Foo - 4 jumbo jets a week?!?!

This is complete news to me. It sounds like a National Enquirer article, but it's in the Wall Street Journal.

Medical errors kill enough people to fill four jumbo jets a week (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578008263334441352.html)

That would be a bad week for aviation. I'm surprised there isn't more in the news about this. Maybe it's because the deaths are individual, random, and spread all over. If it happened in bunches it might be more newsworthy.

That sounds about right. The number 3 killer behind heart disease and cancer is iatrogenic (doctor caused) death. About 1/4 million per year. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx)

Capitalism working as intended. Need better health care? Pay for it.

Those of us who work in healthcare have been aware of this figure for a long time.

Capitalism working as intended. Need better health care? Pay for it.

That's the rub. The health care you are paying for is the third most dangerous killer. :eek:

Didn't compare it to anything. What is the rate in Europe, Asia, Africa...? How does it compare to 20, 30, 50 years ago?

See, are these 747SPs or A-380-800s? There's a big difference there, and let's not even get into if they have European charter operator sardine-can seating or a 3- or 4- class setup with first class suites?

The easiest way out of it is to stay out of the hospital.

Most people who die, die in hospital.

Most people who die, die.

fify

If you ever want to know why there are so many medical malpractice suits, it's because there's so much malpractice.

So, maybe doctors should be airline pilots instead? Or is it the other way around? Pilots should be doctors, since they kill less people?

If you ever want to know why there are so many medical malpractice suits, it's because there's so much malpractice.

Actually, I can speak to this because I do it for a living. Malpractice suits are probably about the least efficient way to compensate injured people. Most of the money is sucked up in transactional costs. For example, unless a state has caps on damages and fees, the typical plaintiff attorney contingency fee in a medmal case is 50%. This is higher than the typical 33% of most personal injury cases, because the chance of winning is less, so the attorney needs more money to compensate them for the higher risk of not getting anything. Then there come the costs of litigating the case.

So say a case goes to trial and the injured person is awarded $ 1 million. The plaintiff attorney takes her fee of $ 500,000 off the top. Then she takes the costs that had been advanced. In a typical malpractice case, these may be $ 100,000, for expert witnesses, copies of records, travel, deposition fees and jury consultants. So out of that $ 1 million verdict, the injured party gets $ 400,000. However, the plaintiff attorney only gets this if they win or settle the case. If they lose, they get nothing. The defense attorneys get paid win or lose.

And of the medmal cases that go to trial, physicians win about 75% of the time and hospitals win about 60% of the time. So does that mean that no malpractice occurred? The problem is that most laypeople equate any bad or less than perfect result as malpractice, but the law does not. Not every mistake reaches the level of malpractice, and you establish or defend this by expert testimony. And malpractice cases don't result in changes in practice that often, and the physician and hospitals have insurance, so I am not sure that they have much of a deterrent effect. Also injured people with demonstrable malpractice sometimes cannot find attorneys because the damages and potential award are too small to make it worthwhile for the attorney to take the case.

If I could wave a magic wand, we would treat malpractice cases like some states do workers' compensation or disability cases: a panel of medical, judicial, plaintiff legal and defense legal, and some laypeople would hear cases; decide if liability was present; and assign an award and plaintiff and defense attorney fees using a schedule. But the current system is too entrenched to be changed, absent some controlling Federal legislation that withstands Constitutional challenge, which is highly unlikely.

There is no doubt that too many errors occur and they need to be fixed. Relying on the malpractice system to do so, however, is a forlorn hope.

Our medical care system does exactly what it's designed to do - make profits for the drug and insurance companies. Healthy patients aren't as profitable as sick ones, and that's why we spend more than the rest of the world does on medical care, but end up competing with the likes of Costa Rica in terms of health.

Why do you think doctors 'pratice' medicine? It's because they can't get it right.

Actually, I can speak to this because I do it for a living. Malpractice suits are probably about the least efficient way to compensate injured people. Most of the money is sucked up in transactional costs. For example, unless a state has caps on damages and fees, the typical plaintiff attorney contingency fee in a medmal case is 50%. This is higher than the typical 33% of most personal injury cases, because the chance of winning is less, so the attorney needs more money to compensate them for the higher risk of not getting anything. Then there come the costs of litigating the case.

