Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[DuncanONeil]

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

[Thorne]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

Waking up during surgery is definitely a complication. And individuals rarely decide to sue everyone. It's the lawyer who sues anyone involved, in the expectation that at least one of them will stick.

Personally, never having been in this position, I can only answer hypothetically, but I am aware that, due to variations in body chemistry, some anesthesia medications may not work as well on some people. I would certainly want to know why I woke up, if for no other reason than to make sure it couldn't happen again. But unless I was fairly sure of negligence I wouldn't feel right suing anyone. I don't feel that a lawsuit should be a quick way to a small fortune, especially in circumstances where no one did anything wrong.

[Lion]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

[steelish]

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

[Lion]

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

If I'm insured, you can't sue me for pain and suffering, but if I'm not, you can? How does that make sense?

[steelish]

If I'm insured, you can't sue me for pain and suffering, but if I'm not, you can? How does that make sense?

Unlike health insurance, that's what the car insurance companies are for.

In the case of an accident, the insurance company will "settle" a claim with the other driver's insurance company - once done, although a law suit can be filed , it rarely is because of the difficulty in winning such a case...after all, you've settled a claim via your insurance companies which, in effect, says that you are happy with the amount of $$ already received and had signed paperwork agreeing to "leave it at that".

How do I know this??? Well, during a rainstorm I once hydroplaned through a stop sign in an F150 pickup. I was only going 25, but the person who t-boned me was going almost 50. My truck and his car was totaled. I was at fault (of course) for "failure to stop and causing an accident". In his car was his wife and unrestrained 5 year old girl. The wife received a broken leg, the girl had a concussion, the man had a broken wrist. (He and his wife were out of work for a bit of time). Our insurance companies settled. I asked my insurance company if he could sue me, I was told no because he had signed paperwork (a contract, in a way) stating that he was ok with the amount of the settlement. That occurred over 10 years ago. I've never been sued.

If you don't have that protection of a car insurance company...I can come directly after you! My insurance company can file the suit on my behalf.

[Lion]

Unlike health insurance, that's what the car insurance companies are for.

In the case of an accident, the insurance company will "settle" a claim with the other driver's insurance company - once done, although a law suit can be filed , it rarely is because of the difficulty in winning such a case...after all, you've settled a claim via your insurance companies which, in effect, says that you are happy with the amount of $$ already received and had signed paperwork agreeing to "leave it at that".

How do I know this??? Well, during a rainstorm I once hydroplaned through a stop sign in an F150 pickup. I was only going 25, but the person who t-boned me was going almost 50. My truck and his car was totaled. I was at fault (of course) for "failure to stop and causing an accident". In his car was his wife and unrestrained 5 year old girl. The wife received a broken leg, the girl had a concussion, the man had a broken wrist. (He and his wife were out of work for a bit of time). Our insurance companies settled. I asked my insurance company if he could sue me, I was told no because he had signed paperwork (a contract, in a way) stating that he was ok with the amount of the settlement. That occurred over 10 years ago. I've never been sued.

If you don't have that protection of a car insurance company...I can come directly after you! My insurance company can file the suit on my behalf.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Perhaps my comparison could've been better. Essentially, what I was asking earlier is that if you hurt someone, unintentionally but through your own negligance, that causes them pain and suffering (but something that they can recover from entirely), do you think it is right for them to sue you? (In addition to the money they lost because of the incident).

[steelish]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Perhaps my comparison could've been better. Essentially, what I was asking earlier is that if you hurt someone, unintentionally but through your own negligance, that causes them pain and suffering (but something that they can recover from entirely), do you think it is right for them to sue you? (In addition to the money they lost because of the incident).

I think it's right that they should be compensated for in some way. That's why car and homeowners insurance are good things. Too bad health insurance doesn't work the same way. It's a whole different ball game.

[SadisticNature]

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

They can sue you but the insurance company is liable for the verdict so you won't have to pay it. Generally speaking the insurance company prefers to settle these cases because its more convenient to their clients and is often better for them financially. Victims will generally agree to settlements because they often have significant costs and don't want to struggle with medical and legal bills in the hope of a payout several years down the road.

Most insurance companies require you to sign over all negotiating privileges as a condition of the insurance. So you wouldn't be allowed to dispute things like who was at fault with the settlement, and they could settle 'on your behalf' without letting you know any details of the settlement.

The insurance company doesn't mean the lawsuits don't exist it just means it won't be you who pays them.

[DuncanONeil]

In the example I used the only thing that occurred with the patient was they were conscious, felt no pain or other physical discomfort.
Thereby is there grounds to sue?
The auto accident is a poor example.

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

[SadisticNature]

In the example I used the only thing that occurred with the patient was they were conscious, felt no pain or other physical discomfort.
Thereby is there grounds to sue?
The auto accident is a poor example.

I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[DuncanONeil]

"Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims." Absolutely correct! We call that Tort reform. However the Democrats and trial lawyers do not want to see that reform! Even though it could be a good start on health care reform. And such a reform would be a direct connect to health care, even more so when the corollary issue costs reduce.

I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[DuncanONeil]

BTW Don't get to tied down in the "example". The one cited was gleaned from an episode of Grey's Anatomy.

I personally feel pain and suffering is a very flimsy grounds, and I'm glad the Canadian legal system doesn't allow it. If the person is experiencing lost wages relating to mental trauma, or is suing for the cost of their medical appointments (psychiatrist or what not) then this is still a legitimate case.

It may be the case that the person feels "oh something went wrong I can make money", but its certainly possible they are suing for good reasons also.

I would certainly support a reform to make it easier to sue for lost wages and expenses as a result of malpractice, but eliminate damages for pain and suffering.

This would mean people would not be compensated for pain outside of its consequences (lost job due to injury, inability to perform chores, etc.). Most of the fib cases involve wanting money for the pain caused by an injury, rather than wanting money for the consequences of that pain. There are fewer fib cases in the Canadian system, because demonstrating an injury caused you to lose a job and have medical expenses and winning an award to cover what you would have had anyways isn't worthwhile. Allowing huge compensatory damages for pain and suffering results in fakers trying to get rich and its the loophole you need to close. Other approaches run the risk of hurting people who have legitimate claims.

[SadisticNature]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

Most people would find it incredibly traumatic to wake up in the middle of surgery and see themselves cut open. That doesn't even begin to cover the pain and sensations one might experience if they had general but no local anesthetic and woke up during a procedure. This is certainly an accident, but its probably akin to some forms of torture in terms of the level of trauma. Chances are good they are suing for things like the cost to see a psychiatrist about it, or lost wages because they can't sleep at night and don't function at work. I certainly think this isn't something that most people just shrug off and have not effect their life.

Do you think it would be fair if you woke up during surgery, experienced these horrific sensations you have nightmares about, the lack of sleep causes you to lose your job, you are seeing someone about it to try and get back to normal functioning and the result of all this is that you lost a lot of money in both salary and treatment?

Keep in mind that the most likely reason for someone to wake up during surgery is either improper dosing (miscalculating weight for instance) or severe delays (complications in the procedure and no addition to the anesthetic or other accommodations), so chances are good this is negligence.

As for suing everyone, its a common legal tactic to sue everyone so that attempts to pass the blame fail. If you sue just the doctor they blame the hospital, if you sue just the hospital they blame the doctor, if you sue the doctor and the hospital they blame the drug company, etc. I don't judge people for making strategically optimal decisions in the legal field, after all law and justice are often very different things.