ptatc

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) I like Brown over Moreno overall, but who is your 4th RB? You'll need a backup for bye weeks. I've got Le Veon Bell and Eddie Lacy for extra RB

A trade was offered to me. My Knowshon Moreno for Antonio Brown. My starters at RB are Gore and Lynch. Moreno is very hit and miss as they sit him if they get a lead and let Hillman and Ball play.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 12:53 PM) Thats why Id need more facts. If a guy went through 4 weeks that felt like he was being burned alive every minute its probably worth more than if he sat at home for 4 weeks and got to watch netflix. There are a lot of things wrong with the legal profession, but capping medical malpractice claims likely isnt one of them. Thats just 2 remarkably powerful lobbies (Drs and insurance) putting on an amazing show. Its just so clever. Somehow the fact that Drs are making grave mistakes that are hurting people is forgotten. And even more hilarious the jury already has the ability to cap the award however they like dependent on the facts. So if tort reform is so popular and every person goes into the jury thinking "Im not going to give a ridiculous award", imagine how bad the facts must be to convince them to give these sums. I always tell people, to get a lot of money, you need to get hurt really really bad. And its probably not worth it. It's not the legal profession that bothers me it's some of the laws. The grave mistakes where there is permanent or long lasting damage are the valid ones and should get their due. I've been involved in those as well. I agree with the final quote and it usually goes that way.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 12:18 PM) Well I'm sure some of it could be pain and suffering. MRSA staff infections are extremely painful (if it was that), VRSA is worse. It wasn't MRSA. Just a staph infection and the reason was for pain and suffering. However, he returned to normal rehab within 4 weeks.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 11:42 AM) If it's a 2 million dollar settlement, someone screwed up somewhere and the damages were drastic. Insurance companies don't throw away large sums of money like that. Do you have a link to this story? I don't have a link it was one I was personally involved as the PT. I'm not saying they are all like this just that these are the ones that unnecessarily raise the price tag.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 11:30 AM) Without the facts I cant really comment. But I have to presume that the infection did more than just cost the person 4 weeks of work. Otherwise that seems odd. It did not. And it was odd.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 08:34 AM) Remember how I said there was "way too much malpractice"? Infection in hospitals is a problem that can be significantly reduced simply by following proper procedures. This has been repeatedly established in trials of basic checklist use, for example, but many hospitals have simply treated them as a cost of doing business. Agreed. However, that is not the physician's fault and was definitely not worth the 2 million judgement with no permanent disability. They write it off as expense but the amount of the judgments are the outrageous part.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 09:28 AM) When you have the power to kill someone or seriously injure them for life because of your mistake, you better have adequate insurance coverage. And if malpractice is a real problem in this country, taking away the economic penalty for being s***ty at your job won't help that problem. Doctors will get even more negligent/careless. That's true if it was only the very serious cases. How about a 2 million dollar settlement when a person got an infection (not necessarily the physician's fault) because the patient was delayed in returning to work for 4 weeks? These are the cases to which I'm referring. If you screw up you screw up and there should be penalties.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 04:36 PM) A lot of research is funded by outside grants, but many institutions are research institutions and students know this full-well before attending. Some colleges, like Rose-Hulman, are teaching facilities first, but your flagship schools are primarily research-based. If they weren't it'd be hard to attract grad students and professors who either are training or have trained for a life of research. It's not about "adding a little to their prestige," it's one of the primary reasons professorships exist. External funding is dropping dramatically, most of it was federal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 04:34 PM) Healthcare probably shouldnt be a for-profit game either. And I actually think that about law as well. Now we're getting towards way to decrease the cost of healthcare. Like in the VA system. You can't sue the doc for exaggerated amounts.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 02:08 PM) Not to discount research, but why is that the responsibility of the tuition paying student? If I was paying tuition, I am paying it to be taught, not so he can go publish papers, research things and add a little to his prestige. Professors do not have the latest and new information to impart to the students without research. Somebody needs to do the research and the state and federal government are not funding it. If you want an institution of higher learning this is what needs to be done.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 8, 2013 -> 02:34 PM) Education shouldn't be a for-profit game though, especially if it's being paid with government funds. It's not for profit. Everything goes back into the research, salary or something else for public schools.

