You Don’t Say?
From the Department of the Bleeding Obvious, the Houston Chronicle tells us:
An influx of doctors lured to Texas by new limits on malpractice lawsuits has overwhelmed the state board that screens candidates for medical licenses, creating a backlog that forces many applicants to wait months before they can start seeing patients.
Officials said many of the relocating physicians are filling shortages in areas such as Beaumont, where trauma patients previously had to be flown other cities because there weren’t enough surgeons to treat them.
I wonder if SiCKO! or its supporters have any clue that the typical physician is paying tens of thousands for insurance to defend himself from the lawyer lottery malpractice suits that deluge our courts. It’s not unusual for an OB/GYN to pay six figues. I wonder if they know that the price of drugs includes lawsuits like the Leonel Garza one.
An abundance of physicians will mean a drop in price for patients, even it means less money for trial lawyers. It will mean more options for even the poorest Texans. And the modest limits on punitive damages may result in less defensive medicine and unnecessary ass-covering tests. Everyone wins . . . except the lawyers.
“But Mike!” you say in your best John Edwards voice, “Won’t this mean more bad doctors coming to Texas?” I’ll let Overlawyered respond for me:
God forbid anyone reading this or their loved one should be in a position to be seeking damages, economic or otherwise, for medical malpractice. But short of the argument that, well, higher non-economic damages should be available just because they should—or proof, in ten years, that there’s more malpractice in Texas than there was before because of the influx of quack doctors attracted to the free bread crumbs of “easy” med-mal limits—this quacks like a policy that works.
The legal system is most definitely not a free market. We have laws written by lawyers, cases presided over by lawyers where lawyers make most of the money, including lawyer-wannabees who are glorified by Hollywood. And our Moore-supported consumer advocates resort to lies (scroll down to Nader; the 2003 links are dead) to support ATLA. It’s a rigged system. So will Michael Moore’s next movie be SuED! and documents the horrific cost of our civil legal system?
Don’t hold your breath.
Comments
Did I miss something? Is there a mention of Vioxx or Merck in this post that I can’t see? That having been said, how does Merck’s actions surrounding Vioxx in any way contradict what MikeS wrote in this post?
Jim, I referenced the Garza case, a Vioxx suit. The alternative to Vioxx, Jottley, for most people, was excruciating pain. Vioxx is only dangerous in people who a) have a prior heart condition; b) are taking it for six months or longer.
It’s called risk assessment. No medicine is without its dangers.
My bad. I didn’t realize that was the Vioxx suit. My apologies.
I wonder if JOttley is aware of how many thousands of Americans die every year from taking over-the-counter pain relievers? (And no, they aren’t suicides.) Last time I checked it was something like 4 to 5 thousand (I think).No medicine is without its dangers.
The alternative to Vioxx, Jottley, for most people, was excruciating pain.
Quite true. *shudder*
Vioxx is only dangerous in people who a) have a prior heart condition; b) are taking it for six months or longer.
And I, with my wonderful luck, fell into both categories. I was on Vioxx for nearly eight months and have multiple heart problems. Fortunately for me I didn’t experience the horrors others did while I was on Vioxx, but I will say it’s not the prettiest of drugs, and I do speak from experience on this matter.
RSS (Subscribe)
I wonder if they know that the price of drugs includes lawsuits like the Leonel Garza one.
Merck should never have released Vioxx to begin with.
If Merck was more responsible this wouldn’t even BE a law suit.