Should you be allowed to sue your HMO?

[MTAtech]

Should you be allowed to sue your HMO and if so, for how much?

The Patient's Bill of Rights, before Congress (passed the House) has been amended to limit the amount one can sue their HMO and whether in State or Federal court. The Bush Admin wanted to not allow a policy holder to sue the HMO at all.

Why should any person or company be immuned from being sued? If the HMO's were immuned, what's the odds they would give you all that you were due voluntarily? What limits? I don't think there should be any limits. If a small child is injured and needs full care, the $1.5M limit would be gone in a few years.

[narayan]

I wonder how those in government decide what organizations they will allow us to sue.

[daveleau]

Absolutely without a doubt- YES!

Everyone should be held accountable for their actions. ESPECIALLY in the healthcare sector. There have been too many horror stories where people had emergency surgery to save their lives that HMOs will not pay for because it was not pre-approved. HMOs are the worst thing to happen to the healthcare industry. Peoples' well-being has been taken out of the hands of trained physicians and placed into the hands of money-grubbing businessmen with MBAs who know nothing of science or medicine. And general practitioners are forced to do procedures a specialist should do. DEFINATELY a right we should have had from the beginning.

[/soapbox] http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

Dave

I am proud to admit that I am a conservative Republican (or at least a conservative a strong sense of morality). But Bush has really been dropping the ball lately!

[This message has been edited by daveleau (edited 08-07-2001).]

[thehig]

This is the same group who wants to pass Tort reform to limit damages in product liability cases. I do believe that we are to litigious as a country. But this is not the way to fix that problem.

America has a problem with accountability. This is one more effort to remove that word from our vocabulary.

[Fingers]

The Bush Admin wanted to not allow a policy holder to sue the HMO at all

I'd have to see some verification before I believe that. I know I've seen him say he's in favor of limits though... and so am I.

[Barney]

The problem is that people are abusing the right to sue someone. Nowadays people sue their doctor for 10 million because the pills gave them a headache. But when a doctor removes the wrong kidney or amputate the wrong leg, they really should be sued for 100 million.

[narayan]

Dave, remember that the HMO's were created because America supposedly had the worst health care in the universe. They were the solution at one time, now that the American people have been washed to think that the HMO's are evil, the government has set itself up for a takeover of the health care industry.

[wyvrn]

We should be able to sue whoever we want, but the problem is that Americans sue WAAAAY too much on the chance they might hit a big payday. This increases costs which I am sure will be passed on to the consumer in the form of less benefits / higher payments. Doctor's malpractice insurance costs are already higher than it needs to be, and if this continues we are going to force talented people to look at other careers. That will lessen the availability of quality medical professionals in all areas because many assistants are covered by their doctor's insurance.

[Barney]

Another problem is your judges. I mean, what nutcase gives someone 10 million (or whatever it was) because the coffee was (too) hot? Isn't coffee supposed to be hot? Why do people sue? Because they know the judge might actually give them money. I think all those judges need to be replaced with SANE people.

And then of course there are the laywers. What self respecting laywer would help someone sueing a company for having hot coffee?

[Fingers]

IMO, consumers/victims become just as greedy as the big corporations they're suing when they see a chance to "hit the jackpot".

Medical malpractice is a difficult issue. There's NOTHING that can make up for some mistakes ... not even $100 million. I say that all subsequent medical bills should be recoverable, but the punitive damages HAVE to be limited.

[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 08-07-2001).]

[narayan]

Another problem is your judges. I mean, what nutcase gives someone 10 million (or whatever it was) because the coffee was (too) hot? Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?
No kidding. How in the heck does a restaraunt get sued for serving hot coffee? Sickening.

[MTAtech]

Barney said:
"Another problem is your judges. I mean, what nutcase gives someone 10 million (or whatever it was) because the coffee was (too) hot? Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?"

I remember this case specifically, the case was against McDonalds. The judge didn't decide $10M, the jury did. Their reason was that the plantiff showed that McDonalds was repeatedly given warnings that the coffee was burning people and they did nothing. The jury decided to make the award equal to McDonalds' coffee revenue for one day.

Large punitive damages are good because it changes corporate behavior. Otherwise, the corporation pays out a damage settlement and chalks it up to the cost of doing business.

Remember the Ford Pinto? Ford figured it could save 10 bucks a car by leaving out a safety feature. They figured paying out death suits was less expensive than adding the safety parts. This is why we should have punitive damages!



[This message has been edited by MTAtech (edited 08-07-2001).]

