If we go with the "universal" health care plan of the Democrats, who do we sue if there's malpractice?

Well, since they blame everything on the Republicans, I guess they will be responsible.

The same people you would sue now ? I dont get your question

The president! That is a great question..no more law suits!!!

Are you from California, the "sue-um" state?
None of the plans so far put forward will ever be adopted. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't have the resolve (read integrity) to come up with a viable alternative.

I dunno, the freakin' doctors? You know, the one's who make the mistake in the first place? That go against their Hippocratic oath? Maybe? Ya think?

That part won't change. Any more arguments against health care for all Americans, by the 'Dyed in the wool Republicans' with union jobs who have adequate health care plans and don't want "to pay for someone elses health care; they should go get a job," even though they (who should get a job) have a job, but no health care coverage?

The doctor and hospital, same as now. Since all hospitals would be publically funded under a universal health care plan, there would likely be some new kind of grant program which provides immediate relief to health professionals who experience above average increases in their malpractice premiums.

OK, one more time, anyone who wants their present insurance can keep it, the plan is to expand the same benefits that Congress and federal employees get, the system is already in place, but people who can afford health insurance must be responsible, those who can't will be helped with the program. It will eventually save money because you won't have the fake charity system that allows people who can afford healthcare to game the system...................Heyteach has some very informative research, excellent job.

Well they're already trying to stop the poor and the elderly from being able to sue. They like to call it "tort reform" which just gives impunity to mediocre doctors and yet more money to insurers:

Victor Schwartz, ATRA's General Counsel, told Business Insurance (July 19, 1999) that "Many tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and I've never said that in 30 years.鈥?br> (azinjurycenter.com/CM/Custom/TOCTheTr...

Texas passed tort reform in 2003. A very informative article ran in the Dallas Morning News on 17 June 2007 by Eric Torbenson and Jason Roberson. The legislation capping non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering and loss of companionship) at $250,000 against a physician and $750,000 total saw NO cost savings passed on to the patient according to Bernard Black, a law and finance professor at the University of Texas. The cost of lawsuits and their defense to med care was figured at about 2 cents. As to awards, before the caps the average was $1.21 million; after the caps it was $880,000. It did cut the number of malpractice suits in half.

This was achieved at least to a noticeable extent by reducing the suits filed by the poor and elderly who don't earn much money and with the "pain and suffering" element CAPPED, the lawyers said it was not worth it to take cases against those folks because they might not even recoup their costs in trying the case. Malpractice suits are normally contingency suits that cost around $300K and if they lawyer doesn't win, he doesn't get paid, so already they screen for cases they believe they can win. (Cohen, 鈥淔rom PI to IP,鈥?November 2005, iplawandbusiness.com)

To "make up" for effectively barring lawsuits the Texas Medical Board got more money to "investigate and discipline" doctors. (Cohen, 鈥淔rom PI to IP,鈥?November 2005, iplawandbusiness.com)

Texas HAD been losing doctors before the legislation; after it, the Dallas article noted that about 50% increase in docs occurred.

Some states have caps that rise with inflation: 鈥淚daho, Michigan and West Virginia.鈥?Twenty states have no such caps on pain and suffering. Insurers are profiting from the caps in the law. The Texas Department of Insurance began following malpractice profits in 1992. In 2004, the first profits for malpractice policies were noted at $156 million; in 2005 the profits were $83 million. Before that, losses ranged from $59 to $189 million. None of those figures involve profits (or losses) from investment of the float. Also nearly one-third of the doctors in Texas are insured through the state鈥檚 Texas Medical Liability Trust which uses a different system to report such information.

"Bob Hunter, the Texas insurance commissioner for former Governor Richardson, looked at 30 years of malpractice suits and stated that for 22 years, when amounts were adjusted for inflation, malpractice awards had been flat. Hunter stated one reason for the rise in malpractice premium costs were insurers were trying to make up for losses from the post-9/11 stock market (remember they invest that 鈥渇loat鈥?money for profits). Another reason, Hunter stated, was that malpractice premiums had been lowered for several years and they needed to be readjusted for one of the typical cycles in insurance. Nonetheless, the GAO, Government Accounting Office, lays the blame for higher malpractice premiums at the door of malpractice lawsuits. Before the caps came in, Texas was down to four malpractice insurers; they now have 33.

As to malpractice premiums, there have been reductions, though those savings are not being passed on to consumers. The Texas Medical Liability Trust cut its rates 26.5 percent since 2003. In 2006, the state鈥檚 commercially insured doctors saved $49 million according to the Texas Alliance for Patient Access. Hospitals have saved millions鈥攖he Texas Health Resources one in Dallas-Fort Worth saw a reduction of 41 percent in its premium. Though the savings are not passed on to the consumer, most beneficiaries are reinvesting the money the article stated. Nurses at a hospital got a pay raise, for example."
--Cassandra Nathan's "Save America, Save the World" pp. 151-152

鈥淎ccording to the Health Care Financing Administration, doctor's salaries went up 41.7 percent from 1988 to 1998 while medical malpractice costs only went up 5.7 percent during this same period of time. Health care costs went up 74.7 percent.鈥?The article points out that states that do cap such claims, such as California, had only an 8 percent difference in malpractice insurance premiums and that nationally such rates went up 0.2 percent, but 0.4 percent in California between 1991 and 2000. Then it was stated that a dozen years after passage of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act that malpractice premiums increased 190 percent and that in California their healthcare costs grew by 343 percent." Nathan's book pp. 152-153

So is it really a fault of malpractice suits, or does the fact that insurers REFUSED to insure cause the "crisis" which resulted in the legislation the insurers wanted (as they pay the claims)? When their interests were protected, they came back to town, lowered rates a bit, and the patients, now barred from suing unless they make a lot of money, don't see a penny of this "benefit."