What is Tort reform?

[VaYank5150]

Amid the obstructionists’ claims that health care reform is “socialist” or a means of speeding Grandma towards her deathbed, a large focus of the conservative position on health care reform has been that frivolous lawsuits drive up health care costs and require doctors to practice “defensive medicine” that’s costly and wasteful.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put “tort reform” on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patient’s damages was the answer to his state’s problems. And the American Medical Association has said it won’t support any health reform bill that doesn’t reduce liability for doctors. “If the bill doesn’t have medical liability reform in it, then we don’t see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs,” James Rohack, president-elect of the organization, told Politico in March. “Why spend the political capital and energy in passing a bill if it is not successful?”


Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
So far Republicans have mostly focused on tearing apart any reform with a role for the federal government, portraying it as the government dictating how long old people get to live. But an undercurrent of those complaints is the insistence of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care costs.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost– both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs

So, is this a GOP smoke screen?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Amid the obstructionists’ claims that health care reform is “socialist” or a means of speeding Grandma towards her deathbed, a large focus of the conservative position on health care reform has been that frivolous lawsuits drive up health care costs and require doctors to practice “defensive medicine” that’s costly and wasteful.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put “tort reform” on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patient’s damages was the answer to his state’s problems. And the American Medical Association has said it won’t support any health reform bill that doesn’t reduce liability for doctors. “If the bill doesn’t have medical liability reform in it, then we don’t see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs,” James Rohack, president-elect of the organization, told Politico in March. “Why spend the political capital and energy in passing a bill if it is not successful?”


Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
So far Republicans have mostly focused on tearing apart any reform with a role for the federal government, portraying it as the government dictating how long old people get to live. But an undercurrent of those complaints is the insistence of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care costs.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost– both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs

So, is this a GOP smoke screen?

Ya cause when a lawyer like Edwards wins a multimillion dollar suit claiming cerebral Palsy is a fault of a doctor we have no problems right? You may want to do a little research, there are places in this country that you can not get a baby delivered because of idiotic lawsuits like that one. No doctor will risk a lawsuit working there. And the cost of Insurance for doctors just keeps climbing.

 

[VaYank5150]

I'm sorry Gunny, did you miss this part?

we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm sorry Gunny, did you miss this part?

we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs

And I don't believe your source, NOR do I discount an easy fix even if it was that small. WHY because we are talking about MILLIONS of dollars that effect the charges a doctor , a clinic or a Hospital charge.

Once again read up on Edwards great law career and how he turned birth defects into somehow being a doctors fault at delivery. All by claiming he could speak for a baby in a womb.

 

[Political Junky]

Amid the obstructionists’ claims that health care reform is “socialist” or a means of speeding Grandma towards her deathbed, a large focus of the conservative position on health care reform has been that frivolous lawsuits drive up health care costs and require doctors to practice “defensive medicine” that’s costly and wasteful.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put “tort reform” on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patient’s damages was the answer to his state’s problems. And the American Medical Association has said it won’t support any health reform bill that doesn’t reduce liability for doctors. “If the bill doesn’t have medical liability reform in it, then we don’t see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs,” James Rohack, president-elect of the organization, told Politico in March. “Why spend the political capital and energy in passing a bill if it is not successful?”


Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
So far Republicans have mostly focused on tearing apart any reform with a role for the federal government, portraying it as the government dictating how long old people get to live. But an undercurrent of those complaints is the insistence of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care costs.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost– both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs

So, is this a GOP smoke screen?

Yes, a GOP smokescreen.

 

[Polk]

For those wanting to dispute the 1.5 percent number from that article, there is a CBO report saying that in the most extreme case, it's maybe two percent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets assume 2 percent just for the argument. for every BILLION dollars of health care costs that is 20 million dollars. Now add it up. And it is easily fixed. ell except you would have to oppose the greedy money grubbing lawyers to fix it.

Obama and his supporters have stated that any savings are good. In fact they want mandatory discussions with terminally ill patients and the elderly to convince them to forgo procedures and medication and just die quietly. And they will PAY doctors to do this. But no time or effort for tort reform.

 

[xsited1]

What is Tort reform?

