Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT com-pair.net>]

The problem with tort reform is that it brings out the crazies.  Screams of 
get rid of the lawyers.

Now, I'm sure your wife could tell you some horror stories about the number 
of doctors AND nurses that shouldn't even be allowed to empty a bedpan, let 
alone practice medicine and the number of folks who couldn't afford a lawyer 
that should own some doctor somewhere.

Personally, I think tort reform should be along the lines of the Social 
Security lawyers.  And payment should be along the lines of Worker's Comp. 
If some child is damaged and has a life expectancy of "x" years that will 
require "y" in care, then judges, not juries should be doing the math.  It 
costs MILLIONS to care for a child through adulthood and to the end of their 
life if that is the kind of damage that has been done.

Plus, in some cases I do think there should be punitive damages!

AND, if the doc is a repeat offender, then take him for all he's worth!

I've seen the damage some of these clowns do.  And that applies to FNPs and 
PAs, also.  Right now my neighbor has a little girl who will spend the rest 
of her life with a heart condition.  The FNP they were seeing at the local 
clinic told the mother she was, and I quote "a worry wort" when she brought 
her daughter in concerned about lyme disease.  When she brought her back 
again, she was told to pray.  When she brought her in a third time, she was 
told maybe her daughter needed to see a shrink.  She went to a *real* doctor 
who actually ran tests and guess what, lyme disease.  Only problem is, had 
she been given a simple antibiotic when see first went in, this SEVEN YEAR 
OLD wouldn't have permanent heart damage.

Now, if this woman was a first time offender, I would say cover the girls 
medical needs.  HOWEVER, this isn't a first time offense.  Simple rash 
diagnosed as MRSA and hundreds of $$ in antibiotics ordered.  URI diagnosed 
WITHOUT tests as lung cancer (scared the *#&$S^ out of that 10 year old's 
parents).  Pulled muscle in the neck diagnosed as clogged arteries and 
multiple tests ordered BUT, before the tests, patient is told they will need 
major surgery which frequently results in death (I know cause that one was 
me).  Elderly man with multiple complications comes in, she orders a 
medication that is contraindicated for his other conditions that SHE has 
been treating for over two years.  One week later he is dead.  Teenager 
comes in with stroke like symptoms, she says wait and see because we can't 
get any tests done because your insurance doesn't cover it.  Parents get 
peeved after calling the office over and over for a period of two months and 
do the leg work themselves.  All that was needed was a letter of 
recommendation.  She refuses to do it because she says in her experience it 
doesn't do any good.  Finally a nurse in the office does it, signs her name 
and the tests are scheduled within one week.

So, how should tort reform effect her?  Under the Lynda Law, she'd be 
without a license to practice in any of the states, PERIOD!  Plus her 
insurance would be paying lots of people *some* money and a few people a LOT 
of money!

Lynda
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we 
are
to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."  Theordore
Roosevelt, 1918.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dsanner106 AT aol.com>
> I agree, but on the last point, ante-ing up the cost of the doctors 
> malpractice insurance is fine, but tort reform
>
> would be in order at the same time. The quantity and size of verdicts in 
> these medical malpractice suits is way out of hand and if my taxpayer 
> dollars will fund the insurance, that needs to be brought into order. 
> Certainly there are doctors deserving of these suits, but the current suit 
> level is ridiculous.