What are the arguments against tort reform?

[Cant trust em]

I don't know a whole lot about this. Why are liberals and democrats so opposed to this?

[la_chupa]

1. it's a distraction and not a fix

It's a tiny, itty bitty part of overall health care costs but if you listen to the wide right you'd think it was 98% of the issue.

[Cant trust em]

6. If that's the case, then why not just give it to them?

There's your bi-partisanship.

[la_chupa]

15. because there is such a thing as medical malpractice

You are in the hospital and get too much of some drug, end up with kidney failure, do you want to be able to sue?

[Cant trust em]

18. That's a better answer than your previous one.

Thanks. This is helpful.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

46. MORE LYING LABELS

TORT REFORM IS CODE FOR CAN'T SUE A COMPANY

[Hippo_Tron]

57. The President offered it in exchange for supporting health care reform, they wouldn't take it

[lefthandedlefty]

75. I would be ok with doing away with mal practice insurance

Just give doctors fines loss of license and prison time when they screw up.If they are bad doctors we need to get rid of them anyway.

[Maru Kitteh]

100. It's needed because of people like my BIL. (insurance, NOT tort reform)

Last year, he went with my sister for her appointment. Regular checkup, NBD. A couple of hours after they left the clinic she started acting a little strange. Nothing major mind you, just different. My BIL thought, while they were still in town they might as well go on back to the clinic and see the doctor again. As it turns out their regular physician left for a trip right after their first appointment and they saw the doctor on call.

He ordered a draw, went over her medications, asked her some standard MSE type questions, looked at her chart, took her vitals, did a quick exam and asked her some more questions - all of which she was able to answer to satisfaction. She wasn't feeling suicidal or homicidal or acting in a way that indicated any kind of impending emergency. The physician advised they go home, get some rest, come back if the condition persisted and go to the emergency room if there were major changes or harmful behaviors.

The next morning she had a full on psychotic break and was admitted to the hospital. She was completely divorced from reality of a little over a week.

My BIL started talking to anyone and everyone about the possibility of suing the physician on call. I have to wonder how many attorneys he called before he finally came to terms with the fact that he had no basis. Thing is, I think the only reason he couldn't find somebody willing to push the suit is because we live in a fairly small town. I think if we were in a bigger city he would have had no trouble finding someone to try to squeeze a settlement out of the doctor, even though the he did nothing wrong.

I'm still very much against tort reform. It would leave too many innocent victims without redress, and that would represent a much greater evil.

[Silent3]

25. Isn't there a high, even if indirect, cost to medical care because of litigation?

Doctors do pay some pretty damned high insurance rates to cover malpractice liability, and they order a whole lot of probably medically unnecessary tests to cover their asses "just in case".

I had my gall bladder taken out a little over a year ago. The doctors looked for a bile blockage via ultrasound, X-ray, MRI, HIDA scan, and still didn't really know for sure what was going on until I was on the operating table and they took a direct look with an endoscope.

That's a whole lot of expensive diagnostic testing when, no matter what any of these images and scans showed, they were probably going to operate to remove my gall badder no matter what, and they'd be able to see whatever they wanted to see when they had me on the table.

[TexasObserver]

39. No. That's just another untrue GOP talking point.

Doctors pay a small percentage of their revenues on malpractice premium. A few specialities have higher rates than the others. The average American pays a much higher percentage of their income on health insurance than their doctors pay for their malpractice coverage.

And those "unnecessary tests" you mentioned are just one more part of the GOP/industry scam. Many of the malpractice cases are failure to give tests that were clearly needed. You see, while the meme is they have to subject patients to unnecessary tests, the opposite is actually true. They DON'T do enough testing, mainly because insurers won't pay for them or insurers discourage the doctors from using the tests.

If a doctor is giving you unnecessary tests, it's probably because he or his clinic needs to pay for that piece of equipment he's using on you, not because he's worried about some lawsuit that might happen.

No more than 2% of the total health care costs are related, directly or indirectly, to malpractice claims. If "tort reform" really did what the GOP claims, Texas would see reduced health insurance costs, instead of record increases in the costs of them.

[Silent3]

40. I'm certainly not trusting of the GOP's motivations...

...and I realize that it's the ridiculous claims that get all of the press coverage while legit malpractice claims are too boring to talk about, but I've known doctors who weren't just talking in GOP political ads to complain about really high malpractice insurance fees -- not personal friends of mine but doctors my mother knew when she was working as an OR nurse.

Do you dispute the costs passed on to us by doctors paying those high insurance rate, that the rates they pay are all that high, or that the reason for the high rates is excessive litigation?

[TexasObserver]

42. The reason doctors get sued for malpractice is they commit malpractice.

They get away with far more malpractice than they get sued over. I dispute that the reason the rates are high is excessive litigation. Rates reflect claims, and claims reflect malpractice incidents.

I've represented doctors and hospitals in med mal cases. The doctors never think they did anything wrong, even when the know they did. Denial about their mistakes is the most compelling commonality of doctors sued for malpractice. But their insurer, their hospital, and their insurance hired attorney know better, and settle the case once it is obvious it's a good case.

If you ask accountants, architects, engineers, and doctors how they feel about their profession being sued for malpractice, they'll almost all say they are hobbled by such cases, that they're blameless, and that they are getting a raw deal. I know because I've represented all of them in major malpractice cases.

The reason doctors get sued is because they run patients through like cattle, they only see each patient a few minutes, and no patient really gets a chance to discuss their condition fully. The average patient spends very little time with their doctor, who is busy, busy, busy, because the modern practice of medicine is too often about moving patients through as quickly as possible.

[Silent3]

44. Doctors are human, however, and there needs to be some room...

...for some human error without the remedy going beyond (when possible) fixing the problems their mistakes cause.

If most settlements do no more than that, and insurance is priced just high enough to cover that with a small and reasonable profit left over for the insurance company, I have no problem agreeing that maybe tort reform would have little impact on overall medical expenses. If the insurance is overpriced compared to the claims paid out, then insurance reform would be more important than tort reform.

But if settlements are meant to be severely punitive, and are punishing reasonable human error along with gross neglect and incompetence, and if rewards in settlements try to compensate for intangibles like "pain and suffering", if the system feeds into the notion that whenever something goes wrong that blame must be affixed and that someone "must PAY!", then maybe there is cost reduction to be found in some form of tort reform after all.

[TexasObserver]

45. Doctors are vendors serving the public.

The guy at Jiffy Lube may change the oil of 1000 cars and remember to put the plug in, but if he forgets one time, we hold Jiffy Lube liable for that one time. And if the customer's car freezes up on the road and a big truck hits the customer, we hold Jiffy Lube responsible for whatever horrible result there may be.

Doctors are no different. It's not a matter of them intending harm. Clearly they do not. No doctor ever said "I want to blow this surgery!" Accidents do happen, but that doesn't change the fact that such an accident can be negligence and often is.

There is simply NO EVIDENCE to support your suppositions, which are merely more GOP talking points. Health care costs are high because the industry is unregulated and greedy. That is the reason Canada's univeral health care costs 2/3 of what our health care costs per person. And Canada has more favorable treatment of med mal claims for plaintiffs than our country does. If your meme were true, Canada's per person health care costs would be higher, not lower, than ours.

As for pain and suffering, it's real, and if you had to feel pain 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, forever, how much would it worth to you to have such pain? Would $100 a day, or $4 an hour, be sufficient? Is 15 minutes of pain worth $1 to you? Have you ever been in pain for 24 consecutive hours? Would you have given $100 not to have suffered that pain?

Here's how a med mal lawsuit settlement really does down: about one third of the recovery goes to the lawyer, about one third goes to pay outstanding medical bills, and the plaintiff nets about one third. The injured plaintiff has lost wages and pain & suffering, and it takes both those elements just to net him or her 1/3 of the total settlement.

As a progressive, you should be concerned that the plaintiff doesn't get a full recovery. Why shouldn't the losing defendant also have to pay the attorney's fees for the prevailing plaintiff? That would be fair, wouldn't it? Why should the defendant in a med mal case be able to avoid the responsibility to pay the other side's attorney's fees? We do that in contract cases. Loser pays.

Your concern that somewhere someone may be making money from undeserved med mal settlements is right up there with Reagan's tales of the Cadillac driving welfare mother.

[Silent3]

47. It's not my concern.

I asked my questions as serious questions, honestly not knowing how much litigation costs us.

The fact that you keep calling everything I ask about "GOP talking points" makes it sound like you have a political axe to grind, or just want to really push hard the idea that I must have one to even dare ask such questions. I'm quite ready to accept that you're right about tort reform being more of a distraction than a real problem, but your tone is harming not helping your case.

The problem with comparing the Jiffy Lube guy and a doctor is the cost of what it takes to fix a mistake. Due to the nature of what doctors do, mistakes can be awful, even fatal. We don't want to discourage people from becoming doctors by making them legally liable for not being perfect when that liability can wipe out all of the gain of plenty of good work -- totally unlike the situation the guy who changes your oil faces.

Suppose a particular surgery is normally pretty easy, take about an hour's time, and not a whole lot of material costs in medical supplies. It can be done for about $5000 dollars when you account for the basic expense. One time in 500, however, no matter how conscientious the doctor is, one patient will die, and in retrospect you can often find something that was the doctor's "fault", something he or she did wrong.

