On Tort Reform

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    On Tort Reform

    "I JUST wanted to add one thing about the idea of limiting medical malpractice liability. I'm instinctively sympathetic to this idea in part because I come from a family of doctors and have heard complaints about crazy malpractice suits since I was 12, and in part because I've lived in Europe, where people think American tort law is insane. But part of the reason why Europeans accept restrictions on their ability to sue doctors for malpractice is that they have guaranteed health insurance. It's part of the social contract: doctors accept limited salaries in exchange for limited liability; patients accept that they cannot sue doctors for millions of dollars in exchange for a guarantee of access to decent health care.


    I have close European friends who've been involved in medical dramas that would very likely have led to lawsuits in America. One friend essentially had the opposite of Tim Tebow's mother's experience, with misdiagnoses and unwanted interventions forcing her into a situation of nearly intolerable responsibilities. The doctors have admitted their errors. But while my friend can't sue them for a big reward, she also doesn't need to: the state pays. In America, she might have ended up either rich or bankrupt. In Europe, she gets by with a little help from social services. A lot of help, actually.


    America isn't going to end up with the same kind of social contracts found in European countries. But it has to have some kind of social contract. People can be persuaded to give up their right to sue doctors for huge damages if they understand that those damages come out of everyone's pockets, because the system works for everyone and requires some sacrifices from everyone. But for that to be true, the system has to work for everyone. A system where doctors are rich, patients have no guarantees, and only patients have to make sacrifices is unacceptable."

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/limiting_medical_malpractice_liability

    *********
    Food for thought....

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

         LAWYERS & UNIONS.........  JUST LIKE  AUTOMOBILES AND FEMALES .... YA CAN'T LIVE WITH THEM, AND YA CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THEM !!!!!  LAWYERS & UNIONS HAVE THEIR FINGER PRINTS ALL OVER THE DEMISE OF AMERICA OVER THE LAST 30 + YEARS.  RECENT PROOF IS TO LOOK AT THAT RADICAL SHIT-BUM (LAWYER) THAT WAS DEFEATED FOR THE LABOR BOARD POSITION YESTERDAY. (THANK YOU SCOTT BROWN)......  BEGS THE QUESTION.....  WHERE DOES THE "BIG O" GET THESE  WACKOS FROM ????
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Your misogynistic, auto-hating sentiments aside...you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you Bill...?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

      MATTY.... AS THE FINE LIBERAL DEM YOU ARE.....AND YOU DO ????  PLEASE SPARE ME !!!!!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    That's right, creampuff.  And consider yourself spared...(from the burden of facts and proof, that is)

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Amazing discussion, extolling the wonders of Euro socialism, er, "social contract" ...
    Totally ignores the 800 pound guerilla of tort reform in the US, rich tort lawyers!

    So, tort reform only if we have socialism?..No deal, nice try.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Matty, If she lived here she would be comfortably middle class while her lawyer is wealthy. See John Edwards! What needs to be reformed is that IF she won say a $3 Million dollar settlement here. She would get @$1 Million and her attorney would get $2 Million. OR if he were a snake like John Edwards, he wold turn it into a class action suit and he would get $30 Million while the 100's of real victims shares $2 Million.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    By Bob's logic, lawyers should not be restricted from trying to make as much money as they possibly can - damm the consequences or whoever gets hurt in the process.  Right, Bob??  Same with doctors, insurers, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and so on.

    Meanwhile, costs elevate to the point where noone below a certain income level can afford it.  Much like the way it's going now....

    Bob wants doctors and health insurers to be free to make mistakes and perform their jobs as inefficently as they see fit.  If only his principle applied to other occupations whose jobs affect whether people live or die - like police, firefighters, soldiers, rescue workers, etc.

    (P.S. The "social contract" represented here is by far more "Locke-ian" than "Marxist" - but why let facts get in the way?)

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

       MATTY...................  SON, TIME TO COME IN FROM OUT OF THE RAIN !!!!!!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12angrymen. Show 12angrymen's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform:
    [QUOTE]Amazing discussion, extolling the wonders of Euro socialism, er, "social contract" ... Totally ignores the 800 pound guerilla of tort reform in the US, rich tort lawyers! So, tort reform only if we have socialism?..No deal, nice try.
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]


    This is one of the biggest lies wingnuts fall back on. Any study on the subject shows that malpractice lawsuits account for 0.46% of healthcare spending.
    When states enact caps on malpractice awards, the doctors malpractice premiums continue to rise. The most recent example is Texas which in 2003 enacted a cap of $250,000 on claims. The cost of practicing medicine in Texas is now amongst the highest in the country. Even the huge insurer Wellpoint doesn't put lawsuits in the top ten factors driving up costs.
    Keep deluding yourselves. This is why they are the party of no.
    No facts. No problem.

