The Alaska Fund Trust

As those of you who have been keeping up with all the recent news regarding our favorite Alaskan here at The B&SS will likely know, since returning from the Presidential campaign last fall Sarah Palin has been unable to avoid the continuing politics of the campaign. The RINOs, Obamabots, and Good ol' Boys from Alaska (and elsewhere) have kept up their slew of attacks against her.

Clearly she must scare the piss out of them.

Unfortunately, in pursuing this course, these political lowlifes have turned to a weapon that we here at B&SS are all too familiar with: the frivolous lawsuit. Indeed, Governor Palin has been hit with an onslaught of bogus legal cases since last fall, all of which have been crap suits that eventually amount to nothing. Nevertheless, during this process, the good Governor has found out one of the real tragedies of these frivolous lawsuits, namely that they are insanely expensive - even when the charges brought against you get laughed out of court - and Sarah has now racked up over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself from these bogus suits.

The Doctors of this country welcome you to their world, Governor.

See, this kind of crap is exactly why we need a Loser Pays legal system in the United States. The reason these kinds of cases get brought is because trial lawyers (or politically motivated lawyers...) will take on such cases pro bono; knowing that it is of almost no risk to either them or their client and, potentially, offers a very high reward. Low risk, high reward - exactly the kind of formula to entice people to do something more often than they otherwise would, exactly the kind of incentive structure that does not need to be present in a legal system that is supposed to be operating on the sole incentive of the noble search for justice.

A Loser Pays system helps alleviate these problems because, under its auspices, the only way folks would bring charges against someone is if they actually thought they had a legitimate complaint - instead of just an insatiable greed for money they've done nothing to earn or, in Sarah's case, the desire to bleed someone dry solely for the sake of grinding some bullshit political axe.

Anyways, coming back down off the soap box, since getting a Loser Pays system to help out honest people like Sarah is just a fantasy at this point, I offer up to you the next best thing - which is to go to her newly created Legal Defense fund and chip in a few bucks to help her out!

In true Sarah fashion, the Alaska Fund Trust, as it's called, is a beacon of transparency and good, honest citizen-governance. All donors, and the amount they donate, will be made available to the public, no donations of more than $150 will be allowed, and no lobbyists (of any stripe) or foreign nationals will be allowed to contribute. (All these regulations are self-imposed, by the way, and not required by law for a fund like this one.)

Ok, enough said, here's your link: Alaska Fund Trust

Malpractice Reform in SC?

Last Month, some of the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives did a great thing by sponsoring a new bill (H. 3489) that would help bring some needed legal reform to our State. The legislation is a tort reform bill that would help insulate S.C. businesses from all those frivolous lawsuits that we talk oh-so-fondly-of on this blog. Needless to say, I'm a strong supporter of this bill, as pretty much every State in the Union could use some kind of tort reform for a whole host of reasons. However, as you might expect if you know anything about S.C. politics, the bill has run into some problems up at the Statehouse.

As per the legislative process, it was sent to one of the House's subcommittees; unfortunately, all but one of the members of this subcommittee just happen to be lawyers. Consequently, the members of this subcommittee haven't bothered to get the legislative process for the tort reform bill going; preferring, instead, to leave it swimming in the abyss that is Subcommittee Hell

Lawyers opposed to meaningful tort reform; you're shocked, I'm sure.

Anyways, here's the legislation's sponsors' site - One Law Suit Away - so you can go read up on the bill and see (for those of you in South Carolina) if your State Legislator comes down on the right side of it.

Masking Mediocrity

Ah, the joys of "free" healthcare:

"A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients...

He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.' "

Lovely, huh?

The great thing about this story is that it's a perfect example of why the type of "Universal Health Care" system desired by President Obama, other liberals, and even some 'Conservatives' (hello, Mitt Romney...) here in the U.S won't, ultimately, work.

Many a time during the campaign, when asked to defend himself against charges that his Healthcare plan was a thinly veiled attempt at socialized medicine, President Obama responded by saying that, since those who so desired would be able to opt out and get private health insurance, his plan couldn't be dubbed socialized medicine. Indeed, the point of the "universal" part of his plan, he argued, was simply to ensure that those millions of uninsured Americans would never have to go without, thanks to the government sponsored insurance he would be offering.

