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.

 

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.

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.

 

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?

 

 

Edited October 9, 201312 yr by Jenksismybitch

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Edited October 9, 201312 yr by ptatc

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.

One factor in some of those awards is has it happened before and what has been done to correct it. Courts see a series of $50,000 settlements and nothing being done to change the situation will jack up the award to fulfill the idea that the award should be punitive to change the behavior.

One factor in some of those awards is has it happened before and what has been done to correct it. Courts see a series of $50,000 settlements and nothing being done to change the situation will jack up the award to fulfill the idea that the award should be punitive to change the behavior.

 

In most instances a jury will never know about those prior settlements. It could be that whoever the doctor was totally messed up and then did something to deserve punitive damages on top of it. It could be a guy that was highly skilled and worth quite a bit had to change careers. Maybe it was an infection to a bad part of the body (eyes, sexual organs, etc) that made it worth. Lots and lots of variables, but as SB said, as a general rule, to get a lot of money, you gotta be really screwed up. The multi-multi-multi million dollar settlements are usually horrific accidents/events that leave people with lifelong disabilities and expenses.

How on earth did a broken website cost 635 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS to create, let alone the original bid of 94 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS.

 

Jesus, and you people want the government to be in charge of healthcare????????

How on earth did a broken website cost 635 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS to create, let alone the original bid of 94 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS.

 

Jesus, and you people want the government to be in charge of healthcare????????

 

We all but eliminated polio from our society. We won WW1 and WW2. We landed a man on the moon!!!!!!!!

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.

I read that book and started implementing the use of checklists on our trade floor a few years back...it reduced our data entry error rate as well as some other administrative errors.

Edited October 10, 201312 yr by iamshack

We all but eliminated polio from our society. We won WW1 and WW2. We landed a man on the moon!!!!!!!!

 

We've done some things right.

 

But a website shouldn't cost anywhere near a billion dollars. Ever. Ever ever. Ever ever ever.

 

Especially one that hardly works.

How on earth did a broken website cost 635 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS to create, let alone the original bid of 94 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS.

 

Jesus, and you people want the government to be in charge of healthcare????????

I have a hard time believing that, even in a government operation. Where are you reading that?

 

How on earth did a broken website cost 635 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS to create, let alone the original bid of 94 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS.

 

Jesus, and you people want the government to be in charge of healthcare????????

 

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obama...v-website-cost/

 

But for the sake of putting the monstrous amount of money into perspective, here are a few figures to chew on: Facebook, which received its first investment in June 2004, operated for a full six years before surpassing the $600 million mark in June 2010. Twitter, created in 2006, managed to get by with only $360.17 million in total funding until a $400 million boost in 2011. Instagram ginned up just $57.5 million in funding before Facebook bought it for (a staggering) $1 billion last year. And LinkedIn and Spotify, meanwhile, have only raised, respectively, $200 million and $288 million.

 

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obama.../#ixzz2hLUQhuSp

Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook

I bet the cost to protect fort knox is more than my local chase as well.

 

Not going to sit here and pretend I have any idea about what the cost should be. But I can venture to guess that there was some fat for big donors from both sides of the aisles.

 

Much ado about nothing!

I bet the cost to protect fort knox is more than my local chase as well.

 

Not going to sit here and pretend I have any idea about what the cost should be. But I can venture to guess that there was some fat for big donors from both sides of the aisles.

 

Much ado about nothing!

 

It was only six times over budget... And for the government, that pretty much is nothing.

 

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obama...v-website-cost/

From what I can tell, that number is not what the website cost. That is the amount given to that company and it's subcontractors, to do ALL the technology for HHS departments. All ObamaCare-related systems and hardware, and possibly other things as well.

 

Still, even if they did every bit of software and hardware for ObamaCare (which it appears they did), and maybe some other things, that is an enormous chunk of money.

 

Just to be clear though, that is NOT the amount the website cost.

 

some additional information on the website boondoggles:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/bit...ver_talked.html

 

The Redditors picking apart the client code have found some genuine issues with it, but healthcare.gov’s biggest problems are most likely not in the front-end code of the site’s Web pages, but in the back-end, server-side code that handles—or doesn’t handle—the registration process, which no one can see. Consequently, I would be skeptical of any outside claim to have identified the problem with the site. Bugs rarely manifest in obvious forms, often cascading and metamorphizing into seemingly different issues entirely, and one visible bug usually masks others.

 

Each group got its piece “working” in isolation and prayed that when they hooked them together, things would be okay. When they didn’t, it was too late. It is entirely possible that back-end developer CGI is primarily at fault here, but no one will care because they just see that the whole thing doesn’t work. As you learn early on in software development, there is no partial credit in programming. A site that half-works is worse than one that doesn’t work at all, which is why the bad error handling is so egregious. You always handle errors.

 

some additional information on the website boondoggles:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/bit...ver_talked.html

 

i think we can call this a success story for the regime, a lot of U.S. workers got jobs to work on it ("shovel" ready jobs). oh wait, it was almost entirely outsourced to India. nevermind.

Edited October 12, 201312 yr by mr_genius

i think we can call this a success story for the regime, a lot of U.S. workers got jobs to work on it ("shovel" ready jobs). oh wait, it was almost entirely outsourced to India. nevermind.

 

How did Romney get in charge?

How did Romney get in charge?

 

it is very confusing. Obama ran as a man of the people. Romney was they outsourcer (according to the Obama campaign) and Obama would never do that (according to the Obama campaign). looks like Obama is completely full of s***. i am very surprised.

 

 

some additional information on the website boondoggles:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/bit...ver_talked.html

 

complete system architectural failure? simply a minor issue according to the regime and the regime controlled media. nothing to see here.

complete system architectural failure? simply a minor issue according to the regime and the regime controlled media. nothing to see here.

You want that to get coverage? Open the rest of the government.