Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, September 04, 2009
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
Without Tort Reform, It Isn't Health Care Reform --It's a Plaintiffs' Lawyers Protection Act
by Hugh Hewitt
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



President Obama wants everyone to believe that American health care is in a crisis, and he wants everyone to be willing to sacrifice in order to solve that crisis.

He wants senior citizens to pay more for Medicare but get fewer benefits. He wants them to ignore the rationing embedded in his proposals to cut hundreds of billions from the Medicare budget and to drastically increase the cost of Medicare Advantage.

President Obama wants seniors to sacrifice.

Culture of Corruption by Michelle Malkin FREE

President Obama wants employers to pay more in health care premiums, and if they don't provide health insurance for their employees, he wants them to pay penalty taxes. He doesn't care that tens of thousands of small businesses are struggling to stay open and keep their employees employed. And he doesn't care that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will hit these businesses hard.

President Obama wants employers to sacrifice.

President Obama wants doctors and hospitals to sacrifice. He is demanding cuts in reimbursement rates to hundreds of thousands of doctors and deep cuts for hospitals as well. He doesn't care that doctors' incomes have been pressured by falling reimbursement rates for years, and that many hospitals are struggling with the emergency room costs of treating the uninsured.

President Obama wants doctors and hospitals to sacrifice.

President Obama wants Big Pharma and insurance companies to sacrifice. President Obama wants young healthy people who choose not to buy health insurance to sacrifice.

President Obama wants everyone to sacrifice. Well, not quite everyone.

There is one group that President Obama doesn't mention, one group he doesn't demand sacrifice for the greater good.

President Obama is protecting the plaintiffs' lawyers who sue doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies and reap billions in fees from the tort lottery.

Though the broken, out-of-control tort system drives the cost of medicine through the roof, President Obama hasn't demanded any changes to that system, like a cap on pain and suffering damages, or a cap on lawyers' fees, or an excise tax on plaintiffs' contingency awards.

President Obama hasn't even asked for a provision that would award wrongfully sued doctors and hospitals the cost of their defense.

President Obama hasn't asked anything of the plaintiffs' lawyers because those plaintiff lawyers contribute tens of millions of dollars to Democratic candidates. They have done so for years and they will continue to do so as long as the Democrats protect their business. They put a lot of money into the Obama campaign and the Democratic drive to take over Congress, and their investment is paying off handsomely.

The president and Congressional Democrats have been protecting the plaintiffs' lawyers' business all year long, even though their business is a chief driver of skyrocketing health care costs.

Next week's speech by President Obama to the Congress will be full of the increasingly tiresome rhetoric of crisis and sacrifice.

But it won't be talking about the plaintiffs' lawyers and the costs they impose on us all.

And it certainly won't be demanding serious reform of the tort system as part of the "reform" of health care.

And therein is all you need to know about the merits of Obamacare. The president doesn't believe American health care is in a crisis, because if he did, he'd call for the tort reform that every expert believes is necessary.

But he won't. So we all know it is a giant exercise in hypocritical politics of the worst sort.

Obamacare deserves to die for a lot of reasons, but large among them is the sheer duplicity of demanding deep sacrifices of everyone except the plaintiffs' lawyers who have grown rich beyond most people's imaginations profiting off of the doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies that work to keep Americans healthy.

Keep this in mind when you watch the president next week, if you even bother to watch.

Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(135 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 10:08 AM EST
The trial lawyers...
...own the Democrat Party. The lawyers have Obama by the throat. They'll squeeze the life out of him if he doesn't do exactly what they want.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 10:45 AM EST
A truly excellent article, Mr. Hewitt!
Tort reform and elimination of unnecessary government regulation, in equal measure, comprise the basic foundation on which any health system changes need to be based!

In fact, it is almost a given that, if you correct those glaring problems, along with developing policies that promote true competition within the various elements of the supply side of the health coverage system (insurance companies, doctors, drug companies, hospitals to some extent), the magnitude of the problem would easily be manageable.

These are all things that could be done in a week's time. Why are they not?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 10:55 AM EST
Watch out for the compromises coming
Now that congress is back in Washington and out of the inconvenience of townhall comment, we need to be very vigilant of the coming compromises. The Obama Administration and the Democrats will offer compromises that will in effect create openings for government run healthcare down the road. For example, Olivia Snowe's "trigger" suggestion, where benchmarks will be set for insurance coverage, and if not met, THEN, the govt. will be able to step in and mandate its own program.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 11:29 AM EST
Read This Report
I used to feel the same way, until I read this report:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7174/04-28-MedicalMalpra ctice.pdf

The CBO investigated tort reform based on empirical evidence from states that have implemented various parts of it, and concluded that, at most, it could save one half of one percent on health care costs. They give some solid reasons, but in summary, malpractice only accounts for 2% of health costs, and tort reform can at most realistically hope to reduce those by 25%.

Now, I happen to support tort reform on a moral basis, and I would love for the cost argument to be heavily in my favor, but I think both sides of the health care debate are being disingenuous by claiming health care prices are going to be significantly reduced by anything other than reducing the demand or raising the supply.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 11:48 AM EST
Hewitt, your mother is ashamed
of you. Medicare benefits are not going to be reduced. What can conservatives gain by creating fear by telling lies?

Medicare funding now contains subsidies for insurance companies. Those will be cut.

The Medicare premium may increase but if reform is accomplished, the increase will be offset by reductions in other expenses now borne by the beneficiary.

Hewitt, you know that 77-87% of businesses now operating will not be affected by any government "mandate". If their employees have health insurance, there is no reason within the reform proposal to change. I believe you also know that small businesses were not much benefited by Bush tax cuts.

Hewitt, you could tell us about tort reform in Texas. In effect, more or less, since Mr Bush was governor, but ripened since 2003. 25% reduction in liability insurance premiums over 5 years.

An increase of companies offering insurance: from 4 to 30.

A trend over the same period: increasing numbers without insurance.

So it may be possible to say that some have made money from tort reform in Texas. It is not so clear that doctors are well into that group.

Hewitt, you certainly know of the recent article discussing patient expenses in various parts of the country. In Texas, for example, per patient Medicare expenses in McAllen, TX are 2 times what they are in El Paso, TX.

Now, why is that?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 11:53 AM EST
Why, why, why? Part 1
Why do "conservatives" continue to harp on "tort reform?" It is the equivalent of the liberal refrain of "47 million uninsured." Both have only a germ of truth.

As a "conservative" I blanch whenever I hear "tort reform" coming out of the mouths of other "conservatives."

What does "tort reform" mean? Like "health care reform" it means rationing. The GOAL of "tort reform" like the GOAL of "health care reform" is to REDUCE costs. The ONLY way to reduce costs in "tort reform" is to reduce the amount of money that is paid out as a result of claims filed by people who claim to be injured through the negligent/incompetent acts of others.

This means that "conservatives" have the GOAL of limiting the ABILITY of people to receive compensation for injuries they receive or LIMITING the amount of compensation they receive AFTER those people are injured by the negligence/incompetence of others through no fault of their own.

That's "rationing" through operation of law.

One of the central tenants of "conservatism" is "personal responsibility." How is PROTECTING people against their negligence/incompetence furthering a goal of "personal responsibility?"

It's not. It's ANTI-conservative.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 11:55 AM EST
Tort reform
What you fail to account for is the increased costs of med mal insurance; with tort reform those rates will decline which will allow for lower costs for health care across tthe board. So even if we assume that malpractice costs a mere 2% (which is an extremely low estimate) it does not include the med mal insurance rates which are passed along to the system in higher doc and hospital fees.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 11:59 AM EST
Why, why, why? Part 2
Now, even if the goal of denying or limiting the ability of those injured through the negligence or incompetence of others through no fault of their own is achieved, what, exactly, would be achieved?

The TOTAL cost of ALL claims for medical malpractice, including the judgments, settlements, lawyer fees, costs, expert witnesses -- EVERYTHING -- adds approximately 1% to the cost of medical care. ONE PERCENT. (Do your own research. I'll add a handy primer link on my final post for those who refuse to inform themselves and require a helping hand.)

So, if EVERY person who is hurt or killed by the negligence of a doctor or pharmacist or nurse is denied ONE PENNY of compensation, the result would be a reduction in the cost of medical care of ONE PENNY ON THE DOLLAR.

You can decide for yourselves if this is an acceptable trade-off for denying people the right to legal redress for their injuries.

Further, the cost of medical malpractice INSURANCE adds approximately FOUR PERCENT to the overhead of doctors or hospitals. So, if you completely remove the ability to sue (and the necessity for insurance), you will have succeeded in removing approximately FIVE PERCENT in the cost of delivering health care.

Again, you can decide for yourself if the cure is worth it.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 12:03 PM EST
It's funny
That no republican has come up with even half an alternative.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 12:05 PM EST
Why, why,why? Part 3
Now.

Let's use our brains for an instant.

Why does medical malpractice insurance (the TARGET of "tort reform" in this discussion) cost so much? (And it does.)

Simple, when you actually THINK about it.

Why does life insurance for a fire fighter cost more than life insurance for an accountant (all things other than occupation the same)?

Why does liability insurance for a truck driver who hauls propane cost more than that of a truck driver who hauls furniture (all things other than type of cargo the same)?

Why...why...for the same reason that professional liability insurance for a doctor costs more than the professional liability insurance for an accountant does...

The RISK being covered bears a relationship to the PRICE of the policy which protects against the RISK.

Firefighters face greater dangers in general than do accountants, so it costs more for their life insurance. Propane haulers have the potential for much greater damage when they screw up than do those who haul furniture, so their liability insurance costs more.

DOCTORS, when they screw up have the potential for greater damage than do accountants, so their professional liability insurance is higher. (Just as neurosurgeons have a higher premium than do general practitioners.) The RISK covered is greater so the PREMIUM paid is higher.

Simple, no?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 12:14 PM EST
Why, why, why? Part 4
Now. "Preventative medicine."

What, exactly, is this?

Why, it's when doctors do tests and take medical steps that IN THE PAST they might not have done under similar circumstances -- and the REASON they do so is that they have been advised to do so for SELF-PROTECTION against lawyers who might sue them if they fail to do so.

