Reform Torts to Bring Malpractice Insurance Down

[veritas]

The insurance companies have their own lawyers on salaries, just to create a boondoggle. Lawyers like Edwards take all the risks and proceed with no money with only the promise of an award to be paid for their efforts.

Only 1 in 30 of VALID claims that are denied are ever pursued in court. Of those, the insurance companies have the upper hand and get half of those thrown out in pre-trial motions. The big tort reform push is not all you think it is.

 

[Maple]

you will not be able to control the costs of health care. Period!!!!!!!!!!

 

[veritas]

I think tort reform should wait until insurance is reformed. The laws on the books are weak for us and good for the insurance companies. The insurance industry is what staffs the state insurance administrations and the lobbyists ranks with their revolving door scheme. The deck is already stacked in their favor.

Torts are very narrow as it is, just because you were done wrong doesn't mean there's a tort that applies to your situation. There very often may not be a law that addresses your situation, even though you were clearly injured. You have no idea what it is like until you navigate around in their territory. If you had, you wouldn't be so enthusiastic about it. [tort reform]

The truth is the insurance companies can drag things out forever. Meanwhile, you'll just have to wait.

 

[Maple]

Read the article Veritas, I don't beleive you have. TORT REFORM IS A HUGE DEAL!!!

 

[Maple]

non-partisan group of number crunchers. This is a portion of a PDF file under their site, and you guys think that socialized medicine is a great deal. It will increase costs of health care not decrease them.

"Collectively, those provisions would yield a significant increase in the number of
Americans with health insurance. By 2019, CBO and the staff of JCT estimate, the
number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about
37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of
whom would be unauthorized immigrants). In total, CBO estimates that enacting
those provisions would raise deficits by $1,042 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

And yet it would still not insure everyone, and guess what guys, illegal immigrants will still be showing up in our emergency rooms, getting medical care and who do you think is going to pay for them. YOU ARE!!!!!

This is a low ball estimate of the costs.

 

[veritas]

Read the article Veritas, I don't beleive you have. TORT REFORM IS A HUGE DEAL!!!

I'm speaking for myself, maple. I've been through the labyrinthe and lived to tell about it. I don't need an article to know that tort reform is a very dangerous route to take.

 

[Navy1960]

The idea of tort reform is important to the future of this country because of the enormous burden that tort litigation costs place on the economy. It's estimated that costs of the U.S. tort system exceed $200 billion a year, and at 2 percent of our nation's gross domestic product, that's more than double the average in much of Western Europe, Canada and Japan.

And unless some changes are made to our current system, costs could rise as much as 8 percent over the next few years, bringing tort costs up to $1,000 per person. But simply putting a $250,000 limit on medical malpractice awards for pain and suffering, as proposed by this administration, is not the answer to this growing problem.

CNN.com - Tort reform important to U.S. future - Jan 6, 2005

Personally this 250,000 dollar cap makes little sense if you apply it to real damages in a case that us clearly shows liability issues. Let's say a plaintiff is awarded damages under such a system against a company 250K would be nothing and would never be effective as method to change what caused the libialty in the first place. Howver, that being said. I do think that Tort reform should be a part of any healthcare reform as it applies to a responsibilty issue. When someone brings these lawsuits they should be held to fee's and costs if they are found to be complete nonsense. There are many other things that can be done with tort reform that can bring down the costs of malpractice insurance to treating doctors that in turn pass those costs along to you and to me and cause healthcare costs to rise. This is but one factor that causes health insurance costs to rise.

 

[Vanquish]

Hey there. I'm a long-time lurker that had to come out of the woodwork on this one. I'm an Alabama lawyer that litigates med-mal claims among others on the plaintiff's side. Obviously you know I'm going to be anti-tort reform, but here's an anecdotal reason why: "It's great until it's you."

Most of the articles and forum posts I've ready where people say "limit awards to X, Y, Z" or "lower attorney's fees" are from people who have never put themselves in the position of someone harmed by medical negligence.

