5 ms·

This is actually a case of opposite of free market. Like the article said, if it was easier to people fire him when he was still a student for example, without

by speeder 13y ago

This is actually a case of opposite of free market. Like the article said, if it was easier to people fire him when he was still a student for example, without fear of being sued, this would be averted. Also the licensing system is broken (ie: license is mandatory by law, law says hospitals can trust the license, licensing organization is broken and give broken licenses... what to do? Good hospitals will expend money to research the guy, but the average hospitals will trust the law, that says that if the guy has a license, he has right to be licensed...)

masklinn 13y ago
> This is actually a case of opposite of free market. > Like the article said, if it was easier to people fire him when he was still a student for example, without fear of being sued, this would be averted. That makes no sense. How would more free market yield less suits exactly? What would the mechanism for righting wrongs be, smashing people's heads in without court interference?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Free market proponents always claim righting wrongs is done by suing, how would more free market yield less suits exactly? While free market proponents tend to claim that lawsuits are the place to correct wrongs, the things they tend to favor abolishing are the laws that provide the basis for lawsuits against particular wrongs; fewer bases on which lawsuits can be sustained can reasonably be expected to lead to fewer lawsuits. > What would the mechanism for righting wrongs become, smashing people's heads in? For wide classes of things that are widely considered "wrong" now and for which self-styled "free market" proponents would abolish the legal remedies, yes, extra-legal remedies would be the only remedies available.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > fewer bases on which lawsuits can be sustained can reasonably be expected to lead to fewer lawsuits. It might lead to fewer successful lawsuits, but I'm not sure why it would lead to fewer lawsuits.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      Because the willingness of lawyers to take lawsuits is influenced by the likelihood of getting paid which is influenced by the probability of success (as prospective plaintiffs often can't afford to fund lawsuits up front, and thus rely on contingency fee arrangements.) Even with the clients able to pay, the cost of lawsuits combined with a reduced probability of success will drive the expected value of lawsuits (and, thus, the incentive for them) down for the clients in the same way they do for lawyers (lawyers are just more likely to recognize the incentives in short order, the public knowledge will lag some but still eventually be established.)
- talmand 13y ago
  Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. Once a doctor makes a big enough mistake the free market would demand he be put out on the street to never practice medicine again. Most likely the hospital would dump the doctor because they wouldn't want their customers, the patients, going to a different hospital that doesn't have doctors that cut people up for little or no reason. Make no mistake, what we have in this day and age is nowhere near what one would call a free market. Regardless of political leanings or party, once a government is involved enough within the economy it is no longer a free market. It eventually becomes crony capitalism, if it doesn't shift to a non-capitalistic system, which is what you see in the U.S. today.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. That is not the question I asked. GP asserted: > if it was easier to people fire him when he was still a student for example, without fear of being sued I do not see how a free-er market would preclude lawsuits.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Well, I admit, it's a winding path so bear with me. In a free market, a doctor would not be able to use political connections whether they be personal or part of a group to cover themselves. This not only includes the lawsuit angle but the ability to prevent laws that restrict his behavior and/or empower the patient, or vice-versa. Under a free market the doctor wouldn't last very long if he was bad at his job, as he would be pushed out for someone more competent. Therefore, he makes one mistake and gets sued once. Maybe twice. Under a system that allows a bad doctor to remain for longer than should be allowed results in multiple injuries which results in multiple lawsuits. In fact, the very article that this whole thread was started for describes that very doctor. After his first severely botched surgery, where all the doctors and hospital were sure he was incompetent, he should have been booted. Or at least placed in a position that had less responsibility, such as assisting in another surgery. But the system in place kept him working or were unable to deal with him resulting in more harm.

by speeder 13y ago

masklinn 13y ago

> This is actually a case of opposite of free market. > Like the article said, if it was easier to people fire him when he was still a student for example, without fear of being sued, this would be averted. That makes no sense. How would more free market yield less suits exactly? What would the mechanism for righting wrongs be, smashing people's heads in without court interference?

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Free market proponents always claim righting wrongs is done by suing, how would more free market yield less suits exactly? While free market proponents tend to claim that lawsuits are the place to correct wrongs, the things they tend to favor abolishing are the laws that provide the basis for lawsuits against particular wrongs; fewer bases on which lawsuits can be sustained can reasonably be expected to lead to fewer lawsuits. > What would the mechanism for righting wrongs become, smashing people's heads in? For wide classes of things that are widely considered "wrong" now and for which self-styled "free market" proponents would abolish the legal remedies, yes, extra-legal remedies would be the only remedies available.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > fewer bases on which lawsuits can be sustained can reasonably be expected to lead to fewer lawsuits. It might lead to fewer successful lawsuits, but I'm not sure why it would lead to fewer lawsuits.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Because the willingness of lawyers to take lawsuits is influenced by the likelihood of getting paid which is influenced by the probability of success (as prospective plaintiffs often can't afford to fund lawsuits up front, and thus rely on contingency fee arrangements.) Even with the clients able to pay, the cost of lawsuits combined with a reduced probability of success will drive the expected value of lawsuits (and, thus, the incentive for them) down for the clients in the same way they do for lawyers (lawyers are just more likely to recognize the incentives in short order, the public knowledge will lag some but still eventually be established.)
talmand 13y ago
Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. Once a doctor makes a big enough mistake the free market would demand he be put out on the street to never practice medicine again. Most likely the hospital would dump the doctor because they wouldn't want their customers, the patients, going to a different hospital that doesn't have doctors that cut people up for little or no reason. Make no mistake, what we have in this day and age is nowhere near what one would call a free market. Regardless of political leanings or party, once a government is involved enough within the economy it is no longer a free market. It eventually becomes crony capitalism, if it doesn't shift to a non-capitalistic system, which is what you see in the U.S. today.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > Under a true free market doctors as a group wouldn't be able to use political connections to cover themselves. That is not the question I asked. GP asserted: > if it was easier to people fire him when he was still a student for example, without fear of being sued I do not see how a free-er market would preclude lawsuits.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Well, I admit, it's a winding path so bear with me. In a free market, a doctor would not be able to use political connections whether they be personal or part of a group to cover themselves. This not only includes the lawsuit angle but the ability to prevent laws that restrict his behavior and/or empower the patient, or vice-versa. Under a free market the doctor wouldn't last very long if he was bad at his job, as he would be pushed out for someone more competent. Therefore, he makes one mistake and gets sued once. Maybe twice. Under a system that allows a bad doctor to remain for longer than should be allowed results in multiple injuries which results in multiple lawsuits. In fact, the very article that this whole thread was started for describes that very doctor. After his first severely botched surgery, where all the doctors and hospital were sure he was incompetent, he should have been booted. Or at least placed in a position that had less responsibility, such as assisting in another surgery. But the system in place kept him working or were unable to deal with him resulting in more harm.