Comments on: THE DEFIBRILLATION PLOT http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:48:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: AED.me.now http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-114123 AED.me.now Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:28:49 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-114123 Drmatt you said, "I have worked in 8 hospitals and not one had readily available AEDs". Where are the AEDs located in most hospitals? So, since they are not readily available what would you guess their response time is to a cardiac event? Drmatt you said, “I have worked in 8 hospitals and not one had readily available AEDs”.

Where are the AEDs located in most hospitals?

So, since they are not readily available what would you guess their response time is to a cardiac event?

]]> By: drmatt http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-16139 drmatt Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:42:05 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-16139 Ok, caps on liability pay outs are not a new concept, it doesn't change the right to sue, thus does not change the constitution. Additionally, pay outs become a matter of precident in many cases, that is where "settling out of court" comes from, the insurance companies see a losing case, they know "about" how much they will lose for and pay it without the court and legal fees. So, if, over time the payout for certain things became standard because you were dealing with the same entity in every suit, who in thier right mind would split that with a lawyer and go through a long legal process? Your near acuity is clearly 20/20 but you seem to have difficulty with forsight. I see no changes in the legal system here, nice try though. and you are right, fantasy, a boy can dream can't he? Ok, caps on liability pay outs are not a new concept, it doesn’t change the right to sue, thus does not change the constitution. Additionally, pay outs become a matter of precident in many cases, that is where “settling out of court” comes from, the insurance companies see a losing case, they know “about” how much they will lose for and pay it without the court and legal fees. So, if, over time the payout for certain things became standard because you were dealing with the same entity in every suit, who in thier right mind would split that with a lawyer and go through a long legal process? Your near acuity is clearly 20/20 but you seem to have difficulty with forsight.
I see no changes in the legal system here, nice try though.

and you are right, fantasy, a boy can dream can’t he?

]]> By: Rich http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-16020 Rich Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:21:35 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-16020 Yes - I generalized. Let me be specific: You first said "The constitution protects the right to sue anybody for anything." Then you said: "I imagine in a single payor system there would be a limit on what was paid out..." and "Imagine, instead of giving 1/3 of the award to the lawyer you get to keep it all, and you wont have to wait years to get it." Which is it? These are not side effects of a single payor system. They are substantive changes to the legal system, and apparently put lawyers into a new model of payment wherein they do not work on contingency, but are paid by someone other than the plaintiff or defendant. And how can you honestly say that your right to sue for anything is protected if the government limits what you can sue for? Ok, it's not a utopia, but it is a fantasy. Have fun! Yes - I generalized. Let me be specific:

You first said

“The constitution protects the right to sue anybody for anything.”

Then you said:

“I imagine in a single payor system there would be a limit on what was paid out…”

and

“Imagine, instead of giving 1/3 of the award to the lawyer you get to keep it all, and you wont have to wait years to get it.”

Which is it? These are not side effects of a single payor system. They are substantive changes to the legal system, and apparently put lawyers into a new model of payment wherein they do not work on contingency, but are paid by someone other than the plaintiff or defendant. And how can you honestly say that your right to sue for anything is protected if the government limits what you can sue for?

Ok, it’s not a utopia, but it is a fantasy. Have fun!

]]> By: drmatt http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15999 drmatt Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:37:19 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15999 Why is it that when the nuances of an debate come to light you resort to generalizations? I never, not in a single post, made any reference to a utopia? and where in there did I say anything about not suing or being able to sue? You should invest in a "mind stretcher" and learn to pay attention to details. "Imagination is more important that knowlege" Albert Einstien Why is it that when the nuances of an debate come to light you resort to generalizations? I never, not in a single post, made any reference to a utopia? and where in there did I say anything about not suing or being able to sue? You should invest in a “mind stretcher” and learn to pay attention to details.

“Imagination is more important that knowlege” Albert Einstien

]]> By: Rich http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15988 Rich Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:33:53 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15988 Now you are dreaming. I suppose the enire legal system (and the right to sue anyone) will have to be revamped in your utopia. Now you are dreaming. I suppose the enire legal system (and the right to sue anyone) will have to be revamped in your utopia.