Well, guess what? In the U.K, people with the financial resources do have the option of getting private healthcare; and furthermore, in a manner that would seem to dovetail nicely with President Obama's plan, those who can't afford such a luxury are given all the health coverage they need via the NHS. Nevertheless, despite being fully provided for by their government, the British folks who were supposed to have been saved from the pain of being uninsured by the almighty hand of a government health care program still aren't getting the health care that they need.

Indeed, despite having a truly "Universal" system of health coverage at his disposal, Ian Boynton was unable to do something as simple as find a dentist to examine his toothache.

What this particular story illustrates so well is a point, which I have made on many an occasion before, that neither socialized medicine nor Universal Health Care (not that the difference is all that substantial...) will solve the current Health Care problems in the United States. This is due the fact that, like all big-government programs, they are inherently flawed solutions because they fail to address the real problem facing the system. In this case, both in the U.K and U.S, the real problem is that Health Care is to expensive. What Socialized Medicine and Universal Health Care both do to address this problem is to offer you either "free" or insanely cheap Health Insurance to make sure that you have enough money to cover this high cost. In other words, instead of directly addressing the problem of expensive health care, and trying to bring down these high costs, these programs are designed to simply mask it through government welfare.

Of course, the problem with masking crises instead of confronting them is that they tend to fester and come back - usually with a much greater degree of monetary pain than they hit you with on the first go-round.

That's why, if we want to try to offer real health care reforms here in the United States, we can't fall into the trap of simply offering up ideas that don't address the real problem. If we want to make Health Care in the U.S better, we need to look at solutions that will actually reduce the costs of health care and thus make it affordable to an even greater number of Americans - without us having to give them a welfare check, first. Two quick and easy ideas to jumpstart such a change would be to allow insurance companies to compete across State lines and to reduce our Doctors' operating costs through Medical Malpractice reform.

Just anything but Big Government, please. Because, afterall, I can already pull my own teeth out with pliers for free - and I don't even have to bankrupt my country's future in the process.

McCain Gets It Right On Malpractice

I was just watching a video over on CBS's website of a townhall that McCain and Palin did yesterday, and as I was listening I began to think; "you know, if I was at one of these things, I'd love to be able to ask McCain his opinion on Medical Malpractice Reform." Well, almost as soon as the thought had passed through my head, lo and behold, a young Doc from Grand Rapids steps up and asks Senator McCain that very question.

Here's the link, the question comes almost right at 13 minutes into the clip, so feel free to skip on ahead to it.

McCain, thankfully, understands that "absolutely, absolutely, we need to have medical malpractice reform" in the United States. He also rightly noted that this malpractice reform has "got to be part of any reform of helathcare in America." Indeed, he went on to call it "one of the most compelling issues" that we face. Amen. It's so nice to finally hear a politician say that, in order to truly reform our bloated, expensive, and expanding healthcare programs, we have got to focus on preventing Trial Lawyers from suing the very Doctors which that helathcare system relies on, out of business!

With Palin on the ticket, I'm already very much 'on-board,' so to speak, but if I needed any extra assurances, this good answer should do it. Indeed, one can only imagine what the Lord Messiah Obamarama, who once worked for a big Chicago law firm, thinks of possibly limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits his trial lawyer buddies, such as the now-disowned John Edwards, could file against one of their favorite targets.

Because It Works

It's been a while since we've done an article on tort reform and the need for it, insofar as the Medical Industry is concerned - but, now, we get to fix that particular mishap. Five years ago, in 2003, the Great State of Texas passed Proposition 12, which capped damages in Medical Malpractice lawsuits; and so, with 5 years now in our rearview mirrors, the Texas Medical Association has done a nice little piece on the many benefits that reform has provided to Texan Healthcare. Here's some of the highlights:

- "Charity care rendered by Texas hospitals rose 24 percent in the three years following the passage of Prop. 12."
- The number of Doctors in the state has been rising at higher-than-normal rates
- This Doctor growth is especially true for specialists, particularly those most affected by malpractice abuse, such as obstetricians and orthopedic surgeons.
- "Hospitals are upgrading equipment, expanding their emergency rooms, launching patient safety programs and expanding their level of charity care"
- "All major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates since the passage of the reforms, most by double-digits. Texas physicians have seen their liability rates cut, on average, 24.3 percent"
- "Claims and lawsuits in most Texas counties have been cut in half"

So as you can see, this system has worked out well for everyone except, well, the trial lawyers who used to make millions on these lawsuits. On the other hand though:

- Hospitals are better able to care for the uninsured, and are able to afford better medical equipment to do it with.
- Doctors don't have to pay as much for malpractice insurance (and thus, can make more money).
- Patients now have an increasing number of Doctors from whom to seek treatment, and they don't have to have the financial burden of rising malpractice insurance costs passed on to them (since they are the consumers in this business).
- And, finally, taxpayers don't have to finance near as many of these bullshit lawsuits with their hard-earned cash.

