"USA Today" Piece on GA

[aviatoreb]

 

In summary, this article blows and isn’t in the publics best interest IMHO.

 

No - but what do you really think David?

 

Lol

 

Yes you are right - when deciding to travel - it should be head-head vs the next alternative travel - so the google maps comparable car miles vs the airplane trip on the same.

[aviatoreb]

I wrote this on another forum on this article, so I just cut and paste-

 

How do you make a banging your head on the wall emoticon?  Well played.

 

Written by lawyers - could be - very sneaky.

 

The genius of a good lie is it has a germ of truth.  Yes several folks here have mentioned yes there is a germ of truth in this article - but then it is twisted, and lopsided, and sensationalized to the point that the article is not truthful and accurate.  A debate for debate team to win an argument - creative writing - as I said - not sober reporting, if that even exists any more.

 

I miss Walter Chronkite.

[bumper]

. As a physician, I have never felt the malpractice lawyers were the enemy and firmly believe that the threat of lawsuits is beneficial to most patients.  Our malpractice system isn’t quite balanced yet but it is better then nothing.

 

 

There needs to be an efficient way to remove bad doctors . . . just like with any other profession. I just don't believe the malpractice lawyers and the legal system are and efficient, fare, or honest way to do this. There are numerous instances where doctors are sued, and lose, even when they do a good, honest job. Enter defensive medicine, where doctors prescribe tests, procedures and drugs, even when in their best judgement, they think they are unneeded or don't pass cost/benefit muster . The risk of being sued drives up the insurance costs that doctors must bare as well.

 

When you say, ". . . beneficial to most patients", surely you cannot be referring to the cost of medical care in terms of value received? America now spends more per patient than any other industrialized nation. While something like 690 billion, according to some sources, are wasted in our medical system. And the costs continue to rise much faster than inflation.

 

How many doctors do you know who have either quit their practice altogether due to insurance costs or have gone under the wing of some hospital where their services are billed out at 3 or more times as much as when they practiced privately?

 

This is a bit off subject, but the very same forces are at work helping to keep aviation costs high. Many lawsuits are nothing more than extortion, the entity being sued is essentially forced to decide between settling out of court or paying even more for their own defense, even when they know they have no culpability. Implementing "Loser pays" and penalizing attorneys who bring too many frivolous lawsuits would go a long way toward correcting this.

 

There are also a goodly number of innovations and inventions that will never come to fruition due to liability concerns. As is, our current legal system has become a pervasive, choking, blanket smothering our economy. Sure, there's good about it too, and I think it's fixable, but as is it spawns and breeds greed, corruption, and fraud while often punishing the innocent. 

 

bumper

[David Mazer]

Bumper,

 

I don't want to drag this thread off topic so I will keep most of my responses, and most of them are just my opinion, to your comments related to GA.  Removing bad doctors and pilots, shouldn't be the tort systems responsibility.  I believe the tort system is better at being the sword of Damocles than the actual executioner.  "Defensive" medicine is really more evidence based than defensive.  The legal system has reenforced that a given procedure or medicine or test is useful for diagnosing or treating a disease and us doctors really need to take care of our patients or plan on facing the consequences.  I think the same should be true for GA, pilots and manufacturers.

 

I don't know any doctors that have left the field or fled to hospitals because of malpractice insurance costs.  I know many that have quit because of ridiculous government rules and regulations that don't help patients in any way and often hurt them.  A study in 2010 showed there were over 800,000 MDs in the US.  Another study, done by different people and probably with different methods, in 2012 showed there were 550,000 MDs in the US.  Even accepting the lack of head to head compatibility, this is alarming.  I'm certain the same forces are at work on the pilot population.

 

Medical costs are much higher in the US for many reasons.  I don't believe defensive medicine is a large portion of it. I do believe our cost is higher because of government interference with the market and less interference would create a better value to the consumer.  I also believe we have higher costs because we fund all the research on new drugs and procedures.  Something I favor.  So, I accept we will have a higher cost of medical care and that some of that cost is useless, some of the government portion, and some of it is very useful, the research part.

 

The comparisons I've seen with other countries "quality" of care parameters are always poorly done.  For example, comparing the US infant mortality to the infant mortality of Sweden isn't appropriate.  What we should compare is US Swedes with Sweden.  And then we do very well but you'll never hear that because the powers that be can't or won't create a valid comparison.  It doesn't suit their purpose. The experimental market in aviation has a much higher fatality and accident rate but that is hugely skewed by the first 5 hours.  After that, the experimental market is about a s safe as the certified world, just a lot less expensive and more modern.  Both worthy goals.

 

Completely off thread, and for those of you that don't know this, the government, in its infinite wisdom, pays the hospital about 3 times more for hospital employed cardiologists than independent cardiologists for the exact same service.  If you, or your insurance company, pay $100 for a private cardiologist visit, you'll pay about $300 if the cardiologist works for the hospital.  I am totally at a loss how the government feels this will reduce health care costs.

