportunity to meet any president. And maybe that's why I'm a populist and your an elitist. Personality-wise i think the GWB is probably a nice and likeable guy. I just don't agree with his politics which from my point of view is more like an 80's Republican than a 60's democrat. But this is 2004 this election is bigger than Edwards or malpractice.

I think that our responsiblity as doctors is to be advocates for our patients, and not for our pocket books. If tax $ go towards real prescription drug benifits for medicare and increasing medicaid coverage, it's worth it.


The federal government shouldn't because there is nothing in the Constitution that says medical research is the responsibility of the Federal government. Also, the federal government isn't particularly efficient at anything, including medical research.

There are areas of medical research that have direct application to national defense (which is the responsibility of the federal government), and that should be funded, but the politics that go into everything else (stem cell, aids, breast v. prostate cancer, etc) are just inappopriate. Then there is the outright politicking that the CDC and NIH does - hardly the best way for a government agency to behave.

I have no problem with stem cell research - part of my investment portfolio is specifically targeted to mutual funds that fund cutting edge medical research. Thats my personal choice though, and I'd rather take the risk (and potential financial benefit) myself than ask the rest of America to fund it. And, while I don't agree with them, I respect other peoples right to choose and object.

Finally, the NIH is pretty inept from a business standpoint - for example, they did the preliminary work on tamoxifen, and then essentially gave it away so private companies can make money on it. This is typical. The US taxpayer funds the basic research but gets no benefit from it, they still have to pay highly for the product.
 
LuckyMD2b said:
No, Stem cells cannot replicate themselves infinitely. If they did then there wouldn't be much controversy over the issue, would there?

Most of the Cell line we have access to are in bad shape, and cannot be used 4 research.

2ndly growing more stem cells is not as easy as you make it sound.

What I learned in my stem cell conferences is that stem cells replicate infinitely. The embryonic stem cells do not have the same problems as adult stem cells.

What's kinda funny is that adult stem cells have shown much much more promise and actually has results that are used in actual treatment!
 
is it just me, or are most people basing their vote strictly on the basis of career and income? i feel like there are more issues at stake than what effects just my own insular existence. i will no doubt be bashed for this, but i feel like frivolous lawsuits and other medical malpractice issues are just one tiny tiny piece of a very broken system. i don't think by voting against a single political platform are we going to enact the change to right all these wrongs and steer medicine in the direction "we" want to take it. or for that matter, veer this careening fireball that is the healthcare system into safe spot to cool down where we can all make bank happily and worry about our investment portfolios. i agree with those above who say that there is a great necessity to prioritize and reorganize ourselves to take on these issues. unfortunately, when we find it hard to fit even our families into our days, it makes us very leary to channel or rechannel our time and energy into something we feel that we may not even be able to affect. but honestly, it will get worse regardless. in america, if ain't a disaster, we won't move to fix it. we'll just talk about it. do something.
 
Federal funding, mostly through the NIH, is the lions share of money used for basic biomedical research. Basic research does not result in immediate cures; it does provide the absolutely necessary background knowledge that allows for the development of new treatments. For example, could drugs that target c-abl (STI571/ AKA gleevec) have been developed without the basic science of tyrosine kinases, chromosomal rearrangements, and signal transduction that was done by so many people I can hardly count (Witte, Baltimore, Weissman, and others)? Probably not. Yes the drug was made by Novartis, but it was only made based on the knowledge that inhibiting tyrosine kinases, in particular the bcr/c-abl should work against CML and potentially other cancers. Such basic research is done mostly with Federal dollars. Frankly, I cannot think of a better use of my tax dollars.

I could go on and talk about advances made in HIV research, diabetes research, and any branch of medicine but instead one could simply do a PubMed search on almost anything medically important, and take a look at who funded the research. Chances are good it will be the NIH.