Wow! Nasty, nasty trial lawyers!

But, WHY have the doctors been so advised? Again, simplicity itself. The reason they have been so advised is because there have been cases where doctors who did NOT do these tests or take these steps in similar circumstances were SUED -- and they LOST.

And, the REASON they lost is because they INJURED THEIR PATIENT for failing to do the tests or taking the steps.

So, now the other doctors who WOULD NOT HAVE DONE THE TESTS in the past in similar circumstances now DO THEM so they won't get sued in the even that their failure to do so injures THEIR patient.

It's like the supermarket having to pay someone to monitor their aisles for spills so that people don't slip on them and get hurt. They didn't used to do so -- but because too many people rounded a corner and slipped in a pepsi spill which had been sitting there for a dozen hours -- and sued -- and won -- they now DO.

Sure, the aisle is almost always clear of spills and the supermarket incurs "unnecessary" costs in patrolling, and the tests (in hindsight) are frequently "unnecessary" because they didn't find anything.

But, if YOUR grandmother rounded that corner and slipped in that pepsi spill or YOUR grandfather didn't have that test which could save his life just because "generally" the aisle is clear of spills or "generally" the test doesn't reveal anything -- is that an acceptable "cost of doing business?"

Not for me.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 12:24 PM EST
Malpractice

Karl B.
That article, like all the ones I have seen presented for the last 30 years, looks at pay outs versus total health care cost.

1) Malpractice premiums drive certain specialties away from high cost areas.

2) Premiums are also a small relative cost over all but big the the physician.

3) The REAL and unmeasured cost are the CYA test! Test done to be used in court if necessary. Many of these test are now considered the standard-of-care, so they have to be done, even if they add no information.

I'm on a panel that reviews physicians and every month there are reports of pay outs of $150 to $500K total (over several doctors) that are nuisance claims. Claim than should be won in court, but the lawyers says (1) it would cost more to defend then the pay out and (2) juries are a gamble and award unjustified amounts - leading to more litigation to have the judgment overturned.

The way to bring down cost is to do smart medicine. The current proposal falsely equates reducing payments with reducing cost. If a primary care physician has less time to spend with a patient, he or she will order test to make up for it to make sure they don't miss anything. That drives up cost. Given more time with the patient, they could do fewer test and draw them out over time. Now the are paid for one visit, so you better order everything so you don't miss a subtle serious finding.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 12:24 PM EST
Why, why, why? Part 5
Now.

As we talk about "tort reform" as it relates to medical malpractice, we have to recognize that most states have ALREADY enacted laws which protect doctors from their own negligence or incompetence.

In addition to setting up "Medical Review Panels" or some such, composed of DOCTORS who review the case (thinking always, alternatively, "There but for the grace of God, go I," or "Next time THAT doctor might be sitting in judgment of ME.") which the Plaintiff has to get past, in addition to the requirement that the Plaintiff has to hire experts to opine that the defendant committed malpractice...what these laws do is LIMIT LIABILITY.

It's not so limited for ANYONE ELSE.

If someone injures or kills me by driving negligently or incompetently, he is subject to a judgment to the FULL EXTENT of my injuries.

Not so with doctors. Doctors not only have LIMITED LIABILITY, but that liability in NEVER PERSONAL, i.e., you (in those states with "medical malpractice tort reform") you can collect up to the maximum allowed from the insurance companies, but can not proceed against the doctor, nurse, or hospital DIRECTLY.

If the doctor ran a red light because he was negligent or incompetent, then, if his insurance policy wasn't enough to pay for my injuries, I could proceed against his ASSETS to collect the excess. In states with "medical malpractice tort reform" I CAN'T. I'm limited to what the law provides and that is either paid by the insurance company or a fund set up by the state.

Call me "liberal," but I don't believe that there is a MORAL distinction between a doctor killing me by negligently or incompetently driving a car or negligently or incompetently wielding a scalpel. There being no MORAL distinction, there should be no LEGAL distinction.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 12:32 PM EST
Why, why, why? Part 6
Finally.

Most people who shout "tort reform" point to what they call "frivolous" lawsuits and "outrageous" judgments.

As to "frivolous" lawsuits. In EVERY state in EVERY case, the law already has in place the mechanism to prevent these types of lawsuits.

They're called JUDGES.

Judges are the "gatekeepers of justice." They, by statute, have the POWER and the DUTY to weed out "frivolous" lawsuits, i.e., lawsuits which have no basis in the law. (If they DO have a "basis in the law" then they AREN'T "frivolous.") In addition, the Judges can SANCTION (i.e., "fine") the Plaintiffs and LAWYERS who file such claims.

But, they hardly ever use this power.

Why? Because they're ELECTED. It's almost always a safe POLITICAL move to allow a JURY to decide a case rather than a JUDGE.

As to "outrageous" judgments, that, too, has a mechanism in place to control.

It's called JUDGES.

On the Appellate level, those Judges have the power and duty to REDUCE (or raise) any "outrageous" judgment to one which comports with the law and with reason. And, they ROUTINELY exercise this power. (Check out Google for the "coffee in her lap" McDonald's lady who got that multi-million dollar judgment and see what happened on appeal...Go ahead...do some research.)

Elect judges who do their jobs and solve this problem (to the extent it exists) of "frivolous" lawsuits.

As I promised, a primer (with copious cites) for those too lazy to do the work themselves:

http://medical-malpractice.com/myths.htm

Done now.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 12:40 PM EST
The truth hurts
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp157/

As usual, right wingers make up stuff to support mythical truths because if the lies they believe were revealed, they would all have to admit to themselves that they have been wrong all along. Read the report above and educate yourself. Hugh Hewitt is not going to teach anything here.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:00 PM EST
tort reform

Huey,

You conveniently ignore that the current HR removes all States liability caps.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:11 PM EST
Tort Reform
Texas passed tort reform on medical lawsuits in 2003. We now have a flood of doctors coming to Texas to practice and it is not hard to find one who takes Medicare or Tricare. If you don't think tort reform will help the entire country, you need to research what it did for Texas.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:15 PM EST
for Frank:
I checked out the reference you suggested. I also checked out the source; i.e. epi. Here's what Wikipedia had to say:

The Economic Policy Institute is a left-leaning US think tank. Economists who founded the nonprofit organization in 1986 included Jeff Faux,[1], Barry Bluestone[2], Robert Kuttner[3], Ray Marshall[4], Robert Reich[5], and Lester Thurow.

I'm not sure there's much "truth" to be gleaned from biased sources but thanks anyway.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:17 PM EST
NEW DEMOCRATIC BILL
Just wanted to get your feedback on a few of the provision in this new democratic bill that may come out. What are your thoughts on these provisions? Thanks!

-Provide tax credits to low-income people and people who are not covered by work to cover the cost of their insurance

-$5 Billion will be given to States by the Federal Government to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

-People of similar beliefs can share health insurance costs, so long as they're not in the business of health insurance


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:23 PM EST
Medicare and TriCare
patients do not increase because there is tort reform in any State in this Union.

Patients who have such coverage can pay their way in Texas or any other State.

The fact is that Texans are dropping health insurance for reasons that must worry concerned citizens in that fair State. And tort reform is not the reason.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:26 PM EST
Patrick
I forget nothing.

The current version of the Health Care "Insurance" Reform Bill is an atrocity.

In every respect.

(I'm not really sure that that provision is Constitutional to begin with.

And, don't be confused, I don't have any PROBLEM with "tort reform" if the STATE, through its elected representatives DECIDE to impose it. There certainly is an ARGUMENT that there is a public necessity for treating doctors differently from every other class of persons simply because no other class of persons provide what doctors do, and no other class of persons walks the line between being "negligent" and "being creative" in what, essentially, is an "art" of providing medicine.

I'm just unwilling to accept that argument. I think that, when a person hurts another through his negligence or incompetence, he should be held FULLY accountable -- REGARDLESS of whether he's driving a truck or wielding a scalpel, and REFUSE to allow conservatives to make a "boogy man" out of the Plaintiffs' bar. In that vein, I notice most "conservatives" are behind Carrie Prejean's lawsuit...sheesh...Oxe...meet....gored.)
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:42 PM EST
Hugh
Doctors hate us because we Construct the fences which keep them honest. You, like most "Idiots", hate us until you need US? We will be waiting! Also, Tort Reform, is not a necessity of Health Care Reform. They are separate issues and should be treated as such!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 23
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:53 PM EST
TORT COULD BE A MYTH
Read this article. I checked out some of the facts, and it makes sense.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/0 8/tort-reform-wont-fix-healthcare-ctd-1.html

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 24
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 1:59 PM EST
Heres what we do know.

Tort reform will reduce cost of Healthcare.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 25
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 2:05 PM EST
What tort reforem do you recommend, Hugh
Five star for your assessment, Hugh, but what tort reform do you recommend?

Tort reform is the answer to many of the legal, political and economic problems in the US. Could it be as simple as "loser pays?"
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 26
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 2:13 PM EST
I understand....
If the report contradicts right wing theology, it is to be discarded. Now, we are talking about an article from Hugh Hewitt here. A talk show personality. Perhaps the truth lies in having experts discuss the matter in detail. Are you aware that Texas has some of the strictest protections against unlawful lawsuits in the nation yet the costs of healthcare still rises every year in Texas. How can that be? I am also willing to bet you my house that you would be the first to go to court if a doctor cut off the wrong limb. So, which frivolous lawsuits are you talking about?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 27
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 2:14 PM EST
Tort Reform and Costs
I'm not sold on tort reform: without legal penalties, what deterrent is available to deal with quacks?

As to cost, doctors pay premiums for malpractice insurance and include the costs in their billings to patients. What is exactly wrong with this?

I do not agree that medical costs are a "problem," but for the sake of argument, assuming costs are distorted, tor law is not the problem: the problem is the Medicare system which artificially drives up demand, increasing costs. So, eradicate Medicare, and your cost problem goes away.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 28
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 2:25 PM EST
Huey,


Where has anyone here said, let alone me, that physician should get a free pass and be allowed to “…hurts another through his negligence or incompetence …”?

