Since I know and have known scores of doctors here, I am given to believe that Anglo prejudice vis-a vis doctors and lawyers (former good, latter bad) is reversed in Korea. Doctors claim that Koreans think doctors are chiselers and lawyers are honest joes. Is this true or am I a victim of selection bias?

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Carr.

So, Dogbertt, you don’t seem to understand that the doctor won’t do certain things for you or not see you if you have public aid as health insurance, or limit you to 1 problem in 15 minutes, because he’s more concerned about profit, charting, coding, and lawsuits.

They won’t even let us use abbreviations anymore, because people have won lawsuits.

As for the rest of wjk’s tripe, as Brendon says, it’s uninformed bullshit.

And, lawyers don’t have a union, nimrod.

Unconfirmed. Plaintiff only wins 20% of the award to take home. 80% to the lawyer…. Trash like [John] Edwards and co deserve hell and fire and brimestone. Remember, 80% of the award is to the lawyer.

The reason you can’t confirm this assertion is because it’s not true. No lawyers’ professional association would permit an 80% contingent fee, because it would be deemed unconscionable. Lawyers’ fees, according to rules of professional conduct, must be reasonable.

I am sure there have been cases where a client only ends up with 20% of the award in his or her pocket, though. The reason? The client is responsible for out-of-pocket expenses, which in complex cases with low payoffs can include a lot of money spent on expert witnesses. Should that be considered the lawyer’s fee, or something for which the lawyer is responsible?

I heard 3 things.

Unconfirmed. Plaintiff only wins 20% of the award to take home. 80% to the lawyer.

Europe has a cap and there’s a specific set price for each.

Notes in the chart used to be a LOT shorter. Now, a significant time is spent on making notes instead of time with the patient.

Gee, thanks, lawyers.

Trash like Jonathan Edwards and co deserve hell and fire and brimestone. Remember, 80% of the award is to the lawyer.

If you really want National Healthcare in the US, then be fair. Change the law so the lawman stops making money off of patients and doctors, and increases costs of healthcare for everyone.

Interesting factoid.

#1. No party’s Presidential candidate, Democratic nor Repulbican is talking malpractice reform.

#2. George W. Bush is all for medical malpractice reform. Yet another reason I like him.

#3. Democratic Party reels in a huge lot from lawyers and their union.

Go to hell. Make an honest buck.

I thought it was weird at the time - “Like, the doc’s ready to go with the scalpel in her hand, and you have to ask me this? WTF?” She was clearly double-checking…

All good though.

I’m even willing to recant and say the Borat movie was funny.

I’d rather have a society where people took responsibility for their own actions, rather than looking to sue someone every time they slip on a patch of ice.

I agree completely. And I would also rather have a society where corporations took responsibility for their own actions, rather than using cost/benefit statistical analysis to decide if it’s cheaper to continue poisoning millions of people, or cheaper to pay off the lawsuits that result.

Unfortunately for both of us, there are always large gaps in both individual and corporate responsibility, and the legal system is there to hold both responsible.

A few frivolous lawsuits and some harmless warning labels are a small price to pay for the advantages of a legal system that gives the consumer a very real and accessible system to seek redress. If you subtract the cost end (which comes primarily from the threat of lawsuits) of the cost/benefit analysis, what are you left with? Zero incentive toward responsible business practices.

I’m not a fan of a sue-first mentality, but I’m even less a fan of a system that would put severe restrictions on an individual’s right to file a lawsuit, because the result would be even more disastrous. The American legal system isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s actually very efficient in weeding out the frivolous and providing enough deterrents to the ice-slippers (contingency, lengthy appeals process, directed verdicts, summary judgment), so that it becomes very expensive and time-consuming to pursue a baseless suit. Ask Brendon…lawyers aren’t interested in spending thousands of hours on a contingency case unless there’s some merit and very good likelihood of a payday involved.

Never heard of this, uh, widespread outbreak of incompetent doctors amputating healthy limbs. Want to enlighten me?

The last report I read put the estimate at 100,000 Americans dying every year from preventable medical errors.

why can’t you write like this all the time?

I’m tripping on shrooms and won’t remember any of this tomorrow.

anyway, you forgot to mention that initially, the old lady just wanted mcdonalds to pay for her medical bills.

You’re right. They could have settled for 20 grand and not had an ounce of bad publicity. Instead McDonalds kept escalating, treated the woman unbelievably callously, and ultimately were found liable because evidence was presented that they knew about the problem for a decade yet refused to do anything about it despite a long history of settling lawsuits with scalded customers (more than 700 if I remember correctly).

That old lady and her lawsuit actually forced McDonalds to make changes to their business practice that prevented thousands of future injuries to consumers. Yet it was painted as “frivolous” and an example of a legal system gone mad. Simply mind-boggling.