What's wrong with this study: Tort reform

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Yurt, Mar 10, 2005.

  1. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038

    Now I ask you, there was financial pressure, hmmm, but this study peremporarily concludes that since malpractrice payouts were the same from 1988 2002, that this "financial pressure" could not have come from an abundance of high medmal suits.

    Anybody see anything wrong with this? Or is it just me?

    Link
     
  2. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    The pressure originally came from declining stock values after the tech bubble burst. With decline investment revenues, malpractice insurers had to find another way to generate revenue...Their solution was to raise premiums on malpractice insurance to the point where they are driving alot of good docs out of practice. I know a few who have retired waaaay early because they were tired of this kind of bullshit.
     
  3. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Yeah, a "study" bashing tort reform out of Texas... where there's a law library named after Joe Jamail. Excuse me while I cough up a fucking lung.

    We need tort reform badly. One of the few things I agree with the Chimp on.
     
  4. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    Ok, fair answers. I have no conclusion on this subject.

    I do though wonder, if according to your post Bully, that medmal ins rates went up not for tort suits, rather for declining stock, then why do we need tort reform? Seems that ins have been able to pay this amount for over twelve years with no dramitic negative effects on Doctor's ins rates. Why then do you propose reform.

    I forget the name of the case (BMW or State Farm I think) where the SCOTUS limited punitives to 10 times the actual damages. This was a great step in halting these absurd punitives that really only benefited the lawyers, not the clients, for these suits were almost wholly class action. CA has an interesting medmal law that limits medmal suit payouts, seems to have worked wonders here, but again, I am not overly familiar with this field. It is though a major topic among people I know, so if you could explain why you think there needs to be tort reform and in what fashion, would be interested.
     
  5. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    You're right, SCOTUS limited punitives pursuant to due process concerns. My problem with allowing jack-off hairpiece lawyers to pursue punitive damages is that it essentially gives them a gun and a badge. Civil lawyers should be righting wrongs, not administering criminal punishment. We have someone to do that already. He's the district attorney.
     

Share This Page