Should we raise the cost of each surgery to $7000 to cover a $1,000,000 payout to the families of people who die during the surgery, $9000 to cover a $2,000,000 settlement, or keep it at $5000 and accept that a certain amount of tragedy is a part of life, and not everyone has to be "compensated"?

At this point I'm just exploring the philosophy of litigation and compensation for malpractice, no particular outlook on the total cost to the overall medical system in mind.

[TexasObserver]

48. Yes, the cost of remunerating the 1 in 500 deaths should be spread among all.

In all matters, we take the costs associated with a service and we bundle into the price any litigation costs that may be anticipated. That's true of Jiffy Lubes, Clinics and Fast Food places.

Your model is in the extreme, as it adds 40% to the cost of your $5000 operation. More likely, it adds an average of $100, not $4000 to the $5000 bill. to cover that one big loss.

As for my concern with your themes, you seem to be the product of two decades of industry propaganda. The health care industry and its insurers have pounded home the themes you mention. Look at those themes:

Doctors are human.
Accidents happen.
Why punish them?
It's free money to the plaintiffs.
Their lawyers get all the money.
It makes our health care costs skyrocket.
It makes doctors give tests that aren't needed.
We will all have to pay for these lawsuits.
They're not really that hurt.
Why should they get paid for pain and suffering?

You may not intend to be their advocate, but you are.

[Silent3]

49. Not everything that someone ever turned into a talking point...

...is automatically wrong because it's been turned into a talking point.

Suspect maybe, but not automatically wrong. And you're assuming that (or at least talking in a f*cking condescending tone as if) each of those points must be taken as a black or white extreme, that sometimes the truth isn't in the middle. (And before you oversimplify and cartoon-ify that, "in the middle" does not always mean 50/50 splitting the difference.

Are you sure everything you're saying isn't someone's talking point too?

You side stepped my question by making a generalized statement about costs always being distributed. Of course they are. But a settlement in a lawsuit is a debatable cost, as is the degree to which we each have to bear our own losses, and the extent to which "blame" figures into such losses.

I'd like to see relief for suffering of any kind, no matter what the cause. A family that loses somebody because they are struck by lighting suffers just as much from that loss as someone who loses a family member to a medical error. If we don't collectively get together as a society to insure that everyone who suffers an unfortunate loss gets $1-$2 million dollars, why should we collectively, one way or another, pay that much just because we can construe "blame" in some situations, but not others?

Doctors are human.
Some are assholes with a God complex, but I think we can agree that all, or at least most, are indeed homo sapiens. It's not like they're lawyers. ;)

Accidents happen.
They do indeed. I can't see you disputing that fact either. The degree to which we attribute blame to accidents, and how people should be or need to be compensated for accidents, is what seems to be in question.

Why punish them?
If they are truly negligent or incompetent, or worse, knowingly causing harm, it's easy to see why to punish them.
Another reason to punish, apart from blame, is hope that fear of punishment will improve medical care. That probably works, at least up to a point.

The important thing is the level of punishment be both efficacious in reducing future medical malpractice and that it, in some (of course, highly debatable) sense be fair.

It's free money to the plaintiffs.
Actually, I don't think I've heard that particular talking point before.

Their lawyers get all the money.
They often get the lion's share. I don't have hard statistics on how often or exact percentages. While not a medical situation, I remember watching the bankruptcy proceedings of a company I once worked for. The amount of money left over to split among creditors was about 2.5 million. Because all parties couldn't reach a sensible agreement with each other on who got what, lawyers ended up getting about 2 million of that and the idiots fighting over the scraps ended up with half a million to split amongst themselves instead of splitting up 2.5.

It makes our health care costs skyrocket.
That's what I was merely exploring. I doubt that it makes them "skyrocket", but I'm also a little suspicious of claims that litigation adds mere pennies on the dollar.

It makes doctors give tests that aren't needed.
You don't think that ever happens? Again, this in not either "yes it does" or "no it doesn't", it's a matter of degree.

We will all have to pay for these lawsuits.
Well, for the most part, we will. You yourself made a point that costs always need to be distributed. The only costs that aren't going to get distributed is in whatever rare case a doctor or a medical institution actually absorbs a real loss that they don't get to recover some other way later.

They're not really that hurt.
I don't personally think people faking suffering are all that common.

Why should they get paid for pain and suffering?
In some cases, that's probably the most fair thing you can do. But there is plenty of uncompensated suffering in the world too. Do people who suffer due to medical accidents deserve compensation for their suffering more than others who suffer different types of losses? Do people who suffer when a person can be pointed at to blame for their problems deserve more compensation than those who can't point a finger of blame?

[TexasObserver]

50. You have nothing new. It's all old, tired, GOP talking points.

Embrace your values.

[Silent3]

54. Talk about talking points...

I think calling everything a talking point is your only talking point.

Embrace your black and white thinking.

[laughingliberal]

56. I don't think so. I think I saw this poster pretty well substantiate his position with the facts

I'm an RN and I can tell you I have never had an expectation that any instances of 'human error' that I would experience would be excused if harm resulted to a patient. It is a high standard and well understood by those who endeavor to enter the field of health care.

An error that does not result in actual harm is not considered malpractice and is not subject to litigation. I have yet to see a case brought where a mistake was trumped up in retrospect. It is very difficult, contrary to popular opinion, to bring a malpractice suit. There has to be proof of actual harm and it has to meet a burden that the harm was a direct result of the action or inaction of the health care professional. I often tell those who have bought into the 'frivolous lawsuit' meme to find a frivolous lawsuit and shop it around. I think they would be amazed there are not attorneys out there waiting in line willing to file any case that is not really cut and dried on a contingency basis.

My case against tort reform:

A right that has been given up will, likely, never be recovered. Several states have already enacted very aggressive tort reform laws without seeing the cost of health care reduced significantly. When investigated it has been found that the reason for the over prescribing of diagnostics in not, in fact, defensive medicine but is due to physicians who are invested in the diagnostic centers and stand to profit. Over and over this has been shown to be the case. In other words, the people have their rights severely curtailed without reaping any benefit.

As for punitive damages, it has been shown every time it has been studied that behavior will not change if the consequences are not stiff enough. The reason for punitive damages is not 'free money' for the plaintiff. It is to change the behavior. If the cost of continuing the behavior is not higher than discontinuing the behavior, the behavior will continue. The example that is most applicable is the Ford Motor company's decision not to fix the design flaw in the Pinto which was resulting in people being burned alive in their cars. Their cost/benefit analysis showed it was cheaper to pay off the number of expected lawsuits than to fix the problem. The sad news is that our hospitals, by and large, have been operating on the same premise since the 90's. They found it cheaper to pay off some wrongful death suits than to staff the hospitals for adequate patient care. If that doesn't scare the hell out of anyone who thinks they may someday need to be in a hospital, it should.

Tort reform, as Molly Ivins said, "a nice little euphemism for 'the people lose their rights.'"

[Silent3]

61. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that tort reform might not be a good idea...

...certainly not that when the GOP brings it up that they don't have a toxic agenda behind it.

What pisses me off about the poster I was "discussing" this issue with is that, apparently, as soon as he catches what he thinks is the slightest whiff of what he considers a "talking point", then he's ready to dismissively treat you as if every question you might have is coming from a cartoonishly oversimplified GOP sockpuppet.

[laughingliberal]

64. Fair enough.

But, more than anything else, this is an area to think through the unintended consequences. Once we willingly hand over our rights, they will not be handed back. We would lose a whole lot of protection for what is, at most, a 1% savings in overall health care costs. And unscrupulous hospitals will have carte blanch to keep cutting the quality of care in the name of profits.

[TexasObserver]

67. You do not evidence any med mal knowledge beyond GOP talking points.

Your line about just wanting to know was plausible until you were told differently, but since then, it's clear you are an advocate for the GOP talking points you use in every one of your posts.

I don't expect to change your mind or alter your pro GOP advocacy. I use you because you're a convenient foil. The purpose of this sub thread discussion with you is not to instruct you. I'm using your posts and my responses as a vehicle to provide other readers here with the facts and arguments they need to respond to those who - like you - repeat GOP talking points ad nauseam.

Your talking points can be heard any time Sean Hannity speaks to GOP leaders about this topic. And that's what is important for readers to remember. You and Sean Hannity feel exactly the same way about health care and "tort reform."

[Silent3]

77. What evidence have you shown?

The closest thing you come to "evidence" is a couple of claims, not backed by any citations of any sort, that litigation is a minor cost -- and I'm willing to believe that if it's backed up, but it's not an analysis that can stand freely apart from a stated and expected "normal" amount of malpractice compensation.

Other than that, you're obviously just interested in posing. You see something that smells of "GOP talking point" to you, and you're totally disinterested in whether or not a concern or question could be a valid, or at least an interesting point of discussion, when there's an Important Crusade to get on with, playing your role of making anything associated with anything that sounds slightly like a GOP talking point look bad.

You're approaching this from a political posturing standing point -- don't give 'em an inch, or you risk The Cause! -- rather than a true substantive debate. If every point I've brought up is complete and utter bullshit (but please, as I personally have stated it, not after you've turned it into the closest convenient straw man) I'll gladly give up each point that is met with good evidence, but I won't concede a thing to arrogance and pompous posing and fact-free attempts to paint me as some kind of GOP dupe or shill.

[TexasObserver]

65. "Tort reform, as Molly Ivins said, 'a nice little euphemism for 'the people lose their rights.'"

Molly was right.

Tort Reform means taking away from plaintiffs their right to pursue a recovery for harm which was caused by treatment or improper diagnosis.