Carrie Prejean is a total red herring. It has as much relevance to this argument as Van Jones being a Truther.

Your statement re: judges have little relevance because a judge does not see a case prior to it coming to his or hers docket. Most cases are settled prior to going to court. Most judges do not have the expertise to determine if a complicated medical case is frivolous. Now if you want to set up and expert review panel that would determine merit and could recommend summary dismissal with prejudice and sanction frivolous lawsuits, or remove contingencies fees and go to a British system where a plaintiff pays his own attorney, that might reduce frivolous suits. But that would be malpractice reform, and you already have stated your position on that.

Let be try and be clear on what I view the problem to be – it is the fear of malpractice litigation, whether exaggerated or not, that the cost up. Diagnosis and treatment has to be fast. Studies, that in Canada or Great Briton that can wait until the following morning day or even weeks, frequently are done here as STAT. Test are done too frequently and rapidly, both increasing cost, and for radiographic procedure, increasing the radiation dose to the population.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 29
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 2:31 PM EST
killer
I have an idea. Let us institute national legal care reform. Everyone knows the system is broken with out of control costs. After all, there must be at least XX million U.S. citizens without access to affordable, quality legal care. We should enact legislation similar to the current House bill. And enact that legislation now! Let us make sure that on page 127 we provide a provision that limits and caps lawyer’s earnings. And then on page 317, let us write that lawyers should not be able to participate in ownership of a legal enterprise or legal firm.

Understand the above is nothing more than parody. You should also understand the current legislation as written in the House Bill 3200 on pages 127 and 317 appear to disallow physicians from participating in the free market.

You are a lawyer, I presume? Do you like having doctors take care of you and your family when medical care is needed?

Consider that when physicians are no longer making a living commensurate with their value under a (pseudo) free market environment, med-mal attorneys will have to make their bucks off someone else’s back. After all, physicians will not be the "deep pockets" your ilk seeks. The current legislation will, by simple economic principles, do harm to the number and quality of physicians. Sue away, and then provide more disincentive for people to enter the profession of medicine.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 30
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 2:42 PM EST
Be Careful What You Pray For
Tort Reform is necessary. BUT

No more 6 month old's allowed to wander out an open door their parents should have closed, who suddenly become worth $84 Million. {Houston in mid 80's]

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU PRAY FOR!

Texas is an excellent example.

I was told by a dozen lawyers that I had an excellent case against a former employer [a government institution.

Not only in the original firing, which was because I protested the results of a promotional exam, but in the subsequent blackballing [admitted to me by a federal officer] I had an excellent case.

BUT attorneys I have been friends with 20 years wouldn't take the case. Attorneys in my church wouldn't take my case.

They all cited the fact that although I have an excellent case, there wasn't enough $ in it.
The lawyer from my church, well respected & very active said he had to think of his family.

Tort reform has to address specifics like obvious medical malpractice or it can actually destroy peoples lives and families as it did in my case.

Recovering Liberal
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 31
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 2:42 PM EST
Frivolous law suits
How this for an example that came up recently to me.

A 22 yo woman present to the ED with a fractures right ankle with an open wound. The wound was cleaned and the ankle set and a temporary cast was places. She was admitted for IV antibiotic therapy with an anticipated discharge of about a day followed by oral antibiotic and a clinic appt. Once on the floor, she and her boyfriend removed her neighbors IV narcotic drip and attached it to her IV. When confronted, she left the hospital against medical advice. Once outside, she forcible removed the cast.

She sued the doctor because her foot failed to heal properly due improper alignment.

Settled for $85,000.00
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 32
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 2:59 PM EST
Huey
writes as if he's a trial lawyer and has a vested interest in the current system. It's one thing to assert that "when a person hurts another through his negligence or incompetence, he should be held FULLY accountable." But it is nonsense to say tort reform is "rationing" unless you believe that a glib trial lawyer should be allowed to convince a jury that a mistaken diagnosis warrants a 10 million dollar settlement, of which a third or a half goes to the trial lawyer. Why not allow suits against stockbrokers who recommend stocks which go down instead of up?

Moreover, in regard to his Part 2, even on his numbers (which are VERY low), the cost of the current tort system is 5%, not 1%: this is simply adding what he says is the total cost of claims to the total cost of insurance. He thinks this quite acceptable and foolishly says the only option is "denying people the right to legal redress for their injuries." That no one is suggesting this does not bother him at all. What is being asked is a means of curbing frivolous lawsuits and enormous dollar judgments entirely out of line with the injury sustained.

Huey suggests using our brains. Not a bad idea, though he might have tried starting with his first two points. Why does insurance cover cost more for physicians than accountants? The primary reason is the huge settlements extorted by trial lawyers, often not for negligence but simply because the human body is a very complex organism and whatever the level of the doctor's expertise good results can not be guaranteed. Perhaps one should be able to sue a lawyer whenever he does not win a case?

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 33
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 3:00 PM EST
further regarding Huey
As to Part 4, in respect to tests, the reason doctors have lost such suits is, again, glib trial lawyers who convince juries that any test left undone, no matter how unlikely and no matter how expensive, is grounds for a lawsuit. The problem with the supermarket analogy is that suits are brought even by those who slip in what they themselves have spilled; no store leaving spills unattended for "a dozen hours" will have many customers. Huey argues like a trial lawyer and trial lawyers vastly increase the costs of doing business and, consequently, drive up the costs of goods and services. Trial lawyers are very much like casinos: a few people win big (and most people lose) and the casino owners get rich.

Part 5 moves between arguing for liability and arguing for unlimited liability; no one is arguing against liability. Those arguing for unlimited liability are the trial lawyers and those who feel that, for one reason or another, they are entitled to the grand jackpot. Huey is arguing against reasonable settlements and for grand jackpot settlements.

Part 6 speaks of judges. The problem here is that judges are lawyers (almost without exception) and many rulings favor lawyers. Appellate courts often reduce outrageous awards, but Huey neglects to mention that lawyers profit at every level of the process ... and doctors, hospitals and ordinary people suffer as a result.

As I said, Huey argues very much as if he is a trial lawyer and most of his arguments are equivalently specious.

Hewitt is right and Huey should be ignored.


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 34
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 3:36 PM EST
Incredible Deviousness From Huey
"The TOTAL cost of ALL claims for medical malpractice, including the judgments, settlements, lawyer fees, costs, expert witnesses -- EVERYTHING -- adds approximately 1% to the cost of medical care."

The total cost only BEGINS with the claims that are won for medical malpractice. My late wife quit nursing because it had become about keeping volumes of documentation to avoid being sued rather than about helping people. Her malpractice insurance went up by a factor of twenty during her career. Did nurses get twenty times more incompetent? I doubt it.

Furthermore, we have parasites like John Edwards suing over birth defects "caused" because obstetricians didn't do Caesarians. There was ZERO medical proof this was true, but Edwards and others "channeled" the affected children and bilked juries out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Also, now Caesarians are done more than ten times more often than they were before this legal assault on medical science. Other examples are myriad.

Every doctor I know disagrees with Huey. When I want medical care, I want a doctor, not a lawyer, to tell me what I need.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 35
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 4:45 PM EST
Misinformation for the Masses
This is just the type of Right Wing double speak intended to offer no real solutions, only soundbytes that can be easily adopted and propogated to the masses who don't bother to do their own thinking.

Note, nowhere in the article is there any real analysis of how tort reform has worked in the states. Well here are some facts for those willing to delve a little deeper:

In Texas, the state with the most aggressive tort reform to date cost of insurance are barely 3% below the national average. Hardly the type of cost savings Hewitt and the other minions of the Right wing claim. Also, according to the Texas rates below average in every measured standard of care from cradle to grave, and in those particular categories, infant and chronic care, standards have worsened. Texas also ranks as one of the ten worst states in terms of number of people covered and access to care.

This is simply more of the cookie cutter approach the Right takes to any issue involving commerce...tax cuts/rebates, deregulation, and tort reform. There is usually one other in this group that they are intentionally leaving out of this debate, privatization, which is their ultimate plan. In other words, they don't want Grannie to realize that what they'd like best is to strip the gov't guarantee of care offered by Medicare and supplant it with the vagaries of the private insurance industry.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 36
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 4:50 PM EST
Patrick & David
I really can't write it any fuller than I have. 6 posts, link to primer.

Certainly (as I acknowledged) there are costs associated with both the claims of medical malpractice and the cost of medical malpractice insurance. That's a given. Too (as I acknowledged) there's a cost associated with "defensive medicine."

But, the foregoing is true of ANY business. ALL businesses have to pay for judgments when they are found to be negligent (or when they "settle" a claim rather than risk an even greater judgment). ALL businesses have liability insurance costs. ALL businesses have preventative procedures set up to (hopefully) preclude being sued by those "nasty lawyers." (Been to a "racial awareness" or "sexual harassment" training session lately?)

It's a cost of doing business. And, in general, the COST of such things are deemed to be LESS than the COST of NOT doing them and being sued as a result of you or your employees doing things which, had they been properly trained, they might not have.

Doctors hurt people. Doctors kill people. In this, they're NO DIFFERENT from any other person in any other profession -- EXCEPT that, by the very nature of their profession, their negligence or incompetence is DIRECTLY tied to another's health, thus the likelihood that, in the event they screw up, they'll hurt someone is correspondingly higher than just about anyone in any other profession.

This, of course, results in higher liability insurance.

Believe it -- don't believe it. Don't care. But, at least do some research and inform yourself.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 37
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 4:56 PM EST
Travis
Your parody would never pass Congress, too many Lawyers? However, "Preventive Medicine" addresses your concerns. What it does is mitigate "Chronic Illness", which more times than not, is the reason Doctors are forced to use Risky Procedures. Changing the Protocol from Treatment to Prevention is the way to go. We all understand that trying to save a life is difficult. If we can improve our Preventive care, we directly help the Doctor and reduce Tort actions. It is very simple!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 38
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 5:04 PM EST
Before I forget
I have to discuss "glib talking lawyers."