In other words, everyone who matters, wins.

Seriously, how long will it take the rest of the country to figure this stuff out? If you want to make the American Healthcare system better, the way to do it is not Socialized Medicine (a.k.a Universal Healthcare); and there are 2 primary reasons for this. Number 1, it doesn't do anything to address the real problem, which is rising health insurance costs; and, number 2, it does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of the actual healthcare services being offered.

As demonstrated by Proposition 12 in Texas, Malpractice reform does, in fact, address both of these problems. By reducing the cost of Malpractice insurance and increasing the number of Doctors competing for patients, it reduces the fees Doctors will charge their patients for care; and by increasing the number of Doctors and freeing up hospital funds from fighting frivolous lawsuits, it increases the quality of the care being given to patients.

This is what Capitalism does people, and this is why it works! Competition breeds increases in quality and decreases in price; and, furthermore, when Doctors and Hospitals don't have to be looking over their shoulders every 2 seconds, worrying about potential lawsuits, they're more likely to give charity care - and this is why tort reform is crucial, because it so obviously has these positive effects on Health Care in the United States.

God, I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over again - hell, if you already understand the basic principles of market economics you're probably screaming at me to finish this damn post already. But I think I'm going to say it one more time, just for emphasis: tort reform enables Capitalist forces to better enter the healthcare market, which is good, because Capitalism works!

Ok, there, I'm done now - kind of like some of Texas' healthcare industry's problems...

Massachusetts: Even More Bonkers Than Previously Thought

Here's an old news story that didn't get near as much coverage as it should have. Apparently, about a month ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a medical malpractice ruling that makes Massachusetts Doctors responsible not only for their actions, but for the actions of their patients as well. You see, David Sacca, a 70-something-year-old man who underwent cancer treatment, fell asleep while driving and hit and killed a young boy; and, while driving, Sacca was taking a drug which listed drowsiness among its side-effects. Moreover, his Physician, Dr. Roland Florio, apparently forgot to warn Sacca of this possible side-effect - and so the family of the dead boy is suing Dr. Florio for negligence.

That's right, this family is suing, not the guy who killed their son, but the Doctor of the guy who killed their son. And, according to the Massachusetts Supreme Judiciary Court, that kind of lawsuit is perfectly alright - meaning that, soon, Dr Florio will be defending himself from a charge of negligence, despite the fact that he might never have met, seen, or even heard of the plaintiffs (much less treated them).

So yes, now, apparently, every Doctor in Massachusetts now has to worry about not just how they treat patients, but who they treat at all; because, now, if your patient does something stupid while on a treatment or medication that you prescribed, you, good Doctor, could get sued.

Because clearly patients cannot be expected to be responsible for themselves.

Besides, if we can't blame Doctors for everything, where the hell are all these damn lawyers going to make their millions?

The Suit Run Amok

Check out this story, and just try to tell me it's not the most ridiculous thing you've seen this week. I mean, seriously, $67 Mil for a dry cleaning mistake??? C'mon now:

" Plaintiff Roy Pearson, a judge in Washington, D.C., says in court papers that he's been through the ringer over a lost pair of prized pants he wanted to wear on his first day on the bench.

He says in court papers that he has endured "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort."

He says he was unable to wear that favorite suit on his first day of work.

He's suing for 10 years of weekend car rentals so he can transport his dry cleaning to another store. [ed. note: the amount he's suing for totals $67 million]

The lawsuit is based in large part on Pearson's seemingly pained admission that he was taken in by the oldest and most insidious marketing tool in the dry cleaning industry arsenal.

'Satisfaction Guaranteed.' "

While we're on the subject of advertising slogans, here's one for you: 'Got Liability Reform??"