The problem with those who argue for tort reform is they're ignorant, but like the tea baggers whose ideas on this topic they share, even when you edify them, it's a waste of time. It all goes into one ear and out the others, because they don't want to know the facts. They want to argue against the straw man they build. And that makes sense, because that's the only argument they can win.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

85. +10,000

I work for a tort law firm in NYC. We almost never take medical malpractice cases; due to the way the laws are set-up, it's nearly impossible to successfully win a suit against a doctor. It's essentially always a loss of both time and money as far as we're involved -- unless there was GROSS negligence. (Meaning, of course, that the doctor very obviously and very egregiously fucked up his treatment of the patient -- AND documented exactly what he did wrong.)

I've seen hundreds of med mal cases walk through these doors over the past 7 years, and we've only taken about 5-10 of them or so.

[TexasObserver]

116. Medical Malpractice cases are the hardest civil cases to make in America.

It's the problem of the insurance and health industry manufactured myth v. the reality.

The myth is that med mal lawyers are lined up waiting to sue doctors for the slightest complaint.

The reality is that finding a lawyer for just about anything is easier than finding one who can competently prosecute a med mal case.

[TexasObserver]

124. Thanks for weighing in as an RN about physicians who are invested in the diagnostic centers.

I tried to explain that in a post somewhere else in this thread.

The health care industry has changed so dramatically the past 30 years, and most of those changes are about doctors becoming business men who own their buildings, and set up clinics with other doctors where they all send each other patients, where they buy expensive equipment which requires consistent use to generate the cash to pay for the equipment. It's not about improving health care, but about improving the bottom line.

That's the legacy of Bill Frist and his family. This march to privatize most aspects of health care is why we have the West's most expensive, least comprehensive health care system.

The money sure isn't going to the nurses, is it? Hospitals are often understaffed, and cost of the staff are often the paramount consideration.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. My parents were in an accident in 1978

They were driving along, coming home from a movie, when a car full of teens who had been drinking came out of a parking lot and turned the wrong way. The result was a head-on collision, fortunately only at 30 mph, but still, my parents ended up in intensive care for weeks.

My mother was in a body brace for six months. My dad was never the same afterward, evidently suffered some sort of brain injury.

When the time came for the lawsuit (Minnesota is a no-fault state, so their hospital bills were covered, but they were suing the other driver's insurance company for damages), the opposing attorney asked them, "Aren't you being kind of greedy here?"

And my mother's response was, "How much money would they have to pay you to volunteer to be in a head-on collision and end up like us?"

And that is the essence of tort cases. How much would they have to pay you to have the wrong leg amputated? How much would they have to pay you to volunteer not have your anesthetic work so that you were paralyzed but conscious during major surgery?

You may or may not know that Texas has instituted tort reform. Its malpractice insurance rates are lower, but costs to patients remain the same.

[Silent3]

55. Drunk driving teens and doctors aren't necessarily the same thing.

If a doctor is being just as reckless as a stupid drunken teenager, and people are hurt or killed, he should be hit hard, very hard. Criminal charges, not just liability.

If a doctor who has done lots of good work, saved many people's lives, one day slips up and injects 10cc instead of 1cc, causing just as much damage as a doctor with a less stellar record who makes a mistake operating while intoxicated, should the liability still be the same because the unfortunate outcome for the patient is the same?

If degree of blame or degree irresponsibility don't matter, what happens when there's no blame at all? If your parents had been hurt not by drunk teenagers but a falling tree, should the person standing nearest to the tree at the time of the accident be chosen as an arbitrary person to punish and sue, because, dammit, SOMEBODY HAS GOTTA PAY?

You may or may not know that Texas has instituted tort reform. Its malpractice insurance rates are lower, but costs to patients remain the same.

If tort reform has lowered insurance costs, and those costs are significantly lower, that would seem to indicate that, rightly or wrongly, litigation was costing a lot of money. If those savings aren't being passed on to consumers, that's certainly a problem, but it's a separate problem from whether or not litigation is a significant source of expense.

[paulflorez]

63. Aren't the victims human as well?

If a doctor injects 10ccs instead of 1ccs and that person is permanently disabled or dies, why should they have to take any responsibility for what the doctor did? The doctor is the expert and he gets paid a lot of money to do what he does.

I'm sure you could lower costs a lot by making it completely illegal to sue a doctor at all, but does that make it an acceptable solution? You're simply replacing one problem (high costs) with another (higher malpractice rates).

[Silent3]

76. Did I ever argue against the victims' humanity?

I already said I'd prefer to see everyone relieved of as much suffering as possible.

It's a good thing if a doctor feels a sense of responsibility for his or her errors and wants to help a patient. In many cases, whether he or she feels that responsibility or not, it's a good thing if the law compels that responsibility.

But there are some jobs that just can't be done by human beings at all if the only two black and white binary choices are total lack of any responsibility or total intolerance for any error.

We live in a world where The System isn't and can't compensate and console us for every personal tragedy. All I'm saying is some (and I'm not proscribing any particular level) of human error is just as inevitable a source of harm as so-called "acts of God" where you can't point a finger of blame and particular human beings, and it's silly to act as if the only two choices are the current system in the most litigation-friendly state you can find and the total impossibility to sue any doctor anywhere.

[BurtWorm]

82. Silent3, you're very brave to take this position here.

You're doing an excellent job of defending your position and raising questions in a reasonable way to try to halt the spread of reflexive knee-jerking on this issue. I applaud you for all of the above.

:applause:


I just want to ask if you or anyone knows how many suits against doctors are brought by patients each year. How much does it cost medical doctors actually in court. Maybe doctors need malpractice insurance reform. Maybe they're getting soaked by the insurance companies too? It's possible. I could do the research on this, but I have a deadline and I *really* shouldn't. ;-)

[Silent3]

89. Thanks for that

I really am honestly asking question here, real questions... not the leading "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. If there's data that relieves those concerns, I'm fine and happy with that.

I don't even know where I'd look for the raw data to get to the bottom of what is or isn't wrong with what we're doing now. What sources of information could I trust to not simply be peddling a particular agenda? Clearly the current system is broken, and I'm sure there's probably plenty of blame to go around, something likely to be little more complicated than The Evil GOP vs. the Brave and Valiant Progressives Fighting for the Common Man, no crystal-clear Wrong Way vs Right Way with no room for debate.

[paulflorez]

92. My point wasn't about questioning you view of the humanity of the victim

I was asking why the victim should carry any of the burden at all? The only mistake they made was the doctor they chose, who happened to screw up and either end up killing them or permanently disabling them. Placing any static, legally established limit would essentially say that the burden of the value of anything that goes above that limit falls upon the victim. That's ridiculous.

There should be no limit, it should be decided by a judge or a jury of the victim's peers. As long as it's not the victims themselves deciding how much they should get, I don't see how our existing system is a problem. If you want to reform malpractice insurance, how about creating pools based on different levels of risk? Very low risks doctors, doctors with no incidents of malpractice, could be the lowest giving them a lower insurance premium, with higher pools as the doctor screws up more (are they doing this now?). Eventually, a doctor that screws up so much gets punished by the sheer size of the insurance premium he must pay while his competitors have a lower premium and thus compete better. That's the way the market should work, not by protecting doctors that screw up more than others by putting a cap on damages. As I said, putting a cap on damages doesn't reduce the costs of malpractice, it just places more of the burden of those costs on the victims and that is wrong.

Read my post about my person life experience and my argument against the Republican's tort reform:
"Here's my real life experience and argument against tort reform"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7686530&mesg_id=7691060

Why should my grandmother have to carry any of the burden for the screw up of the hospital that resulting in the loss of my grandfather's life? My grandmother nor my grandfather did anything wrong other than take them to the irresponsible hospital that they did (they didn't think it was irresponsible). If a judge or jury of her peers decides that the value of having her husband in her life was $2 million, then legally that's how much it is going to cost to repair her life, to attempt to bring it back to the quality she had before her husband was taken away from her. If "tort reform" states that such awards can be no more than say $500,000, then it's basically placing the burden of that additional $1.5 million on her, either she's going to have to make it herself (she's a retired teacher, not likely) or simply accept a lower quality of life than she had before the hospital screwed up. Making her accept any of that burden is wrong though, so placing a legal limit is wrong. Let judges and juries decide the value of a human life, not the government.

[Silent3]

95. Who said the only possible form of tort reform...

...is damage caps?

[paulflorez]

102. Republican tort reform EQUALS damage caps

They cite the success of Texas' tort reform. Well, this is what Texas' tort reform is:
"For example, the heart of House Bill 4 is a $250,000 cap for doctors and $500,000 cap for hospitals on hard-to-measure non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering and mental anguish, and only in medical malpractice cases."
http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/release.php?id=470

And damage caps are also in the Republican's health care bill!
"(2) MAXIMUM AWARD.—The amount of punitive
11 damages, if awarded, in a health care lawsuit may
12 be as much as $250,000 or as much as two times
13 the amount of economic damages awarded, which-
14 ever is greater."

Worse yet, unless you can prove that the medical professional did it ON PURPOSE, the damage cap is essentially $0 because you can't sue for punitive damages at all!
"Punitive damages may, if other-
7 wise permitted by applicable State or Federal law, be
8 awarded against any person in a health care lawsuit only
9 if it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that such
10 person acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant,
11 or that such person deliberately failed to avoid unneces-
12 sary injury that such person knew the claimant was sub-
13 stantially certain to suffer."

