Skip to main content

President's State of the Union Address Targets Frivolous Lawsuits: Was I Dreaming?

We watched the president’s State of the Union address recently with the kids, to try and inculcate them with civic interest and responsibility. He is an inspiring and skilled speaker whose words seem to transcend partisanship and divisiveness. Nothing like an electoral ‘shellacking’ to push a politician into a Kumbaya mode. I thought the speech was long on ideals but sidestepped the pain and sacrifice it would take to reach the objectives the president outlined. I was waiting to hear the president’s plans regarding Medicare and Social Security, and I’m still waiting. The president took such a high road, that it was in the stratosphere, beyond real life.


Here’s what he said:

 ...by the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

Here’s what he didn’t say:

...to save Social Security we are cutting benefits and raising the age when seniors can collect.

I’m not a journalist or a speechwriter, but my understanding is that the reverse pyramid system is used, meaning you start off with the important stuff and proceed toward the trivial. This is why The New York Times piece on the speech did not open with a comment on the president’s tie.

The following three subjects were included in the President’s speech. Place them in the order of importance.

The War in Afghanistan

The Peace in Iraq

Medical Malpractice Reform

Has the president experienced a Damascus Road conversion on the medical malpractice situation.? Not only did he acknowledge that frivolous lawsuits are real and are not simply physicians’ phantasmagoria, but he addressed the issue before mentioning Iraq and Afghanistan. Am I reading too much into this? Here’s what he said.

Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.

Does the president really get it, or is he the wily political pragmatist who now views life through the prism of 2012? I suspect the latter because if medical malpractice reform were truly important to the president, then he would have insisted it be included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known to many as Obamacare. Time will tell if this plan is affordable and protects our health, as suggested by the law’s name.  Put me in the deeply skeptical category.

Yes, the president is a facile orator. The State of His Rhetoric is strong. The State of the Union, however…

Comments

  1. Who cares about the motive. This is a real breakthrough and it's high time it gets addressed. Hopefully the republicans will run with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's all about the buildup- you start slow until you hit the crescendo. Although I'm glad the president talked about malpractice, I have a feeling that the two wars America is fighting are a little bit higher on his priority list...

    In any case, the fact that something was or was not in his healthcare plan might have more to do with trying to get the bill passed, and less to do with what is actually important.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ariella, nice to have you back on the blog. I agree with you that war is a higher priority than medical malpractice reform, and I thought the latter seemed a bit 'stuck in' the president's speech, as if it didn't belong there. Personally, I don't think the president has much passion for this issue and I don't expect to see much traction on it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My favorite part was "Win The Future" WTF?????

    ReplyDelete
  5. As bad a term as Obama has had, he can reverse the whole thing if he handles the Egyptian crisis with skill and leadership. I for one don't think he can, but in the interest of national and global security I hope he does.

    Malpractice reform would also be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yawn. Saying "I want to rein in frivolous lawsuits" is meaningless. Those who spew that line don't really want "reform". They want to pay less in claims or premiums. Helping the victims of malpractice means little to them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I disagree that we are not interested to help victims of medical malpractice. Keep in mind that the vast majority of these victims are missed by the current system and are not compensated. Wouldn't this fact suggest that the medical liability system be reformed?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm sure you're "interested" in the abstract. But let's be honest, you're not interested in writing any checks to all those people that are missed, and neither is your insurer. It shows in the legislation your propose. Talk is cheap.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Abstract? I'm told that I am a very concrete individual. I am interested in a system that compensates a high fraction of those who are victims of medical negligence and targets a low fraction of innocent physicians. Any argument here?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wasn't commenting on your personality as a whole. Just your position on this issue. No one is arguing that your goals aren't worthy. Just the means that you offer to achieve them don't accomplish your goals in any way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am so glad that I read this post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are not dreaming. All those things are happening in our community and the only thing that we can do is face it and try to get used to that fact.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stop Medical Malpractice: The White Coat Wall of Silence

Photo Credit Leisure Guy, one of my most faithful commenters, opines that I am omitting an important aspect of the tort reform argument. He has implored me repeatedly to read a particular book that I suspect buttresses his views, but this worthy pursuit is simply not near the top of my priority pyramid. Since he’s retired, he enjoys the luxury of burrowing deeply into the base of his priority pyramid. With 4 tuitions to go, retirement is a distant mirage for me. I’m can be a ‘leisure guy’, but only in my dreams. I have written throughout this blog and elsewhere that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against physicians. I have admitted that caps on non-economic damages are not ideal, because they deny some worthy plaintiffs of complete compensation, but I support them because I believe they serve the greater good. I have ranted that there is no effective filter to screen out physicians who should never be invited to the litigation party in the first place. I believe that the...

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Prostate Cancer Screening: Stop The PSA Train!

About 10 years ago, my dad was to see his general internist. I have always refrained from giving medical advice to my family, for all of the reasons why doctors should not treat or advise their relatives. But, on this occasion, I did give Dad some unsolicited advice, particularly as I knew that his physician fired the diagnostic testing trigger readily. “Dad, please make sure that he doesn’t check the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test.” Dad indicated that he would convey my concern to his doctor, who ran the test on him anyway. Apparently, he includes the PSA test as a matter of routine on all men over a certain age. Twenty-five years ago as a curious, but skeptical medical student, I learned about prostate cancer. I learned that every man will develop it if he lives long enough. I learned that most cases of prostate cancer remain silent and never interfere with the individual’s life. I learned that the treatment for these cancers involves either major surgery or radiation, both of ...