So say a case goes to trial and the injured person is awarded $ 1 million. The plaintiff attorney takes her fee of $ 500,000 off the top. Then she takes the costs that had been advanced. In a typical malpractice case, these may be $ 100,000, for expert witnesses, copies of records, travel, deposition fees and jury consultants. So out of that $ 1 million verdict, the injured party gets $ 400,000. However, the plaintiff attorney only gets this if they win or settle the case. If they lose, they get nothing. The defense attorneys get paid win or lose.

And of the medmal cases that go to trial, physicians win about 75% of the time and hospitals win about 60% of the time. So does that mean that no malpractice occurred? The problem is that most laypeople equate any bad or less than perfect result as malpractice, but the law does not. Not every mistake reaches the level of malpractice, and you establish or defend this by expert testimony. And malpractice cases don't result in changes in practice that often, and the physician and hospitals have insurance, so I am not sure that they have much of a deterrent effect. Also injured people with demonstrable malpractice sometimes cannot find attorneys because the damages and potential award are too small to make it worthwhile for the attorney to take the case.

If I could wave a magic wand, we would treat malpractice cases like some states do workers' compensation or disability cases: a panel of medical, judicial, plaintiff legal and defense legal, and some laypeople would hear cases; decide if liability was present; and assign an award and plaintiff and defense attorney fees using a schedule. But the current system is too entrenched to be changed, absent some controlling Federal legislation that withstands Constitutional challenge, which is highly unlikely.

There is no doubt that too many errors occur and they need to be fixed. Relying on the malpractice system to do so, however, is a forlorn hope.


Several people that I went to law school with do medmal and none of them charge a 50% contingency fee. They run 33% if settled before MSJ and 40% afterward, plus costs. Of course most cases settle, but the few that have gone to trial the costs have been significant because the case was extreme. The sad fact is most victims of medmal don't ever file suit because of the difficulty of proving causation.

That sounds about right. The number 3 killer behind heart disease and cancer is iatrogenic (doctor caused) death. About 1/4 million per year. (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx)

Clicking links is so hard. Does this include hospital-derived infections or is it just active errors?

Clicking links is so hard. Does this include hospital-derived infections or is it just active errors?

Copied from the link:

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:


12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs

Clicking links is so hard. Does this include hospital-derived infections or is it just active errors?


From article:

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:


12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs

These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

Cbad beat me again.

Can you really call 80,000 deaths from infection "medical errors"? I know you can take measures to minimize infection risk, but I don't think you can call every infection that occurs in a hospital a medical error.

And the 106,000: They are labeled "non-errors". Are they errors or not?

Several people that I went to law school with do medmal and none of them charge a 50% contingency fee. They run 33% if settled before MSJ and 40% afterward, plus costs. Of course most cases settle, but the few that have gone to trial the costs have been significant because the case was extreme. The sad fact is most victims of medmal don't ever file suit because of the difficulty of proving causation.

In my areas of the West Coast that do not have a cap on fees (such as California due to MICRA), the typical contingency fee is 50% if the case goes to trial. I settled a case just yesterday in eastern Washington halfway through trial and the plaintiff attorney in that case is charging 50%, which is par for the course in this area for the big-name plaintiff attorneys. But there are some areas where due to state laws, the presence of legal competition, judicial requirements, Bar rules or the like, that a contingency fee may be lower.

And if you can't find an expert on liability or causation, perhaps there is no malpractice as defined by the law, eh? Again, sometimes bad things happen to good people and that does not in and of itself mean that someone screwed up. Although in America we like to think so, and preferably the people who screwed up have insurance that we can go after.

PS: I forgot to mention: in my world, most of the cases do not settle. I enclose here a snippet from the PIAA data sharing report, which is the most extensive physician malpractice data base available. Note that less than a third of all cases have money paid out in through a settlement or award. This is consistent with my own experience, except I make an indemnity (settlement or award) payout on a little less than 40% of my cases.

PIAA Data Sharing Project

The PIAA Data Sharing Project is an on-going claim study, which currently now includes 22 of PIAA member companies submitting their claims data semi-annually. The Data Sharing Project contains information on closed claims and suits, and open suits that have been open for one year. This effort, which began in 1985, has accumulated more than 274,000 claims and suits through June 2009, of which over 93% are closed. Of the closed claims, approximately 27% are closed with an indemnity payment. The system includes claims against physicians, dentists, other healthcare providers and professional corporations.

Can you really call 80,000 deaths from infection "medical errors"? I know you can take measures to minimize infection risk, but I don't think you can call every infection that occurs in a hospital a medical error.

