Medical tort "reform"?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Supposn, Sep 15, 2009.

  1. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    867
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +31
    Complainants of all civil suites can retain legal representation on a contingency basis but medical suites are among the most expensive and most difficult civil cases to prosecute.

    Competent medical testimony is very expensive. Doctors are more inclined to support their colleagues in court and are reluctant to publicly voice their critical opinions in public. Despite all of this, Republicans advocate severe legal limitations of legal remedies due to medical error or misconduct. Advocates of medical tort “reform” believe that victims now have too many legal rights.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,248
    Thanks Received:
    14,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +37,034
    No other country allows lawyers to feast on the medical and health care industry like America. Not one.
     
  3. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    Neo cons NEVER take responsibility for anything. They hate victims as Glenn Beck articulated so eloquintly. They are the first to howl to the heavens when they feel the least bit slighted. They have all taken the hypocritical oath.
     
  4. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    867
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +31
    (This thread was derived from a message within another discussion group).

    Wyly, USA civil suits are generally governed by state rather federal law. The laws of most if not all of our states have provisions for frivolous law suits that are similar to those that you've described within Canadian law.

    The laws (within two states I'm slightly acquainted with), require a legal basis for a suit. The respondent may question that basis in their written response to the suit.

    Prior to trial both parties of any civil or criminal case may ask question the other party regarding the case. A party can be compelled to answer those questions unless they have legal cause to refuse responding to any particular questions.

    I'm not a lawyer but I suppose that based upon complainants' wording of a suit or answers to interrogatories a judge can dismiss or entertain a defendant’s motion to dismiss a suit that has no legal basis prior to the commencement of trial. After the prosecutors or complainants have rested their cases and prior to any defense being offered, defendants conventionally move for dismissal on that same basis; (the case should be deemed as frivolous).

    Defendants can ask for damages based upon frivolous prosecution. That is but not a rare occurrence. It is more seldom that a lawyer is sanctioned for knowingly prosecuting a frivolous case.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  5. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    Without tort reform there will be no real reform of the health care industry. In the last few years the cost of mal-practice insurance has risen 1400%, it costs our government app 380 billion dollars a year. Many physicians pay well over $100,000 for mal-practice insurance, app 85% of physicians who don't have tort reform legislation in their states practice defensive medicine, running the identical test on the same patient to make sure that they make a correct diagnosis in order to cover all of their bases. All of these costs are passed back onto us the consumer in the form of higher and higher fees for service. Another problem, physicians are moving to states where they have Tort reform. Example Texas and Indiana, pretty soon the states that have not enacted tort reform will be lacking doctors to take care of the patient load. Tort reform is nothing more than putting a limit on the amount of damages, you can still sue the doctor, but there will be a limit on compensation. You can also sue insurance companies.

    Keep in mind that if and when the government takes this over, and they screw you or a family member up, you will have absolutely no recourse against them.

    The trail lawyer lobbyists are in the back pocket of the democratic party, Howard Dean, a life long democrat and major fund raiser admitted this during a town hall meeting.

    Congress and the senate are filled with lawyers on both sides of the ailes, many of them were previous ambulance chasers. I urge everyone to write their congressman and senators and let them know how important tort reform is to control the ever increasing costs of health care. Without tort reform we can't control the costs of healthcare, and it will continue to skyrocket.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2009

Share This Page