Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So no tort reform Bfgrn? Limited as suggested by rightwinger? Any suggestions on other areas of agreement that might be reached? Elimination of some pre-existing conditions like acne?
Here's the conclusion from my article...
Tort law is sprawling and messy, and no doubt it could always use a little reforming to make it fairer to both claimants and defendants. But this is an entirely separate issue from health care reform. To insist there can be no health care reform without tort reform is like saying there can be no grapes without cats. It's nonsensical.
However, it's important to keep in mind that "tort reform" is about limiting citizens' legal rights. Allowing special interests to write state tort law amounts to letting foxes set rules for the henhouse.
-----------------
I watched the Republican's attempt to "punish the victims" back in '05 when they tried to push through a cap of $250,000 max lifetime payout on OB GYN malpractice...
Imagine having a severely disabled infant survives and then requires lifetime medical and nursing care...then do the MATH...
So no tort reform Bfgrn? Limited as suggested by rightwinger? Any suggestions on other areas of agreement that might be reached? Elimination of some pre-existing conditions like acne?
Here's the conclusion from my article...
Tort law is sprawling and messy, and no doubt it could always use a little reforming to make it fairer to both claimants and defendants. But this is an entirely separate issue from health care reform. To insist there can be no health care reform without tort reform is like saying there can be no grapes without cats. It's nonsensical.
However, it's important to keep in mind that "tort reform" is about limiting citizens' legal rights. Allowing special interests to write state tort law amounts to letting foxes set rules for the henhouse.
-----------------
I watched the Republican's attempt to "punish the victims" back in '05 when they tried to push through a cap of $250,000 max lifetime payout on OB GYN malpractice...
Imagine having a severely disabled infant survives and then requires lifetime medical and nursing care...then do the MATH...
Did I mention a cap level? If you define malpractice as a willful misuse of commonly held medical practices then sue away. If you are talking the statistical average that says one in whatever kids is going to have said problem. Then you have no leg to stand on in my opinion. P.S. I don't think anyone is worth more than a million unless they clearly have that proven potential.
Here's the conclusion from my article...
Tort law is sprawling and messy, and no doubt it could always use a little reforming to make it fairer to both claimants and defendants. But this is an entirely separate issue from health care reform. To insist there can be no health care reform without tort reform is like saying there can be no grapes without cats. It's nonsensical.
However, it's important to keep in mind that "tort reform" is about limiting citizens' legal rights. Allowing special interests to write state tort law amounts to letting foxes set rules for the henhouse.
Defendants have legal rights too. And an argument can be made that doctors shouldn't have to go around like grab bags for the pleasure of the legal industry.
The sword cuts both ways. On the one hand, litigation is the best quality control mechanism available to insure good medicine. On the other, when risk is minimal and the potential for reward is high, lawyers are going to circle like sharks.
It's not right to put TOTAL responsibility on the backs of practitioners for a service that everyone needs and utilizes. They provide the service AND absorb all the liability for what is essentially an inexact science. Lives and careers teeter in the balance, and all it takes is any baseless accusation to ruin everything you've worked for, and because there's often very little cost assigned for bringing suit, there's no reason not to play the legal lotto.
As I said before, I don't believe that federal action is constitutionally sound when we're talking about in-state cases. But at the state level, we need to make sure that we're not tilting the table in favor of one side and denying recourse to the other.
I watched the Republican's attempt to "punish the victims" back in '05 when they tried to push through a cap of $250,000 max lifetime payout on OB GYN malpractice...
Imagine having a severely disabled infant survives and then requires lifetime medical and nursing care...then do the MATH...
And good luck finding an OB/GYN in some parts of the country. I can't blame any doctor for getting out. Their malpractice rates are out of this world.
It's sad and it's a shame when babies suffer birth injuries. But giving birth and being born are not without inherent danger. That's been true for the entirety of human history, even though it's alot more safe today.
Sob stories given to juries have cost us good doctors societally. And I have to wonder if someday when my own grandchildren are born if there will be any left to deliver them or if we'll all be standing around, scratching our heads, trying to figure out how to cut the cord.
My kids weren't at all interested in the study of medicine, even though they're certainly intelligent enough to accomplish it. It's a 24/7 job with an "ewww"-factor that's off the charts. And as your reward for having your hands in other people's orifices half the day, you get to double as a pinata for disgruntled patients and their skeezy lawyers.
They naturally said, "No thanks".
I have to laugh at the right, they scream about overbearing federal government, yet they're so willing to have that same federal government dictate how judges should rule. If a case is frivolous, then any competent judge should be qualified to determine that and throw it out...
Also, the right loves to preach about "personal" responsibility, until it applies to a doctor, lawyer or corporate CEO...It is only meant to apply to VICTIMS...
I have to laugh at the right, they scream about overbearing federal government, yet they're so willing to have that same federal government dictate how judges should rule. If a case is frivolous, then any competent judge should be qualified to determine that and throw it out...
Also, the right loves to preach about "personal" responsibility, until it applies to a doctor, lawyer or corporate CEO...It is only meant to apply to VICTIMS...
I am likewise surprised when conservatives suggest Congressional "tort reform" without qualifying it as applying to only federal and interstate cases. Although, as I said.. I do believe that states should take it under consideration.
I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make in regard to "personal responsibility" though. Personal responsibility applies to everyone. So does justice. And it's not justice to allow the costly harassment of an entire profession to the extent that a societally necessary service becomes scarce.
It's simply not true that judges are able to toss out all frivolous cases. Consider the judge who sued his cleaners over a lost pair of pants...
