Why we talk about malpractice reform

[JBeukema]

Roughly one-fifth of tests that bone and joint specialists order are because a doctor fears being sued, not because the patient needs them, a first-of-its-kind study in Pennsylvania suggests.
The study comes a day after the Obama administration began a push to overhaul state medical malpractice laws as a way to reduce unnecessary tests that drive up health care costs.
"This study is a glimpse behind the curtain of what's happening in a doctor's mind," said its leader, Dr. John Flynn of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. If doctors sense you might second-guess them or cause trouble, "you could potentially be risking more tests being done."

Study: Doctors order tests out of fear of lawsuits

 

[Bfgrn]

Roughly one-fifth of tests that bone and joint specialists order are because a doctor fears being sued, not because the patient needs them, a first-of-its-kind study in Pennsylvania suggests.
The study comes a day after the Obama administration began a push to overhaul state medical malpractice laws as a way to reduce unnecessary tests that drive up health care costs.
"This study is a glimpse behind the curtain of what's happening in a doctor's mind," said its leader, Dr. John Flynn of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. If doctors sense you might second-guess them or cause trouble, "you could potentially be risking more tests being done."

Study: Doctors order tests out of fear of lawsuits

WHERE is the study? The article has no link to one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Roughly one-fifth of tests that bone and joint specialists order are because a doctor fears being sued, not because the patient needs them, a first-of-its-kind study in Pennsylvania suggests.
The study comes a day after the Obama administration began a push to overhaul state medical malpractice laws as a way to reduce unnecessary tests that drive up health care costs.
"This study is a glimpse behind the curtain of what's happening in a doctor's mind," said its leader, Dr. John Flynn of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. If doctors sense you might second-guess them or cause trouble, "you could potentially be risking more tests being done."

Study: Doctors order tests out of fear of lawsuits

WHERE is the study? The article has no link to one.

More proof you lack reading comprehension. Hell, you lack basic reading skills. From the OP.

Previous studies of how often this happens have relied on doctor surveys. This is the first one to enlist doctors in advance to track their decisions over time.
It involved 72 orthopedic surgeons throughout Pennsylvania who tracked tests they ordered on 2,068 patients, mostly adults, in ordinary office visits, emergency rooms and other settings. Doctors checked a box saying a test was either required for clinical care or done "for defensive reasons."

Defensive imaging accounted for 20 percent of total tests - 11 percent of X-rays, 38 percent of MRIs, 33 percent of CT scans, 57 percent of bone scans and 53 percent of ultrasounds.

 

[Care4all]

only a handfull of doctors have committed malpractice and been sued for it....the problem, is this handful have committed nearly 90% of all malpractice....many in this handful have 3-10 malpractice suits/losses....

YET, THEY KEEP THEIR JOBS instead of losing them....thus malpractice insurance is very high for the 95% of doctors that have never committed or been sued for, malpractice....

the good doctors are having to pay for the handful of bad doctors that the AMA keeps

this needs reform....their licenses need to be taken away....3 strikes you are out!

 

[Bfgrn]

Study: Doctors order tests out of fear of lawsuits

WHERE is the study? The article has no link to one.

More proof you lack reading comprehension. Hell, you lack basic reading skills. From the OP.

Previous studies of how often this happens have relied on doctor surveys. This is the first one to enlist doctors in advance to track their decisions over time.
It involved 72 orthopedic surgeons throughout Pennsylvania who tracked tests they ordered on 2,068 patients, mostly adults, in ordinary office visits, emergency rooms and other settings. Doctors checked a box saying a test was either required for clinical care or done "for defensive reasons."

Defensive imaging accounted for 20 percent of total tests - 11 percent of X-rays, 38 percent of MRIs, 33 percent of CT scans, 57 percent of bone scans and 53 percent of ultrasounds.

That is a bogus 'test'...it is rigged by the question 'for defensive purposes' And there is no link TO the test.

But the bigger picture is why are people on the right so willing to undermine our justice system for doctors, corporations and polluters? If someone files a lawsuit, shouldn't a jury of our peers be able to determine if it is valid or frivolous?

Right now, my country looks nothing like the America I grew up in. The America the liberal era created. The whole of human history has been dominated by aristocracies and plutocracies. Power and wealth have always held advantage over the common man.