Before you post about artificial limits, stop and think "hmmm how much money would make up for my mother's death?" I'm hoping most of you would initially think "heck, there's no amount of money that would make up for that." Good point.

Now imagine the impact on your still-living father, who just lost his life-long companion and the person whose shared finances he depended on. And think about the effect on the family that depended on her gifts and inheritance. I could go on and on.

There are lots of situations where jury awards of $250,000 wouldn't even scratch the surface of making up for the gross negligence of doctors, administrators, and hospitals.

And before you start pulling the ambulance chaser card...attorneys fees are indicative of two things: 1) the rules of professional responsibility that guard against excessive fees and 2) the fricking free market. I love it when people call the democrat card on trial lawyers when, even in Alabama, the majority of trial lawyers aren't dems. And it's people touting the free market! free market! who turn around and try to limit the income of lawyers making an honest buck.

If you saw, day in and day out, how insurance and pharmaceutical companies try to royally screw the little guy, you wouldn't be singing the praises of tort reform.

 

[veritas]

If you saw, day in and day out, how insurance and pharmaceutical companies try to royally screw the little guy, you wouldn't be singing the praises of tort reform.

Oh god they have no idea.....insurance tries to stay under the radar and appear boring.

 

[jillian]

I provided the article- just google tort reform. There are many there.

that's a violation of board copyright rules.

and i'm not really interested in spending time reading fallacious propaganda pieces from hinky sources.

thanks anyway.

 

[jillian]

Are you not an attorney Jillian???? Could it be that you have a personal interest in the outcome of this reform?

i don't do that type of work. my interest is in correcting people who spread disinformation and misinformation.

now go read what i wrote.... because those are the facts. thanks.

 

[jillian]

you will not be able to control the costs of health care. Period!!!!!!!!!!

Then why is it that insurance companies have the second highest profit levels of any industry?

try reading this article from 2005 before you spread more false information....

Gouging, numbers belie medical malpractice 'crisis' claims

and then ask yourself why they are spending about 1.4 million dollars a day to fight health care reform.

 

[oreo]

I was listening to a doctor discussing this issue. He says they are a group of 7 doctors & their office medical malpractice bill is 500 THOUSAND dollars per year.

But fat chance of getting tort reform from this congress & administration. The lawyers union in the United States is a huge donator to the DNC--plus 2/3 of this congress & administration are confirmed ambulance chasers.

 

[goldcatt]

There is a good argument for tort reform cutting costs primarily in defensive medicine. But there are pitfalls as well. I would consider tort reform if it took into account that there are people who are seriously injured by a small number of negligent practitioners and deserve compensation for their very real losses and ongoing expenses. Anything that bars these people from access to court and just compensation I can't support. Getting rid of things like punitive damages is fine with me, but they are already rare. It's hard to get the right balance on this one, and I don't have an answer.

 

[Vanquish]

Oreo, I applaud your use of the red coloring, but when you spread that 500 thousand over the 7 doctors you have a reasonable insurance cost.

I say reasonable, but of course you're implying it's unreasonable. So where can we get some figures? Why not go to the General Accounting Office (GAO)? A September 1, 2003 GAO report spent over 41 pages explaining that not only were malpractice costs not running doctors out of business, but as a function of overall costs, that medical malpractice insurance isn't the most costly part of running a medical practice.

It's a part of doing business. Do we allow 98,000 deaths per year in airplane accidents in the U.S.? No. And the way we prevent many airplane deaths is by having strict, enforceable rules on how airplanes must be built, tested, and maintained; and by doing exhaustive studies on every accident.

 

[veritas]

Oreo, I applaud your use of the red coloring, but when you spread that 500 thousand over the 7 doctors you have a reasonable insurance cost.

