The myth of "tort reform"

Gadawg73

Gold Member
Feb 22, 2009
14,426
1,618
155
Georgia
Republicans always speak of tort reform as a way to lower medical costs. They claim that most of the lawsuits by those maimed, disfigured or killed by negligent doctors care, or lack of care in many cases, are "frivolous".
Medical malpractice lawsuits are front and center in the insurance companies' war on the consumer. Add in millionaire doctors, many of them career politicians in Washington, and you have the myth of "tort reform".
The facts are staggering on medical malpractice law suits. The myth is that they are mostly frivolous and that large sums of $ are paid to folks that do not deserve it.
Nothing could be further from the truth but the insurance companies and doctors do not want the consumers to know the facts. Imagine that. An extra country club membership for the doctor and a Lexus for the high school daughter have to be protected.
Medical malpractice cases are the hardest cases to bring into the court system. First of all you have to have a victim. Someone that has been under the care of a doctor and is maimed, damaged or killed as a result of the doctor's care,or lack of care.
Now this fact is one that the doctors and insurance companies DO NOT want you to know.
They claim that the reason medical costs are so high is because they have to do many tests to avoid malpractice claims. What a lie. First of all, the American medical industry is top heavy in infrastructure and equipment. Most advanced medical technology sits idle most of the time. They have to pay the notes on those machines so they do the unnecessay tests all the time. Secondly, and MOST importantly, the ONLY way to file a medical malpractice case is to have ANOTHER DOCTOR as the lead witness for the individual that is filing the malpractice case. NO exceptions.
That is right sports fans, friends and neighbors. NO medical malpractice case can be filed anywhere in America UNLESS another doctor, or usually a team of expert doctors, will testify without any doubt that in their opinion there WAS NEGLIGENCE on the behalf of the treating doctor. So the myth of frivolous lawsuits is just that, a myth.
Now get this as it gets even better. Doctors are now claiming "Well, you can get any other doctor to state anything about the negligence of another doctor". IOW, these doctors admit they can not police their own ranks. If anything, this shows an unwillingness of the medical community to accept that they do cause damage and should pay.
If you have no doctor to testify that there was malpractice in their opinion then you have NO case. You can not even file it in any court anywhere. And only about 1 in 6 cases wins at trial. Many are settled pre trial but why does an insurance company settle if there was NO negligence?
And get this fans: The attorneys that handle these cases foot the entire bill UPFRONT themselves before settlement and trial. A large medical malpractice case involving large damages and/or death will cost the attorney well over 100K JUST TO GET THE CASE READY.
Doctors want immunity from their negligence and do not want to be held responsible for their negligent actions. Insurance companies want their insured to have that immunity.
Doctors and insurance companies want THEMSELVES to be the ones that determine who gets any $ from their negligence and how much. To them the jury systems are too stupid and they do not want the citizens to have a voice at all in awarding damages that were the fault of the doctors.
Many states have enacted a "non-economic" factor in to all jury verdicts. In Georgia it is 250K. That means if a mother of 5 kids is killed by a negligent doctor and she never worke and was a housewife then all the family would get is 250K MAX for the life.
Tort reform is a joke. NO where has it lowered anyone's insurance. It has made the doctors very wealthy here as they have amassed a billion dollars in their association since it has been enacted.
Trust the American jury system. Some verdicts have been absurd. However, when we allow our rights to be taken away by extremely wealthy special interest groups like doctors and insurance companies they will come back for more and more and more.
"Just the facts maam".
 
CBO Says Tort Reform Would Bring $54 Billion in Savings - washingtonpost.com

Tort Reform Could Save $54 Billion, CBO Says
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 10, 2009

Congressional budget analysts said Friday that lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- 10 times more than previously estimated.

New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but also would spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)...

The federal government would reap a substantial portion of those savings, the CBO said, primarily through reduced Medicare costs.
 
CBO Says Tort Reform Would Bring $54 Billion in Savings - washingtonpost.com

Tort Reform Could Save $54 Billion, CBO Says
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 10, 2009

Congressional budget analysts said Friday that lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- 10 times more than previously estimated.

New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but also would spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)...

The federal government would reap a substantial portion of those savings, the CBO said, primarily through reduced Medicare costs.

So 5.4 billion a year ...
 
CBO Says Tort Reform Would Bring $54 Billion in Savings - washingtonpost.com

Tort Reform Could Save $54 Billion, CBO Says
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 10, 2009

Congressional budget analysts said Friday that lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- 10 times more than previously estimated.

New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but also would spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)...