Everyone DOES know that "glib talking lawyers" are on both sides of the case, right? Are juries just so stupid that they only listen to one side? Since the populace self-identifies as 40% "conservative" and less than 30% "liberal" (and the elderly even moreso slanted towards the "conservative" end of the spectrum -- and it's the elderly who most comprise juries..., have they just cast aside their "conservative" principles? Nah.

The reality is that less than 1 in 5 people injured by a doctor makes any claim AT ALL. Of those, less than 1 in 10 make it past the medical review panel, the motion for summary judgment, and the trial to get a judgment. So, in those cases where a jury finds the doctor negligent, it's usually a pretty egregious case and such cases tend to tick off juries. Ticked off juries tend to hammer incompetent defendants of WHATEVER profession. Doctors just have the protection of various "tort reform" medical malpractice laws to limit THEIR liability.

No one else does.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 39
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 5:21 PM EST
Cost Shifting for Legal Bills? Nooooooo
So it's either the defense attorney getting paid or the legal department in some 'organization' private or public. Same difference EXCEPT for the lawyers who won't ge paid anymore but are complaining about 'cost shifting' elsewhere.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 40
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 5:26 PM EST
killer - Preventative Medicine
Unfortunately neither congress nor family members can 'make' and adult adopt 'healthy preventative' habits. The personal choice to smoke, use drugs, eat junk food or drink too much alcohol (the other legal drug) or even bribe a doctor to give 'prescription medication' for 'calming oneself down'.....is just that PERSONAL. The whole idea that preventative medicine will be part of the 'healthcare reform' is laughable. We can't even make the undocument workers leave the country or the employers stop giving them work BUT YES WE CAN teach people 'how to be healthy'........that is taking HOPE to the next level:)
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 41
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 5:35 PM EST
qhoratius

Civil Suits have two phases to consider after a guilty verdict. Actual Damages and the Degree, if any, for penalties.

Tort reform does not mean penalites are removed.

Tort reform does not limit damages. If the guilty party's act resulted in 5 million in damages, they still have to pay 5 million in damages.

Tort reform means you limit penalities so that someone who spills hot coffee on themselves can't collect 5 million in addition in penalties for being stupid.


The lack of Tort Reform is driving up healthcare costs. You can take your dog or cat to the vet and get a full MRI at a cost of $500. If you go to the Doctor and get a full MRI it will likely cost $5000. That is because your dog or cat can't sue the manufacturer of the MRI if they mis-diagnose.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 42
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 6:34 PM EST
Obamacare
the only aspect one need to realize is what we call the "Edwards Factor".....
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 43
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 7:25 PM EST
Useful Idiot
I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

"Tort reform" at its core is limiting damages. Period. Whether that limitation comes through limitation on the ability to MAKE a claim or how much you can COLLECT on that claim (whether compensatory or punitive).

The problem with limitation on "outrageous" awards is that "outrageous" is in the eye of the beholder. OBVIOUSLY the award WASN'T "outrageous" in the mind of the JURY which awarded it after they considered the facts and the law during the course of the TRIAL where they (and not you or me) got to HEAR and SEE all the facts of the case.

If you're going for IMPOSING a "value" on a case where any amount greater being awarded would be "outrageous" and limiting it to the amount that SOMEONE or SOME PANEL, in their opinion, considered "reasonable" -- overruling the jury which sat through the trial and saw/heard all the facts...then you're into the area of a SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS such as that of Worker's Compensation where the law provides the value of a finger, an arm, or a life.

WITHOUT such a schedule of benefits, then HOW would the determination of what was "outrageous" be found? Who gets to decide? I mean, after all, the JURY already decided it WASN'T, so who gets to decide what IS?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 44
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 7:31 PM EST
From a conservative plaintiff's attorney
I'm against Obamacare. It would bring about a devastating and likely unmanageable level of debt for the country that we certainly could not sustain. I'm not against tort reform. I recognize that there are some awful things in our legal system. Ever since lawschool I've been very uncomfortable with how abusive vicarious liability can be to innocent business owners. But lack of tort reform is not why Obamacare is a terrible idea, and if there were an emergency, that doesn't necessarily mean Obamacare should have tort reform. As a Republican, I firmly believe that the best place to handle tort reform is in the laboratory of State law, where mistakes can be learned from more quickly and state law can be changed to reflect the lessons learned from those mistakes. And let's not glamorize the English Rule or Med Mal caps. One has a chilling effect on legitimate cases, the other prevents full recovery while doing little to impact the cost of medicine. To tackle defensive medicine, you have to lower the standard of care. THAT is what makes them perform all these tests. No question those extra tests sometimes save lives. Hugh, I wonder if your listeners would support a, "Let's lower the standard of care" platform.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 45
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 7:35 PM EST
Agreed!
Out with the public option.

IN with tort reform.

Obama started this and said he wants to bring down costs. So the GOP shouldn't let him off the hook. I would vote against ANY bill that doesn't drastically reduce the amount ambulance chasers like John Edwards can collect.

Supporters of Obamacare call the public option a "deal breaker".

For me, the deal breaker is tort reform.

Obama took a lot of cheap shots at Bush, a man who made very tough, politically risky decisions and paid a price for them.

Let's see if this President has the cahoneys to actually STAND UP to special interests like trial lawyers, instead of just skirting the issue completely.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 46
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 8:28 PM EST
Shiek
I "Hope" you are not Muslim? The analogy of workers and Health Care is just Asinine. Half of all citizens in America were born after 1964. This is the basis for Preventive care. If America focuses on these young people, the health outcomes will be different. Medical Doctors endorse this concept. That's good enough for me!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 47
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 8:37 PM EST
the acorn thus and sec sebeliuos
why should anyone expect congress which is full of lawyers to turn on the group that gives the dims millions in campaign funds/

Kathleen sebelious is another lawyer who headed up a lawyers group and fully believes in their right to run out any number of lawsuits that do nothing more than build the bank accounts of ambulance chasers.

But the real reason the acorn thug is opposed to tort reform is that the trial lawyers own him body and sould and he will never turn against one of the groups that has bought his allegiance.

The acorn thug from chicago took and oath to be president for all the people of this country, but when the rubber meets the road so to speak, he first loyalty will be to the special interest groups that own the demonrat party.

The only thing surprising would be if the poseur in the oval office ever turned against his masters and actually showed he was in favor of real reform.

Don't hold your breath or bet your life savings that the acorn thug will ever put the tax payers and citizens ahead of any special interest group.

He lacks the ability to lead or has any real convictions other than his marxist agenda.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 48
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 9:38 PM EST
Huey

To answer your question, the jury decides. They are given a range of what is permissable by law for a given degree of neglect, malfeasants, or error and penalty before deciding accordingly. This practise is currently very common in law.

In addition, currently judges can overide a jury upon request of the defense attorney. This is very common.

The important thing here is to make a victim "whole". (paying all medical bills, reembursement for loss wages etc. etc.) And providing a sufficent penalty for neglect, abuse, malfeasants, or errors without hurting all of society as no limits on penalty do.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 49
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 9:47 PM EST
Patrick.
Other than your description of the case, there is not enough detail provided to make a judgment one way or the other. I am not sure how tort reform would remedy this situation because it seems to rely mainly on the abilities of the lawyers and the judge to make the correct decision. Litigating it and forcing the judge or jury to present a predetermined outcome is hardly a recipe for justice is it?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 50
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 10:41 PM EST
Tort Reform
I'm an emergency physician and Hugh is spot-on with his analysis. Defensive medicine is rampant because docs take extraordinary measures to CYA because of our massively litigious society. I think it is about class-warfare because the "average american" just doesn't have any sympathy for doctors who are the most highly-educated and rigorously-trained professionals in our society. I've had a decent run and if they screw it up too much myself and countless others will find alternate ways to make a living!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 51
Date: Sep 4, 2009 - 10:59 PM EST
Mitchell

Hey Doc,

First, Thanks for being there. Thanks for healing the sick and relieving suffering.

The number one reason people give for suing thier doctor is lack of communication skills or insensitivity. Has little to do with skill level or mal-practise.

You are correct about lack of sympathy. We are living in the "ME" Generation. There also is the aspect of "easy money" by suing those that are preceived as having deep pockets.

I had a dermatologist remove a dime size mole from the side of my waist. One hour after leaving his office, I'm in the supermarket and feel moisture on my side. The stiches gave way. It was Friday, his office was now closed. I kept the open wound bandaged and clean all weekend. I called him first thing on Monday. He told me to come right in.

He apologized, asked why I did not page him. He said most people would have went running to the E.R. screaming and call their lawyer. He thanked me for being so understanding.

So now I have a quarter size scar instead of a dime size scar. No big deal.

Did he screw up? Was he in a hurry to get out early on Friday? I don't know. I know he is human and entitled to make a few mistakes along the way.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 52
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:04 AM EST
Keep making things up
Med Mal reform has already happened. It is a lie to claim that right now lawsuits are "out of control." In my own state, here are the stats: http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Media/MedicalMalpractice/defa ult.htm

We have about 1/2 the number of cases as 8 years ago BECAUSE THE TORT REFORM ALREADY HAPPENED. Pennsylvania is not unique. Now you need a "certificate of merit" within 90 days of filing a lawsuit -- that means you need a doctor to claim that there is merit to the case. Previously, there was no such requirment until trial.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 53
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:07 AM EST
Trolls are multiplying
As a long time reader and first time poster here is an observation. It seems as if some bail out money has been spent by this administration to pay left wingers to troll these websites.

Balanced - you are anything but. Go back to HuffPo and quit trying to pretend you are conservative.