[Bob_Belville]

Rebuttal:

 

www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/unfit-for-publication-how_b_5509253.html

[Hank]

A well-reasoned response that I could not have written. But it seems like he ran out of steam at the end. I like it anyway!

[aviatoreb]

Rebuttal:

 

www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/unfit-for-publication-how_b_5509253.html

 

It seems what I wrote agrees with Jeff Schweitzer almost point by point/

[bonal]

Sadly this country and the rest of the world is out of airspeed out of altitude and out of ideas. Look at most of the younger generations they have been spoon fed so much B.S. In school in culture every thing they experience is fake and agenda driven they would not recognize a true fact if it bit them on the ass. I thank god I don't have kids.

I'm sorry every one but when they re elected our current president I realized we have reached the tipping point and there is no going back. This story is just another example of how the media is demonizing all things that represent freedom and choice and don't get me started on the 2nd amendment oh and did you hear the story that they want to increase the gas tax by another 12 cents per gallon. Boy that's going to really help the economy grow.

I would love to hear any stories that might give a glimmer of hope. On the bright side took a couple of short flights today it sure felt good to put the wheels in the wells.

[aviatoreb]

bonal and daver328, I disagree with both of you guys - you seem to be suggesting that this is a liberal piece born of the writers political convictions and the newspaper's leanings.  That is a compliment to the writer at least that they believe in something - even if you don't like what they believe in.  I believe this is simply creative writing designed to sell newspapers and advance their own career, and nothing more.

[bonal]

Well its still a free country, sort of. You go ahead and keep telling yourself this The fact that things have gotten so messed up proves I'm in the minority which is exactly my point. 4 words I hope I never say "i told you so"

[flyboy0681]

Bumper,

 

Medical costs are much higher in the US for many reasons.  I don't believe defensive medicine is a large portion of it. I do believe our cost is higher because of government interference with the market and less interference would create a better value to the consumer. 

 

I wrote and market software for health insurers which data mines their claims database for overpayments in the area of medical necessity as well as fraud and abuse. The numbers that I see on a weekly basis of what providers try to get away with in terms of billing is absolutely mind boggling. Actually staggering is more like it. Some of the errors are not intentional and some, well.

 

Thankfully the insurance industry is on top of things and a lot of these overpayments are caught, but billions of dollars worth are not, for a number of reasons. One is their own reluctance. You would not believe how many companies that I approach tell me to fk off. Then there are the insurers that allow me to analyze their claims for zero cost to them. Just last year I presented an insurer with my findings which showed about $5m in potential overpayments from the previous year. In the end they said they were too busy to get a recovery effort going.

 

Thankfully many insurers saw value in my system and now I can afford to own a Mooney! By the way, those that license my system realize tens of millions per year in savings, although I don't get a piece of that since I license the system on a fix fee.

[David Mazer]

Flyboy0681,

 

This is going to come across harsh, but, fraud is illegal.  What does your comment have to do with anything related to this topic?  Doctors that commit fraud, pilots that break the law, lawyers, politicians, teachers, etc., that break the law are breaking the law.  By definition, there is already a law dealing with it. I don't think anyone on this thread said it is okay to break the law.  What is being said is that the article misrepresents the state of GA in a biased and unfair manner that is detrimental to GA and, by extension, all of us.  IMO, a very different discussion.

[flyboy0681]

Flyboy0681,

 

This is going to come across harsh, but, fraud is illegal.  What does your comment have to do with anything related to this topic?  Doctors that commit fraud, pilots that break the law, lawyers, politicians, teachers, etc., that break the law are breaking the law.  By definition, there is already a law dealing with it. I don't think anyone on this thread said it is okay to break the law.  What is being said is that the article misrepresents the state of GA in a biased and unfair manner that is detrimental to GA and, by extension, all of us.  IMO, a very different discussion.

 

My comment doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but I was replying to something stated in a post here.

 

Fraud is not responsible for a majority of overpayments that I see but are due to the complexities of medical billing. All you need to do is look at an Explanation of Benefits (EOB) that your insurer sends you when they pay your doctor to know what I'm talking about. Deciphering it sometimes requires an advanced degree.

[Earl]

Well this is timely.  I was in Jackson, MS yesterday visiting our local office and one of the senior guys in the office came rushing over to me to tell me I was crazy for flying my Mooney.  He had just read the article and was adamant that I read it.  I told him I considered the USA Today to be more of a cartoon than a source of news and that other than the sports section I wouldn't use it in the bottom of a bird cage lest the bird became so stupid that it would starve to death.  

 

But I took it and scanned it and recognized it for the abysmal journalism that it was.  It is hard for me to believe that this got past an editor that had half a brain........but then I remembered we are talking the USA Today.  The main problem with this article is the compression of all these issues to make them seemingly immediate.  Comparing the total deaths over 50 years to more contemporary numbers for airlines, etc. was misleading and a blatant case of sensationalism.  As I told my employee, flying is all about risk management but at the end of the day any human endeavor entails a certain amount of risk.  But the impression left by the article was totally misleading.

