i'm beginning to wonder

[Mr. 16 gauge]

Fabsroman;
I apologize that you took umbrage to my refering to certian attorneys as 'shysters'. If you notice, I did not refer to all attorneys as shysters, just those that seek political favors from their cronies. Personally, I think you might be being a bit oversensitive.
Having said that.....our view of the world is shaped by our personal experiences.
The article you enclosed is interesting, but being in health care for over 30 years, I have to call B.S. The article starts with the headline "Tort reform unlikely(italics mine) to Cut Health Care costs".
It then goes on to state that "The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost– both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

I don't know what a "health economist" is, but I will bet my left testicle that not a ONE has EVER taken care of a patient or given direct care in his career!
And having a law professor who wrote a book called the "medical malpractice myth" be considered an expert on health care and costs is akin to a fox stating the best defenses to use for guarding a hen house.
We're not just talking awards for damages....we are also talking VOLUMES of paper work that need to be completed (I estimate that my paperwork load has increase about 30-35% in the time I have been practicing), and that is time that is taken away from the patient' bedside. The professor in your article also states that
......"“defensive medicine” is not the same thing as wasteful medicine. “Like defensive driving, some defensive medicine is good,” he said. “To change behavior. When you drill down those studies, you see that what it means is, doctors are more careful with patient records. They spend more time with the patient. They’re more careful to say hello and goodbye to the patient. That’s good.”

Other health economists agree that “defensive medicine” is not the main driver of costs, and malpractice liability reform is not a panacea.

So he states that defensive medicine is good......so, as a law professor, what extra tests should I order to be 'defensive' and which ones shouldn't I order as not to be 'wasteful"? How is a non medical person authorized to make such decisions (other than his opinion)? Do you want your physician deciding what medical tests you should have, or your attorney (or worse yet, your government?)?

Ultimately, if a doctor does not screw up, then he doesn't have anything to worry about, does he?

Actually, it doesn't matter if a physician makes a mistake or not......I know several good physicians (mostly obstetricians) and surgeons that did the right thing, followed protocols, informed the patients of the potential risks, followed standards of practice, ect, and still were sued and lost because the patients weren't happy with the outcome, even though they were made aware of potential bad scenarios. The juries tend to sympathize with the plaintiff, not the surgeon.

How about doctors that purchase some fancy new piece of testing machinery that continually test patients on it that probably do not need to be tested, just so they can make sure the investment in the machine gives them a good return on their investment.

Actually, I believe that this is already illegal....I know of a couple of physicians that had to pay heavy fines for doing just this: it's called "conflict of interest".

Personally, I think health care for everybody that works (including their immediate family), all children under 18, and everybody that is receiving unemployment compensation (including their immediate family) is a good thing.

Couldn't agree more......now, how do you intend to pay for it? Should I be expected by the public to give my services (or products) away for free? That seems to be the general consensus for a lot of people...."health care workers make too much money!" O.K., so what's it worth to you? Do you want an R.N. dispensing your meds that knows what to look out for re: side effects, or do you want a minimum wage employee that can barely read to do it? We all heard about the 'extravegant' price gouging for a $60 dollar aspirin that was on a hospital bill. You know why that aspirin cost $60? Because it was required (by law) that a pharmacist dispense it, another employee had to take it to the nursing unit, an R.N. had to adminster it, and then there are the other associated costs of things such as medical records (because it has to be charted), utilization revue (to make sure that it is being done cost effectively), ect, ect, ect.

How about the shyster doctors that recommend surgeries that aren't really need just because they need to pay for their new Ferrari or their kid's college education?

I'd like to address this point for a moment.....who is determining that these procedures/surgeries aren't necessary? Some nonmedical person? Reason I would like to address this is because I've heard a lot lately about "unnecessary" cardiac catheterizations/angioplasty. Studies vary somewhat, but it is estimated that 10-30% of the populations first 'symptom' of cardiac disease is sudden death.....i.e., your standing there normally one moment, you have a lethal arrythmia, and your dead. Now, suppose you have a patient that is having chest pain off and on....not just a 'twinge', but crushing sternal pain that affects his breathing. You do an ECG, but it is normal. He still continues to have symptomatic chest pain, so you cath him and find nothing......so now it was deemed "unnecessary". But is it? You have now determined that your patients coronaries do not have the classic blockages, but could something else, such as vasospasms, causing the pain. Or, suppose this same patient is having chest pain (w/o ECG changes) and he has the procedure (cardiac cath), and has a narrowing of an artery in his heart, so they angioplasty it.....but the pain doesnt' go away.......now is this deemed an 'unnecessary procedure" because the results weren't what were expected? I have seen patients, young patients, that were going in for open heart surgery because they needed grafts and had now indication of chest pain, but had some ECG changes on a physical exam and were worked up in a 'thorough manner', probably with some of those 'unnecessary' tests and procedures.

Point I'm trying to make: medicine is as much an art as it is a science......while I can give a med or treatment to a population, not everyone will have the same 'predictable' outcome. I've seen patients who should have benefited from open heart surgery not do well, and those who should have died on the table leave the hospital in a vertical fashion.

So Fabs, bottom line: attorneys and medical personal both make their living off the misfortunes of other people.

I doubt that you will change my views on tort reform, or that I will change yours on unecessary medical testing, pain & suffering, ect. However, I'm more than willing to sit down and have a beer with yah and discuss what type of nontoxic shot is best, or why chessies are better than labs
Take care and God bless..............