Good Morning!

[kyburg]

Comments

[joggingguy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I always was glad that if I became really chonically unemployed or something bad happened to me, at least I could declare bankruptcy if all else failed and I wanted to save my house. Now, people will be forced to file Chapter 13, which assumes you have income. Guess what? I won't have any income. I still wonder how they're going to implement that. Grrrr.

[eve-dallas.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how I feel about the first one. In this state, a lot of rich people move here, buy a large property (that will usually generate income) then declare bancrupcy. Because their home is protected, they stay rich anyway.

For the second one, I would like to see malpractice amounts limited to cost of care (which includes medical and, if necessary, income) but not these multi-million dollar lawsuits.

For the third one, I guess I can't see why people would want to keep someone alive when they aren't really. My parents told their children and I've told mine - no heroic measures. The one thing I would hate the most is for someone I love to linger on totally unaware. It would delay their entrance into heaven.

[coldjones.livejournal.com]

1. The problem you're talking about is a real one, but Bush's tort reform law does nothing to address it - homestead exemptions, like those in Texas and Florida, are still allowed under the law, as are special types of trusts that wealthy people can use to shelter their assets during bankruptcy. The people who are getting screwed here really are average people like Schaivo's family, who can no longer discharge huge medical bills or credit card debt.

2. The problem with what you're proposing is that it costs money to hire a lawyer to handle a malpractice case, and lawyers get their money from the pain and suffering damages. With pain and suffering damages, yes, you run the risk of bad lawyers going after relatively innocent doctors and hospitals, but the whole point of the courts is to prevent guys like that from winning in the first place. Without pain and suffering damages, no lawyer will want to take any malpractice case, no matter how badly the victim was hurt, because there's no money to be made. That being the situation, I'd rather side with the victim than the insurance companies.

3. Kyburg, great strip, thanks for bringing it to our attention.

[eve-dallas.livejournal.com]

I understand the economics of medical malpractice and that the ones who seem to benefit the most are those in the legal profession, for the most part. But how else is the medical profession supposed to be held accountable for the things that were really their screw-ups?

For most of my life, my medical care was in the tender hands of the military medical system. We were not allowed to sue for malpractice, even when it was indicated. There were mostly conscientious doctors that took care of us, but there were also those that were marking time - Uncle Sam had picked up part of the cost of their education and they were obliged to serve either in the military or in an impovershed area and others volunteered to serve because they didn't have to worry about malpractice.

Anyway, that's part of why I mentioned that.

[mycroftca.livejournal.com]

I suspect that it will take someone bright to think "out of the box" about how to make physicians responsible to their patients for any failings on their part. However, many mistakes are blamed on the physician due to failures of the system: a nurse didn't call the doctor, a lab tech dropped a test tube, and a test was delayed several days, a ward clerk forgot to copy an order, etc, etc, etc. Humans fail, and do so regularly. Most doctors run across such failures several times a day. ...and then the doctor is blamed....

[coldjones.livejournal.com]

"But how else is the medical profession supposed to be held accountable for the things that were really their screw-ups?"

I guess I don't see what exactly you're getting at here - how is the medical profession supposed to be held accountable at all if you remove the threat of malpractice suits?

[miwasatoshi.livejournal.com]

Why on Earth does it seem that the Internet-savvy run completely counter to the trends in American politics?

Oh, I know why : because our government is run by the voting habits of sheep.

[celtfaery.livejournal.com]

I think that just made my day. Living in Florida, I have followed this case for years, and it is just getting ridiculous

[moropus.livejournal.com]

Bush doesn't care about this patient. He's using her to get attention.

The husband doesn't care about her. He's shacked up with somebody else for years and they even have kids together. He also prevented her from recieving the therapy standard for somebody in her condition and left her in the loving care of a staff that did not brush her teeth or turn her often enough to prevent bedsores. Allegedly, money meant to go to her care was used by him for other purposes. Allegedly, he wouldn't even let the parents videotape her, or take photos at different times.

Her parent are angry at everyone and not ready to let go. I don't blame them. But is it about what they need or what Teri needs?

What all this really says to me is that we need a national standard for situations like this. God forgive me for saying so, I think less government is usually indicated, but we need an additional agency to oversee all such cases so that all severely disabled who cannot speak for themselves are treated equally.

This is all about power and who has it, publicity and who wants it, and possibly the husband wanting the rest of her funds to support his new family. I think if all he really wanted was to get on with his life, he'd divorce Teri, let the parents do whatever they want, never go back, and marry again. But then he'd lose control of her money.

I think he's a cad. I think her parents are misguided and desperate. And I think Bush is a big fat liar.