 

USA Today is a disgrace which is why I never even pick them up at hotels.  And when they put one outside my door I kick it aside.

[aviatoreb]

Just to be clear, the "reporter" believes in...selling newspapers, right? Certainly not in actually reporting. Fair and Balanced? NOPE.

 

That is my opinion of what goes on with a lot of reporters-writers generally, including this one, and certainly with the one who tried so hard to twist our words when interviewed I described earlier in this thread.

 

I hear that you don't agree with my premise.  If that is what you are saying, we hear each other Scott, so thanks for that and I guess we agree to disagree. 

[bonal]

_{Nothing makes he news people happier than a small airplane crash. and it never ceases to amaze me what the so called experts have to say about the causes,  So when I was getting my PPL my instructors taught me in an emergency always aviate communicate etc. perhaps we should also endever to ge hold of some one from the evening news and provide the story of why your airplane is falling from the sky just incase you dont make it. Having the 24 hour news cycle forces the networks to put crap out there before they learn the facts because they want to be the first to break the story. in the good old days they had time to get the facts before the start of the broadcast or when it had to get to press.}

_{but an editorial piece like this there is no excuse it has an agenda other than just selling papers.}

[PMcClure]

The print edition just arrived to my hotel door in Asia. Looks to me that ND, Nh, de, and ri are the safest places to fly helicopters. No accidents listed since 1982! Florida pilots or manufactures must be the worst. What a joke.....

[DaV8or]

News outlets are in business to make money. The way they make money is advertizing, whether it be print, TV, or internet. In this age of the internet, a website's earning potential is based on the number of people that visit the site. In addition, a news reporter and writer probably can advance their career if their stories get lots of hits.

 

If you write a controversial article, it's going to drive lots of traffic to the site. It goes viral among the people that it irritates and they send links to all their friends and it ends up in forums. In addition, people that don't know better, read it and pass the shocking "news" off to their friends and family that they feel should be informed. Ultimately a buzz is created. Eventually other commentators feel compelled to write rebuttals which in turn drives even more traffic back the original site because that those that missed the original story want to go back and get up to speed. It doesn't have to be fair, it doesn't have to be unbiased and it doesn't have to be all truth, only plausible to the ignorant and well presented.

 

I am convinced that this article was produced with help from an aviation trial lawyer. I'm also convinced that the author got a big atta boy and is moving up the ladder at USA Today. The old saying in the news business always was, "If it bleeds, it leads." Well this story collected up 50 years worth of blood, so it was a sure thing. Well played Mr.Frank, well played.   

[John Pleisse]

This was an intentionally anti-GA, ignorant, incompetent and incomplete analysis. Good news? Nobody reads it.

[triple8s]

Here's a story that's a glimmer of hope for all the young people out there............

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/chelsea-clinton-nbc-600-k-salary-107827.html

[flyboy0681]

Here's a story that's a glimmer of hope for all the young people out there............

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/chelsea-clinton-nbc-600-k-salary-107827.html

 

This is a non-sequitur for which your point is?

 

I can't remember, did you inform us in 2009 when Jenna Bush also went to work for NBC?

 

(And I thought it was a big deal with Fox hired Steve Doocy's kid Peter as their crack correspondent.)

[fantom]

This is a non-sequitur for which your point is?

 

I can't remember, did you inform us in 2009 when Jenna Bush also went to work for NBC?

 

(And I thought it was a big deal with Fox hired Steve Doocy's kid Peter as their crack correspondent.)

Two wrongs rarely make a right, especially when the more recent ones are more egregious than the prior ones, which seems to be the trend.

Applies to flying also

[flyboy0681]

Two wrongs rarely make a right, especially when the more recent ones are more egregious than the prior ones, which seems to be the trend.

Applies to flying also

 

I can personally give two, you know whats, for Chelsea and I'm not defending her or NBC, but someone with degrees from Stanford, Columbia and Oxford University must have "a little" more worth than somebody who attended the University of Texas. 

[flyboy0681]

College snobbery. A new low on Mooneyspace...Lets pull another thread while we are at it. BRILLIANT!

 

I'm sorry if you missed my point, which is, that graduates from Ivy League do better than than those from public institutions.

 

A simple Google search will prove that in an instant. I actually have two personal examples, two of my sons friends graduated a few weeks ago, interestingly, both with degrees in Finance. The one who attended Yale got a job in NYC with a starting salary of $120k. His other friend graduated from University of Florida. While he did get offers in NYC, he accepted a job in Washington DC with a starting salary of $65k. 

 

No college snob here, I went to a public school.

[flyboy0681]

Too funny Flyboy. I guess if you get paid "more" you have a better education...Right.

 

 

Pffft.