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 10:40 PM) The trend towards part-time and untenured professorships is bad for everyone. Will just lead to only a select few schools having the select few qualified researchers while the schools trying to cut corners will be delivering a crap experience with underprepared and underpaid teachers Completely true. In physical therapy it's already very difficult to find qualified people because very few return to school to get an academic doctorate, most stay in the clinic. The current climate in the state is making it worse. Again, part of the reason that the change in healthcare will lead to inferior care for the masses.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 11:38 PM) So 3 students ponying up $120k between them doesn't cover the cost of one professor? Then he is over paid. Read what I wrote there a little bit more. As mentioned a few posts ago by someone it is more the admin bloat I am referring to. http://www.ibhe.org/PA96266/search.aspx Just check out the many admin positions. Assist. provost to this, assistant to that, all 6 figure jobs. And this doesn't count THEIR support staff, because you know they each have an assistant, a secretary, a few peons and so on. It's not just salary. There is the massive research costs. Salary is less than 25% of the cost for a professor's work at a research institution. Unless you don't want much of the advancement in medicine that we currently see (again just my field) the money needs to be there. I completely agree with the administration cost.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:44 PM) I meant at a higher level, New directors of this or that made-up position, outsized compensation packages, etc., not administrative assistants. I can dig up the data on this tomorrow if you're interested. If you meant administration then I completely agree. I took it as the academic administrative assistant. I think it's true in most situations (including the government) where there is too much "supervision" and not enough doing. Again, my whole life is based on data and research, but I don't need to see this data I live it daily.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 09:07 PM) This is greed. I may be eternally optimistic but unfortunately I just do not think you can convince people not to be greedy. So there will always be a client, lawyer, business, dr, person who is willing to try and game the system to make profit. And that is really why I think that everyone should get health care, because money and all that is just a game. Insurance risks really wont change, because the risk of people who dont have health insurance is already covered in a different form of insurance. It also is better for insurance because if you insure from birth you just want the largest amount of insureds. Unless you are going to exclude due to preconditioning, which then gets at a more fundamental question of do we as a society have a duty to try and ensure that everyone has an equally healthy life if science allows it, even if the cost is may be extremely high for some as compared to others. I'm not disagreeing that it's greed or that there shouldn't be universal healthcare. I just don't think this version of a new system will work effectively. I think cost control is the first step and policing the greed more effectively will be better than just offering this type of program.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 08:56 PM) Administrative and facilities bloat, slashed state funding. Definitely not professorship positions, which are being increasingly replaced with non-tenure adjunct lecturer positions. Without the administrative support the professors production will decrease dramatically. I hate taking a great deal of time entering data into spreadsheets.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 08:59 PM) You may be convinced of that, but there is really no empirical support for that position. At all. The evidence is that the greatest cost of practicing medicine is the malpractice insurance. This is why many physicians are getting into group practice to share expenses and cut costs. The cost needs to come down and the cost of medicine will come down. Experience does count for something. It may be lower on evidence based theory but it does count.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 06:04 PM) There is simply n o reason that it should cost $40,000+ a year for a person to go to college, where they see an actual person for maybe 4 hours a day, 4 or 5 days a week. 2-3 students per year should be able to cover a teacher's costs. What do the other 30-50 students cover? Time for higher educational facilities to cut the fat. This could not be further from the truth. Believe me with the way the state is not paying the institutions the excess has been cut from most state institu.tions. there are always exceptions but there are few state schools that are running up those tabs. The exceptions are the big research institutions. The privates are a whole different game.