Frank- you don't bother trying to hide you are far left.

huey and justaguy - Libs

You dilute and try to hi jack intelligent posts. You don't want to hear differing viewpoints and thrust your liberal ideals down people's throats.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 54
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:09 AM EST
check out the lies
If somebody lies or is reckless with the truth it should undermine all claims made. We have fewer med mal cases than before. Most cases that go to trial are defense verdicts -- and very, very few are for big dollars. "Common Knowledge" may tell us that it is easy to file a lawsuit and big dollars are often the result -- that same "common knowledge" tells us that Philadelphia is the capital of Pennsylvania -- that is, it is baseless. The GOP should lose credibility on this issue -- but these lies go unquestioned frequently.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 55
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:13 AM EST
more actual facts
40 years ago, most American healthcare was provided by non-profits and religious/charity organizations. That no longer is the case. Why do you think hospitals are named the way they are? Don't people "get" what possible problem there is when healthcare switches from run by non-profit/religious/charitable companies to for profit companies? The mission changes from providing a service to making money. This is exactly why no insurance company would ever want to cover somebody with a pre-existing illness -- and they have every reason in the world to want to deny coverage and not pay for services rendered.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 56
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:18 AM EST
Some claim they want more suits
One person who posts often recently wrote that he believed that if an insurance company denies coverage the response should be filing a lawsuit. So, on the one hand we have too many lawsuits, but on the other we should have more cases? Does that make any sense? Does it make any sense to file a Dec Relief action against an insurance company to cover you for a few thousand dollar procedure? Unless you are a lawyer (even then it would not be easy) you would need to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to do this. Also, insurance policies are written very well -- making it actually quite easy to deny coverage. So such a lawsuit would be a pointless endeavor.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 57
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:24 AM EST
being paid to post
If people want to think that I am being paid by Obama to post here, that is fine. Why not take a look at all of my posts and my blog. It is not pro-Obama at all. I have voted both for Pat Buchanan (1992 primary) and Ron Paul (2008 primary). However, facts are facts. People may want to believe that lawsuits are "out of control" but the fact is that most states did things between 25 and 5 years ago to take care of the problem. It is much better than it was 30 years ago, which shows that we are not in a "crisis."
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 58
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:29 AM EST
facts about our system
We have the legal system that we have. Those developed countries that do things differently have systems like Finland -- if a patient has a bad result they receive disability. The doctor cooperates since injury is not necessarily related to bad medical treatment. Bureaucrats make decisions. People in the GOP hate bureaucrats even more than juries. I personally would rather bureaucrats make such a determination (they already do for professional sanctions) -- but the GOP does not want this. The GOP also loves heavyhanded medical regulations in this country that make pain meds only available by prescriptions -- while they are OTC elsewhere.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 59
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:34 AM EST
comparisons
To make our system as good as possible, given that both parties are in love with heavy regulations of medical practice, we should look to see what others do. All developed countries do things differently -- some we should consider what others do to ensure that our system is as good as possible. We spend way to much for what we get. We have good things about our healthcare -- but I do not think it is 2 1/2 times better in the aggregate than other developed countries. We spend what we spend, others spend what they spend.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 60
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:50 AM EST
Huey and Christopher
How often do plaintiffs receive punitive damages in med mal cases. Christopher can tell you the answer is practically never. Usually the facts are not even strong enough to request them during trial. Those of you who post who claim that these lawsuits are out of control ought to simply try to find out what the facts are. Those doctors who might be posting on this board should use their abilities to actually simply look up the numbers -- and the frequency of lawsuits. I would advise a doctor or anyone else to likewise look at how common airplane crashes are before deciding to fly. People should not be scared of a non-existent problem.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 61
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:01 AM EST
Malpractise Insurance.

One of the problems with explaining how Tort Reform would reduce Malpractise Insurance premiums is the lack of understanding how Medical Malpractise Insurance Premiums are determined.

With auto insurance, it is based previous years payout, drivers record, auto parts, previous years milage, likelyhood of lawsuit in various parts of the state and a whole host of factors.

With Medical Malpractise, it is not based on past pay-outs, past lawsuits, past litigation.

Medical Malpractise premiums are future based meaning the likelyhood or exposure to future risks and payouts.

If 1 in 1000 doctors may result in a payout of 25 million, premiums are based on that risk. Not based on the payouts of the previous year.

This difference is difficult for many to understand and how it affects Malpratise premiums. This is why we see posts claiming Tort reform will not reduce healthcare costs.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 62
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:18 AM EST
useful idiot
Here, again, is the link to our state's med mal lawsuit stats. http://www.pacourts.us/Links/Media/MedicalMalpractice/defa ult.htm

Lawsuits are way down, and very, very few cases result in big verdicts. You are factually incorrect about how insurance works as well. Doctors ARE ABSOLUTELY charged the same way our auto insurance is. That is, you pay more for insurance if you have been sued or settled a case (or have an active lawsuit). Also, doctors are charged based upon the specialty -- Obs get charged a lot as do orthopedic surgeons.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 63
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:56 AM EST
FeargalX

You say past lawsuits are down. (You are correct)

I say future premiums are up. (I am correct)

Less lawsuits does not mean less payouts.

You free to believe Malpractise premiums are not based on future risks. The facts don't support that claim.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 64
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 2:34 AM EST
HOW ABOUT LOSER PAYS!!
Europeans rarely make good choices, but they do two things right. The loser pays the court costs of civil suits, and nuclear power plants are common, especially in France. Those two simple, well understood steps would solve the two biggest problems our country faces, in very short order.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 65
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 2:45 AM EST
useful idiot
How do you think insurance companies calculate future expected costs for lawsuits? Like it or not, they charge more when people have been sued. That is a reasonable basis to calculate a risk just like it is for auto insurance. The facts show that future payouts for lawsuits are less than they used to be -- we have fewer lawsuits than the past by a large margin. The cost of a lawsuit is not only the verdict or settlment cost, it is the cost of defending a case. For doctors, they are less likely to settle because it actually can impact insurance and priveleges at a hospital. A big reason for this is unlike auto insurance, there are very few med mal insuranance providers. No competition can cause rates to go up -- irrespective of real risk. Doctors are required to have coverage.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 66
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 3:10 AM EST
moventure
I seriously doubt you really support a legal system like those in Europe. Many of those countries give bureaucrats total power -- not judges and juries -- and generously give disability payments to people. Most people in the GOP hate bureaucrats more than juries. Personally, I like the civil law system better than the common law system because it is more predictable and has bureaucrats looking for the actual truth rather than juries rewarding the better prepared case. Maybe people in the GOP really would like systems like those that exist in the 3rd world -- basically ancarchy and no legal system. Not good in my opinion.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 67
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 3:51 AM EST
moventure

Loser pays has merit. But it also has problems.

Big Law firms have an advantage with loser pays thus causing small law practises to shy away from taking that kind of risk. Sometimes a plaintiff may not have a "Big Lawsuit" but still needs representation to recover for damages and loss of wages that don't amount to multi-millions. Many big Lawfirms won't take smaller cases.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 68
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 4:02 AM EST
moventure

Currently Judges order plaintiffs to pay court and legal costs upon a finding of frivilous lawsuits.

Often Judges will not order this penalty due to politics.

The Judge may have a son or daughter in Law School and may hope or want them to get a job at the law firm upon graduation.

Don't ever think the American Justice System is about Justice. Nothing could be further from that reality. We are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of men.

When you hear a Lawyer make the claim that we are a nation of laws, you know he is lying.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 69
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 7:46 AM EST
Make no mistake
We can eliminate doctors almost entirely from the scene by insisting that lawyers & malpractice insurance sellers are entitled to take every health care dollar they can, while Obamacare is insistant that doctors need to make less. Sorry folks doctors cannot afford to pay for the privilige of caring for you. Medicare reimbursement is ridiculously low. $34.50 is what they pay for a doctor visit in my area, that cannot cover building, malpractice insurance, wages for nurses and secretarial help. The ultimate result will be fewer and fewer doctors, decreased availability of health care, increased work and stress for those that try to remain. If the doctor uses any supplies that may end up coming out of his or her pocket if medicare doesn't consider it necessary.
A big help to medicare would be to make the patient's private insurance the primary payer, not the secondary. For instance I pay the same rate for BC/BS that I would pay if I were still working, but now they pay 20% of what medicare authorizes, they should pay 80% and medicare 20%.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 70
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 9:59 AM EST
Good arguements
Pro and con.In regards to law suits.Although I am not sure,but I think you have to have permission to sue the federal govt.With UHC how would this affect lawsuits,as the govt. assigns you doctors.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 71
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 10:05 AM EST
The trolls are out!
Wow, I read the TH column most days, but not usually Mr. Hewitt’s. Is this just a normal reaction to Hugh? Or is the lawyer lobby out in full combat mode? I expect the latter, but at least the lawyers are wasting their money on trolls instead of raising the cost of health care. That’s a good thing.

I love it how the trolls have all the statistics to show that the friendly, benevolent lawyers are just there to protect the innocent mal-practice plaintiff from that mean scary doctor. They show:

1. Mal-practice law suits are good suits, and have no effect at all on the cost of health care.

2. Only greedy doctors and hospitals and insurance companies are the reason for high costs.

3. Those multi-million dollar settlements have no effect at all on costs.

If you don’t believe me just ask any troll on here, or better yet, ask Senator Edwards, he has real experience in frivolous law suits. Matter of fact that’s how he got wealthy, but it surly didn’t effect health care cost.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 72
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 11:31 AM EST
Do conservatives have ANY integrity?
I pointed out yesterday, to a Coulter post, that we get $10 aspiring because hospitals spread out costs from cost centers to revenue centers and that Coulter either didn't know what she was talking about or chose to lie to a "ready to believe" audience of conservatives.

But, if you have any integrity at all you should be questioning your own propensity to believe anything written by a conservative.

Same with the tort reform. As I pointed out physicians do not merit tort reform unless they clean up their profession, weed out the worst physicians and give us a way to find the physicians who are alcoholics, drug addicts and most liable to make mistakes in their practice.

If conservatives have any integrity at all they will embrace this.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 73
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 11:47 AM EST
Frank
I agree with you. There are two reasons why I cannot provide more information. The most important is HIPAA regulations and it probably trumps the second, which is access to the original files.

I recalled this case because it was an out-lier. If there were screening boards in every state, as some here strongly imply there are, this one would have been thrown out. I don't know or understand why this was not fought - just on principle I think it should have been.