What made America truly 'exceptional' was not our Army or our Navy. It was the growth and success of the most robust middle class in history. It's genesis was the New Deal and it blossomed and thrived through the Great Society. It made America the envy of the world, the 'city upon the hill'. But when power and wealth decide to fight back, and they have one party in their pocket, the outcome is not in doubt unless the people stay informed and stand up for their God given rights.

Much of that 'exceptional' America has been erased by 30+ years of conservative policies that were a concentrated assault on the middle guy and the little guy. This conservative malfeasance has neither built nor created anything. But the destruction it caused can only be ignored by someone who is so brainwashed that they vote for more of it.

Tort reform IS government intervention. It's bureaucrats dictating what a jury of our peers can or can't do. It undermines our justice system and gives the big guy a baseball bat he can use to beat the final measure of injustice into the little guy. Not only does the person or family suffer from the results of the doctor mistake or negligence, or the corporate toxins or dangerous product, the person and family must also endure the measure of the final insult: 'Yes, you were gravely wronged, but you will not justly compensated'

The whole argument by Republicans on 'tort' reform falls apart and exposes their 'for the elite' agenda. It violates their 'absolutes'. It is government intervention, it ignores states rights and it IS 'statism'. When you start looking into tort reform you find out it has been an ongoing campaign by Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, insurance companies and manufacturers of dangerous products and chemicals to protect corporations, doctors and hospitals from facing personal responsibility when THEY screw up or are guilty of neglect.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Continues to Beat Tort Reform Drum

By Bret Hanna - Attorney

There are a number of good sources of information which debunk the myths of tort reform perpetuated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who put the interests of corporations before those of the people injured by their corporate negligence and greed. One such source is a blog post by Injury Board member attorney Wayne Parsons which pulls together a great deal of authoritative information on the topic. Others include Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue [obtained by members or by purchase only], The Myth of the Litigation Crisis; Corporate Wolves in Victims' Clothing, and PRI's Corporate-Funded Tort Reform Study Proves Tort Reform Doesn't Work.

The History Of Tort Reform

“It is no secret that, for more than three decades, business interests have invested billions of dollars to sell the public a distorted view of a legal system that is justifiably envied throughout the world. They say rampant litigiousness requires tort “reform” that restricts the legal rights of injured people, not those of businesses suing businesses, which account for most litigation. What they seek, really, is corporate welfare-assurance that their misdeeds will be paid for not by them, but by others.” - Richard H. Middleton, Jr., Past President of the American Association of Justice

Joanne Doroshow, one the best friends the American consumer has ever had exposes one of the great conspiracies of the 2oth century: the tort reform scam - the BIG lie that started long ago:

For the last 15 years, insurance companies, manufacturers of dangerous products and chemicals, the tobacco industry and other major industries have been engaged in a nationwide assault on the civil justice system. In nearly every state and in Congress, corporations and their insurers have waged a relentless campaign to change the laws that give sick and injured consumers the ability to hold their offenders responsible for the injuries they cause. . .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

247 Americans Die Every Day from Doctors not Washing Their Hands


A Conversation With Dr. Peter J. Pronovost
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/science/09conv.html?hpw"]Doctor Leads Quest for Safer Ways to Care for Patients[/URL]

Q. WASH YOUR HANDS? DON’T DOCTORS AUTOMATICALLY DO THAT?

A. National estimates are that we wash our hands 30 to 40 percent of the time. Hospitals working on improving their safety records are up to 70 percent. Still, that means that 30 percent of the time, people are not doing it.

At Hopkins, we tested the checklist idea in the surgical intensive care unit. It helped, though you still needed to do more to lower the infection rate. You needed to make sure that supplies — disinfectant, drapery, catheters — were near and handy. We observed that these items were stored in eight different places within the hospital, and that was why, in emergencies, people often skipped steps. So we gathered all the necessary materials and placed them together on an accessible cart. We assigned someone to be in charge of the cart and to always make sure it was stocked. We also instituted independent safeguards to make certain that the checklist was followed.

We said: “Doctors, we know you’re busy and sometimes forget to wash your hands. So nurses, you are to make sure the doctors do it. And if they don’t, you are empowered to stop takeoff on a procedure.”