[jeffpapier]

Hay! You bunch of brainwashed nits. OVER 80% of court cases are company suing company.
Large awards are usually reduced in appeal court by judges looking out for their political future, taking the decision out of the hands of the jury that heard the case.
If you think corporations are in business for your benefit, you have swallowed their propaganda, hook and sinker.

If a HMO can provide substandard care or refuse to provide care and get paid for it.
Why would they care if you are injuried as long as they make money? And cannot be held responsible?

[Thud]

Hey jeff:

If you think corporations are in business for your benefit, you have swallowed their propaganda, hook and sinker.
If a HMO can provide substandard care or refuse to provide care and get paid for it.
Why would they care if you are injuried as long as they make money? And cannot be held responsible?

Uh, I think that's the point everyone's getting at, is it not? That people should have recourse if they recieve shoddy health care?

You bunch of brainwashed nits

You really think that's necessary?

[Toddly]

I think that they deserve to get sued. They need to be held accountable for their actions as all industries should be. I also think that there should not be a limit. We need to retain some control over our healthcare services but with HMO's we are losing it fast.

[Mr.Goodbytes]

Well, since nobody else will bring this up, I may as well. Does Medicare or Medicaid get sued? The answer is no. They are shielded from lawsuits. So when they're denied certain services, tough luck. Now I'm a firm believer that everyone who is gonna pay for health care, either on their own or through some insurance plan, deserves the best that's available to them wherever they go. And if they're unjustly denied necessary care, then they deserve an avenue to obtain that care. And they do deserve reparations for their losses. They should be compensated the cost of the procedure and subsequent related medical needs based on it. And I suppose there will have to be amount owed to them based on realized losses such as work and maybe even interest.

But there does have to be a limit as to what they receive. We can't have these retarded multi-million decisions(or billion as is the case with that moron smoker in california...he deserves a burning cigarette flicked at his forehead). Everyone's rates will go up to cover for them and the legal fees. Eventually, you'll see HMO's and insurance companies pulling out of the market. Employers will stop providing health plans because they will cease to be cost effective, thus placing an extra burden on the workers. Moreover, with these companies going out of business and likely declaring bankrupty with the wave of high dollar judgements, the plaintiffs won't see much money anyway. Heck they won't see much even if the company ponies up the dough. But I know who will: the trial lawyers. No surprise here that the McCain, Kennedy, Edwards bill was in part drafted by an ex-trial lawyer.

I think we can all see the end result of the "Patients' Bill of Rights." Boy, doesn't that sound wonderful? Bill of Rights, that can't be bad. Everyone's entitled to rights, so they're always good. Whatever... anyway, back on track. The McCain bill would end up destroying HMO's and forcing the nation into socialized health care. Gee, when the democrats pushed for and created HMO's back in the 70's, they were touted as necessary to the survival of the health care industry. God bless Ted Kennedy for changing his mind.... again.

Mmmm, just what we want: one big centrally planned health care system. With all the guidelines and regulations that would ensue, people wouldn't just be denied health care, they'd have to wait forever and a year to find out that they're denied that care. And they certainly won't be able to sue the government, just as they're not allowed to now. But heck, that would give the government more control over our lives, and nobody can argue that that isn't one of the principles liberalism and the democratic party is built on. In fact, it's the one thing all the liberal factions can unite on.

So what we have with the Senate bill is everyone losing in the end except for the trial lawyers. Oh joy. I'm glad Bush was able to compromise with the House, and I can only pray that when they all return in september that the Senate does as well.

[surrealchereal]

Several years ago I walked into the emergency room of the largest HMO in Cali.
Do to one little boo boo I was in intensive care for a week and had chemical pneumonia for a month. It was bad enough the heart catheter was inserted and the 2 ladies at the admitting desk I later learned were on their knees on my behalf.
I became conscious and got off the respirator 3 days later. The 3 "Neurologists" that came to check up on my progress. (I know for a fact there was only one at that facility) I told them I was fine although still hallucinating like a mutha, but heck it brought back old memories of the 70's. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif Long story ending? No, I didn't sue. The little nurse's career would have been over, and many others would have be hurt. It was just a terrible accident and mistake. And what would it have gotten me? Satisfaction? I'm not that small and I don't need any more bad karma. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[Mr.Goodbytes]

Well, I'm glad someone can be big enough you admit it. You rock surreal!!!

[MTAtech]

It's been a long time since I had 2 ladies on their knees on my behalf :-)