wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:25:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. The plaintiff's
lawyer is on his own dime until he wins but the DEFENDANT'S lawyer
charges from day one. (before day one if he is on retainer) That is
where the cost to the doctor is and you want ignore that. The
defendant loses even if he wins and you would call that zero cost.
That is why they are so quick to settle, even before the case is
formally filed, again not showing up in your bogus "number".
If all you want is to get the doctor to tear up his bill, all you need
is the threat of a suit and anything close to a case. That just gets
tacked on to the next patient's bill.

I cited numbers. You didn't. All the numbers have been accounted for in
any
meaningful way. The cost of tort issues are 5% or so of the over all
costs
of health care. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. While not
insignificant,
they are not going to make a huge difference. Do you really think a
small
reduction in payouts is going to reduce the cost of defendant's law
costs???
Come on.


You cited numbers for judgements, not defenses that succeeded or torts
that were settled before they were filed. I am sure I can find numbers
too but it wouldn't convince you. Why bother. I don't care anymore,

Well, perhaps they would. Just about every study of the numbers I've read
suggests a percentage as I indicated. If you have some other numbers, trot
them out.

I don't think you "don't care" anymore.


OK you win,I do have something else. I will just ask you one more
question. I said this was a "tort" problem and you want to slice that
down to malpractice.
How much money do you think the "slip and fall" lawyer, the "workmans
comp" lawyer and the "don't call the insurance company until you call
me" traffic accident lawyer add to overall medical costs?
BTW those guys are not even affected by the caps in states like
California because "medical cost" is exempted from the quarter million
dollar cap ... but the lawyer still gets his percentage.

I was reminded of this today when I saw a fender bender and a woman
was talking to a lawyer on her cell and rubbing her neck. The ads on
TV are no help and should be outlawed but as long as politicians are
lawyers, they will protect lawyers.

I don't know. I do know that despite the lawyers that practice "ambulance
chasing" (and I think that's really overblown - I know many personal injury
lawyers myself and they're pretty decent people), most lawyers are not like
this. The typical case involves actual damages plus 3x pain and suffering.
That's the award. The lawyer's cut at settlement or decision is 30-40%,
which includes payment for their time and court costs, both of which can be
significant.

You rail on personal injury lawyers and workers comp lawyers, as though
they're all corrupt. And, that's not even close to true. I'm certain that
99% or higher percentage of honest and hardworking. Yes, they get paid good
money. So do MBAs (I have one of those also), so do doctors, dentists, and
most other professionals (notable exception - teachers - must be those
terribly strong unions).

I suspect you don't know what happened with the "woman" on her cell or how
much pain she incurred. Are you psychic?

Sure, frivolous suits should cost the lawyers and clients. No argument.

Sure, TV ads for lawyers should not be allowed (is that a free speech
issue - perhaps the FCC needs to get involved, since they clearly censor
some speech on public airwaves?). Politicians have been lawyers since the
beginning of both professions.. certainly a high percentage of the signers
of the Declaration were both.

As to the "don't call the insurance company" first thing... the insurance
companies want to settle for the minimum, but they want to settle. It costs
them money to go to court, to prove someone's faking. You can just as easily
blame them, but I don't see you doing that.