Re: Fast-Multiplying Lawsuits Can Stymie Medical Science,

[Guest guest]

You all raise some very good points/questions. Does anyone know if there is a good universal healthcare chatboard somewhere? I would like to understand more about this.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Bob:

Your mention of universal health care into the US litigation mess is a concept I have not fully considered, and pondering it makes a lot of sense with reducing/removing a significant chunk of personal liability litigation. Given what appears to be a serious lack of appropriate health care and qualified physician’s to treat people exposed to molds and other biological toxins, I wonder how the mold-affected folks feel about a universal health care system?

Just a thought.

,

You make some very good points about the excess in the US litigation.

However, there is a broader aspect to this situation. The reason why

litigation is possible is because people have suffered a financial loss

in medical bills. If you have NO financial loss, you can not sue.

I have worked in many other countries, dealing with workers comp. and

product liability issues. In countries with national health care,

people can't sue, because they have no medical bills. Part of the

reason, these other countries enacted universal health care was to

eliminate a lot of litigation, and financial devastation of families-

that then need supplement support due to now being in poverty.

There in is the problem. Lack of universal health care in the US. I

can also attest to this fact, with all the legal cases I work on with

many lawyers. All of them agree, that if the US had universal health

care, virtually ALL of their personal liability litigation would

disappear because of NO financial loss. Same thing for class action

suits.

This litigation is one of the hidden costs of not having national

health care.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob and ,Are you really trying to argue that people who are injured for life by corporate malfeasance 'have no financial loss'?Certainly, one of the reasons people sue is because they end up having to foot huge healthcare bills.

But they also end up losing jobs, losing homes, losing families through divorce.Sometimes the things people on here say just amaze me.On 1/10/07,

Geyer wrote:

Bob:

Your mention of universal health care into the US litigation mess is a concept I have not fully considered, and pondering it makes a lot of sense with reducing/removing a significant chunk of personal liability litigation. Given what appears to be a serious lack of appropriate health care and qualified physician's to treat people exposed to molds and other biological toxins, I wonder how the mold-affected folks feel about a universal health care system?

Just a thought.

On 1/8/07 6:40 PM, " Bob s " <BobBsafety-epa> wrote:

,

You make some very good points about the excess in the US litigation.

However, there is a broader aspect to this situation. The reason why

litigation is possible is because people have suffered a financial loss

in medical bills. If you have NO financial loss, you can not sue.

I have worked in many other countries, dealing with workers comp. and

product liability issues. In countries with national health care,

people can't sue, because they have no medical bills. Part of the

reason, these other countries enacted universal health care was to

eliminate a lot of litigation, and financial devastation of families-

that then need supplement support due to now being in poverty.

There in is the problem. Lack of universal health care in the US. I

can also attest to this fact, with all the legal cases I work on with

many lawyers. All of them agree, that if the US had universal health

care, virtually ALL of their personal liability litigation would

disappear because of NO financial loss. Same thing for class action

suits.

This litigation is one of the hidden costs of not having national

health care.

Bob

[Guest guest]

>

I wonder how the mold-affected folks feel about a universal health

care system?

Just a thought.

>

No doubt the same thing that ME/CFS sufferers in the UK are facing:

A " National Health Service " which does not acknowledge the existence of

the illness as anything more than as a psychological over-reaction to

ambient " normal " stimulus.

Mold sufferers would be treated basically the same as they are now,

except a national health care system would make that treatment the

accepted (and enforced) universal standard.

-

[Guest guest]

One thing that could be done would be some kind of a system that, in the interest of getting money to ALL victims who were injured would survey ALL apartment buldings on a regular basis and issue standardized, large fines to landlords who were found to be in violation of the public safety laws related to mold. Regardless of whether anyone was hurt. Then the victims would be paid out of that fund and the fund would be scaled so that the compensation was actually relaistic and the victims would also be offered therapy (and there would be a national, fully funded medical initiative to find cures for mold related conditions..using the argument that these are largely diseases driven by poverty and the goal was to eliminate the health driven chronic disease and environmental disease component of the many obstacles that kept poor people so poor..

BTW, this is a GREAT conversation to be having.. lets keep at it..Now, Sharon, THIS is why I wanted to start a database to collect therapies so that ultimately this accumulated body of knowledge could be used to jump start some kind of national program to cure people on a massive scale.. using statistical analysis to identify the trouble spots might work too.. How many kids do you think fail in school, especilally in mathematics, because they are actually sick from mold or other environmentally driven inflammation.. a lot!

[Guest guest]

,

You bring up a very important point that has ominous parallels in

the current US medical/legal system. " customary practice " is a

variation of NIH, Not Invented Here. If a physician attempts to

introduce a new technique, say using anti-biotics to treat stomach

ulcers, even if the practice is common in other countries, they can be

sued if it is not a common treatment over here. When you combine this

with the FDA working really hard to make sure " big pharma " stays

profitable, what you get ranges from sub-optimal treatment - example

Australian vs. US standard of care for ulcers in which the US has

after decades caught up - to unnecessary deaths - example the approx.