Q. HOW DID THAT FLY?

A. You would have thought I started World War III! The nurses said it wasn’t their job to monitor doctors; the doctors said no nurse was going to stop takeoff. I said: “Doctors, we know we’re not perfect, and we can forget important safety measures. And nurses, how could you permit a doctor to start if they haven’t washed their hands?” I told the nurses they could page me day or night, and I’d support them. Well, in four years’ time, we’ve gotten infection rates down to almost zero in the I.C.U.

We then took this to 100 intensive care units at 70 hospitals in Michigan. We measured their infection rates, implemented the checklist, worked to get a more cooperative culture so that nurses could speak up. And again, we got it down to a near zero. We’ve been encouraging hospitals around the country to set up similar checklist systems.

Q. WHAT EXACTLY WAS WRONG HERE?

A. As at many hospitals, we had dysfunctional teamwork because of an exceedingly hierarchal culture. When confrontations occurred, the problem was rarely framed in terms of what was best for the patient. It was: “I’m right. I’m more senior than you. Don’t tell me what to do.”

Doctor-Caused Disease

HOSPITAL INFECTIONS

In the 1840's Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis directed a teaching hospital in Vienna, where 75% of the women giving birth were dying of puerperal fever. He observed that doctors went from dissecting cadavers to delivering babies without washing their hands. Dr. Semmelweis made the "radical" policy change of requiring doctors to wash their hands before delivery a baby. An amazing thing happened - the mortality rate drop fifteen-fold. Unfortunately, his arrogant colleagues couldn't see the connection, so they dismissed him and ostracized him. The rejection ultimately drove Semmelweis to death in an insane asylum - another great moment in the history of iatrogenic disease.

But doctors are enlightened nowadays about sanitation, aren't they? A 1981 study of washing habits in intensive care units found that only 28% of the doctors washed between patients in a teaching hospital and only 14% washed in the private hospital! Dr. Mendelsohn noted:

. . . the sanitary practices of the medical personnel are often abominable and the hospital itself is probably the most germ-laden facility in town.

Your chances of getting an infection in the hospital are one in 20 with 15,000 people dying annually from hospital-acquired infections.

Doctor and Patient
Why Don’t Doctors Wash Their Hands More?
By PAULINE W. CHEN, M.D.
Published: September 17, 2009

Over the last 30 years, despite countless efforts at change, poor hand hygiene has continued to contribute to the high rates of infections acquired in hospitals, clinics and other health care settings. According to the World Health Organization, these infections affect as many as 1.7 million patients in the United States each year, racking up an annual cost of $6.5 billion and contributing to more than 90,000 deaths annually.


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[editec]

If medical malpractive insurance is bankrupting MDs why are the all so well off?

 

[spectrumc01]

Not a fan of tort reform, however...I would be willing to try it for five years. If it doesn't drop medical costs by at least 5%, it gets reversed. All winning parties get interest, for the five years, they were not allowed to litigate. This would end the debate and we would finnally know if it does or does not.

 

[Care4all]

Not a fan of tort reform, however...I would be willing to try it for five years. If it doesn't drop medical costs by at least 5%, it gets reversed. All winning parties get interest, for the five years, they were not allowed to litigate. This would end the debate and we would finnally know if it does or does not.

it is NOT a federal issue, this belongs to the States...

and a few states have done TORT reform on their own, and malpractice insurance and medical costs in those States have not dropped a DIME.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WHERE is the study? The article has no link to one.

More proof you lack reading comprehension. Hell, you lack basic reading skills. From the OP.

Previous studies of how often this happens have relied on doctor surveys. This is the first one to enlist doctors in advance to track their decisions over time.
It involved 72 orthopedic surgeons throughout Pennsylvania who tracked tests they ordered on 2,068 patients, mostly adults, in ordinary office visits, emergency rooms and other settings. Doctors checked a box saying a test was either required for clinical care or done "for defensive reasons."

Defensive imaging accounted for 20 percent of total tests - 11 percent of X-rays, 38 percent of MRIs, 33 percent of CT scans, 57 percent of bone scans and 53 percent of ultrasounds.

