Your internal bleeding is too costly
The Supreme Court (maj. opinion: Clarence Thomas) bravely stood on the side of Big Medicine today, saying that HMOs don't have to do what's medically best for you. You can't sue your HMO no matter how negligent.
 |
 |
 |
21 Jun 2004 |
||
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Comments |
||
|
|
|
Once again, thank your lawsuit-happy neighborhood tort lawyer. These specific situations for patients only serve to reinforce just how incredibly fucked up HMOs and health care are in this country.
Doctors can't afford to practice medicine because of lawsuits like these. The bean counters and do-nothing administrators have taken medical decisions out of the hands of doctors, who just so happened to have gone to school for just that sort of thing. You know, to make people better? What does an MBA know about internal bleeding?
andrew 21 Jun 2004
I may be wrong, but the way I read the case was that you have to take your beef with an HMO to federal court, not state court.
This would seem to be an effort to pre-empt the insurance companies from having to fight suits in all 50 states at once, which seems reasonable.
QTip 21 Jun 2004
Q... I got that reading out of the article too, but then that conclusion doesn't make sense in light of the orginal claimants reaction to the verdict. Why would the internal bleeding lady feel this was an injustice if it was a simple matter of which court handled it? It's a messy (or evasive) article.
jpeg 22 Jun 2004
I have come to believe that the chief purpose of 'the media' in this country is simply to foment (and thus cover) controversy... and since I've been wanting to use the word 'foment' for awhile, this seemed as good a place as any...
QTip 22 Jun 2004
Put it this way... if you're sick enough to sue, you're too sick to sue. You should be in bed, not in court.
So there.
Clarence 21 Jun 2004