What percentage of the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is the result of greedy parasitic lawyers and frivolous ?
I'm talking about costs resulting from
1. Frivolous lawsuits
2. Doctors practicing defensive medicine - i.e. endless tests to protect themselves from parasitic lawyers.
3. The cost of malpractice insurance passed on to insurers and ultimately patients
4. The spiralling effect of patients hearing about getting 30 million dollars in jury awards and they want free money too, so they (and lawyers) pursue more and more lawsuits
I've read that up to 40% of the total cost of Healthcare in the U.S. is directly due to the parasites known as lawyers. Of course, other stats which are sympathetic to lawyers show that this percentage is lower, but i would venture a guess that it's at least 40%.
If there is Universal Healthcare will there be less ability for the parasites to sue because it would be the Federal Government who would effectively be paying the settlements?
- SCOTT MLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
I don’t think parasitic lawyers represent 40 percent of all of our health care costs, but it is significant. Many years ago, I read that England did not allow malpractice suits against doctors. So, whatever the actual cost was, it was enough to get the government’s attention.
In the past, lawyers were not allowed to advertise. That was considered ambulance chasing. Now, it seems that much of the advertising on daytime TV is by ambulance-chasing attorneys. Mesothelioma is the current flavor of the day.
Attorneys routinely fight any proposal to put a cap on jury awards for pain and suffering. They say they want to protect their clients’ “rights” when what they really want to protect is their fees. They prey upon the sympathies of juries. They present medical evidence that most jurors don’t understand. What jurors don’t understand is that WE, all of us, are the “insurance” companies and the outrageous amounts often awarded to the injured will be reflected in their own insurance rates.
Lawyers routinely review police department records to see who has had an accident. They then mail a “Let Us Represent You!” to those involved. Many times they file a suit just to get a settlement, of which they take the lion’s share. One lady here in Florida was injured in an automobile accident several years ago. She got an award of about $110,000. Her attorney worked on a contingent fee basis. But contingent fees always require a plaintiff to pay “costs and expenses” associated with the case. When all was said and done, the lady only got $13,000 for her trouble.
It’s no wonder that attorneys and politicians are the least respected professions in the country.
- FozzieBearLv 71 decade ago
Universal healthcare would only result in less protection for everyone.
If you want to fix the problem, fix the courts, not the healthcare system.
The government destroys everything it touches. It ends up costing 10 times as much and providing 10% of the service of the private industry.
Look at what they've done with retirement. Social Security provides next to nothing and provides exactly nothing should I die before getting my money back. My private account is worth WAY more than my potential SS check, and I've put in only a small fraction of what they've taken in SS.
Government is never the answer.
- 1 decade ago
The last stats I saw had the total cost of malpractice insurance at around 5%.As one who just went through a malpractice lawsuit in CA. I can tell you it's not fee money. The Dr. is still has a practice, we received enough money for my wife to live about 5 yrs., and my prognosis is terminal. I'd gladly give back the money for my life and my job.
- rietdorfLv 44 years ago
i could examine the expenses at nicely below 40% (although i hit upon it no longer common to have faith you stumbled on a learn which especially centred on "grasping parasitic attorneys and frivolous court docket cases". i've got faith the healthcare fee estimates due especially to the tort device, scientific malpractice and the practice of protecting drugs many times variety interior the ten-15% variety and are constantly qualified by the disclaimer that such expenses are very confusing to quantify. You point out your distaste for huge jury awards, yet i could think that a huge jury award could basically ensue if the case being delivered replace into in fact no longer frivolous, yet easily had advantage. in case you're helping the abolition of claims that have advantage then in line with probability you're directly to some thing that easily could cut back expenses! One case that usually is reported in those discussions is the "MCDonalds coffee case", yet once you easily examine the case the action replace into easily no longer frivolous, that's why she finally succeeded. (see link below) in line with probability one element that would cut back expenses is a help interior the quantity of malpractice that happens, even though it form of feels to me particularly backwards to decrease awards to those that do tutor the have valid claims quite than severely punish people who record frivolous court docket cases or dedicate scientific malpractice. everybody hates attorneys, till a chum dies interior the wellbeing midsection because of the negligence of a doctor....then immediately, attorneys are ok.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
God forbid that a person who is injured by the negligent conduct of his doctor be compensated for it. The cost of frivolous lawsuits is a myth. Frivolous lawsuits can easily be thrown out of court, and a lawyer is not going to want to pursue a case that will not be successful. It is the meritorious lawsuits, where someone is seriously harmed, that cost the doctors and/or their insurance money -- and they should.