Someone mentioned that the NIH supported tamoxifen research but dropped the ball on its development as a drug. Well, the NIH is not in the business of developing and marketing drugs. Drug development requires a far different research infrastrucuter (legions of medicinal chemists, process chemists, synthetic chemists), not to mention the business end of the endeavor (sales, marketing people) needed to bring a drug to market. Pharma companies are the ones that do this best, not the NIH, an academic hospital or university.

Government money has and will continue to fund basic biomedical research. Private foundations contribute as well, and their contribution should not be diminished. Howard Hughes is an obvious example. Private drug companies contribute too, but their emphasis is on research projects that have a more immediate chance of bringing a drug to market.

Don't discount the importance of federal funding for basic research. Someday your life might be saved by something an NIH funded researcher discovered. Maybe it already has.
 
NGN47 said:
Federal funding, mostly through the NIH, is the lions share of money used for basic biomedical research. Basic research does not result in immediate cures; it does provide the absolutely necessary background knowledge that allows for the development of new treatments. For example, could drugs that target c-abl (STI571/ AKA gleevec) have been developed without the basic science of tyrosine kinases, chromosomal rearrangements, and signal transduction that was done by so many people I can hardly count (Witte, Baltimore, Weissman, and others)? Probably not. Yes the drug was made by Novartis, but it was only made based on the knowledge that inhibiting tyrosine kinases, in particular the bcr/c-abl should work against CML and potentially other cancers. Such basic research is done mostly with Federal dollars. Frankly, I cannot think of a better use of my tax dollars.

I could go on and talk about advances made in HIV research, diabetes research, and any branch of medicine but instead one could simply do a PubMed search on almost anything medically important, and take a look at who funded the research. Chances are good it will be the NIH.

Someone mentioned that the NIH supported tamoxifen research but dropped the ball on its development as a drug. Well, the NIH is not in the business of developing and marketing drugs. Drug development requires a far different research infrastrucuter (legions of medicinal chemists, process chemists, synthetic chemists), not to mention the business end of the endeavor (sales, marketing people) needed to bring a drug to market. Pharma companies are the ones that do this best, not the NIH, an academic hospital or university.

Government money has and will continue to fund basic biomedical research. Private foundations contribute as well, and their contribution should not be diminished. Howard Hughes is an obvious example. Private drug companies contribute too, but their emphasis is on research projects that have a more immediate chance of bringing a drug to market.

Don't discount the importance of federal funding for basic research. Someday your life might be saved by something an NIH funded researcher discovered. Maybe it already has.


And the reason that the pharma companies aren't funding basic research is because someone else is doing it. Arguing that the government has to do it is specious - others can and will do basic research, if necessary. As it should be.
 
Well I agree 100% with OrthoMD-Mba....

I compare the medical profession's need to guard the back yard with the defense of a nation for a war....

We have to watch our backs and watch our fronts.

And, Unity is the key...

If anyone is against the goal should be court martialed or kicked out or shun from our profession...

We can't continue being so naive and do foolish campaign of purely humanitarian causes. There is not a such a thing called free lunch in this business.

Just like premeds spend many more hours in studying and getting good grades or med students sitting in some cold booth at Kaplan to prepare for the Boards; these are long hours of hard work....and standards...

It is all about keeping standards...

We have to be united to at least get this malpractice under control...

I am asking OrthoMD-MBA if you would have any suggestions on any new national organization for physicians other than aoa, ama or other nonsense related organization.
 
Do you think that either party is going to be able to push any tort reform through?

Kerry sure as hell isn't going to make it an issue.

And Bush, though he made an attempt at it, failed as well. Thanks to the trial lawyer lobby. Besides, he is going to have to spend all of his time on Iraq. He is not going to have any political capital left to try to protect all of us "rich, Mercedes-driving doctors" with malpractice caps.

Either way, malpractice reform is not gonna happen.

So I wouldn't even consider it as a deciding factor.
 
I wonder why AMSA and other organizations are not so active on this issue.

All the efforts are scathered..in multiple issues....you can't be a handyman and think that you are going to build a rocket going to the star....

We have to focus...

I agree it is not certainly the party but I think that we have to make an effort to push this issue....