This places a huge share of the responsibility and thus the burden for the doctor or hospital's screw up on the victim! My grandmother would NOT have been able to sue for punitive damages because the person who placed the IV in her did not do it out of "malice," they were simply incompetent! Whoops, my bad, here's how much money you would have collected from his retirement, that should be an equal trade.

Republican tort reform = damage caps!

[Silent3]

106. Where did I say anything in support of Republican tort reform?

Or are you just having fun having an argument with yourself?

[paulflorez]

117. The topic of this whole post is about why liberals are against tort reform.

No where in my post did I say that you supported Republican tort reform. You asked "who said the only possible tort reform is damage caps?" I pointed out that Republican tort reform which relies heavily on damage caps to reduce premiums. The topic of this whole post is about why liberals are against tort reform. Liberals are not against tort reform, they're against Republican tort reform, which reduces premiums but NOT healthcare costs, because the costs are simply shifted to the patient and hidden from the premium when the damage caps are applied.

You questioned whether damage caps were a solution, and appeared to debate in support of that position. You asked questions such as "should we raise the cost of each surgery to $7000 to cover a $1,000,000 payout... or keep it at $5000 and accept that a certain amount of tragedy is a part of life" which in my opinion paints the latter with a much more idealistic outlook than the former because it simplifies tragedies such as the one that befell my grandmother and grandfather to a dismissive "that's life."

You also argued that:
"if settlements are meant to be severely punitive, and are punishing reasonable human error along with gross neglect and incompetence, and if rewards in settlements try to compensate for intangibles like 'pain and suffering', if the system feeds into the notion that whenever something goes wrong that blame must be affixed and that someone "must PAY!", then maybe there is cost reduction to be found in some form of tort reform after all."

Your usage of words like "severely punitive" and "reasonable human error" paint a sympathetic view of the doctors who screw up. You use the word "blame" and the exclamation "(someone) must PAY" which paints a negative view of the victim. By saying "whenever something goes wrong that..." you are implying that "this always happens" or "that always happens" which suggests an attempt to exaggerate a negative. I don't see you arguing both sides of the issue, both possibilities, and at the very least are playing devil's advocate, but I think you are grinding your own axe here.

My point is that the "tort reform" being talked about in political circles relies on damage caps, and you have been playing devil's advocate for damage caps. Texas tort reform dropped insurance rates because it capped punitive damages. Do you really have to question if you have $2 million dollar judgements one day, and then a cap at $250,000 a next, that that has some kind of effect on lowering premiums? Of course it does, it lowers premiums, but IT DOES NOT LOWER HEALTHCARE COSTS. If the risk of having a doctor make an "accident" is passed onto the patient, then malpratice insurance premiums and thus patient premiums might go down, but the patient will now HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE FOR ACCIDENTAL DAMAGES. Would you really want to risk having a doctor "accidentally" causing you a permanent disability or killing you off and leaving your spouse and kids to fend for themselves without some kind of security? So now you have to buy insurance that you didn't have to buy before, where are the savings?

"We live in a world where The System isn't and can't compensate and console us for every personal tragedy. All I'm saying is some (and I'm not proscribing any particular level) of human error is just as inevitable a source of harm as so-called "acts of God" where you can't point a finger of blame and particular human beings, and it's silly to act as if the only two choices are the current system in the most litigation-friendly state you can find and the total impossibility to sue any doctor anywhere."

So what's the answer? You imply that the current system is "litigation-friendly" when, based on my real life experience, it is not, and you imply that suing a doctor shouldn't be out of a question, but you propose nothing as far as "proscribing a particular level." So what's the answer?

How about this for an answer: we let a judge or jury of our peers decide the damages. It's up to the plaintiff and defendant to make their case. A judge or jury of our peers gets to decide what the "value" of that human life was worth to the victim based on the arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant and how much responsibility the defendant had in the loss of that life. That is the system we have now.

Oh, and for someone to decry the "arrogance and pompous posing" of TexasObserver and then to say something so snarky as "or are you just having fun having an argument with yourself?" to someone who never personally attacked you seems pretty hypocritical to me. Not to mention the fact that your past two posts completely dismissed my main points and instead focused on a weak interpretation of my arguments.

So answer this question, should my grandmother have been legally denied the freedom to sue for punitive damages? The nurse who put the IV in my grandfather did so with a false sense of confidence followed by a lack of urgency that ended up killing him. All she would have had to do is put in it correctly the first time. Failing that, check up on him regularly to make sure the IV was working properly and that his vitals were secure, and at the first sign of poor vitals take the situation seriously. Instead, the nurse failed on all three counts and the hospital failed because they hired an incompetent nurse. According to your argument though, my grandmother should collect my grandfather's retirement, be given a dismissive "that's life" for her pain and suffering and be forced to simply deal with the loss of her husband, her dreams of traveling with him across this country, spending many nights with him, talking with him, basically carry the burden of his loss all by herself. Not to mention the loss it was to our family as a whole. The reduced quality of life that that nurse and that hospital cost my grandmother is HER problem, not theirs.

Maybe instead of taking this "that's life" attitude, we should place doctor's in insurance pools of different levels of risks. Doctor's that make very few mistakes would have the lowest malpractice premiums while doctor's with the most mistakes would pay the highest premiums and thus have a harder time competing. Eventually, the shittiest doctors get weeded out and the best doctors stay. In other words, hold the providers RESPONSIBLE for their mistakes. Best of all, patients that are victims of the shittiest doctor's "mistakes" don't have to just eat the fact that they are now stuck in a wheel chair for the rest of their life and have to survive off crappy disability and social services, which it seems some people are intent on cutting anyways.

[Silent3]

118. You may not have "attacked" me, but you're leaping to unfounded conclusions...

...about what you think needs to be said to address things that I've said, as if I'm taking positions I haven't taken, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't then debate the finer point of long, long posts that have little to do with what I'm saying.

[paulflorez]

119. I quoted your own posts, how can that NOT be about what you are saying?

I quoted your own posts, how can that NOT be about what you are saying? If my interpretation of the quotes I took directly from your posts are wrong, then REFUTE them with something more than a "I'm too good to debate with you" pompous attitude, which is just a pathetic way to say "I can't justify my arguments, I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing."

TexasObserver dismisses you by saying "you're just quoting GOP talking points" and you get all frazzled, but then you go and do the equally dismissive thing by saying "you'll have to excuse me if I don't debate the finer point of long posts that have little to do with what I'm saying." Pot, meet kettle, I'm sure you'll get along great!

[Silent3]

127. In case you've never noticed, points of discussion can change...

...over the course of a thread.

Yes, the OP bring up the idea of accepting Republican ideas of tort reform.

I'm pursuing questions, however, about general ideas of litigation, blame, responsibility, costs, etc., and it seems like you think I wouldn't ask certain types of questions unless they are leading questions with some sort of conclusion already lurking behind the questions like "We need damage caps!" You may be quoting back my own words, but there's still an added layer of your own unfounded assumptions going on about the intent of those words.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Have you ever represented a doc that was sued that didn't commit malpractice?

[TexasObserver]

98. Yes, of course. There are multi defendants in such cases.

There will be several doctors who get sued surrounding an event, and some of them are blameless and some are not. So, yes, doctors who have not committed malpractice get sued, along with those who have committed malpractice. That's a very unhappy part of this process, one I do not like. But it is partly the result of the practices of hospitals and doctors who lower a veil of silence when someone has screwed up.

The plaintiff starts off knowing something went wrong, but unclear on when it happened and who was in charge of that aspect. They go from almost no knowledge of what really happened to some knowledge. The plaintiff typically has only two years to start such litigation, and it's imperative that any potential defendant be sued in that two year window. That makes the other doctors party-opponents, which makes getting discovery and cooperation easier. A plaintiff can make them testify at deposition easier when they're a party and make them produce records easier when they are a party.

If the plaintiff assumes early they know who committed negligence, they could get two years into the litigation and find out they didn't sue one of the doctors who was involved, and turns out he's the one who committed the negligent act resulting in the harm. That would be legal malpractice, and the attorney representing the plaintiff would be liable for failing to find out the proper defendants and sue them in a timely fashion.

It is not a very efficient system, but the two year window to get all defendants sued and the manner in which the defending insurers, attorneys and doctors slow down the process force plaintiffs to sue everyone in the vicinity, and then sort them out as time passes. Being sued has a way of making a doctor not otherwise inclined to give testimony reveal the identity of the doctor who committed the negligence.

FYI: I favor universal health care, because these cases are driven by the medical costs, both those in the past and those continuing into the future. If we had universal health care, we would not have the massive medical bills that patients face, and that is a key element of the plaintiff's damages in such cases. Then such a case would be about lost wages and pain & suffering.

I also favor a legal system more like Canada's, where litigants must negotiate in good faith to settle cases reasonably, and if they don't the litigant who is unreasonable has to pay part of the attorneys fees of the prevailing party. When a case is developed, over time the lawyers for all sides get the facts out, and once that is known, the lawyers know who is exposed to liability and why they are exposed. That's why settlements occur. The lawyers come to understand their case, and so do the insurers, doctors and other parties. Eventually, the argument about liability gives way to the argument about recoverable damages. That's why cases get settled, and why most cases that make it past motions to dismiss are resolved in court ordered mediation, which is now standard practice.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. So your statement in post #42 wasn't exactly accurate?