My involvement was to determine if secondary actions were required in respect to the physician’s membership in an organization, not with hospital privileges, etc.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 74
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 11:58 AM EST
Tort Reform
In a recent column appearing in the San Francisco Examiner, Texas Gov. Rick Perry wrote: "Just six years ago, Texas was mired in a health care crisis. Our doctors were leaving the state, or abandoning the profession entirely, because of frivolous lawsuits and the steadily increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums that resulted."

But Texas has since joined 24 other states by enacting reforms that include a reasonable limit on non-economic damages for pain and suffering of up to $750,000 per incident. This essential reform does not limit compensatory awards for calculable lost wages and medical expenses, but it does balance the interests of patients and care providers while helping to ensure access to necessary care.

Now, according to Gov. Perry, doctors' insurance rates have declined by an average of 27% while the "number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas has skyrocketed by 57%. In . . . just the first five years after reforms passed, 14,498 doctors either returned to practice in Texas or began practicing here for the first time."

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=3360046775 19666

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 75
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:07 PM EST
proud lib
You maintain we should clean up the doctors.How about you libs cleaning up the crooked pols you have in your party.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 76
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:14 PM EST
proud liberal
"As I pointed out physicians do not merit tort reform unless they clean up their profession, weed out the worst physicians and give us a way to find the physicians who are alcoholics, drug addicts and most liable to make mistakes in their practice." Doctors already do this. They have certification boards and professional organizations to weed out the incompetents. I have seen too many good doctors sued for no valid reason to believe that the legal eagles aren't a bigger problem. A good example is John Edwards and his ilk who have vastly increased the number of Caesarians for no reason other than to defend against lawsuits. There are a myriad of other examples. Tort reform gives us the greatest savings at no reduction in medical care.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 77
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:21 PM EST
Whenever you have trouble understanding
the "why" of a government bill, just do as Rush reminds us, "FOLLOW THE MONEY."
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 78
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:23 PM EST
Well, I will try again.

I will assume that few people understood my plan for a Health Care System.

“My bottom line calls for no insurance companies, no Gov’t Health Care. The Health Care provider determines what is needed, and at the end of each day, writes a check on a Gov’t bank account for the work he did that day.

Anyone who filed an Income Tax Return is qualified, and the co-pay, and discount depends on the amount of Income Tax paid.”

Now I will add what I thought was obvious. There will be no Gov’t control of this system, they will just manage the Checking Account the Medical Community uses to pay their bills. The cost to collect the money is part of the income tax procedure.

And those checks will not be on the Internet, the check must be signed by the person in Charge. That makes evidence for fraud easier. If the amount on the check contains anyn fraud, the signer goes to jail. While we trust our Doctors with our heath, some are Liberal and Democrat, and will need help with the finances.

As there is now, in a different form, members of the Medical society in that area, sets the general price, and reviews the procedures completed, and recommend what should be done next. But this is not a Government Agency, the members will be elected by a group of doctors in the area.

Just like we did before Medical Insurance, the doctor makes the decision, and in difficult cases, as they do now, they consult with other specialists on what to do next.

If they want single payer, why not get rid of the middle man and women, and buildings, and computers, and desks, and expense account, and vacations and on and on.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 79
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 12:36 PM EST
Apples and Oranges I believe...
jax33 ....................... Location: IA
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 9:59 AM EST Good arguements
Pro and con.In regards to law suits.Although I am not sure,but I think you have to have permission to sue the federal govt.With UHC how would this affect lawsuits,as the govt. assigns you doctors.

=======================================

I could be wrong, but if you decide to sue your service provider for malpractice, your insurance provider would not be named.

The only time you might try and sue you Insurance provider would be if they refused to pay for coverage you believed you are entitled to. And, from what I hear about this UHC screwing NObamaElMessiah and the DumboTurds have planned for you, the federal government is very well protected. You have no courtroom access. I think there is an arbitration board (death panel), and that's your only path.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 80
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:04 PM EST
Another Queston

Would Tort Reform Hurt?

The answer is yes. It would hurt Lawyers. Only Lawyers.

It would not hurt victims. It would not hurt doctors. it would not hurt Insurance Companies. It would not hurt the General Population.

Victims would still be protected because they would still be compensated for actual damages i.e. medical expenses, loss wages, etc etc.

If done properly, Tort Reform only caps "Punitive Damages" for neglect, malfeasants, errors, bad judgement, bad product design etc. etc. These caps can be written into law so the greater the negligence, the higher the cap but not unlimited as is currently the case in many states.

Careless doctors, nurses, hospitals would still be held accountable because their premiums would reflect the higher risk they are causing.

No effect on Insurance Companies since they are at the top of this food chain and can adjust their premiums to whatever the preceived risk.

To reform Insurance Companies requires Insurance reform,,, another topic.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 81
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:20 PM EST
PL said:
"Same with the tort reform. As I pointed out physicians do not merit tort reform unless they clean up their profession, weed out the worst physicians and give us a way to find the physicians who are alcoholics, drug addicts and most liable to make mistakes in their practice.

If conservatives have any integrity at all they will embrace this. "

I, as a conservative, do believe that there should be accountability of doctors and that should be a part of tort reform. The current system of expensive lawsuits and high rewards is causing two other problems. Malpractice insurance rates are through the roof and doctors are ordering expensive tests which they know are unnecessary to protect themselves in the event of a lawsuit (defencive medicine). This causes even further problems including causing some of the best obstetricians and neurosurgeons to either change to a lower risk specialty or relocate to areas with lower insurance rates. And who knows how many brilliant medical students are deliberately avoiding certain specialties because of the risk?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 82
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:21 PM EST
Howard Dean on Tort Reform
http://www.ilrinfo.org/latestad_dean.cfm
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 83
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:47 PM EST
Do we already have caps?

Yes we do.

Imagine this...

You drive through a red light and receive a summons from a Police Officer.

You goto court and the judge finds you guilty.

He looks over your driving record and sees this is the third time you have driven through a red light.

He says, "You are a repeat offender." I see you own a $200,000 house, a $35,000 car, a second home at a resort, you have $50,000 in savings". "I am going to fine you 1/4 million,"

The public would be outraged.

The reason a Judge can not do this is because we have "caps" on the "punitive damages" Judges can impose for traffic penalties.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 84
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:51 PM EST
Lawyers Rule
Karl B is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. (And he hides behind a 72-page, three-year-old Congressional Report). The fear of being (unfairly) sued plays an intimate role in every doctor-patient relationship. A significant percentage of clinical tests and events are rung up NOT because common medical sense dictates them, but rather because of the realization "some day a slick lawyer might bludgeon a jury into believing some different step should have been taken". Karl's probably a lawyer.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 85
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:56 PM EST
'O' wants all 2 sacrifice except LAWYERS
Must be nice! Tort reform limits on mal-practice awards hurts Attorneys financially!
The Obama Admin., is afraid of a backlash from those so powerful; thus, they favor legal lobbyist who will feather their nest and keep them in power! Where is the fairness and protection for all? Ex Democrat
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 86
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 1:59 PM EST
'O' wants all 2 sacrifice except LAWYERS
Must be nice! Tort reform limits on a mal-practice lawsuit award hurts Attorneys financially! The Obama Admin., is afraid of a backlash from those so powerful; thus, they 'favor' legal lobbyist who will feather their nest and keep them in power! Where is the fairness and protection for all? Ex Democrat
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 87
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 2:24 PM EST
Hey, Wasn't Silky Pony a trial lawyer?
And if memory serves me, he sued doctors and hospitals for hundreds of millions. And it might just be that the trial lawyers association gave him a fancy award and a big 'atta boy.' And -- correct me if I'm wrong -- didn't he turn out to be a lying, cheating scumbag and complete empty suit?

Just wondering.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 88
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 2:32 PM EST
About time!
my opinions: FINALLY someone hits the nail on the head! LONG before BO thunk up his I-dea of
this power-grab aka Health Care Bill, many
financial experts agreed that Tort Reform would
save BILLIONS of dollars a year. It still will
if those shoving this "hellth" care plan down our throats!
Liberals refer to themselves as "progressive"
and consider Conservatives "right wing extremists." I no longer see that we have taxation WITH "representation," as the is quite
apparent they don't want to hear from us! One
Senator said it wasn't a productive use of his
time. WE ARE PAYING HIM FOR HIS TIME!
I have faxed every Dem. Senator and mentioned the lack of Tort Reform, asking if the Tort Lawyers lobbying is too strong for them.
DC doesn't get it. WE UNDERSTAND THIS POWER-GRAB aka HC PLAN. WE DON'T LIKE IT. WE DON'T WANT IT. There must be something very wrong with it if people get paid $15 an hour to protest FOR it, BO wants into the minds of kids, and "plants" chew up time in some of the
town-hall meetings. Some won't even have them!
THAT IS REALLY "Representation", huh.
1-202-224-3121 is the DC switchboard & can connect you to YOUR Senator. ASK HIM WHY TORT
REFORM, a savings of billions a year, was left
out of this "comprehensive" plan!
You can google and get YOUR Senator's DC tele/
fax/email addresses, too!
LET THEM HEAR ALL THE COMMENTS MADE HERE!

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 89
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 2:48 PM EST
ABOUT TIME
my opinions: About time someone asked WHY IS
TORT REFORM, which can save BILLIONS a year,
NOT IN THIS POWER-GRAB aka "HELLTH CARE" plan?
Long before BO & his gang came up with this
"over-reach for more power" plan, financial
experts related that Tort Reform was needed.
I believe I've read that Texas and Florida have
it and it is working GREAT for them! Doctor's
don't pay so ridiculously high for mal-practice
insurance, and small towns now have a physician!
Insurance companies aren't charged for so many "cover my posterior" tests...to avoid any
hint of mal-practice. You'd think the Insurance
industry would be down on the necks of these "progressive" liberals, DEMANDING Tort
Reform! Why are they silent?
You can google & get the DC tele/fax/email
address of YOUR Senator and call him/her and
ask: WHY ISN'T TORT REFORM IN THIS HC PLAN?
What DC is beginning go get is: we understand
this Bill. WE DON'T LIKE IT. WE DON'T WANT IT.
AND WE EXPECT THEM TO VOTE ACCORDING TO THE
VOICES OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS! (That's you & me)
1-202-224-3121 is the DC switchboard & can
connect you to YOUR Senator. Why not make that
call and leave your "Comment" with him/her? THAT
MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 90
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 4:33 PM EST
ARMAGEDDON - 666

Don't worry. Obama has appointed one of his czars who is on record as supporting forced abortions, forced sterilizations.