This is one of key issues creating a distance between those practicing now and those coming into practice soon.....

Now, I hate those words" rich mercedes driving doctors???"
What is wrong with a hard working man driving mercedes???

CEOs work less and study less and they ride million dollar jets instead of mercedes..Please wake up American Medicine........

Oh and look at some trial lawyers. I was told once that when a trial lawyer wins a case he or she can have enough money for a decade!!!!!!!!!

Physicians are not millionaires....we are more like middle class...

Even a cardiac surgeon would not make from one case to live off for years like that.

Lawyers are protecting their turf why are physicians are so stupid and can't even wipe themselves....

We have to be united....we have to push fowards the reform....
 
Vukken99 said:
I wonder why AMSA and other organizations are not so active on this issue.

All the efforts are scathered..in multiple issues....you can't be a handyman and think that you are going to build a rocket going to the star....

We have to focus...

I agree it is not certainly the party but I think that we have to make an effort to push this issue....

This is one of key issues creating a distance between those practicing now and those coming into practice soon.....

Now, I hate those words" rich mercedes driving doctors???"
What is wrong with a hard working man driving mercedes???

CEOs work less and study less and they ride million dollar jets instead of mercedes..Please wake up American Medicine........

Physicians are not millionaires....we are more like middle class...

Lawyers are protecting their turf why are physicians are so stupid and can't even wipe themselves....

We have to be united....we have to push fowards the reform....


AMSA has fought AGAINST tort reform
 
flighterdoc said:
Don't think of voting for Bush as voting for '50s era republicans (although Ike wasn't too bad a President). Think of it as voting for '60 democrats - like JFK. Bush is actually pretty close to JFK in his policies, he's just better at National Defense.

If you doubt my comparison, try reading JFK's inagural address - or, print it out, remover any identification and ask a college senior to tell you if it was written by a republican or a democrat.

For example:

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans?born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage?and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 3

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 4

This much we pledge?and more.


http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

OMG! The president you quoted actually spoke in coherent sentences! and quite eloquently, I might add. No way in hell that could have been Dubya! :smuggrin:

I can't stand Cheney, Wolfowitz et al, which is why Bush won't get my vote. But Kerry just seems creepy and Edwards is an ambulance chaser.
 
zensurg said:
i will no doubt be bashed for this, but i feel like frivolous lawsuits and other medical malpractice issues are just one tiny tiny piece of a very broken system. i don't think by voting against a single political platform are we going to enact the change to right all these wrongs and steer medicine in the direction "we" want to take it.

OK, now what does a vote for each party mean for doctors?
1. How much did Bush/Cheney help doctors in office? At least medicare reimbursements didn't go down during their term. Sure, there are caps in place in states like Texas now. However, only one malpractice carrier has lowered its rates since that legislation was passed. So far most insurance carriers have either kept rates the same or have continued increased premiums but by a smaller amount. WTF? If there will be less damages paid out, shouldn't rates go down?

2. Exactly how bad is the malpractice situation in North Carolina? And what has Edwards done (other than suing doctors) to HELP doctors? What are Kerry and Edwards voting records concerning med-mal issues goes?

It seems a vote for the Democrats means we get screwed in malpractice. A vote for Republicans means we get screwed by HMO/insurance companies. Do you guys think either party really cares about doctors? How much money does the AMA give to each party vs the big insurance companies? What has Dr. Frist done to help doctors? Is he even on our side anymore? You can bet he was more concerned about the bottom line of Tenet rather than the well-being of his fellow doctors.

If any of you can enlighten me with figures and associated references, I would greatly appreciate it.
ARGGH!!! Which is the lesser of two evils?
 
a pa's insurance will allow him to do procedures like sigmoidoscopy and colonospy but a standard FP policy which is like 15k and up would not allow coverage for procedures...What is the discriminating difference here.