    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/11/tort-refom-costs/
    http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
    http://content.healthaffairs.org
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform:
    [QUOTE]Meanwhile, costs elevate to the point where noone below a certain income level can afford it.  Much like the way it's going now....
    Posted by Mattyhorn[/QUOTE]
    ...in Canada where they have "free" HC.... THAT what you want Matty? Only the wealthy who can leave the country can get great HC?

    Premier Williams Newfoundland & Labrador: Heart Surgery In U.S.


    Canada's elite, while part of our healthcare system, has been seeking treatment in the U.S. for decades.  Danny Williams is only doing what has been common practice in the past.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Brat,

    For those who can't afford it, yes.  But nobody is talking about "free" care except those looking to obfuscate the debate.  The point is "affordable" care to expand access to those rapidly growing numbers of people who don't have it.


    The example here illustrates that health care is both a right and responsibility: the patient has a right to an acceptable level of quality care; the doctor has a right to do his/her job without worrying about getting sued (or not getting paid).  Each has their responsibility to the other, one by paying taxes for such a service, and the other by honoring that "social contract" to "first, do no harm".


    A "social contract" is not "socialism", no matter what bob thinks.  Incidentally, it's the same relationship we're supposed to have with our legislators (viz. our "right to representation"), but unfortunately for us the pluralists have long since immolated it.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Matty,
    You are talking about free care. You want government run HC. Free to those who can't afford it. Paid for those you deem to have enough to pay for the others.
    The issue is of a doctors free RIGHT to make a living. Why are you looking to cap a doctors salary but not a CEO? OR a Senator (anyone who is more useless in this world?)? I have said it many times. This is a slippery slope. How many gifted surgeons are going to retire or only cater to those who can pay a large private fee? You will take most gifted physicians out of the main stream and relegate them to private hospitals in the Caribbean and only the rich can afford the best care. Poor in the US may not be able to afford the best care in the US today but they have access to it regardless of their ability to pay. That will change and we will all lose!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Our social contract is that we deny no one healthcare, as the vast unpaid bills get reditributed to those who pay.  The problem is that our healthcare system is being over run by undocumented immigrants.

    I like the US free enterprise system which is why I live here vs Europe.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    "The "social contract" represented here is by far more "Locke-ian" than "Marxist" - but why let facts get in the way?"
    Mattyhorn,
    are there any socialists anywhere in your view? Must we pretend they dont exist, and that European socialist parties dont believe in socialism?

    Your hero is the avowedly Marxist radical historian the late Howard Zinn.
     Of course, you will tell me he was no Marxist, or socialist...he just wanted a "Locke-ian social contract' or some such.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from smileybennyhill. Show smileybennyhill's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Tort reform.

    It remains a mystery to me how we have allowed the healthcare delivery system of whole states to be paralyzed by the plaintiff's bar without remedial action either at the state or federal level. Only collusion between lawyers and lawmakers could perpetuate this insanity, and we call known collusion illegal. Forget about the premium dollars we happily surrender to the insurance companies so that they can give $450K to the aggrieved heirs of the 92-year-old man from the nursing home who developed a bedsore before he died. Just be happy your picture is not in the paper for elder abuse. The real money is spent trying not to get sued. Would any ER doctor in his right mind not get a CT or MRI on a 19-year-old who comes in with a headache? I don't know what Avogadro's number is, but I think it's close to the number of normal venous duplex scans performed in our vascular laboratory every month. But it's not just the premium dollars and the defensive emotional cost of having to listen to the nursing staff ask our patients 10 times before induction to rate their pain from 1 to 10, or delaying our CABG because the consent doesn't say which side and no one can figure out where to tattoo the patient, or trying to concentrate and get some constant drone of endless sponge and instrument counts. It's getting awfully tough to practice medicine with the HMOs' hands in our right pocket and the lawyers' hands in our left pocket. Conservatively, tort reform, with the resultant abatement of the practice of defensive medicine, will restore $50 billion to the system. To say nothing of the fact that nurses can be nurses again instead of field compliance officers, and maybe a few people from risk management can go find work at Wendy's or something.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Tort reform already exists in Massachusetts.  All suits are reviewed by an independent board, pain and suffering is capped as well as fees.  Winning one of these claims is rare.  The vast majority of any claims award is for future medical expenses which would be eliminated if there was a government run plan available.  Matty is right the social contract needs adjustment: our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness need protection (by the government) from unexpected events such as injury or disease. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from wraughn. Show wraughn's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    Doesn't the concept of "tort" come from the idea that no one can inflict any danger on another without having consequences?  If someone comes up and screams insults in my face I have the right to subdue them (even if that means hitting them).  It has to recognize a provable attempt that someone was trying to assult you or interfere with your personal freedoms. 