And the 106,000: They are labeled "non-errors". Are they errors or not?

Just so you know, there is quite the debate in healthcare as to scope of the numbers and how the numbers are calculated in terms of death or adverse outcomes that are only due to iatrogenic errors, and not any other contributory causes. You can do a Medline search to get a sense of what the literature is saying. These are all estimates, and there is no consensus on the methodology used to come up with these numbers. Clearly, people do die or are injured solely from iatrogenic errors, and we need to address that instead of arguing over the numbers.

If I was Queen of the United States, one of the first acts I would do is wave my scepter and create a Federal system for the uniform reporting and analysis of medical errors. There is none currently, and that makes it hard to benchmark or to compare apples to apples. We cannot solve the problem without reliable and consistent data and the analysis thereto.

What do you call the med student who graduates ranked last in their class- doctor!

no more going to the dr for me .If i die i dont want to pay a person to kill me

Cbad beat me again.

But you did it more completely. Quality takes time.

A couple of years ago my father was in the hospital for a relatively minor procedure.

A nurse gave him a medication that he was documented as being allergic to, was duly noted on his chart, and it nearly killed him. Two days later my mother was in the room with him when another nurse tried to give him the same medication. She stopped it barely in time. Later that day, ANOTHER nurse did the same thing.

She ended up having to stay there 24x7 to ensure that they didn't end up accidentally killing him. And this was at one of the "better" hospitals in central FL.

DID NOT need to see that 4 days before surgery.

DID NOT need to see that 4 days before surgery.

Your dad is a pilot. You are safe.

Cbad beat me again.

Yeah, but you know you liked it.

Yeah, I've seen those numbers for a while (microbiologist, used to study antibiotic resistant bugs acquired in hospitals), but when you get down to it, that seems pretty sensationalistic to call all those "errors". Infections happen, even in the cleanest of hospitals. I used to work in the hospital currently ranked #1 in the country and they were scared about MRSA (and worse) infections and did what they could to prevent them, but they still happened. It's life. You can't create a completely asceptic environment if you've got people in it. And even if you could, stress and comfort play big roles in the healing process, so you've got to find a balance between making it home-y and keeping it clean. And the 100K+ non-error drug deaths. If those are side-effects of drugs that are known to be possible or cross reactions between drugs that are possible but the drugs aren't contraindicated, they I'd have a hard time calling those errors. **** happens in hospitals, and that's just life and you've got to accept it, but, all the same, when my wife was out of town and I cut the **** out of my hand and came down with a bad case of the norovirus all in the same night, I didn't take my daughter with me too the ER, I just taped myself back together and waited until her day care opened the next morning before going in (too late for stitches) because I didn't want to expose her to the bugs they have there.

Trying to improve medical care by fixing the hospitals is like trying to keep your boat from sinking by using bigger pumps instead of fixing the holes. Keeping people healthy enough to avoid the hospitals makes more sense, and the US does a pretty bad job of that for all the money we spend.

I did aircraft accident investigation in the Air Force and currently do civilian commercial flying. The crap that pilots have to endure for any accident even if nobody is injured or killed is huge!! We are talking investigations, hearings, and an extensive medical to include full blood work for drugs, chemicals, alcohol for all those involved. This is in addition to the random drug and alcohol testing that occurs all the time. How the medical community gets away without the same rigid structure is beyond me.

Keeping people healthy enough to avoid the hospitals makes more sense.

Where's the money in that? Healthy food has a lower profit margin. You don't buy stuff while your exercising you know. ;)

Those numbers are not compared to anything. How do they compare per capita to hospitals in Europe, Asia, Africa...seems like the article considered everything other than 100% success as malpractice. How many major medical proceedures are performed in the USA every day? 10,000 sounds like a big number unless it is out of 10,000,000. The article was obviously written for shock value as it lacked any comparitive value and focused strickly on startling numbers.

I did aircraft accident investigation in the Air Force and currently do civilian commercial flying. The crap that pilots have to endure for any accident even if nobody is injured or killed is huge!! We are talking investigations, hearings, and an extensive medical to include full blood work for drugs, chemicals, alcohol for all those involved. This is in addition to the random drug and alcohol testing that occurs all the time. How the medical community gets away without the same rigid structure is beyond me.

So you're saying that the doctors should become pilots and crash jumbo jets full of patients every day? Seems to me we would run out of doctors AND jumbo jets at some point.