And, even if you dont have a history of malpractice you can get denied for coverage by some carriers and they will tell you underwriting priviledges....

the worse thing is you can have some foolish program director who hated you but you were able to graduate, and if he talks negatively about you then the insurance carrier will not cover you....

Now, there is a concept called gap...

whenever you sign for a job contract..you need to make sure it is noted in your contract that you are going to have insurance during the effective time of this particular contract...and you have to make sure you buy a tail until you get another policy..

Because if you have a gap, very few insurance guys will cover you even without a history of malpractice and this can be a huge problem because some insurance companies only allow participation in their plan if you have insurance that is so odd....

it is like the insurance company forcing you to buy a policy in order to get paid by them....it is really crazy stuff...

But, malpractice reform is needed........
If either parties will not help then we have to have a grassroot organization..
 
May not affect surgeons much, but look at John Kerry's position on nurses. Lots of good, but the wording of his position on ARNP's pretty much opens them up to do whatever it is they please.

From the website, http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/nurses/ :


John Kerry will ensure fair treatment for Nurse Practitioners, Clinical Nurse Specialists, Nurse Midwives and Nurse Anesthetists. Numerous studies have shown that advanced practice nurses provide safe and high quality care. It is long past time that the federal government properly recognized the crucial role that APRNs play in the American health care system. John Kerry has supported legislation to expand reimbursement opportunities for APRNs. However, he understands that there is much more to do to end the discrimination and barriers to practice that APRNs face. Too often, APRN services are not reimbursed by third party payers. They aren?t on panels that set reimbursement policy or assess care. Highly restrictive limitations on APRN scope of practice persist. These barriers deny health care consumers the widest possible choice of providers. As president, John Kerry will fight for specific legislative and regulatory changes to allow APRNs to practice fully.

Kerry will raise the outrageously low Medicare reimbursement rate for nurse midwives, removing a barrier that prevents CNMs from caring for disabled women. And John Kerry will push for a change in Medicare rules to allow home health agencies and hospices to accept referrals from nurse practitioners.
 
I'm all for autonomy for APRN/PAs so long as they pay the same malpractice insurance rates as we physicians. The Democrats (ie. Hypocrats) will continue to let malpractice insurance increase as it benefits their most generous constiuents, the Trial Lawyers Association of America. The APRN/PA craze may be dampered a bit when hospitials/health care systems are having to pay an equivalent amount in malpractice insurance to cover these individuals and may have to limit their involvement in patient care issues secondary to increased institutional liability.
 
Eidolon6 said:
I'm all for autonomy for APRN/PAs so long as they pay the same malpractice insurance rates as we physicians. The Democrats (ie. Hypocrats) will continue to let malpractice insurance increase as it benefits their most generous constiuents, the Trial Lawyers Association of America. The APRN/PA craze may be dampered a bit when hospitials/health care systems are having to pay an equivalent amount in malpractice insurance to cover these individuals and may have to limit their involvement in patient care issues secondary to increased institutional liability.


I agree with you but why should the malpractice rates be the same? Don't all midlevels have to "associate" with a physician? I know that in California they do (and the physician has to review 10% of the charts, etc).
 
there is not currently any enforcement in any state about physician's signing off on PAs charts...

It is not really enforced....
So I have seen huge practices in Cali hiring like good 8 PAs and one doctor part-time...

And, most of these PAs present themselves as Physicians I find that a fraud....
And, AMA does not do anything about that.

Plus in one place one PA is the medical director and makes schedules for that part-time Physician....

So all those bozoos out there chanting for PA support...
damn you all.....
 
I respectfully disagree. Trial lawyers are not the problem or perhaps only partially responsible for the mess we're in (nor are insurance companies for that matter). The court system that tolerates frivilous lawsuits is to blame essentially. It is true that the least reputable doctor in any town has more respect than the most popular and successful lawyer but unless they have a faulty system working for them, they can't take advantage of this by suing doctors for malpractice.

As a side note, I am no Kerry fan and I agree with Gore Vidal: this country has one political party and 2 right wings, they are virtually identical in the long-run or at least in the issues that matter most...but anyone who thinks Bush will win re-election is living in a fantasy.
 