Howard Dean seems to have a good handle on this issue.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of “taking on” the trial lawyers.

“This is the answer from a doctor and a politician,” said Dean. “Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.”

Link here

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Amid the obstructionists’ claims that health care reform is “socialist” or a means of speeding Grandma towards her deathbed, a large focus of the conservative position on health care reform has been that frivolous lawsuits drive up health care costs and require doctors to practice “defensive medicine” that’s costly and wasteful.

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Charles Krauthammer put “tort reform” on the top of his wish-list for reducing the costs of the health care system. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas in the Washington Examiner boasts that Texas tort reform that capped injured patient’s damages was the answer to his state’s problems. And the American Medical Association has said it won’t support any health reform bill that doesn’t reduce liability for doctors. “If the bill doesn’t have medical liability reform in it, then we don’t see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs,” James Rohack, president-elect of the organization, told Politico in March. “Why spend the political capital and energy in passing a bill if it is not successful?”


Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
So far Republicans have mostly focused on tearing apart any reform with a role for the federal government, portraying it as the government dictating how long old people get to live. But an undercurrent of those complaints is the insistence of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and ideological conservatives that medical malpractice claims are out of control and a leading cause of rising health care costs.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost– both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

The Washington Independent » Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs

So, is this a GOP smoke screen?

Maybe you should ask Howard Dean about this....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Lets assume 2 percent just for the argument. for every BILLION dollars of health care costs that is 20 million dollars. Now add it up. And it is easily fixed. ell except you would have to oppose the greedy money grubbing lawyers to fix it.

Obama and his supporters have stated that any savings are good. In fact they want mandatory discussions with terminally ill patients and the elderly to convince them to forgo procedures and medication and just die quietly. And they will PAY doctors to do this. But no time or effort for tort reform.

Gunny...what the loons are leaving out is the cost of malpractice insurance. There wouldn't be a need for a doctor to have to pay 100,000 dollars a year +++++ for malpractice insurance if there was tort reform but these left wing ideologues fail to see anything past the Messiah's last speech touting government control of everyone's life from cradle to grave.

 

[Polk]

Lets assume 2 percent just for the argument. for every BILLION dollars of health care costs that is 20 million dollars. Now add it up. And it is easily fixed. ell except you would have to oppose the greedy money grubbing lawyers to fix it.

Obama and his supporters have stated that any savings are good. In fact they want mandatory discussions with terminally ill patients and the elderly to convince them to forgo procedures and medication and just die quietly. And they will PAY doctors to do this. But no time or effort for tort reform.

You know, if one is attempting to have serious discussion, it helps when you're not making shit up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lets assume 2 percent just for the argument. for every BILLION dollars of health care costs that is 20 million dollars. Now add it up. And it is easily fixed. ell except you would have to oppose the greedy money grubbing lawyers to fix it.

Obama and his supporters have stated that any savings are good. In fact they want mandatory discussions with terminally ill patients and the elderly to convince them to forgo procedures and medication and just die quietly. And they will PAY doctors to do this. But no time or effort for tort reform.

You know, if one is attempting to have serious discussion, it helps when you're not making shit up.

You stated 2 percent. 2 percent of a billion is 20 million. And tort reform would cut that in half or more. So what exactly did I make up? Be specific. Further it is a FACT that Obama and his people conducted a study and declared that BIG savings could be had by convincing the elderly and the terminally ill to stop expensive procedures and drugs and just go die quietly at home or in a hospice. THAT was the entire justification given for the payment plan to have doctors yearly "talk" to these groups of patients and "advice" them of the option to just go die somewhere.

 

[VaYank5150]

Lets assume 2 percent just for the argument. for every BILLION dollars of health care costs that is 20 million dollars. Now add it up. And it is easily fixed. ell except you would have to oppose the greedy money grubbing lawyers to fix it.

Obama and his supporters have stated that any savings are good. In fact they want mandatory discussions with terminally ill patients and the elderly to convince them to forgo procedures and medication and just die quietly. And they will PAY doctors to do this. But no time or effort for tort reform.

You know, if one is attempting to have serious discussion, it helps when you're not making shit up.

