Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

The courts. Either a judge or a jury. Which means going through the whole legal process to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous, which doesn't save anything.

It does if the person who brought the suit to begin with ends up paying out of pocket for the entire debacle. It would act as a deterrent.

[Thorne]

It does if the person who brought the suit to begin with ends up paying out of pocket for the entire debacle. It would act as a deterrent.

It would be more likely to deter those whose claims are real, but who are worried about even the possibility of losing. In some cases, too, it's the attorney who convinces the client to file a suit, especially if he can collect a fee regardless of the outcome.

However, I think there should be some way to have the person being sued compensated for their costs if they win the case. Something along the lines of having the plaintiff's attorney, not the plaintiff himself, pay all court costs and defendants costs, without collecting any fees from the plaintiff. That might tend to insure that only suits with real merit are brought to trial. A lot of bugs in there, though. I don't have a better answer, sadly.

[steelish]

It would be more likely to deter those whose claims are real, but who are worried about even the possibility of losing. In some cases, too, it's the attorney who convinces the client to file a suit, especially if he can collect a fee regardless of the outcome.

However, I think there should be some way to have the person being sued compensated for their costs if they win the case. Something along the lines of having the plaintiff's attorney, not the plaintiff himself, pay all court costs and defendants costs, without collecting any fees from the plaintiff. That might tend to insure that only suits with real merit are brought to trial. A lot of bugs in there, though. I don't have a better answer, sadly.

Or maybe a combination of both? Plaintiff pays a fee (to the court system) and the prosecuting attorney pays a much larger compensatory fee? There definitely has to be some sort of reform on this because it's why the doctors and hospitals have such ridiculously large charges. Their malpractice insurance rates drive up prices.

At any rate, those whose claims are real should have real evidence to back it up. (such as the "wrong foot was removed" or "they left an instrument behind in my intestines and had to go back in after the fact and retrieve it")

[Thorne]

Their malpractice insurance rates drive up prices.

Don't forget the fact that doctors feel the need, because of those frivolous lawsuits, to run every test they can think of for someone who complains of unlocalized stomach pains, for example, just to cover themselves for when the patient sues them for not supplying them with morphine.

[steelish]

Don't forget the fact that doctors feel the need, because of those frivolous lawsuits, to run every test they can think of for someone who complains of unlocalized stomach pains, for example, just to cover themselves for when the patient sues them for not supplying them with morphine.

I realize that...can you blame them? We've allowed too many unjustified lawsuits, with completely ridiculous reasoning. And not just medical.

How about the woman who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee in her lap. Her claim that there should have been a written warning on the cup, or that the window attendant should have verbally warned her is ludicrous. Yet she won the case. How about the woman who sued Reynolds Tobacco Company over her husband dying of lung cancer? Excuse me???? There are warnings printed right on the side of the carton! Stupidity abounds.

[Thorne]

I realize that...can you blame them? We've allowed too many unjustified lawsuits, with completely ridiculous reasoning. And not just medical.

How about the woman who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee in her lap. Her claim that there should have been a written warning on the cup, or that the window attendant should have verbally warned her is ludicrous. Yet she won the case. How about the woman who sued Reynolds Tobacco Company over her husband dying of lung cancer? Excuse me???? There are warnings printed right on the side of the carton! Stupidity abounds.

No, I don't blame them at all. It's the legal system which is at fault here.

One thing, though, about the woman at McDonalds. IIRC, McD's had had many complaints about their coffee being too hot, and possibly some warnings from consumer groups. I don't remember the details, but the case wasn't as simple as it sounds. I still think the woman was paid for her own clumsiness and stupidity, but as they say, the devil's in the details.

[DuncanONeil]

There is a business opportunity in these ideas. A bonding agency for the attorneys to cover their share of trial expenses.

Or maybe a combination of both? Plaintiff pays a fee (to the court system) and the prosecuting attorney pays a much larger compensatory fee? There definitely has to be some sort of reform on this because it's why the doctors and hospitals have such ridiculously large charges. Their malpractice insurance rates drive up prices.

At any rate, those whose claims are real should have real evidence to back it up. (such as the "wrong foot was removed" or "they left an instrument behind in my intestines and had to go back in after the fact and retrieve it")

[DuncanONeil]

While looking for the stats on frivolous savings I saw a number that has the admin cost of lawsuits starting at 54%

It would be more likely to deter those whose claims are real, but who are worried about even the possibility of losing. In some cases, too, it's the attorney who convinces the client to file a suit, especially if he can collect a fee regardless of the outcome.

However, I think there should be some way to have the person being sued compensated for their costs if they win the case. Something along the lines of having the plaintiff's attorney, not the plaintiff himself, pay all court costs and defendants costs, without collecting any fees from the plaintiff. That might tend to insure that only suits with real merit are brought to trial. A lot of bugs in there, though. I don't have a better answer, sadly.