That is a bogus 'test'...it is rigged by the question 'for defensive purposes' And there is no link TO the test.

But the bigger picture is why are people on the right so willing to undermine our justice system for doctors, corporations and polluters? If someone files a lawsuit, shouldn't a jury of our peers be able to determine if it is valid or frivolous?

Right now, my country looks nothing like the America I grew up in. The America the liberal era created. The whole of human history has been dominated by aristocracies and plutocracies. Power and wealth have always held advantage over the common man.

What made America truly 'exceptional' was not our Army or our Navy. It was the growth and success of the most robust middle class in history. It's genesis was the New Deal and it blossomed and thrived through the Great Society. It made America the envy of the world, the 'city upon the hill'. But when power and wealth decide to fight back, and they have one party in their pocket, the outcome is not in doubt unless the people stay informed and stand up for their God given rights.

Much of that 'exceptional' America has been erased by 30+ years of conservative policies that were a concentrated assault on the middle guy and the little guy. This conservative malfeasance has neither built nor created anything. But the destruction it caused can only be ignored by someone who is so brainwashed that they vote for more of it.

Tort reform IS government intervention. It's bureaucrats dictating what a jury of our peers can or can't do. It undermines our justice system and gives the big guy a baseball bat he can use to beat the final measure of injustice into the little guy. Not only does the person or family suffer from the results of the doctor mistake or negligence, or the corporate toxins or dangerous product, the person and family must also endure the measure of the final insult: 'Yes, you were gravely wronged, but you will not justly compensated'

The whole argument by Republicans on 'tort' reform falls apart and exposes their 'for the elite' agenda. It violates their 'absolutes'. It is government intervention, it ignores states rights and it IS 'statism'. When you start looking into tort reform you find out it has been an ongoing campaign by Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, insurance companies and manufacturers of dangerous products and chemicals to protect corporations, doctors and hospitals from facing personal responsibility when THEY screw up or are guilty of neglect.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Continues to Beat Tort Reform Drum

By Bret Hanna - Attorney

There are a number of good sources of information which debunk the myths of tort reform perpetuated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who put the interests of corporations before those of the people injured by their corporate negligence and greed. One such source is a blog post by Injury Board member attorney Wayne Parsons which pulls together a great deal of authoritative information on the topic. Others include Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue [obtained by members or by purchase only], The Myth of the Litigation Crisis; Corporate Wolves in Victims' Clothing, and PRI's Corporate-Funded Tort Reform Study Proves Tort Reform Doesn't Work.

The History Of Tort Reform

“It is no secret that, for more than three decades, business interests have invested billions of dollars to sell the public a distorted view of a legal system that is justifiably envied throughout the world. They say rampant litigiousness requires tort “reform” that restricts the legal rights of injured people, not those of businesses suing businesses, which account for most litigation. What they seek, really, is corporate welfare-assurance that their misdeeds will be paid for not by them, but by others.” - Richard H. Middleton, Jr., Past President of the American Association of Justice

Joanne Doroshow, one the best friends the American consumer has ever had exposes one of the great conspiracies of the 2oth century: the tort reform scam - the BIG lie that started long ago:

For the last 15 years, insurance companies, manufacturers of dangerous products and chemicals, the tobacco industry and other major industries have been engaged in a nationwide assault on the civil justice system. In nearly every state and in Congress, corporations and their insurers have waged a relentless campaign to change the laws that give sick and injured consumers the ability to hold their offenders responsible for the injuries they cause. . .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

247 Americans Die Every Day from Doctors not Washing Their Hands


A Conversation With Dr. Peter J. Pronovost
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/science/09conv.html?hpwDoctor Leads Quest for Safer Ways to Care for Patients

Q. WASH YOUR HANDS? DON’T DOCTORS AUTOMATICALLY DO THAT?

A. National estimates are that we wash our hands 30 to 40 percent of the time. Hospitals working on improving their safety records are up to 70 percent. Still, that means that 30 percent of the time, people are not doing it.

At Hopkins, we tested the checklist idea in the surgical intensive care unit. It helped, though you still needed to do more to lower the infection rate. You needed to make sure that supplies — disinfectant, drapery, catheters — were near and handy. We observed that these items were stored in eight different places within the hospital, and that was why, in emergencies, people often skipped steps. So we gathered all the necessary materials and placed them together on an accessible cart. We assigned someone to be in charge of the cart and to always make sure it was stocked. We also instituted independent safeguards to make certain that the checklist was followed.