You stated 2 percent. 2 percent of a billion is 20 million. And tort reform would cut that in half or more. So what exactly did I make up? Be specific. Further it is a FACT that Obama and his people conducted a study and declared that BIG savings could be had by convincing the elderly and the terminally ill to stop expensive procedures and drugs and just go die quietly at home or in a hospice. THAT was the entire justification given for the payment plan to have doctors yearly "talk" to these groups of patients and "advice" them of the option to just go die somewhere.

Studies of previous tort reform measures call you a liar on this issue.

 

[Mr. Capitalism]

It isn't a smokescreen, it is the GOP never liking trial lawyers. They want tort reform regardless of the reason, they just see healthcare as a way to do it.

I mean, it makes total sense doesn't it? Limit the cost of lawsuits and screw anyone who is actually damaged. I mean really, say they cut off the wrong leg during amputee surgery and then have to go back and cut off the other one. Is that person really due anything more than a comped fixer surgery?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Tort reform is why the Dems killed health care reform in 2003. Reform wasn't important to them then, stopping Booooosh at all costs was.

Pelosi said it best back then, when asked where the Democrat health care plan was: "Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop him (Bush.)"

Now though, apparently now it's some type of crisis, some type of emergency, it's gotta be done NOW. Even though, even if they passed it today it wouldn't go into effect for over a year. Hmm, sounds like it's really not a crisis.

By the way, 1.5% of 6/10ths of our economy adds up to many billions. In a plan that needs all the savings it can muster, it's quite significant that tort reform is being left completely off the table.

Lets keep the blame where it is folks -- the Dems don't need ANY GOP votes or support to do this. Therefore the problems are coming from within the Dem party.

 

[Emma]

Ya cause when a lawyer like Edwards wins a multimillion dollar suit claiming cerebral Palsy is a fault of a doctor we have no problems right? You may want to do a little research, there are places in this country that you can not get a baby delivered because of idiotic lawsuits like that one. No doctor will risk a lawsuit working there. And the cost of Insurance for doctors just keeps climbing.

You may want to do a little research on that particular case.

 

[rightwinger]

Then again, the GOP had eight years to implement the tort reform legislation that they so dearly want now. Fact is, it was not important to the GOP then ans it is not important now.

Just another issue like abortion, prayer in school and gay marriage that they bring up every four years but do nothing about

 

[Emma]

Once again read up on Edwards great law career and how he turned birth defects into somehow being a doctors fault at delivery. All by claiming he could speak for a baby in a womb.

It wasn't a "birth defect".

 

[Emma]

It isn't a smokescreen, it is the GOP never liking trial lawyers. They want tort reform regardless of the reason, they just see healthcare as a way to do it.

I mean, it makes total sense doesn't it? Limit the cost of lawsuits and screw anyone who is actually damaged. I mean really, say they cut off the wrong leg during amputee surgery and then have to go back and cut off the other one. Is that person really due anything more than a comped fixer surgery?

That actually happened to a 30-something young woman at my ex-hospital a few years back. Not only did they amputate the wrong leg, but they did an above-the-knee amputation (the leg that was supposed to be operated on needed a below the knee amputation). This came during a time where a number of wrong-side surgeries had been done (most of them joint replacements).

 

[Christopher]

How about we look at the whole picture regarding tort reform, using Canada as an example. Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Some highlights of the article:

For neurosurgeons in Miami, the annual cost of medical malpractice insurance is astronomical — $237,000, far more than the median price of a house.

In Toronto, a neurosurgeon pays about $29,200 for coverage. It's even less in Montreal ($20,600) and Vancouver ($10,650).

The costs are strikingly different, largely because of the ways in which Canada insures doctors and protects those who are sued:

• In 1978, the Canadian Supreme Court limited damages for pain and suffering. Adjusted for inflation, the cap now is just over $300,000. The United States has no federal cap on damages, though a few states, including Florida, have imposed them.

• Instead of buying insurance from a for-profit company, as most U.S. doctors do, Canadian physicians are covered through their membership in the nonprofit Canadian Medical Protective Association.

A difference of ten times or more is what our health care providers are paying. Doesn't that indicate some substantial cost savings for the health care providers, if there was a similar cap as in Canada? I think so. President Obama was actually booed in June by the AMA when he said he would not push for limits.