Problem solved.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 91
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 4:36 PM EST
Two Things: Rationing, the market
Conservatives love "markets," which are balances between demand and supply. So, if there is a market for suing doctors doesn't that fit into conservative philosophy, i.e., there are people who want (demand) to sue doctors. Why interfere with the market. Why use the government to interfere with the market?

Also, capping damages is equivalent to rationing health care. It's re-distributive. The money which would have gone toward the award of damages will be redistributed, but to where? Executive bonuses for insurance executives? Physician's income? Someone will get more and the people who have been damaged by physicians' incompetence will get less.

I thought conservatives were against the redistribution of income.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 92
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 5:22 PM EST
Who Was Dr. Mary Sherman?

Read "Dr. Mary's Monkey" and what the USPHS did is atrocious. In fact, Tuskegee pales (no pun intended) in comparison.

Read it and ask yourself if you want to line up for the H1N1 vaccine.

You should not.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 93
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 5:34 PM EST
A libertarian view....
As a libertarian, pro-capitalist, free market guy, I find it difficult to speak to the issue of the medical guild versus the lawyer's guild. Frankly, I think both are nearly criminal enterprises.

Having said that, I think it is dangerous to talk about tort reform in terms of "limits on damages." In a free society with a court system, the ladies and gentlemen of the jury should be given full rein to reach their own decision on each individual case.

Sometimes, when doctors really botch things up, multi-million dollar settlements are very much just. And, despite the propaganda the AMA puts out, a lot of doctors really do screw up an awful lot.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 94
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 5:35 PM EST
Another question-
Why will the White House be flying the Red Communist flag over the White House on Sept.20th,in CELEBRATION of a dictatorship that killed millions?...Kinda disturbing,isn't it?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 95
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 6:25 PM EST
Paul

Thanks for representing the Libitarian point of view. In true Libitarian form, you explained a very simplistic understanding and grasp of the issue.

Listen up.

Tort reform does not mean limiting damages.
Medical bills, lost wages, etc. etc are treated the same as always.

What is limited is punitive penalties or dollar amounts. The guilty doctor isn't penalized directly. He doesn't pay directly. His insurance company pays. Then, all doctors, good and bad, are penalized by higher Insurance rates. Then all patients, good and bad, are punished by higher healthcare costs.


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 96
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 6:48 PM EST
Proud lib??? Markets will work in tort
reform. Very simple.


Loser pays! Loser pays! Loser pays!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 97
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 6:58 PM EST
@ Huey & tort reform
looking again at comments I find that Huey is still trying to justify the huge settlements obtained by glib trial lawyers (and, secondarily, the huge incomes enjoyed by said lawyers). These lawyers play on juries' emotions and obtain settlements which substantially raise the cost of medical treatment for the rest of us. Huey conveniently fails to mention the bloated incomes of trial lawyers and, also, fails to mention that those who are really glib don't work for doctors or insurance companies but rather for plaintiffs, where they don't work on a salary basis, but where the sky's the limit for their income.

Yes, Huey can't write more fully than in his series of 6 posts, but neither can he defend them against criticism, nor respond cogently to his critics. I'm glad he doesn't care if others believe his self-serving defense of the current system, but for those less concerned than he to protect an insanely lucrative "profession" (and I use the term very loosely), his defense illustrates the dire state of the current system. It's not just in respect to the medical profession that reform is needed, but the whole system of litigation with its random jackpot payouts is in desperate need of reform. Perhaps we need not go all the way with Shakespeare (first, let's hang all the lawyers), but what was a problem 400 years ago remains a problem today.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 98
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 7:06 PM EST
Proud lib really nothing to be proud of
Don't libs hate obscene profits? The word profits is enough to make a lib foam at the mouth! Don't they claim that they want to share the wealth? Don't they believe in equality for all? If you ask which is more important liberty or equality a lib will always answer equality!

Yet they do nothing but march to the drum of trial lawyers who profit from misery, contribute nothing to the wealth of this country, get obscenely wealthy, and build grand mansions the satisfy their boundless hubris. John Edwards comes to mind as their poster boy.

Proud lib would have gladly have campaigned his arse off if Edwards had been the nominee, yet Edwards entire life stands in contradiction to a libs deepest convictions.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 99
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 7:10 PM EST
@ Proud Liberal
I'd prefer to question your intelligence rather than your integrity, but if you were to reflect on the cost of malpractice settlements you'd perhaps begin to understand that while physicians and hospitals are incommoded by the cost of the insurance which these settlements make necessary, the cost is passed on to the general public, making the cost of health care more expensive for each of us. If you can not understand this, perhaps you should refrain from comment in a public forum. If you do understand and yet continue to pretend that physicians do not merit tort reform until ALL who are liable to make mistakes are weeded out (an impossibility in any profession whatever), we need to return to the matter of your integrity.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 100
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 7:10 PM EST
David
Lawyers sometimes make a lot of money in "jackpot" cases. They get those "jackpots" because Juries award them. Unless you're willing to say that juries are so simple-minded that "glib talking" lawyers can convince them of shoveling money to people who don't deserve it, then you really aren't saying anything at all.

Are you saying that? If so...just say it out loud, so we know where you stand....

"Juries are so simple minded that a glib talking lawyer can convince them to give trainloads of money to people who don't deserve it."

There. Feel better?

Stupid, simple-minded juries.

But, man...support that death penalty that those same stupid, simple-minded juries, so able to be befuddled by glib talking lawyers, eh?

And, what about the 2/3rd's of the cases that the Plaintiffs lose at trial? Guess THOSE juries weren't so easy to befuddle with slick sounding words...

But...again...read my post on the duty of JUDGES and APPELLATE COURTS to filter out "frivolous" lawsuits and to reduce "outrageous" awards.

Gee, one would think that I did address your "concerns" -- before you made them.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 101
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 7:28 PM EST
Two simple tests ...
Obama's speech should be evaluated on two simple tests. If he does not provide a very clear "yes" on both of these questions, then his entire message on healthcare reform should be disregarded and considered fluff, filler and obfuscation designed to mislead the American people.

1. Will Obama require all members of Congress, Congressional and White House employees enroll in the plan offered to the rest of us? (He's already promised he will offer the same plan available to Congress and all Federal employees, even though HR3200 excluded both groups.)

2. Will Obama require Tort Reform before or included in ObamaCare, to ensure legal cost savings are reflected in the efforts to reduce health care costs? Not just malpractice, but all litigation and defensive actions taken by all businesses, manufacturers, utilities, drug companies, suppliers, etc. all the way up and down the chain of goods and services procured and used anywhere in the healthcare and insurance industries. I read somewhere the combined and compounded legal "tax" represents 23.7% of the total cost of healthcare. Legal "expenses", like taxes and other government fees, are so pervasive throughout our economy that most people have no concept of their total cost impact on all goods and services in this country. It would be unconscionable to ignore a savings this big in any program intended to control and lower healthcare costs for everyone.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 102
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 7:31 PM EST
The key to lowering health care costs...
A Cuban, a Russian, an American businessman, and an American lawyer were traveling together on the Trans-Siberian Railroad. At one point in the trip, the Cuban pulled some cigars out of his pocket and gave one to each of his traveling companions. He lit up his own cigar, took a few puffs on it, and then threw it out the window.

The American businessman was puzzled. He said, "I'd heard that Cuba was having some serious economic troubles. Why did you throw away a perfectly good cigar?"

The Cuban replied, "We don't have any shortage of cigars in Cuba. They're a dime a dozen."

Later on, the Russian took out a bottle of vodka and poured each of his companions a drink. Then he threw the bottle out the window. The American businessman didn't understand that. He said, "That bottle was still half-full. Why did you throw it away?"

The Russian said, "Are you kidding? We have vodka coming out of our ears in this country. We've got more than we know what to do with."

The American businessman thought this over for a while without saying anything. Then he stood up and threw the lawyer out the window.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 103
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 7:45 PM EST
Ken - - Very amusing.

But,,, public policy decisions should not be based on how much or how little we like lawyers or doctors.

Public Policy decisions should be based on what is best for all. Not just lawyers, not just doctors, not just victim, not just Insurance companies.

Without tort reform:

Everyone is punished. Innocent and the guilty.


With tort reform:

We can compensate people that have been injured.

We can compensate Lawyers who fight and win cases for their clients.

We can do this without hurting everyone who is paying for insurance premiums. We can do this without making everyone the victim of a bad doctors decision.



Now, My Lawyer joke.

Q. Why do lawyers wear collars with ties?

A. It keeps the forskin from rising up and covering their face.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 104
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 8:06 PM EST
Dr. Mary's Monkey - I
“In the late 1960s, I heard about Mary Sherman’s connection to an underground medical laboratory run by a suspect (David Ferrie) in the murder of President Kennedy. I was told they were using monkey viruses to create cancer. The possibility of this being used as a biological weapon was clear. The dark specter of unleashing a designer virus on the world haunted me. I even offered a sarcastic comment at the time: ‘The good news is if there’s a bizarre global epidemic involving cancer and a monkey virus thirty years from now, at least we’ll know where it came from.’”

“The 1980s ushered in the epidemics that I feared in the 1960s. The mainstream scientific community stated that AIDS was caused by the unexplained mutation of a monkey virus. They estimated the date of the mutating money to be around 1960. The logical question (who had been mutating monkey viruses around 1960) was not even asked in the press. And, yes, I was concerned about what I had heard in New Orleans. It all sounded so similar. Could there be a connection? And, if there was, was there any point in speaking up about it? “

“I went to medical libraries and read scientific articles hoping to find facts that would make my fears unfounded. I was anxious to find a flaw in my own argument, which would enable me to walk away from a project that was starting to consume all of my free time. I did not find the flaw, but I did find something else.”
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 105
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 8:07 PM EST
Dr. Mary's Monkey - II
“As I poured over the official cancer statistics from the National Cancer Institute, I saw the dimensions of the massive epidemic of soft-tissue cancers that had swept the country. An epidemic that had all but ignored by our “watch-dog” press. An epidemic that could reasonably be explained by the cancer-causing monkey viruses that had contaminated the polio vaccine of my youth. Whatever I felt my options were prior to that moment, suddenly narrowed.”