The federal government would reap a substantial portion of those savings, the CBO said, primarily through reduced Medicare costs.

So 5.4 billion a year ...

That's better than spending the same, right? How much was it that Obama was touting 'freezing' um, later?
 
CBO Says Tort Reform Would Bring $54 Billion in Savings - washingtonpost.com

Tort Reform Could Save $54 Billion, CBO Says
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 10, 2009

Congressional budget analysts said Friday that lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits -- 10 times more than previously estimated.

New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but also would spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)...

The federal government would reap a substantial portion of those savings, the CBO said, primarily through reduced Medicare costs.

So 5.4 billion a year ...

Yeah according to simple division 54 billion divided by 10 tends to yield that result.
 
Why not save 200 billion on medical malpractice lawsuits.
Pass a law where doctors have immunity and can be as negligent as they want. All medical malpractice law suits will be banned.
You folks just do not get it.
EVERY law passed to limit malpractice claims takes your rights away.
You folks blindly and naively trust politicians, insurance companies and doctors more than the jury system, the very foundation of this country.
God help us.
 
Why not save 200 billion on medical malpractice lawsuits.
Pass a law where doctors have immunity and can be as negligent as they want. All medical malpractice law suits will be banned.
You folks just do not get it.
EVERY law passed to limit malpractice claims takes your rights away.
You folks blindly and naively trust politicians, insurance companies and doctors more than the jury system, the very foundation of this country.
God help us.

They want tort reform to please their corporate masters.

I'm willing to concede tort reform for a strong public option.

I'm willing to bet that my friends on the right would want no such "compromise."
 
Why not save 200 billion on medical malpractice lawsuits.
Pass a law where doctors have immunity and can be as negligent as they want. All medical malpractice law suits will be banned.
You folks just do not get it.
EVERY law passed to limit malpractice claims takes your rights away.
You folks blindly and naively trust politicians, insurance companies and doctors more than the jury system, the very foundation of this country.
God help us.

They want tort reform to please their corporate masters.

I'm willing to concede tort reform for a strong public option.

I'm willing to bet that my friends on the right would want no such "compromise."

We can even throw in allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines. I hear the righties talk about wanting that done, too.
 
So 5.4 billion a year ...

That's better than spending the same, right? How much was it that Obama was touting 'freezing' um, later?

I dunno ... 5 billion aint much though.

One thing, just one. Now Obama wields his 'spending freeze' to start, ahem next year, $250b over 10 years, which is dependent on a few things:

Obama Budget Freezes Much Domestic Spending - NYTimes.com

...The three-year freeze would save $250 billion over the coming decade, assuming the overall spending on the domestic programs is permitted to rise no more than the inflation rate for the remainder of the decade — an austerity that neither party has ever achieved in Washington. Even so, the $250 billion in savings would be less than 3 percent of the total deficits projected through 2020....
which have never happened before.
 
That's better than spending the same, right? How much was it that Obama was touting 'freezing' um, later?

I dunno ... 5 billion aint much though.

One thing, just one. Now Obama wields his 'spending freeze' to start, ahem next year, $250b over 10 years, which is dependent on a few things:

Obama Budget Freezes Much Domestic Spending - NYTimes.com

...The three-year freeze would save $250 billion over the coming decade, assuming the overall spending on the domestic programs is permitted to rise no more than the inflation rate for the remainder of the decade — an austerity that neither party has ever achieved in Washington. Even so, the $250 billion in savings would be less than 3 percent of the total deficits projected through 2020....
which have never happened before.

So what's your point?
 
I dunno ... 5 billion aint much though.

One thing, just one. Now Obama wields his 'spending freeze' to start, ahem next year, $250b over 10 years, which is dependent on a few things:

Obama Budget Freezes Much Domestic Spending - NYTimes.com

...The three-year freeze would save $250 billion over the coming decade, assuming the overall spending on the domestic programs is permitted to rise no more than the inflation rate for the remainder of the decade — an austerity that neither party has ever achieved in Washington. Even so, the $250 billion in savings would be less than 3 percent of the total deficits projected through 2020....
which have never happened before.

So what's your point?

You belittle $5+b per year, yet headlines made for the 'freeze' that will not materialize. Seems a bit hackneyed response on your part.
 
You belittle $5+b per year, yet headlines made for the 'freeze' that will not materialize. Seems a bit hackneyed response on your part.