[TexasObserver]

108. Yes, it was accurate.

You're inferring something I didn't say. If four doctors get sued because one doctor was negligent, they all got sued because a doctor committed malpractice. Unfortunately, most of the time they all clam up until they've been sued, had their records subpoenaed, and are deposed.

As I said quite clearly in the post above, not every doctor sued for malpractice has committed malpractice.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. So doctors get sued because some people and lawyers are greedy is also accurate?

[TexasObserver]

111. No, doctors get sued because they and their insurers don't pay legit claims.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. I thought it was because they committed malpractice.

[TexasObserver]

114. That's implicit in the phrase "not paying a legit claim."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. Except the ones who don't commit malpractice and still get sued.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. It's an attack on the ability of the people to turn to the courts.

It's not about protecting doctors. That's their ruse because doctors are held in high esteem.

[Captain Hilts]

3. The 'tort reform' movement was bought and paid for by tobacco, pharma and auto makers. nt

[gateley]

12. That's all I need to know, and why am I not surprised? nt

[Captain Hilts]

21. I actually worked with some of the creeps. nt

[gateley]

24. Ewwww -- Here:

You need a hug. :hug:

[Captain Hilts]

27. Awww. The Nation did an article in 2000 outlining the whole link between

tobacco, tort reform, Karl Rove and the Bush Campaign that was ALL true.

[gateley]

99. Even with not knowing the details of the article, I have no doubt it WAS all true! nt

[Donnachaidh]

4. personally, I'd like to see the AMA do *something* about the bad practitioners out there

And yes, there ARE bad doctors and nurses and xray techs, etc. But instead of doing something to get them out of the business, we hear about how malpractice insurance is sky high (because of the BAD ones), so we need tort reform to protect the doctors -- even the BAD ones.

I'm not convinced that every malpractice lawsuit is frivolous. And I'm not willing to take away the rights of victims who have been crippled or killed by the few bad doctors out there.

That's where I stand. YMMV.

[Captain Hilts]

28. Yes, they are creating circumstances that feed the tort 'reform' creeps. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

35. There are no frivolous med mal suits

Med mal plaintiff attorneys get paid on a contingency basis, therefore, not only does each case HAVE to be VERY winnable, it has to be worth at LEAST a $150,000 award (although that's probably more now since I haven't been in the biz for nearly a decade). No attorney would take a case they didn't already know they will almost assuredly win, but win big since otherwise years of their work will be for nothing, and all their expenses to pursue a case unpaid (and those expenses are astronomical). FAR more perfectly legitimate med mal cases are turned down because even if it's absolutely a winner, it doesn't win them enough to justify their time and out of pocket expenses to take it on.

There is no such animal as a frivolous med mal suit.

Having worked in med mal litigation for over a decade, I promise you there are FAR more than a few bad medical professionals out there. I have an absolute horror of doctors and hospitals after doing it for all those years.

[laughingliberal]

58. That's been my experience

More often I have seen very legitimate malpractice suits not brought due to the very reasons you cite. Not many attorneys can afford to develop the case unless it is very clear cut and an almost certain win. I've seen many a case that should have been brought not taken on for these very reasons.

[NNN0LHI]

72. I would have to agree with you

I personally have never known of any situation that could be construed as a frivolous med mal suit.

Don

[Manifestor_of_Light]

51. The AMA does not have jurisdiction. The state boards should be doing more.

The American Medical is a voluntary, non-licensing organization, just like the American Bar Association.

The state medical boards do NOT discipline the bad doctors. They do not discipline the doctors who are addicted to drugs, either. The doctors who commit malpractice and have a judgement against them, just move to another state and start practicing.

The doctors get really mad when you bring this up, that they are not doing enough to regulate and discipline the bad doctors. A psychiatrist got really pissed at me when I mentioned this.

Yes, I am a lawyer and I used to be a court reporter. I've seen the results of malpractice--like the guy on a gurney on his back in court, with a sheet wrapped around him. Or the baby who will never do more than hold up her head, because of oxygen deprivation. The baby who will never progress past the accomplishments of a three month old.

What happens when a doctor or hospital commits malpractice and the jury does not hold them responsible? The plaintiffs become a burden on the taxpayers.

[Better Believe It]

5. Here's an excellent post on that subject written by a DU'er.

flamin lib (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-03-10 10:48 AM
Original message

The case against Tort Reform.
Tort reform is tantamount to telling the less-than-wealthy that they can’t bring suit to rectify negligence.

Plaintiff's attorneys are paid in one of two ways: by the hour at rates ranging from a few hundred to thousands of dollars or on contingency, a percentage of what they win from the defendant in court. The percentage will vary depending on the complexity of the case, the chances of winning and the potential size of the award but it’s typically about 30%. Very few people have the wherewithal to hire a better than average lawyer, so being able to find one to take your case on contingency is the only way average people can find justice and be made whole.

Contrary to the ranting of the right about ambulance chasing trial lawyers the contingency fee system works very well and is self-regulating. When an attorney takes a case on contingency s/he absorbs all the cost of research, discovery and trial. If presented with a contingency case any competent attorney will first determine the strength of the case, the likelihood of winning, and the potential settlement which s/he will share a part of. If your case isn’t all but dead solid certain of prevailing and winning enough for the attorney’s share to cover all the costs and net a reasonable profit the attorney takes a risk of losing a lot of money. In short, they can’t afford to file frivolous lawsuits.

In Texas we have medical tort reform thanks to Bush 43 when he was Governor. The short version is that a plaintiff can be awarded actual damages; i.e. that amount of lost wages, cost of care, cost of rehabilitation and any other actual identifiable monetary losses caused by the negligence of the defendant. Punitive awards, those infamous pain and suffering awards, are limited to $250,000 unless it can be proven that the defendant intentionally committed negligence. In other words, your attorney would have to prove that a doctor woke up the morning of your surgery and planned to leave sponges inside you causing sepsis and ending your life. What this means is that no Texas attorney good enough to earn a decent living can afford to take your malpractice case because they are limited in what they may win and therefore get paid.

Tort reform is just another way of telling the working American that big money has rights and you don’t.

Note: My wife has been a legal professional for almost 40 years and most of that time worked for defense firms, the side that defends against accusations of negligence or infringements of the law. The firms she worked for occasionally lost a case but very few. Most were settled at the advice of the defense because they found in the discovery phase of case preparation that the defendant was indeed wrong. The ones they actually lost were because the defendant "stood on principal" in which case it cost them dearly as in the McDonald's Coffee case (the story of which is a travesty in itself).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7631897

[spanone]

7. 'liberal and democrats' are not against it totally. it's just a very small percentage.

[paulflorez]

126. They are against damage caps, which is 99% of what Republican tort reform is about

They are against damage caps, which while they might reduce health care premiums they do not reduce health care costs. Placing maximums on punitive damages simply shift the cost of doctor screw ups from the doctors/insurance companies to the victims, which is 99% of what Republican tort reform is about.

[Mz Pip]

8. The courts have always been

the last opportunity for the common man to find justice. The tort reform that the republicans are push would limit individuals to sue corporations and limit the liability on lawsuits that are filed.

It really is a red herring. Huge malpractice awards are fairly rare but the Republicans like to trot out the big ones as justification to eliminate or limit liability.

[KharmaTrain]

69. The Red Herring In The Red Herring...

The issue of tort reform isn't about payouts. If a doctor is guilty of malpractice...proven negligence, then the sky's the limit. There's a deeper problem and that's the large number of "cattle call" lawsuits that waste a lot of time and money. Instead of targeting the doctor whose responsible, lawyers will cast wide nets to get several doctors to settle out rather than to go to trial. It drags on cases longer than they should while those who care not liable are released from the case...but it still costs the doctors time and money...and just having their name on a suit is sure to mean higher malpractice insurance rates even if they're found to be innocent. And those costs are past along to the patient.

If we're to contain the high costs of medical care, driving down the costs of medical malpractice is a big step. This has nothing to do with the bad apples...doctors who deserve to be sued for their negligence, it's the majority of others who are saddled with high malpractice rates that affects every doctor and thus every patient.

[COLGATE4]

74. This is simply not true

The reason you have to join all possible defendants in a med mal lawsuit is because 1) you don't know for sure if the principal plaintiff was solely responsible for the damage and 2) to find out you need to conduct discovery. If you guess and miss the responsible defendant you've just wasted a few years and a few hundred thousand dollars in costs.

[KharmaTrain]

78. It Also Drives Up Costs...

Been there, done that...my late father was a physician who was called in on several of these suits...he was released from each one, as were most the other doctors on the suit...but it took months and legal expenses that were unnecessary. An arbitrator or panel could have ruled on the validity of the suit, who was culpable and moved the the case on to trial or resolution without all the needless expense. The game here is to see if some doctors will settle rather than go to trial...even if they're not guilty but the payoff is cheaper than having to pay steeper malpractice rates. Didn't matter, once the insurance company catches wind of any type of suit, everyone's rates go up...again, passed along to the patient...more specifically, you.

If we're going to talk about comprehensive insurance reform...which is where this "bill" has gotten down to...everything should be on the table.

[treestar]

105. Exactly. Lawyer worry about malpractice suits against them, too.

[Mz Pip]

79. I agree that there

are plenty of frivolous lawsuits out there. I guess the question is how to determine what is frivolous.

I was on a jury panel last year for a case of civil litigation. I thought the whole case was a sham; however 9 members of the jury thought otherwise. I came to the conclusion that people don't mind giving away other people's money regardless of where or not it is just. Now I suspect that oneof the jurors who voted for the plaintiff would argue otherwise.