]]> By: drmatt http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15983 drmatt Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:12:10 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15983 Liability overall would be less, when you talk about the cost of anything you consider it's overall costs, not just the one time variable expenses. I imagine in a single payor system there would be a limit on what was paid out, likely a standard across the country (which would be more fair, one persons arm is no more valuable than onther persone) this would lower liability even more, insurance companies love predictable, also, why go to court when you know what you have to pay, further decreasing court and attorney costs. Imagine, instead of giving 1/3 of the award to the lawyer you get to keep it all, and you wont have to wait years to get it. Liability overall would be less, when you talk about the cost of anything you consider it’s overall costs, not just the one time variable expenses. I imagine in a single payor system there would be a limit on what was paid out, likely a standard across the country (which would be more fair, one persons arm is no more valuable than onther persone) this would lower liability even more, insurance companies love predictable, also, why go to court when you know what you have to pay, further decreasing court and attorney costs. Imagine, instead of giving 1/3 of the award to the lawyer you get to keep it all, and you wont have to wait years to get it.

]]> By: Rich http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15975 Rich Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:28:23 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15975 But WHY would the cost of liability be less? The items you mentioned, medical care, bills, therapy, etc, are irrelevant to a dead patient. Does a single payer system impose limits on jury awards for the wrongful death? But WHY would the cost of liability be less? The items you mentioned, medical care, bills, therapy, etc, are irrelevant to a dead patient. Does a single payer system impose limits on jury awards for the wrongful death?

]]> By: drmatt http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15952 drmatt Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:28:45 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15952 Moot, by definition means an arguable point, so no implication of immunity. The constitution protects the right to sue anybody for anything. What I am saying is the cost of liability would actualy be less and would play a much smaller role in decisions like, "should we have AED through out the hospital". Moot, by definition means an arguable point, so no implication of immunity. The constitution protects the right to sue anybody for anything. What I am saying is the cost of liability would actualy be less and would play a much smaller role in decisions like, “should we have AED through out the hospital”.

]]> By: Rich http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15904 Rich Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:53:47 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15904 Except that in your example, the claim would not be for medical bills, physical therapy or other medical or ancillary treatment. It would be for wrongful death. If it is moot, I guess you are suggesting immunity, because you are claiming that the hospital could not be sued if the chef failed to resucitate the patient. Except that in your example, the claim would not be for medical bills, physical therapy or other medical or ancillary treatment. It would be for wrongful death. If it is moot, I guess you are suggesting immunity, because you are claiming that the hospital could not be sued if the chef failed to resucitate the patient.

]]> By: drmatt http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15895 drmatt Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:48:36 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/01/06/the-defibrillation-plot/#comment-15895 Torts being not punitive (as in criminal law), if you have a health system that you paid for through taxes, then had a medical law suit, you could't really sue for medical bills because you wouldn't have any, the health care was paid for. In the case of wrongfull death you would still be paying (and loss of limb or ability to work) but the overall payments out would drop drastically, physical therapy, medical restoration, medications would all have been paid for by the govt, which means there is nothing for you to recoup. Not addressing litigation aversion is not the same as discounting it, I was simply explaing to Catron where drrich was going with his point. In any case your point on liability in a single payor system is moot, the cost of liability would drop almost immediately, substaintially and it would sustain. Torts being not punitive (as in criminal law), if you have a health system that you paid for through taxes, then had a medical law suit, you could’t really sue for medical bills because you wouldn’t have any, the health care was paid for. In the case of wrongfull death you would still be paying (and loss of limb or ability to work) but the overall payments out would drop drastically, physical therapy, medical restoration, medications would all have been paid for by the govt, which means there is nothing for you to recoup.
Not addressing litigation aversion is not the same as discounting it, I was simply explaing to Catron where drrich was going with his point.
In any case your point on liability in a single payor system is moot, the cost of liability would drop almost immediately, substaintially and it would sustain.

]]>