100,000 deaths caused just by the delay of introducing beta-blockers

which had been legal in Europe for years.

The US medical/legal system has many problems, one is that when

politicians and lawyers determine medical practice standards based

making sure the politically correct make money, is just the tip of the

iceberg. Many people cite the amount of money being spent in the US

on medical care expressed in terms of percentage of Gross National

Product - but every dollar spent on defensive medicine or outrageous

insurance premiums to defend against junk science lawsuits,

settlements or judgements, is one dollar less that can be spent on

actual medical service. This applies to medical services, medical

equipment, and drugs.

Ken

> No doubt the same thing that ME/CFS sufferers in the UK are facing:

> A " National Health Service " which does not acknowledge the existence

of

> the illness as anything more than as a psychological over-reaction

to

> ambient " normal " stimulus.

> Mold sufferers would be treated basically the same as they are now,

> except a national health care system would make that treatment the

> accepted (and enforced) universal standard.

> -

>

[Guest guest]

" Ken Seger " wrote:

>

> ,

You bring up a very important point that has ominous parallels

in the current US medical/legal system. " customary practice " is a

variation of NIH, Not Invented Here. If a physician attempts to

introduce a new technique, say using anti-biotics to treat stomach

ulcers, even if the practice is common in other countries, they can

be sued if it is not a common treatment over here.

We have innumerable examples of how vigorously and persistently the

status quo " standard practice " will be defended and maintained in

spite of overwhelming scientific evidence; over twenty years just

for the H Pylori example - and this is in a competitive medical

market.

At least under our current medical system, we have physicians who

can act independently and adhere to the " state of the science " , even

though they often suffer for it by pressure from their dogmatic

doctor peers.

Nationalized Health Care means Standardized Health Care - and fewer

options for those with nonstandard medical issues.

-

[Guest guest]

Quack:

Almost every time, your premise is based on: corporate malfeasance. Malfeasance is a wrong or illegal conduct. Based on the way you talk and the way you post your comments, your appear VERY anti-corporation and anti-business, and appear to feel that all corporations and all business are conducting themselves wrongly or illegally. It is BS! I, for one, do not consider much of what you say as having merit because of this over-riding flavor of your comments, i.e., ALL business is bad. I for one don’t believe this is true; not even close. Suggestion...Remove all your clothing (made by business), give away your home to a needy person (because its components were made by businesses), give away all your earthly possessions (because the were made by businesses too) and go become a hunter-gatherer. You may be a happy person by doing so.

Bob and ,

Are you really trying to argue that people who are injured for life

by corporate malfeasance 'have no financial loss'?

Certainly, one of the reasons people sue is because they end up having to foot huge healthcare bills.

But they also end up losing jobs, losing homes, losing families through divorce.

Sometimes the things people on here say just amaze me.

Bob:

Your mention of universal health care into the US litigation mess is a concept I have not fully considered, and pondering it makes a lot of sense with reducing/removing a significant chunk of personal liability litigation. Given what appears to be a serious lack of appropriate health care and qualified physician's to treat people exposed to molds and other biological toxins, I wonder how the mold-affected folks feel about a universal health care system?

Just a thought.

On 1/8/07 6:40 PM, " Bob s " <BobB@... <http://epa.com> > wrote:

,

You make some very good points about the excess in the US litigation.

However, there is a broader aspect to this situation. The reason why

litigation is possible is because people have suffered a financial loss

in medical bills. If you have NO financial loss, you can not sue.

I have worked in many other countries, dealing with workers comp. and

product liability issues. In countries with national health care,

people can't sue, because they have no medical bills. Part of the

reason, these other countries enacted universal health care was to

eliminate a lot of litigation, and financial devastation of families-

that then need supplement support due to now being in poverty.

There in is the problem. Lack of universal health care in the US. I

can also attest to this fact, with all the legal cases I work on with

many lawyers. All of them agree, that if the US had universal health

care, virtually ALL of their personal liability litigation would

disappear because of NO financial loss. Same thing for class action

suits.

This litigation is one of the hidden costs of not having national

health care.

Bob

[Guest guest]

A recent film that describes exactly what you say here Ken, and more, is The

Tomato Effect.

It explains why there are so few doctors practicing environmental medicine,

and although mold is not specifically mentioned, the parallels are obvious.

regards,

linda sepp

original article

" Jan. 3, 2007 -- Class-action lawsuits can significantly slow or halt

science's ability to establish links between neurological illness and

environmental factors produced by industry, a team of scientists and lawyers

warns in the journal Neurology. "

Re: Fast-Multiplying Lawsuits Can Stymie Medical Science,

Posted by: " Ken Seger " kenseger2004@... kenseger2004

Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:34 pm (PST)

,

You bring up a very important point that has ominous parallels in

the current US medical/legal system. " customary practice " is a

variation of NIH, Not Invented Here. If a physician attempts to

introduce a new technique, say using anti-biotics to treat stomach

ulcers, even if the practice is common in other countries, they can be

sued if it is not a common treatment over here. When you combine this

with the FDA working really hard to make sure " big pharma " stays

profitable, ...