I don't know what the solution is.

[KharmaTrain]

84. It's Before It Even Gets To A Jury...

I have nothing against lawyers..."some of my best friends are". :rofl:

In short, we've become a very litigous society. We also have a glut of attorneys...working on all sides of this issue that have turned PI cases and malpractice suits (as well as most other civil suits) into a long drawn out process that creates lots of billable hours and many times becomes a waiting game to see if a claimant will give in and drop a suit. Then, if it isn't settled out, it goes to a jury. The clock ticks and the wronged party goes through an equally torturous ordeal...especially if that case involves their livelyhood and future finances (not counting the initial outlays from their own personal savings). The cattle calls are another tactic to stretch out the net and see who will or won't pay out and then focus in on those most liabel.

There needs to be a better system to determine the merits of a case and to move the system along...cutting down on the expenses that are paid by the consumer. Of course lawyers aren't going to like this...and this isn't about the right to sue or to get due process...but to make the process more efficient and force down some underlying costs that are at the core of high malpractice rates.

Cheers...

[treestar]

104. Lawyers are afraid of malpractice suits, too

The reason they sue every defendant in sight is because during discovery it would come to light someone else was involved.

[TorchTheWitch]

122. Actually that's not why they include everyone in the suit at all

Everyone is added as a defendant who COULD have had something to do with the negligence because it is virtually the only way to find out for sure what happened and whose fault it was. The attorney needs to conduct depositions with everyone and review their records, and they CAN'T do that without suing those people/entities as those people/entities will not allow themselves to be deposed nor hand over their records voluntarily, and in fact, aren't permitted to cooperate with plaintiff counsel without being named in the suit by their employers and insurance companies. When I worked on the defense side of med mal, MANY times doctors and nurses would call wanting to know why they weren't allowed to just tell plaintiff's counsel they had nothing to do with it and show them their records proving that so they wouldn't have to be named in the suit and would be upset and angry that they weren't allowed to do that even though the reason for it is for their own good.

Also, although ammending a suit to add an additional defendant later does happen occasionally as more information becomes available, it is FAR easier to drop a defendant than it is to add one later, is less time consuming and less expensive for the plaintiff's attorney.

Med mal cases are very complex because it is most often the case that there was not a single person or entity that is 100% at fault since a patient is seen by many people some or all of which may have contributed to the patient's injury, and decisions are made not just by doctors and nurses but by hospital/clinic administration who may also have contributed to the patient's injury. Also, hospitals/clinics as employers share in some part in responsibility for the mistakes of their employees by virtue of being the employer. It is up to the jury to decide which people/entities contributed to the injury and what percentage they were at fault, or the attorneys on both sides can haggle that out and come to an agreement on that to produce an amicable settlement.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Because we believe in supporting attorneys who protect people, not corporations.

NGU.

[Ardent15]

10. It's an attack on trial lawyers who give money to the Democratic Party...

...and is also, as said before, a way of telling the people that corporations are more powerful than you.

[asdjrocky]

11. Doesn't work.

Period. It's a farce and a distraction.

Read Hostile Takeover by Dave Sirota, he explains it very well.

[Oregone]

13. First, one big reason to be against it, is that the issue only exists because a lotta of money was..

given out in political donations to buy politicians, and now those owners want a return on their investment.

Get it? Its not something anyone determined as a grand solution. Rather, a special interest group bought off politicians to pass through legislation that will help them (but not really help the overall situation).

But really, how do you put a maximum price tag on negligence and the loss of life?

[sandnsea]

14. So a drunk doctor cuts your boob/nuts off

Here's your $25,000 cap, have a nice life.

Happy?

[laughingliberal]

59. +1000 nt

[FormerDittoHead]

110. -2

Sorry. Sometimes I can't resist a bad joke.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/redress

[CoffeeCat]

17. I'm no expert...

...but tort reform is a total red herring. Aggressive tort reform was passed in Texas, and it's my
understanding that healthcare costs did not go down, despite the tort reform. Lawsuits account for a very tiny percentage
of healthcare costs. I believe lawsuits account for about 3 percent of medical costs. So really,
this is the Republicans lying about the significance of something.

Why would they lie?

They lie to, once again, help the health-insurance companies. Doctors must purchase med mal insurance.
If there are ceilings on the amount that a plaintiff can be awarded in a lawsuit, that keeps costs down
for the insurance companies--because they pay out less. So, let's say that a doctor's negligence or
mistake during surgery, creates a lifelong disability for you. Tort reform puts caps on the dollar amount of
the settlement--let's say $500,000.

It doesn't take long for $500,000 in medical costs to accrue. That money would be wiped out quickly.
However, you still have expenses/bills due to the injury--you're screwed. Tort reform really only
helps insurance companies that insure doctors for medical malpractice.

Another issue--tort reform impedes the judicial process. Shouldn't juries decide the amount of awards?
If a doctor disfigures a child--do we want the government deciding that her family gets only $200,000 or
$300,000 for injuries? Shouldn't juries--who rely on the expertise and testimony of the family, medical
experts and those who understand the cost of medical treatment--make these decisions?

For conservatives who would argue for "smaller government" this is really hypocritical. It puts more power
in the hands of big insurance companies, takes power away from the people and in many cases bankrupts them--
while tying the hands of jurors.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[OregonBlue]

23. Some form of tort reform has been passed in 32 states and not one of them saw decreases in hc costs.

I wish the Dems would start calling these Senators out by name. Asking John Cornyn and Kaye Bailey Hutchinson why they keep claiming that it will lower costs when clearly, even though Texas had one of the most radical reforms, their healthcare costs actually skyrocketed in the years immediately following said reform. Make them explain how that worked so well and saved the citizens so much money in Texas. It's a total red herring.

[customerserviceguy]

32. Limiting the payoff does nothing to solve the problem

Every doctor and hospital still doesn't want to get sued for a million versus being sued for ten million. They still practice 'defensive medicine', as our President has rightfully acknowledged. Running ten tests on a patient, when it's obvious that one of maybe three tests would diagnose the patient's problem, is done to keep the lawyers at bay.

Caps don't do anything to stop this. Imagine if lottery prizes were limited at one million dollars. The people who don't care that they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning at ten million are still going to buy tickets.

[OregonBlue]

33. Agreed. Not one state that enacted medical tort reform managed to reduce costs because of it.

[customerserviceguy]

36. If we do not explore alternatives to solve the problem

The President is likely to just take caps on damages as the price of GOP support for his HCR proposal. He accepted with open arms anything needed to get a majority in the House, and the sixty votes in the Senate, he seems to have no guiding principles in this thing, other than, "Get me something to sign!"

[Fresh_Start]

19. little guy versus big guy

one of the few items attempting to level the playing field is that the little guy can extract penalties for gross failures by the big guy.

Otherwise its just plain cheaper for the big guy to let the little guy suffer and receive minor payoffs. Only with major awards do the big guys change what they are doing to make products and services safer.

[Lasher]

20. Ask them why they don't support tort reform for lawsuits filed by corporations.

Corporations are people when you're handing out priveleges, but not when assigning responsibility.

[ClassWarrior]

26. That's the money question.

So to speak.

NGU.

[blondeatlast]

30. Exactly. nt

[Liberal In Texas]

22. Punitive damages & legal costs

Lets say the BIG CAR company makes a defective vehicle and people start having accidents because of it. If they get sued and the damages are limited, it just becomes the cost of doing business. The BIG CAR company has a whole legal department they can throw at any lawsuit and can keep the plaintiff's attorney running around in circles for months and months causing that law firm to run up high legal costs. If there are limited monies available at settlement, it doesn't make suing the BIG CAR company worth the effort.

Punitive damages of millions of dollars sounds excessive, but if you don't do that you don't get the BIG CAR companies attention to fix their cars and ensure that in the future they'll be more careful.

[county worker]

29. Tort reform is very similar to deregulation.

It helps wealthy grow their wealth. There would be no liability to doing something wrong and still getting paid for it. A decision which puts personal wealth ahead of patient safety would have no consequences.

[customerserviceguy]

31. You ask a great question

I routinely get beaten up on this issue when I bring it up, trial lawyers are really pretty popular around here for some reason, John Edwards notwithstanding.

If we just let caps come in on litigation, we've done nothing to solve the problem. All we've done is eliminate the big paydays that some attorneys feel they need in order to keep the tort system going. It's not going to make doctors any less fearful of litigation, and it's not going to stop overtesting.

I've advocated setting up a system where we have boards that are like Workers Comp boards, the person making the claim gets quickly evaluated by the system, starts keeping an income flow going, and gets medical treatment to alleviate damage. I'd go even further, and make the results of the cases public, so we can actually see which doctors and hospitals are lousy.

But, it seems that the majority of people here are happy with a system that takes many years to produce any possible justice, keeps the results secret with gag orders, and clogs the courts. One person a few days ago even liked the fact that the present system provides money from trial lawyers for electing Democratic officeholders.

I'd like to try such a system out preliminarily with people who are getting taxpayer support for their health insurance, that would include those on Medicaid, Medicare, and anybody getting a government subsidy to help them buy insurance. Once we get the mechanism in place, we can move it to others who end up getting their health insurance costs subsidized by tax-free payments by their employers.

Maybe the tort system should be left only for those paying 100% for cosmetic surgeries, you get a bad boob job or tummy tuck, you can sue the plastic surgeon's butt off.

