Comments on: Free market magic

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:16 +0000

Tom, your point is well taken , but this is still fundamentally a predictable supply-and-demand equation at work.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:49:41 +0000

Ron, I think the point of your post is well-taken, but I think that legislative action to cap transfers in an arena (med-mal suits) that is government-created to begin with can’t really be described in any meaningful way as “free market magic,” but rather would be better characterized as a form of rent-seeking.

This is not meant to say that it’s not necessarily good policy. Virginia, where I live, has long had a cap on med-mal damages, and I don’t know of any serious argument that care here is worse than in other states. Given the subjectivity involved in assessing pain and suffering, I don’t see that there’s anything inherently wrong with a legislature making that determination rather than a jury.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:59:48 +0000

mlhm5 —

“if you are killed by a resident in training, which is not an unualy occurance [sic]”

This is a ridiculous statement. As a general rule, teaching hospitals offer very high quality medical care, because they are full of specialists and doctors who are intellectually interested in solving problems and expanding medical capabilities.

By: ras

ras — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:58:24 +0000

Deoxy,

Thx for the reply; much appreciated.

By: mlhm5

mlhm5 — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:58:33 +0000

Having been in the medical business for 30 years, the cost of malpractice insurance has nothing to do with the number of physicians who want it but the expected losses.

As far as the public, well better not go to a teaching hospital because if you are killed by a resident in training, which is not an unusual occurance, your family will be the one that suffers.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:03:06 +0000

ras,

1) such contracts are routinely thrown out in court (after the fact, of course)

2) that’s what SHOULD happen, but it is pre-empted by MANY different things, all supposedly to protect the consumer/patient (#1, above)

3) such a doctor, if he were to get past #1 and #2, would be sued out of existence by lawyers (whether they won or not), simply to make sure no one else got that AWFUL idea into their heads.

Basically, it comes down to lawyers running the system.

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:13:19 +0000

All in all a good thing, though I think the real fix (not that this would ever happen) is to eliminate the idea that an outcome must be malpractice merely because it was unfavorable. Medicine is not mathematics.

Btw, what’s up with TypeKey? I’ve tried using Overlawyered’s “sign in” link and it consistently won’t work for me on this site, though it does for other sites. I keep getting this message: “The site you’re trying to comment on has not signed up for this feature. Please inform the site owner”.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:37:23 +0000

Yes, Jeff, you missed something, but it could be my fault. I skipped the sentences that said, “This sounds like great news — more doctors coming back into the system. But who knows? Chances are the plaintiffs’ bar can find a way to spin this as an ominous development — the return of the malpracticers.” I’ve changed the post and added this.

I sometimes skip things that I say in my head but which, if I would share, would make for clearer expository writing. Sorry.

By: Jeff Schuster

Jeff Schuster — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:17:14 +0000

Did I miss something? The original article did not reference attracting low quality doctors only that there was a back log. How does it jump to low quality doctors?

A Texas doctor for 25 years.

By: Billy Bob

Billy Bob — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:02:32 +0000

Given that this is Texas, an injured party can always choose to use his/her .45 to get justice if they are not happy with their options in the legal system. Yee Haw.