We said: “Doctors, we know you’re busy and sometimes forget to wash your hands. So nurses, you are to make sure the doctors do it. And if they don’t, you are empowered to stop takeoff on a procedure.”

Q. HOW DID THAT FLY?

A. You would have thought I started World War III! The nurses said it wasn’t their job to monitor doctors; the doctors said no nurse was going to stop takeoff. I said: “Doctors, we know we’re not perfect, and we can forget important safety measures. And nurses, how could you permit a doctor to start if they haven’t washed their hands?” I told the nurses they could page me day or night, and I’d support them. Well, in four years’ time, we’ve gotten infection rates down to almost zero in the I.C.U.

We then took this to 100 intensive care units at 70 hospitals in Michigan. We measured their infection rates, implemented the checklist, worked to get a more cooperative culture so that nurses could speak up. And again, we got it down to a near zero. We’ve been encouraging hospitals around the country to set up similar checklist systems.

Q. WHAT EXACTLY WAS WRONG HERE?

A. As at many hospitals, we had dysfunctional teamwork because of an exceedingly hierarchal culture. When confrontations occurred, the problem was rarely framed in terms of what was best for the patient. It was: “I’m right. I’m more senior than you. Don’t tell me what to do.”

Doctor-Caused Disease

HOSPITAL INFECTIONS

In the 1840's Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis directed a teaching hospital in Vienna, where 75% of the women giving birth were dying of puerperal fever. He observed that doctors went from dissecting cadavers to delivering babies without washing their hands. Dr. Semmelweis made the "radical" policy change of requiring doctors to wash their hands before delivery a baby. An amazing thing happened - the mortality rate drop fifteen-fold. Unfortunately, his arrogant colleagues couldn't see the connection, so they dismissed him and ostracized him. The rejection ultimately drove Semmelweis to death in an insane asylum - another great moment in the history of iatrogenic disease.

But doctors are enlightened nowadays about sanitation, aren't they? A 1981 study of washing habits in intensive care units found that only 28% of the doctors washed between patients in a teaching hospital and only 14% washed in the private hospital! Dr. Mendelsohn noted:

. . . the sanitary practices of the medical personnel are often abominable and the hospital itself is probably the most germ-laden facility in town.

Your chances of getting an infection in the hospital are one in 20 with 15,000 people dying annually from hospital-acquired infections.

Doctor and Patient
Why Don’t Doctors Wash Their Hands More?
By PAULINE W. CHEN, M.D.
Published: September 17, 2009

Over the last 30 years, despite countless efforts at change, poor hand hygiene has continued to contribute to the high rates of infections acquired in hospitals, clinics and other health care settings. According to the World Health Organization, these infections affect as many as 1.7 million patients in the United States each year, racking up an annual cost of $6.5 billion and contributing to more than 90,000 deaths annually.


"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

What is it with idiots and quotes?

Tell me something, what does anything you just posted have to do with the fact that the study is actually in the article when you said it was not?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If medical malpractive insurance is bankrupting MDs why are the all so well off?

What makes you think they are all so well off?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not a fan of tort reform, however...I would be willing to try it for five years. If it doesn't drop medical costs by at least 5%, it gets reversed. All winning parties get interest, for the five years, they were not allowed to litigate. This would end the debate and we would finnally know if it does or does not.

You would be willing to "try" something that has actually worked already? How very gracious of you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not a fan of tort reform, however...I would be willing to try it for five years. If it doesn't drop medical costs by at least 5%, it gets reversed. All winning parties get interest, for the five years, they were not allowed to litigate. This would end the debate and we would finnally know if it does or does not.

it is NOT a federal issue, this belongs to the States...

and a few states have done TORT reform on their own, and malpractice insurance and medical costs in those States have not dropped a DIME.

Don't tell that to California.

