Tort Reform?

[Jim Ostrowski]

"Tort reform covers a lot of things. How about you go to Cello and Barnjob, Attys at law and they win $5million for your pain and suffering. Then after they take their cut and pay the legal fees to the court and the taxes, you find that you have about $20.38 left?
And before you say, that don't happen, it did more times than you'd guess."

Highly unlikely unless you are dealing with a complex environmental case that drags on for years and requires numerous scientists and tests.

Ostrowski's Law: almost everthing you hear about tort reform is bull****.

[Jim Ostrowski]

We have contingency fees because the clients like them. Otherwise, they could not afford the same kind of lawyer that rich people get.

[dtwarren]

The toll exacted by bad doctors is reflected in the program that covers physicians who cannot obtain commercial insurance. Only about 1 percent of the New York’s doctors are in the program, but they have committed malpractice at such an alarming rate that they are chiefly responsible for the program’s loss of more than $500 million this decade.

New York’s comptroller issued a report the summer of 2007 lambasting the state for inept oversight of suspect physicians. The comptroller’s findings were underscored by recent revelations that health officials delayed notifying more than 600 people that they had potentially been exposed to deadly diseases by a single physician improperly reusing syringes. Astonishingly, the state regards its investigation into the physician, Dr. Harvey Finkelstein, as a “non-disciplinary” matter.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Most regulated industries eventually capture control of the regulatory body.

It's just common sense. They care more than we do.

[raoul duke]

Originally Posted by run4it

When talking about health care reform, so many people yell about 'tort reform'.

What does tort reform mean exactly? What would you like to see? Limits on awards for malpractice? How much is your life worth to you? The life of a loved one? If a doctor is so grossly negligent so as to end your life (literally, or as you know it) should he not be required to give you recompense.

Let's give one instance. Say I'm 25 years old. I have a good education and a middle class job. Go in for a simple procedure and OOPS, Doctor cuts a nerve and I'm a quadripalegic for the rest of my life.

So if I were going to make, say $50m a year. At this rate, probably going to work 40 years til retirement at age 65. 40 years times $50m a year comes to a total of 2 million dollars in lost income alone. There shouldn't be any added recompense for punitive damages (pain and suffering, etc)? What about a lifetime of required medical services? Or should the state pay for that through SSI and welfare? Why SHOULDN'T the doctor (or those who choose to insure such a doctor) have to pay for these things if he so royally screws up?

So tell me, how much exactly is any given life worth to you when it comes to 'tort reform'?

For the record, I dont' reject out of hand any use for so-called 'tort reform'. Someone just has to convince me what is 'fair'.

Tort reform is a non-issue as far as health care reform goes. Medical malpractice torts account for, roughly, 2% of health care spending and the rise in malpractice premiums has more to do with the practices of insurers than it does doctors.

It's nothing but hot air. A meaningless position that sells well to people too stupid to look it up for themselves. (See: John McCain and his supposed crusade against "pork barrel" spending. Which accounts for about 1% of the entire Federal budget. Yeah, that's so totally the problem.)

Either way, it does blow my mind - in a "totally not surprised, however" sorta way - that the "conservatives" in the health care debate think using the Federal government to explicitly regulate or limit civil med-mal torts (a power mostly left to the individual states) is good policy. Smells a little like Federalism, methinks.

[raoul duke]

Originally Posted by Jim Ostrowski

"Tort reform covers a lot of things. How about you go to Cello and Barnjob, Attys at law and they win $5million for your pain and suffering. Then after they take their cut and pay the legal fees to the court and the taxes, you find that you have about $20.38 left?
And before you say, that don't happen, it did more times than you'd guess."

Highly unlikely unless you are dealing with a complex environmental case that drags on for years and requires numerous scientists and tests.

Or class action suits, perhaps?

Originally Posted by Jim Ostrowski

Ostrowski's Law: almost everthing you hear about tort reform is bull****.

Jimmy O is right, IMO.

[FisherRd]

Originally Posted by raoul duke

It's nothing but hot air. A meaningless position that sells well to people too stupid to look it up for themselves.

How about the stupid ****s that see the "2%" figure and think that's where it ends?
It's not just about Malpractice genius. It's about the senseless tests and procedures doctors have to order to cover their asses. What does Defensive Medicine cost?

But let's play a simple game here for the people stupid enough to look at your 2% and think that's all we'd save from tort reform...

How many dollars does that 2% represent? 2% of a giant number is quite a significant savings.

[Jim Ostrowski]

So, none of those tests uncover illness?

Any data on that?

I doubt it because it's PROPAGANDA!

Also, as I said before, doctors only need to do those tests that doctors in that area believe are MANDATORY under the circumstances.

BTW, patients make the final call on what tests are done. We still have that freedom.

[mikenold]

Who cares about any ideas unless they save money and bring the prices down. The bottom line is that even if tort reform only brings a small or moderate decrease in the cost of care then we should do it. We should look at all ways of bringing cost down, all ways to bring more competition between insurance providers and all ways to cut the rates that the insured pays.

Also, I really don't see where Government run health care fits in to any part of these reforms.

[run4it]

Originally Posted by mikenold

This really is simple economics. The less money that people can sue a Doctor for, the less the Doctor has to pay in insurance costs, the less the patient has to pay for a "visit".

Put a cap on the amount a jury can award, period. Charge the person that brings the suit if it turns out to be frivolous. This can cut a whole lot of expense from the pie.

Again Mike, I'd like you to reread my opening post and then invite you to tell us how much YOU think a life is worth. Then justify that number.

And the defendant already has the right to request court fees if the suit is frivolous. I was recently awarded such fees

[Dougles]

2% of 2.5 Trillion dollars a year is quite alot! $50 BILLION a year, that's 2%, it's also the amount Obama swears he can save in medicare fraud a year (which I highly doubt).


Second, in the Senate bill, anyone with a pre existing condition will have to wait 6 MONTHS to be eligable to get covered. I don't know how many people with high stage cancers last that long...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/...e_uninsurables

[Jim Ostrowski]

So, you are for the total elimination of all lawsuits against doctors and no replacement system?

That's the only way you save that money.

Of course, the decreased incentive to provide proper care will quickly outweigh those tiny savings.

[FisherRd]

Is that what "reform" means to you? You may need a dictionary.

[Jim Ostrowski]

No, that's what it means to the other fellow.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[mikenold]

Originally Posted by run4it

Again Mike, I'd like you to reread my opening post and then invite you to tell us how much YOU think a life is worth. Then justify that number.

And the defendant already has the right to request court fees if the suit is frivolous. I was recently awarded such fees

I think that one life is worth more than all the money in the entire world! Now would someone be able to cash in on my idea of what a life is worth. I don't believe so. So someone has to be able to put a price on it. That is why I believe that there has to be limits placed on what can be awarded. I hope you would agree with me in saying that I don't believe that any Doctor out there that wants to kill any patient. However accidents do happen. Don't try to ask me what these caps should be as I believet that this would be best determined by a panel of informed professionals.