    I don't see how that applies to the medical profession unless a doctor purposely tries to harm you.  I may be off base here, but Tort comes from very old English law and it applies to someone intending to do harm to another.  A mistake or an oversight is not a Tort.  That falls into a different category of contractual law.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    "Matty is right the social contract needs adjustment: our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness need protection (by the government) from unexpected events such as injury or disease. "

    And if that isnt 'socialism' , what the hell is it?
    Few conservatives are anarchists and want no government at all...
    But you lefties never never have a limit for your worship of all-powerful nanny state , cradle to grave, government.

    That's because most of you have a pecuniary or vested interest in government.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from smileybennyhill. Show smileybennyhill's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform:
    Something has to be done because some jurors are predigest against wealth. I was on a jury ,Kraft foods was sued. I was  the only no vote , the others tried to convince me on the fact that Kraft foods rich and this couple was poor. I heard a judge decides  in MA, that's good.
    Posted by chiefhowie


    You are correct. Most court cases are won on theatre and which lawyer can play on the juries sympathy or predjudices. The facts are only secondary.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ssmike. Show ssmike's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    I live in Ma. and my health insurance cost has increased by 30% this year alone.

    Thank god we dont have national health care reform. I have just been regulated out of being able to afford to pay for Health Insurance.

    Hopefully Ma has enough money to pay for my emergency room visits.

    What Reform?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform:
    "Matty is right the social contract needs adjustment: our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness need protection (by the government) from unexpected events such as injury or disease. " And if that isnt 'socialism' , what the hell is it? Few conservatives are anarchists and want no government at all... But you lefties never never have a limit for your worship of all-powerful nanny state , cradle to grave, government. That's because most of you have a pecuniary or vested interest in government.
    Posted by BobinVa


    Socialism is not a scary word.  By this broad definition we have had "socialism" since the Progressive Era.  By your view, Bismarck was a socialist since he founded Germany's national health system. Sometimes you are so silly...
    And yes, we all have a vested interest in the government, after all, we created it to serve our needs. So call people "socialists" or "lefties" if it makes you happy, but you are not really saying much of anything.   Boo.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: On Tort Reform

    In Response to Re: On Tort Reform:
    The social contract we have is very different than what they have in Europe as you know. That is the very reason why the Democrats plans are in trouble - you are trying to change to social contract. You want to place yourself at the feet of government in return for some kind of guarantee of outcome for your life. As a price for the guarantee you are willing to sacrifice rights and a certain amount of your standard of living. I no more trust the government to make the right decision about healthcare than I do about going to war in Iraq. Somehow you can divide the two. Since the people creating the Healthcare Plans here are in the pocket of trial lwayers I am afraid what we will get is a combination where we will still get the lawsuits if they are against private healthcare companies while the government entities will get immunity. We are doing the same sort of thing now with automobile companies where competitors to Government Motors get harassed by the owners of the Government Motors. In the end we will get shiite cars from both. That is what will happen when we get government involved in healthcare. Heck it is already happening - that's why we have a mess in healthcare to begin with. Proponents of the Democrats' plans and others like single payer (which is what the Dems want eventually) trot out relatively meaningless statistics like life expectancy and infant mortality rates when it comes to healthcare systems. The real measure of the healthcare system is what they do when you show up for treatment of a disease. Do you get cured or not? The US healthcare system is at or near the top  - at least as far as cancer treatments go. Of course you lefties like the life expectancy stuff because then you get to control people's behavior - what they eat, drink, smoke, what exercise they get, etc. None of that of course has anything to do with our healthcare system as it is today - but of course that is why you want to change the social contract.
    Posted by Newtster


    Losing rights by having a right to healthcare?  No, that is gaining rights.  And frankly, it should save money: we pay more and cover less than other industrial nations.  Our system is motivated by profit: it does not pay to cover people who are sick as they cost money/profit.  Don't you think that is a major flaw in our system AND the major reason for its inflated costs?  

    Now you will have to excuse me as I have to figure out why BC/BS wont pay $1700 of my kid's diagnostic testing.
     

Share