What does it say about the legal atmosphere we have in this country, that this Judge/plaintiff would actually take this case to court? It either means:

a) The guy feels he can win (and that speaks volumes); or
b) He feels that our court system is some kind of grievance forum, where people get to come and give other people/companies a bad name by complaining about their faults.

Of course, the above notwithstanding, the good ol' trial lawyers and their lobbyists will happily explain how this particular case, while outrageous, is not really indicative of the overall lawsuit industry (and it is an industry) in the United States - but it is. Only in U.S Court can you sue McDonalds for having hot coffee, or anyone you so choose for causing you 'emotional pain,' whatever the hell that is. Indeed, to go back to my point 'b)' above, it seems the Legal System of the United States, sadly, no longer concerns itself with Justice or common sense; instead, the Courtroom has become something of a group therapy session. People come and whine, complain, and flat-out bitch about how badly something has made them feel - which, naturally, is the jist of it. Simply put, these days people take someone else to court, not to seek justice, but in order to feel better about themselves.

In fact, for the plaintiffs, it's not so much about the money as it is just wanting to solve 'emotional' problems. The lawyers, of course, who help convince these people they have 'emotional' problems, are the ones really in it for the money. So in a nutshell: Overly-greedy Trial Lawyers + 'Emotionally-unstable' Morons = The Modern American Judicial System.

Hell of a world, huh?

Abortion + Malpractice = Moral Chaos

Q: How do you know your moral compass is really spinning in all the wrong directions?

A: When you decide to sue your Doctor because she wasn't able to successfully kill your baby!

Oh, and as an added bonus, her Doctor failed to kill her baby, so she went to other Doctors, figued this out, and ended up not killing the baby, and now, when the child is a full 2 years old (and has not been put up for adoption, interestingly), she's decided she wants money? No, wait, scratch that, she deserves money. Hell, she's owed it by God's righteous law.

The word 'frivolous' comes to mind......among many others.

Malpractice Reform - Still Working!!

Last week, I received an interesting newsletter from the pro-Medical Malpractice Reform group 'Protect Patients Now.' Contained within it was additional proof that tort reform, in various forms, actually works. The States that the letter discussed were West Virginia, Nevada, and Texas; all three of which, in the last few years, have placed caps on the amount of damages one can receive via Malpractice and other lawsuits.

Here's a few of the money quotes from the various articles linked in the newsletter:

(Actual Newsletter here)

In West Virginia, the Charleston Area Medical Center C.E.O, Dr. Glenn Crotty Jr., reports that "the hospital has recruited around 30 doctors annually over the past few years, for a total of almost 100 new hires." Why does this matter? Because "[before] the Legislature passed a comprehensive bill limiting the amount of payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, the hospital would have been lucky to recruit one new doctor each year, Crotty said. 'We were at almost zero before tort reform,' Crotty said about the hospital's recruiting efforts. 'And we had several doctors leaving'."

So, wait, you mean that placing limitations on these lawsuits actually increases the number of Physicians you have handy to help ailing patients??? Shocking!!

In Nevada: "Physicians' insurance premiums are down and more doctors are coming to Nevada since voters limited damages in medical malpractice cases."

Wait a minute; if there are more Doctors, paying cheaper insurance fees (lower operational costs), that means that Doctors will likely be charging cheaper rates for Health Care!!! But, I thought the Lawyers and their just lawsuits were the ones with the patients' best interests at heart?!?!?!

Likewise, Texas has seen a tremendous increase in its number of Doctors. Indeed, Texas' reform has worked so well that the State is getting new Doctors at a faster rate than it can license them; creating a backlog in some of the State's Bureaucracies. What a terrible problem to have! I mean, if you have all those Doctors, that means that they will all be competing, capitalist style. This means they will all be trying to distinguish themselves from their competitors by offering lower prices or higher quality services!! The horror!!

Unfortunately, the Newsletter is, in fact, concluded with some genuine bad news, which, unsurprisingly, comes straight out of America's Emergency Rooms; were, simply put, a lack of available specialists is causing patients to die.

Problems with Medical Care, needless to say, still abound; but, the good news is that if we actually have the cajoles to try serious reform - it works.

Hillary Care - Arnold Style!