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 05:09 PM) But why should the injured the the ones to suffer? The insurance companies make money. The doctors make money. The guy who died because the doctor performed while drunk cant get a full recovery because we have a law that arbitrarily states a death is worth $200k? Insurance is a great cost in any industry with great risk. There is no guarantee that if you cap malpractice that doctors will charge less. So why take the risk? If Drs are willing to give free care, Im willing to give them complete indemnity from lawsuit. But if they want to get rich on peoples sickness, I expect that they are not going to accidentally cut off the wrong limb. Because unless we cap all medical mal, it doesnt matter if you cap regular as opposed to gross, the insurance companies are going to charge the same, unless they have certainty that the claim will never go above X. So really all medical mal caps do is hurt the people who are injured. Cause I cant imagine we are actually arguing that direct damages should be capped? IE If I go into the dr for an acl repair and he cuts my spinal chord I assume we all agree that I should be able to sue for the amount of money its going to cost me to completely change my life as i cant walk again... Im only referencing the ones where its far exaggerated. Million dollar compensations for things that dont deserve it. There are many probably most who deserve it. Its like medicare fraud. Most deserve it and I dont havea problem with it. However it needs more oversite. Im not a lawyer and im sure the judgements are legal. However, many of the ones ive been involved with get many more times what its worth for rehab and getting back to function.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) There are a couple more problems buried in there you didn't note. First of all, several states, notably Texas, have undertaken severe tort reform (since lawyers were a democratic constituency this makes sense). The end result in terms of behavior of doctors or insurance companies is pretty much the same as in other states; there may be a small difference in total costs but it's less than 1% and small enough that it's hard to definitively say the effect is distinct from zero. Second...the U.S. has way too bloody much malpractice. The stats are hard to figure out but I'm convinced the best data says the U.S. does much worse on this front than most other countries. The large fraction of malpractice cases in the U.S. come from doctors who have problems more than once and are difficult to discipline thanks to protections associated with the AMA and the unwillingness of U.S. medical providers to institute reforms that significantly cut malpractice rates. I agree. This is why the shortage of quality physicians will become a barrier to "Obamacare". There aren't enough now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) Tort reform has been tried in the US in several states. The results are negligible. Multiple studies have found that the costs of medical torts are pretty typically overstated. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpres...-of-proportion/ I've been involved in far too many for it to be too overstated and that's just my limited experience in Illinois. I'm convinced that the laws need to change because the greatest cost in medicine is the malpractice insurance.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) I recently read about a surgeon in Texas who was basically killing and paralyzing numerous patients because he was so damn awful at surgery that he'd frequently cut things that weren't supposed to be cut. Doctors were constantly complaining about him. It took the Texas Medical Board years to stop this guy because they're such a weak agency. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/...medical-boards/ I agree that most are valid. Doesn't mean that many are that shouldn't be brought.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 03:52 PM) Greatest myth ever perpetrated on the American people is that its the lawyers who are evil. Just as an fyi, in Illinois you cant just file a medical mal case against a dr. You need to have another dr review the case file and determine that there is merit. In comparison, anyone can file a lawsuit against a lawyer for any reason. http://www.passenlaw.com/blog/trucking-acc...lpractice-cases Why would we ever cap the actual damages someone can receive? Not saying lawyers. The laws need to change. I've been involved with many of the reviews. Just because another one agrees doesn't mean it's valid. I think it goes back to the quality of the physicians or the laws.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) Instead of 'we don't help' how about 'college is just too damn expensive'. Put the blame right where it belongs, at the people providing it. it costs too much. Figure a way to make it cost too much instead of using taxpayer monies to go to pay for people to go to college. The reason the cost is going up is that the taxpayers are no longer paying for education. The saying is that we used to be a state school, then we were a state supported school and now we are a state associated school. When I started working at the school the state supported 80% of our budget. Now it is down to under 20%. The state is giving almost as much support to private institutions that it does to "state" schools now. The schools have been forced to find other ways to get money. They can't raise tuition much each year because the state put a cap on that. So they raise "mandatory fees" and enroll many out of state students because the tuition limits don't apply to them.