I say reasonable, but of course you're implying it's unreasonable. So where can we get some figures? Why not go to the General Accounting Office (GAO)? A September 1, 2003 GAO report spent over 41 pages explaining that not only were malpractice costs not running doctors out of business, but as a function of overall costs, that medical malpractice insurance isn't the most costly part of running a medical practice.

It's a part of doing business. Do we allow 98,000 deaths per year in airplane accidents in the U.S.? No. And the way we prevent many airplane deaths is by having strict, enforceable rules on how airplanes must be built, tested, and maintained; and by doing exhaustive studies on every accident.

Very good points, Vanquish. and I assume that those 7 doctors also have coverage that extends to their employees as well, [ like nurses and techs] so it is a very reasonable cost.

 

[oreo]

Every single thing I have read on this counters that argument. Tort is a meaningless diversion from the real issues of healthcare cost.

The Medical Malpractice Myth by Tom Baker, an excerpt

'What do we know?"

"First, we know from the California study, as confirmed by more recent, better publicized studies, that the real problem is too much medical malpractice, not too much litigation. Most people do not sue, which means that victims—not doctors, hospitals, or liability insurance companies—bear the lion’s share of the costs of medical malpractice.

Second, because of those same studies, we know that the real costs of medical malpractice have little to do with litigation. The real costs of medical malpractice are the lost lives, extra medical expenses, time out of work, and pain and suffering of tens of thousands of people every year, the vast majority of whom do not sue. There is lots of talk about the heavy burden that “defensive medicine” imposes on health costs, but the research shows this is not true.

Third, we know that medical malpractice insurance premiums are cyclical, and that it is not frivolous litigation or runaway juries that drive that cycle. The sharp spikes in malpractice premiums in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 2000s are the result of financial trends and competitive behavior in the insurance industry, not sudden changes in the litigation environment...."

continued

Not true--TORT reform is a MUST. Some states have already done it & it has dramatically lowered costs.

Listening to one doctor--who works out of an office of 7 doctors--they pay 500 THOUSAND dollars per year for mal-practice insurance. They just pass that cost on to us.

But fat chance of getting tort reform from this democrat congress. The attorney union in this country is a huge contributor to the DNC--plus 2/3's of this congress are attorney's themselves.

TO ADD: Obama's has been complaining about all the unnecessary testing! Yep--doctors will do that to do a CYA for the mal-practice law suit.

 

[veritas]

But fat chance of getting tort reform from this democrat congress. The attorney union in this country is a huge contributor to the DNC--plus 2/3's of this congress are attorney's themselves.

And why not......legislators make LAWS. It makes sense that they would be LAWyers.

Tort reform is a red herring. The INSCos own 3/4 of the lawyers anyway.

 

[Vanquish]

The dirty little secret of Tort Reform is the American jury. You think that tort cases are like the lottery? I'll say yes, there are excessive awards, but they are so rare as to be a non-issue. You realize that 97% of cases DONT get litigated, right? The insurance company settles. So the amount paid is their choice.

And of those that do get litigated, the OMGZ! Super high awards are a drop in the bucket compared to the smaller awards.

And of those OMGZ! Super high awards, it's the juries who decide that amount! The American people. Your average Joe. So you're saying that you don't trust your own countrymen. Nice job.

 

[editec]

What about cheaper medical education?
Besides tort costs, another thing I've heard is that it's just too pricey to become a doctor. In other developed countries doctors may not make as much, but since university is usually free then doctors also don't have to pay gigantic loans. Just putting it out there; maybe it's something to look into.

Give that boy a cigar.

FINALLY, somebody besides me is getting it.

We have a SUPPLY/DEMAND imbalance, folks.

Why?

Because we are still training the same number of MDs today that we were training in 1970.

Part of that problem is that medical school takes too long and costs too much money for the students willing to do it.

Another part of that problem is the AMA still works to limit the number of MDs trained and licenced every year.

Now that isn't the entirely problem, but it's certainly a problem we must address if we're ever going to really SOLVE the escalating cost of HC.