Thank God Arnold Schwarzenegger is Constitutionally banned from running for President. After having spent the last few months catering to California's large population of illegal immigrants, he's now taking the policy a step further - he's decided to give them free Health Care! Of course, it's not just illegal aliens that Arnold thinks should get free Health Care, it's everyone! Yup, that's right, 'Universal Health Care' (a.k.a Socialized Medicine) is back and, sadly, this time it's a Republican proposing it. (Which genuinely begs the question: to what Political Party do America's actual Conservatives now belong?)

Arnold, like everyone else who believes in the fantasy of Socialized Health Care, is devoid of facts and economic reality. So let's examine a few components of Arnold's plan.

If you're going to provide people with Health Care, there is, of course, this little problem that you must, well, pay for such services; a problem Arnold tackles head on. First and foremost is the stupidest part of his plan: to "tax doctors 2% of their gross revenue and place a 4% tax on hospitals." Oh my, where to begin. First of all allow me to point out that this type of 'tax the Doctors and Hospitals' plan has already been tried in New Mexico. As a result of this plan, New Mexico has a very difficult time attracting new Doctors. Furthermore, many of the Doctors they already have are quick to move across the boarder to Texas where, just by crossing the State Line, they see their income jump about 10-15%. You know, if you're trying to get Health Care for "all Californians," instituting a plan which has been proven to reduce the number of Doctors you have, doesn't seem very bright. Because, ya know, those Doctors, they're pretty crucial to the whole 'Health Care' industry.

Also, let's not forget that taxing only the Doctors and Hospitals is, well, discriminatory; and while discrimination is a wonderful thing for policemen, airline baggage screeners and the CIA to base their work off of - it's no basis for a system of taxation.

One last observation on this point, and that is this: what exactly is accomplished by taxing the Doctors? In the end, isn't the money supposed to go to them? I mean, if you're poor, and you need money to help pay for your visits to the Doctor, why does the Government have to come in, take money from the Doctor, to give you, so you can go to the Doctor and then.....give the money back to the Doctor. Wait a minute! Why does the Government have to be the middle-man here??

I think my inner Libertarian may have just had a heart attack.

The plan doesn't get any better. Next up is the most hilarious line in all of Arnold's proposal; the one where he claims that, under the current system, those who do have Health insurance are paying a "hidden tax." Which naturally means we should eliminate it in favor of a real one. Duh! It's almost like he's saying 'You're already getting screwed - so now let's make it official! Yay!'

What a farce!

However, I must give credit where credit is due; there is a hidden tax for California tax payers. It's called the tort tax, and it's the real reason that Health Care in California is too expensive for 1 out of 5 Californians. Nevertheless, as we can see from the example of Texas, the way to eliminate this hidden tax is not to legitimize it, but to enact legal reform that will reduce it. Moreover, if we reduce the tort tax, and all of the frivolous lawsuits it represents, Doctors' insurance premiums will decrease, which will, in turn, allow Doctors to decrease the rates they charge their patients. That's how you make Health Care available to more people.

Here, of course, is the crux of the Socialized Care debate. The problem is very simple: the cost of Health Care services is too high for some people to afford. The Arnold solution is, let's not worry about the cost, let's just try to give people enough money to cover it. The Conservative solution to expensive Health Care is more logical - it simply aims to, surprise, lower the cost! Furthermore, in the Arnold solution, no attempt is made to increase the quality of the actual Health Care being administered; however, in the Conservative solution, by increasing market competition, the quality of the actual Health Care is likely to improve. Indeed, as evidenced by other Socialized medical systems around the world, the Arnold solution has the additional problem of decreasing the quality of the Health Care.

On top of all the Health Care concerns with Arnold's plan, there are some important buisness ones as well. Arnold wants to "ban insurers from refusing to offer coverage to some individuals because of their prior medical conditions;" a proposal which ignores any basic business sense. If insurance companies are going to be forced to cater to individuals who will loose them money, why would they want to be insurers in that particular market at all? Granted, California is a fairly large market, so the Governor may not have to deal with the consequences on this one.

A second part of Arnold's plan which ignores basic business sense, however, may prove more costly. He plans to mandate that all businesses "with 10 workers or more [buy] insurance for their workers or pay a fee of 4% of their payroll into a program to help provide coverage for the uninsured." Whoa! Speaking of hidden taxes, how about this hidden tax on private businesses? Look, it's been said before and I'll say it again, the services that businesses provide to their employees are up to those businesses! It's not an area that the Government should be involved in, period. If you are an employee and your company doesn't offer Health Insurance you have two options: a) Deal with it and have no Health Insurance, or b) Go work for a business that offers Health Insurance. Hopefully that's not too complex for Arnold to understand.

