Quote:
Originally Posted by rshoffer
"Malpractice insurance matches the expectation of care standard". I'm not clear what you mean by that. The "standard of care" is supposed to be defined and set by experts and deviation from that standard which results in damages MAY expose the physician to malpractice. Here's the problem: In an adversarial setting (the courtroom) you have a lay jury listening t experts for the plaintiff and defendent. These "experts" are often "hired guns" whic means they make their living as 'physicians' testifying in malpractice cases. The are paid typically in the thousands of dollars per hour to give an opinion. So, one side says the standard of care was met, the other side says it wasn't. The lay jury has to figure it out. Emotion usually makes the decision.
|
Couldn't agree more. It simply becomes a theatrical contest between sides, and the attitude in today's society is "somebodies gonna pay" regardless of whether any real malpractice occured or not. Whoever puts on the best show wins.
Lawyers know this and manipulate the system, even making good living on lawsuits without merit, because the insurance companies and the lawyers all know it is cheaper to give up a settlement than to fight in court. It is a sickening game in a perverted system and there is no end in sight. Without meaningful change there is no hope of improving the healthcare system.