Court Rules for Cleaners In $54 Million Pants Suit - washingtonpost.com
This poor family of Korean immigrants spent TWO YEARS defending themselves.
And even though the judge was ordered to pay their court costs, it wasn't clear at the time of the article if he indeed had the money to pay.
WHY should anyone, doctor or cleaner, have to go through something like that? And even though it wouldn't stop the more loony of litigants, simple fixes like outlawing punitive damages would put a grinding halt to the abuse. Afterall, when you think about it, what right does a civil court have to "punish" someone who hasn't been found criminally guilty? What right does a plaintiff have to receive more than what he can prove he's lost?
That judge should've been directed to small claims court and collected the price of a pair of pants. But he wasn't. Instead, he clogged up the court system and dragged an entire family through hell in the process.
If you ask me, we need to take a good, long, look at how we prosecute civil law in this country, both at the federal level AND at the state level. And also as it applies to healthcare. Exorbitant malpractice insurance affects us all... because it raises the cost of a necessary service.
I'm astonished, actually, that the left is in such a hurry to put all that cash into the hands of insurers so as to fight tort reform.
Usually, they're quite busy demonizing the private insurance industry.
If we start legislating based on extreme and rare cases and follow the advice of polarized right wing minds, we will be Russia...
BTW...
But there are some facts about health care the Right doesn't want you to know. In fact, most righties won't admit the truth about tort reform to themselves. These are:
* Tort law is mostly a state, not a federal, issue. Some proposals for federal tort reform would amount to a federal takeover of state authority and would also run afoul of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
* Most of the states already have enacted tort reform laws. There's very little proposed for federal tort reform that all but a few states haven't enacted already. In other words, in large parts of the country, tort already is "reformed."
* State tort reform laws have had no impact on health care costs. In some cases, states with the strongest limitations on tort actually have had bigger increases in health care costs than states which have mostly left tort alone.
* "Defensive medicine" seems to be a sham. The argument that physicians order more tests and procedures to protect themselves from lawsuits is not borne out by physician behavior. There is no data showing that a significant number of physicians change their procedure- and test-ordering policies after state tort reform substantially protects them from malpractice. On the other hand, there is copious documented evidence that physicians who make extra income from the procedures they order, do order more procedures than physicians who dont.
More...
..."Russia"... "The right." ... 
But Jethro went through a whole post without calling you a "pea brain"....You oughtta have some gratitude.If we start legislating based on extreme and rare cases and follow the advice of polarized right wing minds, we will be Russia...
BTW...
But there are some facts about health care the Right doesn't want you to know. In fact, most righties won't admit the truth about tort reform to themselves. These are:
* Tort law is mostly a state, not a federal, issue. Some proposals for federal tort reform would amount to a federal takeover of state authority and would also run afoul of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
* Most of the states already have enacted tort reform laws. There's very little proposed for federal tort reform that all but a few states haven't enacted already. In other words, in large parts of the country, tort already is "reformed."
* State tort reform laws have had no impact on health care costs. In some cases, states with the strongest limitations on tort actually have had bigger increases in health care costs than states which have mostly left tort alone.
* "Defensive medicine" seems to be a sham. The argument that physicians order more tests and procedures to protect themselves from lawsuits is not borne out by physician behavior. There is no data showing that a significant number of physicians change their procedure- and test-ordering policies after state tort reform substantially protects them from malpractice. On the other hand, there is copious documented evidence that physicians who make extra income from the procedures they order, do order more procedures than physicians who don’t.
More...
Aaaahh... I see my mistake was my attempt to engage you in a d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n.
All I see when I look at your post though is:
"The right."... Righties."...
Talking point.
Talking point.
Talking point.
More
"Damn Righties!" "Russia" "Hmph!"
If we start legislating based on extreme and rare cases and follow the advice of polarized right wing minds, we will be Russia...
BTW...
But there are some facts about health care the Right doesn't want you to know. In fact, most righties won't admit the truth about tort reform to themselves. These are:
* Tort law is mostly a state, not a federal, issue. Some proposals for federal tort reform would amount to a federal takeover of state authority and would also run afoul of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
* Most of the states already have enacted tort reform laws. There's very little proposed for federal tort reform that all but a few states haven't enacted already. In other words, in large parts of the country, tort already is "reformed."
* State tort reform laws have had no impact on health care costs. In some cases, states with the strongest limitations on tort actually have had bigger increases in health care costs than states which have mostly left tort alone.
* "Defensive medicine" seems to be a sham. The argument that physicians order more tests and procedures to protect themselves from lawsuits is not borne out by physician behavior. There is no data showing that a significant number of physicians change their procedure- and test-ordering policies after state tort reform substantially protects them from malpractice. On the other hand, there is copious documented evidence that physicians who make extra income from the procedures they order, do order more procedures than physicians who dont.
More...
Aaaahh... I see my mistake was my attempt to engage you in a d-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n.
All I see when I look at your post though is:
"The right."... Righties."...
Talking point.
Talking point.
Talking point.
More
"Damn Righties!" "Russia" "Hmph!"
But Jethro went through a whole post without calling you a "pea brain"....You oughtta have some gratitude.
I wonder how many insurance executives should be in orange jumpsuits picking up trash on the roadside.We need to stop bowing to the insurance industry. They are not the sole reason our healthcare system is in such bad shape, but they are a major player.
With all the fighting they have done against the public option, they should be forced to give up something in return for holding back on Government competition. Open competition across state lines will bring down prices and open up options.
This, along with pooling uninsured or underinsured Americans, advertising medical fees and quality, making them insure anyone who applies, increasing competition in pharms will all help hold down costs