Medical malpractice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Care4all]

Not a fan of tort reform, however...I would be willing to try it for five years. If it doesn't drop medical costs by at least 5%, it gets reversed. All winning parties get interest, for the five years, they were not allowed to litigate. This would end the debate and we would finnally know if it does or does not.

it is NOT a federal issue, this belongs to the States...

and a few states have done TORT reform on their own, and malpractice insurance and medical costs in those States have not dropped a DIME.

Don't tell that to California.

Medical malpractice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it's a long article quantum, can you copy and paste your points?

 

[Care4all]

also quantum

are you saying that this is NOT a State issue and the Federal gvt should usurp the States?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

also quantum

are you saying that this is NOT a State issue and the Federal gvt should usurp the States?

The point is rather simple.

If doctor's expenses go down, end costs go down. I never said it was not a state issue, just that you arguing that it has never worked is a bit off.

 

[Care4all]

also quantum

are you saying that this is NOT a State issue and the Federal gvt should usurp the States?

The point is rather simple.

If doctor's expenses go down, end costs go down. I never said it was not a state issue, just that you arguing that it has never worked is a bit off.

ok, I stand corrected on the reduction in malpractice costs in a state that has done it....

has it dropped the cost of medical insurance for us?

 

[Polk]

only a handfull of doctors have committed malpractice and been sued for it....the problem, is this handful have committed nearly 90% of all malpractice....many in this handful have 3-10 malpractice suits/losses....

YET, THEY KEEP THEIR JOBS instead of losing them....thus malpractice insurance is very high for the 95% of doctors that have never committed or been sued for, malpractice....

the good doctors are having to pay for the handful of bad doctors that the AMA keeps

this needs reform....their licenses need to be taken away....3 strikes you are out!

Noting the AMA's effort to reduce the supply of doctors, I doubt they're the ones protecting them.

 

[Polk]

I don't have any problem at the conceptual level with certain types of tort reform (I actually have a fondness for loser pays).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

also quantum

are you saying that this is NOT a State issue and the Federal gvt should usurp the States?

The point is rather simple.

If doctor's expenses go down, end costs go down. I never said it was not a state issue, just that you arguing that it has never worked is a bit off.

ok, I stand corrected on the reduction in malpractice costs in a state that has done it....

has it dropped the cost of medical insurance for us?

That is a little harder to track. I can point out that, after states enact malpractice reform, insurance rate increases are lower. That could be coincidence, but I do not believe in coincidence.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

But the bigger picture is why are people on the right so willing to undermine our justice system for doctors, corporations and polluters? If someone files a lawsuit, shouldn't a jury of our peers be able to determine if it is valid or frivolous?

Undermine the justice system? Wake up. A patient can reach into their doctor's pocket and pull out $5,000-$10,000 at any time regardless of wrongdoing. Since it costs doctors MORE in time out of work, they just settle to make the bogus claim go away. Should such a setup exist in our wonderful justice system?

Or perhaps we should focus on your latter sentence. When a doctor is sued, are they EVER tried by a jury of their peers? No, of course not. In a medical lawsuit, there is an average of ZERO doctors on the jury. So you take topics that require a decade of education and training and let them be settled by people with no knowledge of it.

Tort reform IS government intervention. It's bureaucrats dictating what a jury of our peers can or can't do. It undermines our justice system and gives the big guy a baseball bat he can use to beat the final measure of injustice into the little guy. Not only does the person or family suffer from the results of the doctor mistake or negligence, or the corporate toxins or dangerous product, the person and family must also endure the measure of the final insult: 'Yes, you were gravely wronged, but you will not justly compensated'

Except that is NOT the focus of tort reform. What you are describing is tort abolition. No proponent of tort reform has EVER suggested that patients who were wrongly treated should go without fair compensation. No one. The only people who EVER bring that up are people who don't understand the topic.

The two focuses of tort reform have large focused on removing the ability of patients to sue doctors for a set of documented setups that doctors that have been proven not to be malpractice, and making the loser of lawsuits pay for expenses of the case. It means that everyone acknowledges that it's sad when your baby comes out misshapen, but maybe you should blame the doctor less and reconsider why you snorted crack off of rotting meat when pregnant. If a surgeon cuts the wrong limb, they should be sued, even under the proposed tort reform.

It's clear you don't actually understand the facts behind this issue. I recommend you do a bit more unbiased reading before returning to this thread.