Trying to improve medical care by fixing the hospitals is like trying to keep your boat from sinking by using bigger pumps instead of fixing the holes. Keeping people healthy enough to avoid the hospitals makes more sense, and the US does a pretty bad job of that for all the money we spend.

I agree with the analogy, but I disagree that we do a bad job with health care. The real culpret are fat, lazy, chain-smoking, heavy-drinking people who do absolutely NOTHING to maintain their health. It seems like a significant portion of the population is actually trying to slowly kill themselves. I know people who spend $200 a week on cigarettes but don't have health/medical insurance. I know people who eat pizza and burgers every single day. Soda, gooey white bread, McDonalds, sugar-loaded energy drinks...f'ing disgusting. The health care system works just fine for people who actually take care of themselves. One of the things I find hilarious about cycling is the huge number of overweight riders. Go on a tough 50 mile ride with these guys and then watch them down an entire supreme pizza and a gallon of Coke after. I've seen fatties stop mid-way through a 40 mile ride at a 7-11 to get a full-sized Snicker's Bar and an energy drink.

I have been coaching youth sports for 11 years. The greatest compliment I ever received was from a mother who told me her daughter lost 10lbs during soccer season. The girl was about 8 years old and FAT. At the beginning she would show up for soccer practice literally with a doughnut and a Coke in her hands. I asked the mom to stop doing that. The lady thought I was a miracle worker.

The problem is not the health care system, it's stupid people.

So you're saying that the doctors should become pilots and crash jumbo jets full of patients every day? Seems to me we would run out of doctors AND jumbo jets at some point.

No, doctors make terrible pilots. The V-tailed Beech Bonanza is not called the Forked Tail Doctor Killer for nothing.

I'm saying some of the same oversight and safety procedures used in aviation should be put in place in the medical field. Nobody has created a new way of dying in an airplane in some time. How they got there might be a little different but not the end result. So, you build in procedures, systems, and training that try to prevent a recurrence. When planes crash, you can find a detailed report from the NTSB. What was working, what was not working, and what was directly responsible for the crash. You will also find recommendations to prevent a re-occurrence of the accident. These are usually stiff armed by the FAA under the advice of the Airline Transport Association due to cost. You usually have to kill a lot of people to get a major change done. Which brings me back to the medical field. You kill one at a time and nobody pays attention. Kill 100+ and new rules are written.

That's a much better idea. I'd hate to run out of 747s.

I agree with the analogy, but I disagree that we do a bad job with health care. The real culpret are fat, lazy, chain-smoking, heavy-drinking people who do absolutely NOTHING to maintain their health. It seems like a significant portion of the population is actually trying to slowly kill themselves. I know people who spend $200 a week on cigarettes but don't have health/medical insurance. I know people who eat pizza and burgers every single day. Soda, gooey white bread, McDonalds, sugar-loaded energy drinks...f'ing disgusting. The health care system works just fine for people who actually take care of themselves. One of the things I find hilarious about cycling is the huge number of overweight riders. Go on a tough 50 mile ride with these guys and then watch them down an entire supreme pizza and a gallon of Coke after. I've seen fatties stop mid-way through a 40 mile ride at a 7-11 to get a full-sized Snicker's Bar and an energy drink.

I have been coaching youth sports for 11 years. The greatest compliment I ever received was from a mother who told me her daughter lost 10lbs during soccer season. The girl was about 8 years old and FAT. At the beginning she would show up for soccer practice literally with a doughnut and a Coke in her hands. I asked the mom to stop doing that. The lady thought I was a miracle worker.

The problem is not the health care system, it's stupid people.
Well, I've been in health care long enough to disagree with you from what I've seen here. It would be nice to think things were better somewhere in this country, but I haven't seen the numbers to back it up. We do a great job on the major things like heart transplants, but we really suck at the basics of keeping people healthy. Our whole medical system is geared towards only 2 answers to medical problems, and they're drugs or surgery. Those are answers for sick people, not ways to keep people healthy. If healthy patients ask for care that doesn't involve drugs or surgery they often have to fight to get them if they're even available. Regardless of how safe, effective or economical they are.

The changes in diet or exercise we'd both like to see aren't even options for most people - these concepts are just too foreign for a lot of people who don't realize what kind of shape they're in. Couple the subsidized junk food the folks above are eating or the "healthy choice" type foods with neurotoxic artificial sweeteners, preservatives and genetically modified foods brought to us by the people who told us DDT and PCBs were safe with the labor saving devices that keep people sedentary are you're creating a huge increasing pool of Metabolic Syndrome patients who are slowly killing themselves while consuming larger amounts of drugs to keep them functioning. That's great for drug company profits, but not so good for the rest of us.