[izzybeans]

34. You are taking away you and your family's only protection should an expert you trust be negligent.

Imagine you were a sole bread winner with a large family, and you had gall bladder surgery. There was an accident and your intestines were damaged and you developed a life threatening infection that eventually became too much for you. What happens to your family after tort reform? If you were a young person when you die guess who just stole an entire lifetimes worth of earning potential from your children?

Until an alternative system of civil justice is created, there is no other way for justice be had. Should lawyers receive such a large % of a civil penalty? probably not. It seems we can cap that, rather than arbitrarily limit what your damages were be before justice is actually served.

Or imagine this from another angle. You work in a coal mine. Your boss' boss decides she wants to cut costs and guts the safety processes at your mine. Where does your family go after the mine disaster? There were 20 other miners down there. Is it just to prejudge via caps in this case?

You know that's next right.

[LostInAnomie]

37. Some injuries are so severe and some malpractices so blazen...

... that a message needs to be sent and those responsible need to be severely punished.

[TexasObserver]

38. "Tort Reform" is a misnamed marketing scam by the GOP.

REAL Tort Reform in the 1960s and 1970s is what gave us the right to pursue the likes of Toyota for their manufacturing defects. As the GOP often does, they steal a name for some positive action and attach it to their programs which run counter to the very positive name they call their action.

Example: The Patriot Act, which is unpatriotic and displaces constitutionally guaranteed rights.

In the 1970s, the GOP and big business were upset because real tort reform was taking place. After centuries of ridiculous rules which grossly favored the business defendants, real tort reform was taking place. Did you know that 40 years ago, in many jurisdictions, ANY negligence by the plaintiff was a complete bar to any recovery by the plaintiff? That means if you were 1% negligent crossing the street and the truck that hit you was 99% negligence, they walked entirely. That's the way tort law was before real tort reform of the 1960s and 1970s.

Any time someone mentions tort reform, tell them that what the GOP wants is not tort reform. If a group wanted to go back to 1963 on civil rights, would we call it Civil Rights Reform? No, because it isn't reform.

The GOP calls "tort reform" all their efforts to take away from injured parties the right to be fully compensated for their injuries in litigation.

You know who abuses the litigation process? The corporate defendants who use litigation to beat down their competitors, their vendors, their employees, and the people they injure with their products. They use a phalanx of lawyers to fight and beat down opponents.

If you want tort reform, demand that prevailing plaintiffs be awarded attorneys fees, expert fees, and costs of court over and above the damages they may be awarded at trial.

[blondeatlast]

81. +1,000,000! nt

[BlooInBloo]

41. ...

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/medmal/

[baldguy]

43. Can you put a price on your child's life?

Or, more correctly, her death?

Until state medical boards start taking away the licenses of & insurance companies start refusing to insure incompetent doctors, any monetary value they will place on your child's life will be as close to zero as they can make possible.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. I'd really like to see some investigative reporter look at the malpractice insurance business

If, for example, the companies getting five-figure premiums from every OB-GYN in the country every year, how does that measure up to the amount they actually pay out each year?

Or are they gouging OB-GYNs just like they gouge us?

[laughingliberal]

60. Would be good to know

I remember reading an article about 10 years ago which said the percentage of lawsuits had not been shown to have increased by any significance and the awards were no higher, percentage wise, than in the 70's. This article stated the real reason for the rise in premiums was the insurance company's trying to recoup money they lost on investments. Wish I still had that some where.

[paulflorez]

62. Here's my real life experience and argument against tort reform

My grandfather had an IV incorrectly placed in him while he was unconscious in the hospital. He bleed to death because of that stupid mistake.

In the lawsuit, my grandmother sued the hospital to collect the economic loss that resulted from my grandfather's death: the value of his income, the retirement that he would have collected, etc. She also sued for non-economic damages, basically the pain and suffering of losing the person she loved and lived most of her life with along with the fact that she can never have him back.

The tort reform that the Republicans are advocating for is to have the government place a cap on how much money the victim's family can seek based on the pain and suffering that that loss caused and the sentimental/emotional/personal value of having that person in their lives.

My grandmother and grandfather had bought a small van to travel the U.S. in. They had made a few trips to places like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite. Our family went together on a vacation to the East Coast (sans van, we flew) and my grandmother and grandfather went on their own tour of D.C., Boston, New York, etc, places they had never been. They were planning on taking many, many more trips together to places they had never been.

Now, my grandmother lives with my aunt and uncle and their two kids. She hardly travel at all, she mostly watches T.V. and knits. She drove to New Mexico with my uncle/aunt for Christmas, which is the first trip she's had in a couple of years. After my grandfather's death, she fell into a deep depression while alone at her house (I lived with her for a while) and eventually she ended up at my uncle's. She not as depressed now, but her quality of life is no where near what it was when she had a dedicated, intimate, emotional partner to bond with and experience new things with. Her life would be ten times better if someone had properly inserted his IV, not ignored his vitals, checked on him more.

How much, in dollars, is your dad worth to you? Your mom? Sister? Brother? How about your husband or wife? or one of your kids? How much money would it take for you to agree to have them taken away from you forever? Of course, even in a trial, you don't get to decide that number, but at least a judge or a jury of your peers does instead of the government.

Personally, I don't want the government, a bunch of doctors or a bunch of lawyers deciding how much a person I loved was worth. I think that decision should be left up to me and my family, or at least a jury of my peers. The government setting a limit on this is the government deciding what is the maximum value of a human life. Death panels anyone?

[lonestarnot]

66. Money is sometimes the only recourse for damages.

[TexasObserver]

68. So called "tort reform" is a proven failure in Texas.

"Tort Reform" in Texas has not produced the claimed results.

This is from December 17, 2009, less than two months ago. This is from Public Citizen, a "national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch and the courts."

The title of the article is:

Texas Experiment With Medical Liability Caps Has Failed, New Report Shows Costs Have Outpaced National Average, Uninsured Rate Remains Worst in Country and Doctor Shortage in Rural Areas Has Grown More Acute


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Medical malpractice liability caps instituted in Texas in 2003 have failed to improve the state’s health care system, a Public Citizen report released today reveals.

These findings are crucial because the Texas experiment has been held up as a model by proponents of proposals now pending in Congress to limit patients’ rights. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the data show that the health care system in Texas has grown worse since 2003 by nearly every measure. For example:

• The percentage of uninsured people in Texas has increased, remaining the highest in the country with a quarter of Texans now uninsured;
• The cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;
• The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average; and
• Spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average.

The marked increase in diagnostic testing has occurred as medical malpractice payments in Texas have fallen 67 percent. “The combination of soaring testing costs and dwindling liability expenditures is devastating to the defensive medicine theory,” Arkush said. That theory claims that the fear of lawsuits has driven the increase in expenditures on tests.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3018

[gkhouston]

83. Yup. This is why Cornyn doesn't want to discuss HCR with Obama on TV. n/t

[TexasObserver]

97. Yes, Cornyn doesn't want to have to defend the failure of "tort reform" to bring down costs.

[quaker bill]

70. Trust in juries to deliver a fair and reasonable verdict

It is really just that simple. Either you have faith in the trial by jury system, or you try to pre-cook the books.

My experience being on a jury in a personal injury case was that the folks were reasonable and attempted to deliver the fairest decision we could based on the case as presented. I do not have a problem leaving this power in the hands of the people. Some business folks, particularly insurance companies, would prefer a more predictable and smaller result. This would keep them from having to check on which doctors they insure.

[JCMach1]

71. Since $$$ is the only law corporations live by!

Put in place punishments and the death penalty for corporations... Then and only then let's talk tort reform!

[Ganja Ninja]

73. Well for one thing it isn't the judgments that are costing Doctors so much.

It's the cost of the liability insurance. Do you think the insurance companies would lower premiums for doctors if tort reform passes? No they would simply pay out less in judgments and charge the doctors the same or more. So really it's another angle being worked by the insurance companies.

Second, the whole thing only represents about 1% of the total cost of health care in this country. Not a major cost saver.

[alfredo]

80. A doctor leaves you paralyzed from the neck down, how far would a

$250,000 award go to pay off past medical bills, lawyer fees, and future costs? Yes, SSD will help, but why should the tax payer pay for the surgeon's malpractice?

[closeupready]

86. I am opposed to it because it hurts the process of delivering justice.

For example, if someone is harmed by someone else, then the offender should be forced to make his/her victim whole - if impossible to do so physically, then monetarily.

Otherwise, history shows we get revenge killings and mob violence - because people lose faith in the ability of the justice system to be fair (and, in fact, I would argue, such a system is NOT fair).

[Tennessee Gal]

87. Red Herring

Good Q & A here:

Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?

Q. So the idea that there are lots of frivolous lawsuits is . . .

A. Ludicrous.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

[cbayer]

88. Very good question and a very complex issue.

IMO, there is room for much improvement in the current system. Unfortunately, "tort reform" is defined by many as elimination of the ability for wronged parties to sue health care providers. Those that want some reform, including many Democrats, do not advocate for that at all.

The current system serves few and harms many. Doctors and other providers live in fear of being sued, avoid patients or procedures where there is an increased risk of liability, over treat and over test to avoid future litigation and pay excessive fees for malpractice insurance. It takes little evidence to file a suit, but tremendous effort to defend oneself. Most malpractice suits are frivolous and are dropped without a trial or settlement.

Insurance companies and trial attorneys amass fortunes through the system (see John Edwards history as an excellent example of a trial lawyer who made his fortunes suing doctors for something that was later found not to be malpractice at all).