There needs to be a course on the business of being a doctor that includes dealing with insurance companies, patients, hospitals, and malpractice. It should include some thought about an idea called simplecare.

Your can find out more from the website-Simplecare.com.
 
Rony said:
I respectfully disagree. Trial lawyers are not the problem or perhaps only partially responsible for the mess we're in (nor are insurance companies for that matter). The court system that tolerates frivilous lawsuits is to blame essentially. It is true that the least reputable doctor in any town has more respect than the most popular and successful lawyer but unless they have a faulty system working for them, they can't take advantage of this by suing doctors for malpractice.

As a side note, I am no Kerry fan and I agree with Gore Vidal: this country has one political party and 2 right wings, they are virtually identical in the long-run or at least in the issues that matter most...but anyone who thinks Bush will win re-election is living in a fantasy.

If John Kerry is elected, then health care as we know it will be doomed. It's that simple. Our best best is for Bush to be re-elected. Then, in four years, Dr. Bill Frist can run for and get the Republican nomination.
 
flighterdoc said:
Don't all midlevels have to "associate" with a physician?

Hell NO they dont. In the vast majority of states, NPs and CRNAs are 100% independent from doctors. the only midlevel thats "required" to have some sort of "association" with an MD is PAs. Even the regs on PAs are EXTREMELY LOOSE (see below)

I know that in California they do (and the physician has to review 10% of the charts, etc).

Thats ONLY for PAs. NPs and CRNAs can work totally indepedently.

Even with the PAs its a smokescreen. 10% chart review occurs AFTER the patient has already been treated and released. PAs run teh whole show, doctor checks in once a month OVER THE INTERNET to review charts for people who have already been discharged. Thats not supervision, its a rubber stamp with no real oversight.
 
MacGyver said:
Hell NO they dont. In the vast majority of states, NPs and CRNAs are 100% independent from doctors. the only midlevel thats "required" to have some sort of "association" with an MD is PAs. Even the regs on PAs are EXTREMELY LOOSE (see below)



Thats ONLY for PAs. NPs and CRNAs can work totally indepedently.

Even with the PAs its a smokescreen. 10% chart review occurs AFTER the patient has already been treated and released. PAs run teh whole show, doctor checks in once a month OVER THE INTERNET to review charts for people who have already been discharged. Thats not supervision, its a rubber stamp with no real oversight.

Yeah, I know it's a hot-button issue with you. As it happens, I know some midlevels (NP and PA) and think they do fine work, and I don't think I'd mind working with some of them. Until LCME about triples the number of good medical school grads in the US every year we're going to have serious disparity in health care, especially for the populations that mid-levels typically serve. I'd rather they see a physician, then a mid-level, than seeing a "native healer" from the old country.

At any rate, thats a discussion for another thread. Lets get back to stopping the ATLA ticket.
 
July 08, 2004, 8:20 a.m.
Kerry-Edwards & Co.
Trial Lawyers, Inc. run for president.

By Jim Copland

When John Kerry introduced John Edwards as his running mate, he declared, "I have chosen a man who understands and defends the values of America."

The political analysts, or at least those on the left, have swooned. Most news stories have focused on how Edwards "balances the ticket" ? on how, in contrast to the "dull" and "patrician" Kerry, Edwards introduces "pizzazz" to the campaign "with bags of Southern charm, youthful energy and an ease with voters on the stump." Reporters have been playing up the contrast between "Cheney's phlegmatic stump-speaking style" and Edwards's "relentlessly peppy populism," and Democratic strategists have been salivating over the possibility of "Edwards turn[ing] his trial lawyer's cross-examination skills on Vice President Dick Cheney and the Iraq contracts of Halliburton, the firm Cheney once headed."

Edwards's selection, however, exposes the degree to which most Democrats are beholden to a corporate interest far bigger and more nefarious than the staid energy company Cheney left to return to public service: the litigation industry, which we at the Manhattan Institute have dubbed "Trial Lawyers, Inc."