Where's the money in that? Healthy food has a lower profit margin. You don't buy stuff while your exercising you know. ;)

I'm just glad the pace of buying new stuff I need to exercise has slowed down. Although I have been watching the bikes for sale section of Craigslist lately.....

I did aircraft accident investigation in the Air Force and currently do civilian commercial flying. The crap that pilots have to endure for any accident even if nobody is injured or killed is huge!! We are talking investigations, hearings, and an extensive medical to include full blood work for drugs, chemicals, alcohol for all those involved. This is in addition to the random drug and alcohol testing that occurs all the time. How the medical community gets away without the same rigid structure is beyond me.

I know a pilot who took his kid to a doctor for a head injury. He didn't like the doctor's attitude and went to another doctor. Later he found that the first doctor was going through a divorce and a bankruptcy at the same time.

He said almost the same thing you did. Pilots are advised not to fly under those conditions, why not doctors? He also did suggest that doctors should be reevaluated every 6 months like pilots.

The difference might be that the jet crashes hit the news and kill a lot of people at once. The individual deaths from doctors would be boring news compared to those.

The difference might be that the jet crashes hit the news and kill a lot of people at once. The individual deaths from doctors would be boring news compared to those.

Not to mention all the smoke and fire and witnesses. It's kind of hard to hide a 747 crash.

Actually, I can speak to this because I do it for a living. Malpractice suits are probably about the least efficient way to compensate injured people. Most of the money is sucked up in transactional costs. For example, unless a state has caps on damages and fees, the typical plaintiff attorney contingency fee in a medmal case is 50%. This is higher than the typical 33% of most personal injury cases, because the chance of winning is less, so the attorney needs more money to compensate them for the higher risk of not getting anything. Then there come the costs of litigating the case.

So say a case goes to trial and the injured person is awarded $ 1 million. The plaintiff attorney takes her fee of $ 500,000 off the top. Then she takes the costs that had been advanced. In a typical malpractice case, these may be $ 100,000, for expert witnesses, copies of records, travel, deposition fees and jury consultants. So out of that $ 1 million verdict, the injured party gets $ 400,000. However, the plaintiff attorney only gets this if they win or settle the case. If they lose, they get nothing. The defense attorneys get paid win or lose.

And of the medmal cases that go to trial, physicians win about 75% of the time and hospitals win about 60% of the time. So does that mean that no malpractice occurred? The problem is that most laypeople equate any bad or less than perfect result as malpractice, but the law does not. Not every mistake reaches the level of malpractice, and you establish or defend this by expert testimony. And malpractice cases don't result in changes in practice that often, and the physician and hospitals have insurance, so I am not sure that they have much of a deterrent effect. Also injured people with demonstrable malpractice sometimes cannot find attorneys because the damages and potential award are too small to make it worthwhile for the attorney to take the case.

If I could wave a magic wand, we would treat malpractice cases like some states do workers' compensation or disability cases: a panel of medical, judicial, plaintiff legal and defense legal, and some laypeople would hear cases; decide if liability was present; and assign an award and plaintiff and defense attorney fees using a schedule. But the current system is too entrenched to be changed, absent some controlling Federal legislation that withstands Constitutional challenge, which is highly unlikely.

There is no doubt that too many errors occur and they need to be fixed. Relying on the malpractice system to do so, however, is a forlorn hope.

The reason their are so many medical lawsuits is because that is where the money is.
A lot of hungry attorneys out there eeking out $30,000 a year on small potatoe lawsuits.

Notice all the law firms advertising on TV lately for malpractice suits or drug company liability?These sheisters know where to get more bang for their buck because these drug/medical corporations usually settle than drag an expensive case on(legalised extortion).

Enjoy those expensive health insurance premiums coming out of your paycheck?

Well, I've been in health care long enough to disagree with you from what I've seen here. It would be nice to think things were better somewhere in this country, but I haven't seen the numbers to back it up. We do a great job on the major things like heart transplants, but we really suck at the basics of keeping people healthy. Our whole medical system is geared towards only 2 answers to medical problems, and they're drugs or surgery. Those are answers for sick people, not ways to keep people healthy. If healthy patients ask for care that doesn't involve drugs or surgery they often have to fight to get them if they're even available. Regardless of how safe, effective or economical they are.