In the end, it comes down to the simple question of what does a better job of providing Americans with the best possible Health Care: the Free Market and the individuals who compose it or the Government? The answer should be obvious.

So I ask that before Arnold wrecks California Health Care, he take a step back and listen to, well, himself. From Arnold's speech as the 2004 Republican National Convention:

"...have faith in Free Enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people and faith in the U.S. economy."

Have faith indeed. In any case, it's a lot safer than having faith in the Government.

Even Trial Lawyers Admit - Tort Reform Works!

It seems that in the October issue of the American Bar Association Journal, America's resident legal 'masters' have a bone to pick - with the State of Texas. That's right, it seems that America's most unstoppable industry has finally hit a roadblock; and one with two long steer horns on it at that. Here are some choice quotes I've seen from the ABA Journal's cover story:

- A plaintiff attorney states: "My income has dropped to probably 10 percent of what I made in 2003."
- Another attorney, a former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association states: "And it noticeably hit the defense side hardest first. Their practices are drying up."
- On page 33: "The number of medical - malpractice cases filed there in 2005 was down 41 percent from the average number of filings during the six years before 2003." (emphasis added)
- "Texas' net gain of more than 4000 physicians since tort reforms were enacted in 2003..."
- "More significant is the 44 percent increase in physician licensure applications in just the past year..."

Wow! You mean enacting Tort reform will actually help decrease the amount of frivolous lawsuits and aid the healthcare system by increasing the number of available Doctors? No way! Yup folks, that's right, if you simply put the necessary reforms into place, you'll get the positive results. Imagine. Just think, all those patients in Texas now have 4,000 new Doctors to choose from - this means the Docs will have to improve the quality of the services they provide due to the increase in competition for those services. And the patients are the real winners because increased competition means not only better quality but likely cheaper prices too! Ain't Capitalism sumthin'?!?

If you want to find out more about the great success tort and medical liability reform has had in Texas check out the following links:

- An Editorial by Texas Gov. Rick Perry on the success of his proposed reforms.
- An assessment from the Texas Medical Association.
- Rick Perry's webpage on Tort and Liability Reform. (several good links on this page)

So, congrats to Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature for doing the right thing; and also, kudos to the people of Texas for passing (the damages-capping) Proposition 12 back in 2003.

Doctoring and Lawyering: Mixing As Well As Vinegar and Oil

One of the greatest sites on the web is the Manhattan Institutes' Trial Lawyers Inc, which reports on the industrial behemoth that the lawyering business has become and the problems it is creating for American society. I finally got around to doing an in-depth reading of their newest piece, the one on Lawyering and the Health Care Industry, and it contains some truly scary stuff. Perhaps the most frightening was the information they gave about Obstetricians.

Did you know that "of the 46,000 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 76 percent have been sued at least once, 57 percent at least twice, and 41.5 percent three times or more?!?" Have 3/4 of the Obstetricians in the United States committed such grievous errors that they deserved to be sued? Do 41.5% of the Obstetricians in this country stink so bad at their jobs that they deserved three or more court dates? This means that the United States has either the worst Obstetricians in the world or that lawsuits have gotten out of hand. Now, since Doctors in the United States generally receive more, and better, training than Doctors in every other country in the world, I'm going to assume that lawyers are the cause of these high Malpractice case rates.

Furthermore, in these cases "million-dollar verdicts are now the norm" and the average payout is "$4.7 million;" which is odd when you consider that, according to the U.S Census Bureau, the medical cost of having a baby is between $5,000 and $12,000. So, let's assume that you paid $12,000 to have your baby delivered, and then sued the Doctor for $4.7 million. That would mean that you received, as your court payout, a sum that is over 391 times as large as what you paid for the original procedure. Holy Shiite! Is a person really entitled to that much of a payout?

And that's, of course, assuming that these cases are due to actual 'Medical Malpractice' in the first place. Which they are not. As Trial Lawyer Inc notes: "nearly half of malpractice suits—49.5 percent—are dropped, dismissed, or settled without payment." As for the other 50.5% that do go to court or result in payouts, many are still simply bogus lawsuits. Additionally, the majority of these cases are from Medical Malpractice 'hot spots' such as New York State. As a result Obstetricians in these areas are either, retiring, moving to other areas, or refusing to perform high risk procedures. If the onslaught against Obstetricians continues in these areas, the midwife may come back into style.

