Malpractice cap hasn't lowered premiums (SC)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060918/NEWS01/609180317/1004

It's been a little more than a year since the state cap on malpractice pay-outs took effect, but both supporters and opponents say it will be years before its impact is felt -- if ever.

The law took effect in July 2005 and limits damages commonly known as pain and suffering to $350,000 per defendant and a total of $1.05 million if more than one provider is involved. It does not affect economic losses.

Supporters of the caps say they are needed to reduce high jury awards and frivolous lawsuits, which they say led to soaring malpractice premiums that have been driving doctors out of the profession.

Opponents say the premiums were so high to offset insurers' investment losses, artificially low premiums offered to attract business in the 1990s, and other industry factors. They also say caps hurt those who've suffered legitimate injuries.

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. LOL! Of course they haven't!

The new law was simply a way for insurance companies to make more money. It was NEVER about the people.

[NOLADEM]

2. The caps are working as intended

They were NEVER meant to lower premiums. They were capped very low so that no lawyer can take the case and make enough to pay the costs associated with such trials (numerous experts, hours, depositions, travel to ins. headquarters, etc). This way, no person can find representation to sue doctors and insurance companies.

They did this in Texas recently, telling voters that doctors were leaving the state because of high premiums. So, they capped damages so low no lawyer can take the case, and then they RAISED malpractice premiums the next year.

Again, the caps are working just as intended.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Because Malpractice is a Teeny-Tiny Part of Healthcare Costs

The entire cost of malpractice insurance and payouts is definitely less than 2% of all healthcare spending - probably less than 1%.

Also, studies indicate that physicians do not alter treatment (e.g., order excess tests) to protect themselves from suits.

So, the cap was simply another giveaway to the wealthy, like the bankruptcy "reform".

We are a bunch of suckers...

[treestar]

4. A frivolous suit is not so frivolous if the jury makes an award

Always love it when the insurance companies slap that label - if the suit has no basis, they don't need to fear it so much.

[mike_c]

5. lowering premiums would lower PROFITS, silly....

:rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

6. Oh my GOD!!! Who could have predicted this!!!

Well DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

How many times can rightwingnuts be duped, anyways??! Stupidest MFers.

EVER.

[gratuitous]

7. But it will be YEARS before the impact is felt

Uh huh, and in 50 years, everybody involved in this rip-off will be long, long gone. And thousands of South Carolinians will have been maimed, crippled or killed by negligent doctors. And will not have received a dime in compensation.

New time period. Six months is one Friedman, 50 years should be one Dubya. "In 50 years, we'll know the full impact of Dubya's policies. In 50 years, we'll know the full impact of caps on jury awards. In 50 years we'll see how privatizing social security worked out. In 50 years we'll know how total repeal of the estate tax affects financial dynasties." And the folks who profit by these public rip-offs will have pocketed billions.

[ShockediSay]

8. It's the insurance companies, stupid ... nt