You're trying to equate two completely different things to try and make a point about Art. Hilarious, and not in a agreeing with you way either. ;) :eusa_whistle:
 
Republicans always speak of tort reform as a way to lower medical costs. They claim that most of the lawsuits by those maimed, disfigured or killed by negligent doctors care, or lack of care in many cases, are "frivolous".
Medical malpractice lawsuits are front and center in the insurance companies' war on the consumer. Add in millionaire doctors, many of them career politicians in Washington, and you have the myth of "tort reform".
The facts are staggering on medical malpractice law suits. The myth is that they are mostly frivolous and that large sums of $ are paid to folks that do not deserve it.
Nothing could be further from the truth but the insurance companies and doctors do not want the consumers to know the facts. Imagine that. An extra country club membership for the doctor and a Lexus for the high school daughter have to be protected.
Medical malpractice cases are the hardest cases to bring into the court system. First of all you have to have a victim. Someone that has been under the care of a doctor and is maimed, damaged or killed as a result of the doctor's care,or lack of care.
Now this fact is one that the doctors and insurance companies DO NOT want you to know.
They claim that the reason medical costs are so high is because they have to do many tests to avoid malpractice claims. What a lie. First of all, the American medical industry is top heavy in infrastructure and equipment. Most advanced medical technology sits idle most of the time. They have to pay the notes on those machines so they do the unnecessay tests all the time. Secondly, and MOST importantly, the ONLY way to file a medical malpractice case is to have ANOTHER DOCTOR as the lead witness for the individual that is filing the malpractice case. NO exceptions.
That is right sports fans, friends and neighbors. NO medical malpractice case can be filed anywhere in America UNLESS another doctor, or usually a team of expert doctors, will testify without any doubt that in their opinion there WAS NEGLIGENCE on the behalf of the treating doctor. So the myth of frivolous lawsuits is just that, a myth.
Now get this as it gets even better. Doctors are now claiming "Well, you can get any other doctor to state anything about the negligence of another doctor". IOW, these doctors admit they can not police their own ranks. If anything, this shows an unwillingness of the medical community to accept that they do cause damage and should pay.
If you have no doctor to testify that there was malpractice in their opinion then you have NO case. You can not even file it in any court anywhere. And only about 1 in 6 cases wins at trial. Many are settled pre trial but why does an insurance company settle if there was NO negligence?
And get this fans: The attorneys that handle these cases foot the entire bill UPFRONT themselves before settlement and trial. A large medical malpractice case involving large damages and/or death will cost the attorney well over 100K JUST TO GET THE CASE READY.
Doctors want immunity from their negligence and do not want to be held responsible for their negligent actions. Insurance companies want their insured to have that immunity.
Doctors and insurance companies want THEMSELVES to be the ones that determine who gets any $ from their negligence and how much. To them the jury systems are too stupid and they do not want the citizens to have a voice at all in awarding damages that were the fault of the doctors.
Many states have enacted a "non-economic" factor in to all jury verdicts. In Georgia it is 250K. That means if a mother of 5 kids is killed by a negligent doctor and she never worke and was a housewife then all the family would get is 250K MAX for the life.
Tort reform is a joke. NO where has it lowered anyone's insurance. It has made the doctors very wealthy here as they have amassed a billion dollars in their association since it has been enacted.
Trust the American jury system. Some verdicts have been absurd. However, when we allow our rights to be taken away by extremely wealthy special interest groups like doctors and insurance companies they will come back for more and more and more.
"Just the facts maam".


Tort Reform means nothing. It sounds nice, but will in way bring vital Health Care to the over Forty-Five Million (45,000,000) who need Health Care. Tort reforms will do nothing to prevent Forty-Seven Thouand (47,000) Americans who will die because they cannot afford Health Care and therefore will not seek out a doctor's care.

Tort Reform is bullshit plain and simple.
 
One thing, just one. Now Obama wields his 'spending freeze' to start, ahem next year, $250b over 10 years, which is dependent on a few things:

Obama Budget Freezes Much Domestic Spending - NYTimes.com

which have never happened before.

So what's your point?

You belittle $5+b per year, yet headlines made for the 'freeze' that will not materialize. Seems a bit hackneyed response on your part.

It seems a little strange of you to expect me to consider the spending freeze when talking about tort reform and how much it could save according to the CBO estimates you posted.
 
So what's your point?

You belittle $5+b per year, yet headlines made for the 'freeze' that will not materialize. Seems a bit hackneyed response on your part.

It seems a little strange of you to expect me to consider the spending freeze when talking about tort reform and how much it could save according to the CBO estimates you posted.

You laugh at amounts. I asked a simple question about what is taken so very seriously regarding peanuts of savings across the board. At best you are now being disingenuous.
 

Forum List

Back
Top