You know the crisis for American Obstetricians is bad when the Journal of the American Medical Association carries an article entitled: "Who Will Deliver Our Grandchildren?" Honestly, the information in Trial Lawyers Inc.'s article is warning sign number 2,943,453,234,785 that this country has a problem with frivolous lawsuits. And it further depicts how, in the long run, those lawsuits hurt the patients every bit as much as the Doctors. The reforms passed in some states, like Texas, are working; but it's time to get the ball rolling everywhere. Indeed, it is to be hoped that we as a counrty can get reform started and moving quickly, so that this problem gets solved by the time my Grandchildren come along.

The Real International Virus

Not that I was worried about the bird flu anyways, but another story I saw today showed me what the true international viral infection is: Trial Lawyers armed with bogus cases. In Australia, lawyers are currently arguing a case before the High Court to get a 24-year-old disabled woman compensation for 'lifelong suffering'. Yes, that's right, a 24 year old female, who was born blind and deaf with rubella is suing, with the help of her mother, the doctor who misdiagnosed the rubella in her Mother's first trimester 25 years ago. The woman, Alexia Harrington, is suing saying that her Mother, Olga, would have aborted her had she known that the child was going to be retarded. And as one final note, the family says that the trial is not about money, but that it is about getting compensation for a "rubella afflicted life".

Okay, there are, oh so many ways in which this case has problems, but I will try to deal mainly with one. However, I will say it is quite odd that a mother is helping her 24-year-old daughter sue for not being aborted. It must be an Australian form of a Mother-Daughter relationship too complex for a simple American like me to understand. Of course, this brings up the whole issue of abortion itself, but that requires it own full post at a later date.

First of all, why in the world did these people wait for 24 YEARS to do this. Surely the mother knew from birthday number one that her baby was disabled and was going to require intensive, costly care. If not, then perhaps the mother should be checked for some form of 'Reality Comprehension' Syndrome. Unfourtunately, I think it is much more likely that this mother, and her daughter, suffer from the 'Trial Lawyer sees a potentially good money-making case' Syndrome. It is dispicable that these lawyers are using this mother and her handicapped daughter for some sort of publicity, money-making stunt.

Oh, and please don't say that the lawyers are doing it for the poor, rubella-struck woman's good. If she was truly so unhappy with her life that she wishes to have never been born, there are plenty of ways to solve that; a shotgun or small handgun might provide a quick and easy solution. Secondly, if this is for the money, why does the Doctor have to pay off hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) in damages? Blaming your local Obstetrician for an unfourtunate act of God, doesn't do you much good. And to be honest, his mistaken diagnosis doesn't merit the amount of money the case will be for, especially when you consider that the actual woman of the prosecution will only get maybe half of the money, and her lawyer the rest.

Furthurmore, the question of whether or not a child may be disabled isn't quite black and white. Many times a Doctor will indicate to the parents that there is a high probability of a child being physically or mentally retarded, and the child turns out just fine. The point being, a diagnosis of retardation made in the first trimester of pregnancy is hardly as concrete as, say, the Laws of Gravity, making it extremely difficult to fault the Doctor for 24 years of 'pain and suffering'. The simple fact is that disability is something that comes at the fault of no, one, particular human being, so it is quite childish of this family to blame all this on the Doctor.

What is really sad about this case is that it so closely resembles malpractice cases here in the US. Trial Lawyers here seem unable to comprehend that, 99% of the time a doctor has as much to do with the disabilities of a child as they do with the eye color of the child. They are unable to understand that Down's Syndrome, the subject of more than a few cases here in the U.S.A, is actually a genetic disorder, or that that rubella is a microscopic virus, not an full-grown, human Obstetrician.

Which is why it's time for the Trial Lawyers of the world to stop spreading their 'virus' around the world, because Obstetricians really need a break. They would prefer to spend their week in the ER, not the courtroom. And for the sake of women all over the world, let's hope that they stay in buisness instead of retiring from rising malpractice insurance premiums. Better yet, let's hope we find a vaccine for the highly contagious 'bogus lawsuit' virus.