The changes in diet or exercise we'd both like to see aren't even options for most people - these concepts are just too foreign for a lot of people who don't realize what kind of shape they're in. Couple the subsidized junk food the folks above are eating or the "healthy choice" type foods with neurotoxic artificial sweeteners, preservatives and genetically modified foods brought to us by the people who told us DDT and PCBs were safe with the labor saving devices that keep people sedentary are you're creating a huge increasing pool of Metabolic Syndrome patients who are slowly killing themselves while consuming larger amounts of drugs to keep them functioning. That's great for drug company profits, but not so good for the rest of us.

I think in general people know the difference between healthy and unhealthy choices. The problem is that some people just don't care. They don't mind being disgustingly fat because they love thier cigarettes, cheeseburgers and beer. They don't care about lung cancer or heart disease. They know exactly what they are doing and just don't give a flying F. The amount of money people spend on booze and tobacco could easily pay for healthy groceries. Doctors can't MAKE people do healthy things to prevent illness. They can make recommendations (stop smoking, exercise, eat healthier), but really all they have are prescription drugs and surgery to address issues. So I don't see the problem being a poor health care system, the problem is lazy people who just don't care. For people like that all you can do is give them drugs and perform surgeries.

The reason their are so many medical lawsuits is because that is where the money is.
A lot of hungry attorneys out there eeking out $30,000 a year on small potatoe lawsuits.

Notice all the law firms advertising on TV lately for malpractice suits or drug company liability?These sheisters know where to get more bang for their buck because these drug/medical corporations usually settle than drag an expensive case on(legalised extortion).

Enjoy those expensive health insurance premiums coming out of your paycheck?

This.

Reminds me of the time we looked at reviews from our local hospital..........what are ya gonna do? Get rid of bad doctors? Get rid of bad teachers? Closing schools and hospitals aint gonna fly in public opinion.

Well, I've been in health care long enough to disagree with you from what I've seen here. It would be nice to think things were better somewhere in this country, but I haven't seen the numbers to back it up. We do a great job on the major things like heart transplants, but we really suck at the basics of keeping people healthy. Our whole medical system is geared towards only 2 answers to medical problems, and they're drugs or surgery. Those are answers for sick people, not ways to keep people healthy. If healthy patients ask for care that doesn't involve drugs or surgery they often have to fight to get them if they're even available. Regardless of how safe, effective or economical they are.

The changes in diet or exercise we'd both like to see aren't even options for most people - these concepts are just too foreign for a lot of people who don't realize what kind of shape they're in. Couple the subsidized junk food the folks above are eating or the "healthy choice" type foods with neurotoxic artificial sweeteners, preservatives and genetically modified foods brought to us by the people who told us DDT and PCBs were safe with the labor saving devices that keep people sedentary are you're creating a huge increasing pool of Metabolic Syndrome patients who are slowly killing themselves while consuming larger amounts of drugs to keep them functioning. That's great for drug company profits, but not so good for the rest of us.

That's why I like the idea of having a D.O. as my primary care provider rather than an MD. DO's are supposed to get training in holistic care and the idea of treating the whole body and keeping the patient healthy rather than sticking a band aid on when he's sick. Unfortunately, at least when I was making the decision of whether to go to med school or grad school (and chose the latter), DO's were sort of looked on as hippies and a lot of the people going to DO school were those who couldn't get into regular med school because of their grades/MCAT scores (not that that's a bad thing, part of the reason I decided against med school was all the grade/score obsessed ******** and how I didn't like them or the fact that I felt the need to hide my curve killing test scores from them in the harder classes).

Capitalism working as intended. Need better health care? Pay for it.

330 million people in the US.
Let's say 2% get sick in a year.....which is ludicrously low assumption, but let's work with it.
That means about 6.6million people go see the dr. each year. If there's a 1% error rate, that's going to be 66,000 errors (deaths). That's over 1,200per week. The average jet liner holds what? About 300? So, yeah, easily 4 Jumbo Jets a week.

I'd also challenge you to find any other profession that produces that low an error rate.

So, maybe doctors should be airline pilots instead? Or is it the other way around? Pilots should be doctors, since they kill less people?


So you're saying that the doctors should become pilots and crash jumbo jets full of patients every day? Seems to me we would run out of doctors AND jumbo jets at some point.

I think I like the way you think!