The key question is who was the judge; who was plaintiff’s counsel; where was this case tried (what county of NYC). This case stands more for how Med Mal cases play out in the NYC courts and that turns on the talents of the attorneys for both sides and what judge oversaw the case and his/her bias than it does for broader issues of the medical treatment. A paralysis victim is a very sympathetic plaintiff and the defense may have been forced to go to verdict to deal with larger settlement demands than the award; bottom line is that this case does not stand for any policy or trend as much as it is about its own facts and trial.
Some people on this message board have to re-think their position on who gets medical care first. I wonder if you’ll be saying the same thing when you turn 70….geez…don’t you guys know that
“70” is the new “60”? By the time you reach “70”, it will probably be the new “30”….since we are all living longer, I’m not so sure you’d be willing to give up your “place in line”.
As to Universal Medical care, I say “phooey”…keep health insurance privatized and the government out of our lives.
Ned, I’m 52 and if I were having my SVT’s, I would think that the “20-something” behind me with a terrible head cold could wait before I had a heart attack….as well as the 20-something that was having “kidney stone” pain (please read my prior posts).I would think a heart condition would take priority over anything. I don’t think you read this thread thoroughly…that is, are you ready to “chuck it all”? …..I’m not….I don’t think you would be ready either if it were you having the heart attack….Unless you are terminally ill, please stop being so self-rightous.
I am 56 and I would give my place in line in a SECOND for a young person to receive quicker med care. Just wanted you to know that not all feel the way you do – some of us WOULD move out of the way.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The key question is who was the judge; who was plaintiff’s counsel; where was this case tried (what county of NYC). This case stands more for how Med Mal cases play out in the NYC courts and that turns on the talents of the attorneys for both sides and what judge oversaw the case and his/her bias than it does for broader issues of the medical treatment. A paralysis victim is a very sympathetic plaintiff and the defense may have been forced to go to verdict to deal with larger settlement demands than the award; bottom line is that this case does not stand for any policy or trend as much as it is about its own facts and trial.
Some people on this message board have to re-think their position on who gets medical care first. I wonder if you’ll be saying the same thing when you turn 70….geez…don’t you guys know that
“70” is the new “60”? By the time you reach “70”, it will probably be the new “30”….since we are all living longer, I’m not so sure you’d be willing to give up your “place in line”.
As to Universal Medical care, I say “phooey”…keep health insurance privatized and the government out of our lives.
Ned, I’m 52 and if I were having my SVT’s, I would think that the “20-something” behind me with a terrible head cold could wait before I had a heart attack….as well as the 20-something that was having “kidney stone” pain (please read my prior posts).I would think a heart condition would take priority over anything. I don’t think you read this thread thoroughly…that is, are you ready to “chuck it all”? …..I’m not….I don’t think you would be ready either if it were you having the heart attack….Unless you are terminally ill, please stop being so self-rightous.
I am 56 and I would give my place in line in a SECOND for a young person to receive quicker med care. Just wanted you to know that not all feel the way you do – some of us WOULD move out of the way.