There are good alternatives to the current system that would protect patients and punish truly negligent or impaired health care providers. To reject any kind of reform at all simply allows a very broken system to continue.

IMO, the hard stance against any reform is rooted in something very complex and primarily driven by those with the most to gain by keeping the status quo.

[Silent3]

90. Complex issue? Hah!

No, it's very clear... if you even pause for a moment and wonder if maybe possibly there might be a sliver of merit to the idea of tort reform, you're a GOP shill or dupe who wants to see doctors (and Big Pharma, and ultimately all corporations everywhere!) completely shielded from all responsibility and liability, and you want ordinary people to suffer without the tiniest recourse to assuage even the most grievous harm.

You can't escape your guilt by saying you might mean something else by "tort reform" than a Republican hack might mean by it, because it's all one in the same, you see, and only a Republican hack, or someone hopelessly deluded by their talking points, would ever, ever, even mention those words.

Now sit down and be quiet before you destroy America!

[cbayer]

91. I assume from reading your other posts here that you forgot your sarcasm thingy.

:rofl:

[Uzybone]

93. Because liberals must be on one side and conservatives on the other.

no matter what. Till the death.

[librechik]

96. It's the one defense consumers have against bad actors in the corporate world

Corporate Conservatives want us to be defenseless so their backers can kill us and rob our corpses. Trial lawyers are the last thin wall of defense against that. Stripping citizens of the power to sue when wrong is done to them by the powerful is just another tool to destroy Main Street while pampering Wall Street.

[mudplanet]

101. The ability to sue for malpractice means that

even poor people receive the protection of the law.

It's my understanding that the main effect of this "reform" is that it would eliminate the amount of a settlement a lawyer could receive in malpractice suits. Rich people could still sue doctors. Poor people would no longer be able to seek redress for incompetent medical services simply because they would not have enough money to pay up front for a lawyer. So the point of the reform is to "disincentivize" malpractice suits for lawyers.

This is the same thinking behind attempts to eliminate "class action" lawsuits. Often the only reason corporations are brought to account for illegal and unfair behavior is because a lawyer believes that by filing the suit as a representative of all parties injured by the action he/she can recoup enough in fees to justify the massive amounts of money and time required to battle corporations.

A better question might be: why shouldn't doctors be held responsible for their behavior? Or, if you believe doctors are being charged unfairly high insurance rates to cover their professional actions, you should ask yourself why malpractice insurance is so expensive. Is it because malpractice suits are often successful? And if so, does that mean that there are a lot of pretty crumby doctors out there?

Yes, doctors make mistakes. Sometimes doctors get sued for honest mistakes, sometimes they don't. Some doctors are incompetent and make mistakes continuously, over and over, until the only thing that stops them is their inability to be insured for incompetence.

Doctors also make truckloads of money (many of them - in 1996 the median income for physicians in the U.S. was $250,000 a year).

A lot of doctors are in the business as businessmen - why should they be relieved of responsibility for their professional actions?

[treestar]

103. On DU, it is a no brainer, since it is something the hated insurance companies always want

They just don't want to pay out the largest claims.

And rarely do they make any provision for the "frivolous defense" that is, not settling a case for years because they know it will take years to get to trial.

The suits that are the most "frivolous" are the ones that result in large verdicts, where Plaintiffs won.

the caps put on med mal awards are especially outrageous, since the highest awards would go to those damaged the most, so if you have a "frivolous" case where your injury is not great, you can get 100% compensation, but be profoundly injured, and you are subject to the cap.

Insurance companies try to exploit hatred people have of lawyers, but as one lawyer said, if there is anything hated more than lawyers, it's insurance companies.

[NashVegas]

112. You'd Probably Do Better To Ask That On a Conservative Message Board

[TexasObserver]

120. This med mal case verdict for $12 million is instructive.

A woman suffered serious brain damage when she went untreated for hours in an ER waiting room, suffering damage that was easily preventable.

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/6863703.html

POMONA, Calif. — A jury awarded $12 million on Thursday to a Southern California woman who was left in a vegetative state after she waited hours at a hospital before being sent elsewhere for surgery to remove an air-rifle pellet from her brain in 2007.

The Pomona Superior Court jury found that Greater El Monte Community Hospital was negligent in treating Jessica Ramirez, 22. Her mother, Ofelia Reynaga, brought the suit on behalf of her daughter.

<snip>

The neurosurgeon who finally operated on her at Huntington Hospital testified that her outcome would have been better if they had been able to operate sooner, Fagel said.

<snip>

The hospital's insurance carrier refused a settlement offer proposed by a judge for significantly less money than the jury awarded, Fagel said.
------------------------------------------------------

This is a case that should never have happened, and once it happened should have been settled. This case demonstrates why caps on patient damages are a bad idea. When a person's life is destroyed and they require 24/7 care thereafter, their family shouldn't have to spend years doing without while they fight the people who caused the damage to be so severe. Tort reform is not about creating a better system. That's the marketing myth. It's difficult to understand how progressives who know better than to believe the GOP/Big Business propaganda machine will embrace the GOP's "tort reform" meme, as if it is anything more than an excuse to limit the rights of patients seeking recompense.

[eridani]

121. So, how come people in other developed countries don't sue each other as much?

In no other developed country do people constantly make use of the legal system to get the money needed to pay for the ongoing medical bills necessitated by poor medical outcomes. Note that this motivation to sue is exactly the same regardless of whether or not such outcomes were caused by actual malpractice. The reason for this is that those extra costs are automatically paid by societies which guarantee health care as a right, and therefore there is no need for anyone to initiate a tort lawsuit in order get the money to pay them.

One of the reasons that we lead the developed world in medical error rates is that private employer-based insurers are constantly forcing people to change providers with their endlessly mutating preferred provider lists. Nothing in the proposed legislation deals with this issue.

[bluestateguy]

123. Corporations only understand money

They won't change bad behavior just because you send them a polite letter asking them to change the way they do business.

[krispos42]

125. It's your only recourse to correct a wrong. But it's really about defunding the Dems.

Republicans, being corporatists, don't want to ever see a corporation pay out any civil damages EVER. And they hate with a passion the trial lawyers that sue over corporate wrongdoing. As a result, the trial lawyers give overwhelmingly to Dems, who think you deserve your day in court and want to see corporations held accountable (at least in theory).

By restricing the amounts awarded (or making it much harder to sue), Republicans get to make corporations more profitable AND they get to de-fund their political opposition.



Punitive damages have also gotten bigger as corporations have. After the Repubs let all the businesses consolidate, naturally the revenues for the new conglomorates went through the roof. It takes a BIG number to make a conglomorate wince. A $20,000 award might make the local hardware store go under, but a business like ExxonMobile probably spends that much on scotch tape every day.

[TexasObserver]

128. Indeed. One has to be cognizant of the history of "tort reform."

This has been a thirty plus year war that the GOP started when real progressive changes were made to the law in the 1960s and 1970s. About 30 years ago is the same time the Frist family and others in medicine began to push for privately owned hospitals and clinics owned and controlled by doctors. This created two major causes of the "tort reform" meme.

First, the doctors groups and insurers wanted to limit the ability of plaintiffs to come after them. Polling showed that the most vulnerable part of the plaintiff's side was the plaintiff's lawyer, who got paid on a contingency fee basis. The typical 1/3 or so paid the plaintiff's attorney was an easy target and the meme "but the lawyer gets most of the money" was born. By attacking the plaintiffs attorneys, the health care profession was able to alter the public perception in such a way that prospective jury pools were prepped for negative reactions to plaintiff's attorneys.

Second, the doctors groups started accumulating and spending mass quantities of dollars to influence lawmakers, jurists, and state executives. They became the best organized and one of the most influential lobbies in the country. They systematically altered law in state after state, and systematically took out progressive judges and replaced them with right wing hacks who carry water for the medical associations. As their political prowess grew and they had more and more toadies in judicial robes and sitting in legislative committees.

The medical PACS are like any other right wing led political lobby group. They have to keep their membership stirred up and frightened to keep them sending money. Notice that none of those who champion "tort reform" as a solution can point to a state where "tort reform" changes in the law have brought down medical costs to consumers.

The experience in Texas has been just the opposite. Medical malpractice rates did go down, but medical costs to Texans doubled. Why? Because "tort reform" doesn't screw the marginal case. It screws the guy who had the wrong leg removed. It screws the brain dead person who was bubbly and full of life the day before. By lopping off their duty to pay many of the real damages of tragically injured people, doctors saved on their malpractice insurance, but none of that savings did consumers any good. Their health care costs continue rising ridiculously.

"Tort reform" is nothing but a GOP and industry created slogan - such as the "voter fraud" meme they use for the registering and voting of blacks - which is the opposite of what the name says. Like "the Patriot Act." Like "the Healthy Forest Initiative." It's nothing but a pack of lies, all designed to do this: make more dollars for the health care industry, and to keep that industry free of any kind of checks, including lawsuits. From a liability standpoint, the health care industry is the most coddled industry in America. No other group anywhere is given such kid glove treatment in litigation.

[krispos42]

129. And when you lop off the wrong leg...

...you still have to get the correct leg removed! So now the medical costs have doubled, except that now you have all the attendent costs of a person that is now unable to walk. Two prostetics instead of one, for example. Or if the wrong kidney is removed, now you still the costs of removing the sick kidney... but now it's dialysis three times a week.