Law Blog

A recent annual check-up got me thinking about healthcare.  Healthcare reform is all the rage right now.  But if you are like me (not a doctor and/or someone with limited medical background) the current debate is often too confusing to follow and you are not sure exactly what to think.

Medical malpractice and tort reform are one such aspect of the debate where you see the convergence of medical and legal issues searching for a solution.  To put it simply, medical malpractice has to do with professional negligence on the part of the care provider that results in some type of harm to the patient.  Because of these potential for errors, medical practitioners carry malpractice insurance to help offset the costs of a potential problem.

Doctors argue that frivolous lawsuits and high jury verdicts have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance to such levels that some doctors refuse to practice the more litigation-ridden areas of their profession or have resorted to conducting costly unnecessary test and procedures to further shield themselves from lawsuits.  While it is true that some attorneys have made millions on medical malpractice suits, many lawsuits bring with them legitimate claims that should continue to have a voice in the American legal justice system.

LegalMatch provides attorneys for both sides of a medical malpractice claim.  The most common situations in which this is found are:

• When there has been a failure to perform surgery
• Delay in treatment
• Failure to properly explain medical procedure or potential side affects
• Prescription errors
• Failure to properly diagnose a medical condition
• Improper treatment

No matter what side of the debate you are on, there are solutions.  As a NY Times article put it, “the goal is not to reduce malpractice lawsuits, it is to reduce malpractice.”  But that is the difficulty: to develop a system that allows providers, doctors, and patients to maintain a trust in the health care system while keeping costs down.  Now we just need to do it.

With the democratic vote down of the public option of President Obama’s health care plan, the tired, poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free are understandably upset.  Essentially, free public health care for those who need it most sounds like a no-brainer, right?  Apparently not.  It’s fine, I guess.  I mean, who cares about the health of poor people?  Those sub-humans have been dragging our economy down for, too, long.  Always complaining about how hungry and sick they are.  Such a group of whiners…

Was I laying the sarcasm on a little too strong again?  Sorry, bad habit of mine.  *sigh*  The rich not only seem to be getting richer, but they also seem to be able to dictate how this country runs…

Anyway, I guess it’s back to the grind for all us working-class schlubs (and humble bloggers) since we don’t have the luxury of extended vacations and daddy’s money to preserve our physical and mental health.

That’s no joke either.  The working class really does need to keep on working in order to stay above that proverbial poverty line.  Even under an employee co-pay system, the average cost of health insurance for a family of 4 in America is $13,000.  $13,000 is a lot of money, but considering this amount is over a third of what the average person makes in a year and the fact that food, living, and incidental costs just keep going up, you’ll start to get a better picture if how important that chunk of income in.  Not to mention how important and vital a publically funded health care option really is to the vast majority of citizens in America.  Oh, and by the way, don’t forget that the average cost of raising one; ONE child to adulthood (which is 18 years old, just in case any of you alcoholics out there think it’s 21) ranges between $124,000 to over $250,000.  Another interesting note is that single parents with incomes over $39,000 actually spend more on their kids than two-parent households.  Guess missing a parent makes you more likely to throw money at your kid’s problems.  Wish my parents did that with me…

Having free, or at the very least, affordable health care for people and their families in light of these statistics emphasizes how vital the public option really was and is.  People will always fight over money simply because there never seems to be enough of it to go around, whether that money is taken from them through taxes or services that were once free, but no longer given as such.  It’s no surprise then why according to the latest statistics from LegalMatch, over a third of all litigation raised against employers is regarding coverage of employee benefits.  In other words, health insurance.

It’s a brain-teaser how this new democratic congress voted down such an important reform.  I mean, the majority of citizens seemed to be for it.  And last time I checked, public official were supposed to be elected in order to represent the people’s interests.  I guess we’ll never know why thing turned out like they did.  But I wonder if someone might have some clues that could point us toward this anomalous outcome.

I always like it when frivolous lawsuits are in the news.  This time they are at the center of the President Obama’s proposed health care plan.

The gist of it is that the current debate surrounding the new health care plan could be resolved if the Republicans get their way on medical malpractice lawsuit reform.  For those of you who might not know, the Republican Party has long held the view that frivolous lawsuits are a plague on modern American society.  In the case of medical malpractice, they essentially believe changing the ease in which claims can be brought against medical professionals and/or placing caps on what plaintiffs can receive in pain and suffering awards will lower medical malpractice insurance.  The logic here is that reducing the liability and financial risk of practicing medicine reduces malpractice insurance premiums which will then reduce the cost of health care for all us Americans.