The US medical/legal system has many problems, one is that when

politicians and lawyers determine medical practice standards based

making sure the politically correct make money, is just the tip of the

iceberg. ...

Ken

_________________________________________________________________

Buy, Load, Play. The new Sympatico / MSN Music Store works seamlessly with

Windows Media Player. Just Click PLAY.

http://musicstore.sympatico.msn.ca/content/viewer.aspx?cid=SMS_Sept192006

[Guest guest]

,

In Switzerland there is a saying that medical care only improves when

somebody dies. They are refering to the doctor, not the patient!

The " old boy " network is so strong, new ideas are squashed flat. This

might seem contradictory since herbalism and cell therapy (ala Clinic

La Prarie, sheep cells, et cetra) is practiced there. However, just

as in a corporation there is a formal organizational chart, the real

power lines are sometimes quite different. Just because the

government doesn't make it illegal, informal controls such as hospital

privledges, etc., might have the same effect.

A good example of the problems with standardized care in the US is the

problem of orphan drugs, drugs that have such a limited use nobody can

afford the half a billion dollar price tag to run them through the FDA

approval system. Also, using the same acceptance standards for

quality of life drugs on life saving drugs. If a patient is going to

die within a year, whether the drug might cause cancer 20 years down

the road should not be a cause for concern.

Adoption of the codex alimentarius is only going to make this worse.

Ken

> Nationalized Health Care means Standardized Health Care - and fewer

> options for those with nonstandard medical issues.

> -

>

[Guest guest]

:

You wrote: “Nationalized Health Care means Standardized Health Care - and fewer options for those with nonstandard medical issues.” Damn well said!

Now that I said that....Let me state that I am moving more in favor of some form of national health care program. I am an employer, and health care benefits are a significant issue when hiring/retaining employees, more so than salary sometimes, and the costs to provide a good, family-friendly health care benefit to our staff is a BIG chunk of our indirect costs; and I am less competitive (our rates are higher) than some other employers that don’t provide as well for their employees. I also see what takes place in Denamrk, the Netherlands and Germany as my relatives age; these countries REALLY take care of their old folks and the injured. Here in the US, geriatric care is pitiful. And like Bob mentioned, if a person is severely injured or disabled, there are many support programs, job re-training, and stipends available to them. There are a lot of good in these systems. I also hear from my relatives across the pond that they feel drained and strangled by the 45%, 55% and 65% tax that they pay to the government, and they are VERY concerned about the immigrants and others coming into their country for the “free” benefits. Much like the U.S. Social Security system, you need more people paying into the system, than those receiving benefits; or the system will self-destruct. There are all sorts of policy issues to be sorted out, and tuff decisions to be made, but I tend to support some sort of change. The current system here in the U.S. is not healthy for our long-term needs.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

" Ken Seger " wrote:

>

> ,

You bring up a very important point that has ominous parallels

in the current US medical/legal system. " customary practice " is a

variation of NIH, Not Invented Here. If a physician attempts to

introduce a new technique, say using anti-biotics to treat stomach

ulcers, even if the practice is common in other countries, they can

be sued if it is not a common treatment over here.

We have innumerable examples of how vigorously and persistently the

status quo " standard practice " will be defended and maintained in

spite of overwhelming scientific evidence; over twenty years just

for the H Pylori example - and this is in a competitive medical

market.

At least under our current medical system, we have physicians who

can act independently and adhere to the " state of the science " , even

though they often suffer for it by pressure from their dogmatic

doctor peers.

Nationalized Health Care means Standardized Health Care - and fewer

options for those with nonstandard medical issues.

-

[Guest guest]

Quack,

Ever consider nutritional therapy? Like total avoidance of all

hydrogentated oils, avoidance of all soybean and wheat products,

adequate injestion of parent omega-3 and parent omega-6 oils in proper

proportion to each other, bioavailable chelated minerals (ie. ones

that at least are 33+% usable by humans, not the typical 5-10%), and

adequate balance amino acids injestion - from meat, poultry, fish, et

cetra.

Ken

> Now, Sharon, THIS is why I wanted to start a database to collect

therapies

> so that ultimately this accumulated body of knowledge could be used

to jump

> start some kind of national program to cure people on a massive

scale..

> using statistical analysis to identify the trouble spots might work

too..

>

> How many kids do you think fail in school, especilally in

mathematics,

> because they are actually sick from mold or other environmentally

driven

> inflammation.. a lot!

>