According to publicly available data, Halliburton had revenues of a bit less than $19 billion over the last twelve months, on which it earned a paltry two-percent profit margin. Over the most recent twelve months on record, Trial Lawyers, Inc. in contrast earned over $40 billion, presumably with much higher margins. Indeed, Trial Lawyers, Inc.'s revenues are 50 percent more than those of high-profit companies such as Microsoft or Intel, and twice those of Coca-Cola.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a large, profitable corporate interest in America. But Trial Lawyers, Inc., unlike the aforementioned companies, does not earn its money by selling products to willing consumers: It instead abuses its unique access to the government's monopoly on force to redistribute wealth, taking a large chunk for itself in the process.

Predictably, the trial bar has used its largesse to invest heavily in the political process essential to its business, and has therein gained influence over government surpassing any other industry's. The litigation industry has led all others in political contributions for over a decade, and the American Trial Lawyers Association was the largest PAC contributor to the Democratic party in the last full political cycle. Over that same span, every law firm contributing over $1 million was a plaintiffs' firm, and each gave 99 to 100 percent of its contributions to Democrats.

John Edwards, the populist with pizzazz, "presides" over this government-affairs arm of Trial Lawyers, Inc. The degree to which Edwards's political career has been funded by the plaintiffs' bar is truly astounding, and is far more newsworthy than the rantings of wacky conspiracy theorists who believe that we went to war in Iraq to get Halliburton oil contracts.

The tale would be amusing were it not so ominous for our democracy: 19 of Edwards's top 20 donors were plaintiffs' lawyers, 86 percent of his Senate campaign contributions came from personal-injury lawyers, and almost two-thirds of his field-leading presidential-campaign contributions last spring came from trial lawyers, their families, and their staffs. The Edwards campaign has even enjoyed the use of four private jets owned by his trial-lawyer buddies.

The trial lawyers know their compatriot well. Since his election to the Senate, Edwards has voted consistently with their interests ? against class-action reforms, against medical-malpractice reforms, against solutions to the asbestos bankruptcy crisis, even against proposed limitations on personal-injury lawsuits in the event of a terrorist attack.

Reasonable minds might differ over each of these pieces of legislation, but Edwards's steadfast position against any meaningful civil-justice reform is costly, far costlier than the anecdotal wacky cases might imply. The direct costs of America's tort system ? excluding lots of relevant stuff ? is over 2 percent of GDP, far more than in any other industrialized nation. That's the equivalent of a 5 percent tax on wages, or $3,200 annually for the average family of four.

Moreover, the direct costs of the litigation system only scratch the surface of the overall costs to society. Medicine costs more ? much more ? because doctors perform unnecessary tests, for fear of being sued should they fail to detect unlikely, obscure diseases or complications. Potentially life-saving new products are withheld from the market, or never introduced, because of litigation risks. Out-of-control medical-malpractice suits ? of the sort through which John Edwards earned his fortune ? have led to serious reductions in access to high-risk specialists. Ob-gyns are leaving obstetrics entirely, making prenatal care scarce in some areas. The American Medical Association now lists 20 states in full-blown crisis.

Class-action magnet courts, which even plaintiffs' lawyer Dick Scruggs admits are "impossible" places for defendants to get a fair trial, threaten democracy by delegating to elected county-court judges and local juries (who are "in on the deal") regulatory power over national corporations. Ironically, the Class Action Fairness Act ? which is intended to remedy this problem, and which Kerry and Edwards have both consistently opposed ? is being debated in the Senate this week.

The list of harms from our broken civil-justice system goes on and on. "The values of America"? Don't count on it. Those very values ? free enterprise, personal responsibility, and the rule of law ? are undermined by the perversion of civil justice by John Edwards and the rapacious behemoth that is Trial Lawyers, Inc.
 
Yeah, those gosh-darned trial lawyers... it's ALL THEIR FAULT.

Gimme a break.
 
Top