In practice, however, it’s not that simple.

Now to all you out there on the internet who are still reading my various rantings, you’ll know that I’m not a fan of frivolous lawsuits in that I think they are, well, frivolous.  They clog up our judicial system with claims better suited for rulings from a clown court.  They often don’t need to be heard at all and are aimed only to make money.  You’ll all probably also notice by now that my politics fall in the center and I’m more an advocate for bi-partisanship, despite the fact that I generally loathe the frivolous lawsuit.  So it pains me to say that at the same time, I do realize the ease in which lawsuits can be filed can also serve as a great potential deterrence to the more corrupt in our society.  Most people looking to rip people off in an intricate business scheme would probably think twice, or at the very least further complicate their plan to rip people off, if they know that they could easily be held liable for their actions.

So what am I saying, you ask?  Well, basically that in this case there needs to be a better balancing of objectives.  While it may seem like a good compromise by making lawsuits hard to file against medical professionals, that also means it will be harder for all people to file lawsuits against medical professionals, regardless of the legitimacy of their claim.  Furthermore, putting a cap on pain and suffering award will most likely reduce medical malpractice insurance for doctors, which is great for doctors.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that those savings will be passed on to patients.  If you were suddenly freed from your car insurance premiums, would you give all that new disposable income to Oliver Twist and the rest of orphanage?  I would, but not everyone is a wonderful as I am.

The best course of action, I think, in this case would be a compromise from the Republicans.  As much as medical malpractice lawsuits need to be reformed, the sheer number of health needs that will be served by the passage of President Obama’s new health care plan greatly outweighs the follies of an overly litigious public.  The privatization of health care in some ways could be a factor in increasing frivolous lawsuits, as well.  People who can’t get the money for their surgery from their insurance company could theoretically try and go after their medical providers instead.  It may sound like a stretch to some, but hey, crazier things have happened.

Once again, I’ll get off my soapbox…

Nearly 80% of Americans carry credit cards and about 44% of those individuals with credit cards carry credit balances.  On an annual basis, credit card companies have earned $15 billion in penalties for late fees alone!  (A New Era for Credit Cards)

President Obama attributes the practices of credit card companies to contributing to the down market economy.  While Obama expects American consumers to be responsible in paying their debt, he also expects credit card companies not to saddle already debt laden consumers with retroactive interest rate increases and other unfair credit practices.  Some of Obama’s sweeping legislation requires credit card companies: 1) to post their credit agreements online, 2) to provide 45-days advance notice if the credit card company plans to change its terms and conditions, 3) to standardize payment due dates rather than to shift payment dates to different dates each month, and 4) to apply excess payments to the highest interest rate balance first.  (White House Fact Sheet)

But, to keep the credit card companies in check, U.S. consumers will still need to proactively review their credit card records for accuracy and to (politely) challenge the credit card companies if there is a reporting error or a violation of the new White House reforms.

Americans are entitled, by law, to one free credit report per year from each of the three major credit reporting agencies: Equifax, TransUnion and Experion.  (Credit Reporting Rights)  After reviewing these reports, if there are inaccuracies, consumers have the legal right under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to dispute this information and to have it corrected, usually within 30-days. (A Summary of Your Credit Reporting Rights) Keeping your credit record accurate is important not just to obtain a mortgage or a short-term loan, but employers are also increasingly checking consumer records as part of their background screening process.  (Employers and Consumer Reports)

Even though U.S. consumers have these rights, some credit reporting agencies may be less than compliant. Always put your request for correcting reporting inaccuracies in writing, specifically identify the inaccuracy and provide verification of the reporting inaccuracy in your request for a reporting correction.  As a first step, write a demand letter.  Examples of demand letters can be found through Nolo press or through other on-line resources. (Credit Repair) When mailing a demand letter, send the letter by certified mail and keep a record of the delivery receipt so that there can be no denying that you’ve made an attempt to notify the credit reporting agency.  (7 Steps to Fixing Your Credit Report)

If these measures are ineffective, LegalMatch can help. Sometimes it is only with an attorney as your advocate that credit reporting inaccuracies can be more quickly resolved.  During the past five years, we’ve assisted nearly 2,000 consumers who have required the assistance of an attorney to correct inaccuracies in the credit reports and another 2,100 who have requested an attorney to assist them with other credit reporting issues.  It is obvious not just to our President, but to LegalMatch, that credit card companies and their reporting agencies need to be kept in check.