“In the 1990s, I found documentation and witnesses to support much of what I had heard as a child. My fears were now based in facts. I met highly-credentialed scientists, who both understood the history and the science clearly, and they took my concerns seriously. “

“Finally, I found evidence of the radioactive machine used to mutate monkey viruses. I had motive, opportunity and what detectives call propinquity (right people, right place, right time). I decided to speak out - even if I did not have all of the information in hand at the moment.”

Edward T. Haslan found it. His father worked with and knew Dr. Mary Sherman, who created the monster. He discovered the documentation.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 106
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 8:09 PM EST
Why Dr. Mary's Monkey Matters...
If you think that I am kidding or paranoid, you should know that “60 Minutes” interviewed witnesses, confirmed the horror, and interviewed Edward T. Haslam in November 1990. The History Channel aired a documentary on the subject in November, 2003.

To continue:

“I doubt we will ever hear the Surgeon General stand up at a press conference and acknowledge this operation. This one still possesses serious accountability problems for those who hold positions of power. Further, it comes from the land of unvouchered expenditures, where the trails of accountability were obscured by professionals decades ago.

There are reasons for such secrecy. Powerful reasons. Reasons capable of destroying careers and toppling governments. A full exposure here would threaten the treasure of our nation’s wealthiest corporations, the reputations of the powerful political figures of the day, and the precious confidence we give our national institutions. While we can understand why they kept these matters secret, we must have a different goal.

Our task must be to unmask these secrets because they were hidden from us for reasons. Powerful reasons. Reasons that affect decisions made today. Reasons that involve politics and medicine. Reasons that affect our health and ultimately freedom.”

So, do you still want ObamaCare?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 107
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 8:11 PM EST
Question

As an attorney, why would I be advocating tort reform when I could make a fortune trying the good, the bad and the ugly of cases?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 108
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 8:47 PM EST
Salk, Ochsner & The Polio Vaccine
In the early 1950s, American scientist, Jonas Salk, came forward with a brave new idea to eliminate all three strains of polio at once: Grow the polio viruses in the lab, kill them, then inject healthy children with the dead viruses. The dead viruses would not be able to reproduce, so they would not harm the children, but their immune systems would detect the presence of the invading viruses and would rally to defend the body, producing a hefty supply of antibodies in the process. Then the children’s immune systems would be ready to repel any live polio viruses that attacked them in the future. His trials were “successful”/ Optimism about Salk’s vaccine reached its peak.

Five laboratories began producing the vaccine from a procedure Salk designed, and accumulated a large enough supply for a mass inoculation beginning in April of 1955, touched off by an official ceremony on the tenth anniversary of Roosevelt’s death that “confirmed” Salk’s “success”.

At the eleventh hour a bacteriologist at NIH was told to safety-test the nuew polio vaccine. Her name was Bernice Eddy, M.D., PhD. When she injected the polio vaccine into her monkeys, they fell paralyzed in their cages. Eddy realized that the virus in the vaccine was not dead as promised, but still very much alive and ready to breed. She sounded the alarm.

A handful of prominent doctors across the country stepped into the fray to throw the weight of their reputations on the side of the vaccine. One of these doctors was Mary Sherman’s boss, Dr. Alton Ochsner. To demonstrate his conviction that the vaccine was really ready, he inoculated his own grandchildren

Within days, the children and grandchildren of these doctors fell sick with polio, some were crippled, some died. Estimates vary dramatically. Ochsner’s grandson died. His granddaughter contracted polio, but survived.

I am very close to the Ochsner family. This is 100% true.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 109
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 8:51 PM EST
Good Job,St.Denis!
That's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about-hidden agendas,evil intent. Too bad the veil has to come off our eyes,but it is still better than being in the dark. As I've said,"There is a body of Christ,and there is a body of Evil." We can know them by their fruits.(And before people get all in an uproar about the sins that supposedly "Godly" men commit,remember,we're all fallible,and Satan has a way of getting to "godly" people,too! We need to focus on God,not man,for perfection.)
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 110
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 8:52 PM EST
Obama not bound by Constitution nor Feds
Did you know that the Federal government is NOT BOUND BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!?

It's later than we think and it worse than we know. Please if there ever was something to take the time out to listen to - it's this interview with 2 legal researchers about our federal government and the forming of the US as a CORPORATION back in 1933 in order for them to disobey the legal tender laws of the Constitution.

Obama in actuality is Chancellor/president of a CORPORATION called USA.

*** L I S T E N T O INTERVIEW H E R E ***

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/shows/show_668436.wma

That is why no one gives a ** whether Obama is qualified or not. That is why nothing we bring up constitutionally against the feds ever comes to fruition. THE ONLY COURT THESE WASH DC FEDS ARE ACCOUNTABLE IS THE SUPERIOR COURT IN DC - BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF A CORPORATION, AND NOT THE US CONSTITUTION, WHICH BY THE WAY WAS ACTUALLY SUSPENDED BACK IN 1933 FED RESERVE ACT.

OMG!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 111
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 9:01 PM EST
Useful Idiots
I thought my post made it clear that I support tort reform.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 112
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 9:07 PM EST
Without Tort Reform...What Constitution!
Mr Hewitt do you KNOW what the 7th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution mean? It appears you do NOT!
You are calling for another FEDERAL law to remove from the States the RIGHT to control their individual judicial systems-including the Right to Trial by Jury in medical negligence lawsuits.
You apparently do not trust the jury system! You want to due away with jury trials since the jurors-common/ordinary people hear and evaluate the facts of a specific case and then follow the judge's instructions as to the law before rendering a verdict. How many jury verdicts favor the injured person? How many favor the MD or hospital? The jury system works in this country and as a consequence SOMETIMES persons injured due to medical negligence receive compensation. If the injured person doesn't prove his/her case they lose. WHAT is wrong with that system...NOTHING!
You fail to acknowledge the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in writing the 7th Amendment and like many who also proclaim to be opposed to BIG GOVERNMENT,you hypocritically argue for the "ditching" of the 7th Amendment in medical negligence lawsuits and thus, in effect, welcome another infringement on the 10th Amendment as well.
Do you fail to see Obama and his Czars want to attack the Constitution and CHANGE it, if possible, and rely on your types to confuse the people as to the importance of OUR Constitution, including the 7th and 10th Amendments. WAKE UP....YOU ARE DOING DAMAGE TO OUR COUNTRY!!!!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 113
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 10:08 PM EST
kiva

ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

Individual mandates to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

The whole thing is unconstitutional, but if we have to be forced to subscribe to ObamaCare, then there should at least be tort reform.

The cost curve will not be "bent" unless tort reform is included.

I'm with you. ObamaCare stinks to high Constitutional heaven.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 114
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 10:13 PM EST
OnTheEdge

Thank you. Please read: Dr. Mary's Monkey. It will open your eyes even more.

Katrina destroyed decades of evidence because the "evidence room" was in a basement. I know. Who knew that we had basements down here?

Anyway, the evidence collected with Dr. Mary Sherman's murder was destroyed. I am sure that some individuals, families, and the government found this to be a silver lining.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 115
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 10:54 PM EST
Kiva - Oh contraire

The Constitution requires the Federal Government to step in. See Commerse Clause.

Imagine if New Jersey said you can only buy Tomatoes approved by the N.J. Dept. of Argiculture.

Or if Wisconson would only approve certain cheeses. How about Idao Deptartment of Argiculture deciding what qualifies as a Potato?

Right now the states are the ones deciding what is Health Insurance and what is not thus prohibiting competition between the 1300 Various Insurance Companies.

Breaking this system up is the proper execution of the Commerse Clause.

As far as juries are concerned, Tort Reform does not change that. Juries can still decide the amount of damages and penalties within limits proscribed by law. This is common in Law anyway.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 116
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 11:44 PM EST
Kiva-oh contraire
The Constitution does NOT require the Federal Government to step in...you are either truly mistaken OR interested in disinformation! If you would perform a historical review, an objective reader will note how the Commerce Clause has been misapplied in a non Constitutional fashion. Try reading Raoul Berger's "Government by the Judiciary" so as to gain some reasonable perspective!
I would also suggest you review the McCarren-Ferguson Act(1945) which exempts the Insurance Industry from most the the US Anti Trust laws. Why is that law still in effect today? Such law is the real reason there is no REAL competition in the world of insurance. CHECK IT OUT.
Try to get beyond the "talking points" provided by the Insurance lobby and do not fall for the false statements-made by RINO's(Hewitt) and Obama clones-advocating CHANGING the 7th and 10th Amendments to our US Constitution. While such comments purport to be from opposite ends of the political spectrum the result is the same... WEAKENING of the CONSTITUTION!
Do some reading and think for yourself!!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 117
Date: Sep 5, 2009 - 11:53 PM EST
St.Denis
I'll be sure to look for the book next time I go to the library to renew "The Green Collar Economy"! I can say one thing for Van Jones-he's slick! If I didn't know better,I'd be half tempted to jump on the green bandwagon myself!) Speaking of the medical field though,a good short video people should check out is by a good ol' southern gentleman named Eustace Mullins,called "Death by Injection". He exposes the Rockefeller Medical Monopoly. Kinda makes you think of Frankenstein experiments...Chilling!! The quality of the video could be better;he's being interviewed on a talk show,but well worth listening to!(Shame what the Ochsner family went through.My mom has had polio her whole life,since before the vaccines.For her,that's the only life she's ever known. Even worse to have a healthy child struck down like that-like so many unsuspecting victims of vaccines.) Thanks for sharing their story.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 118
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 1:00 AM EST
But Huey,
you need to consider that one aspect of tort reform is requiring unsuccessful plaintiffs to pay costs. As things now stand, even unsuccessful suits add very substantially to the costs of malpractice insurance -- and many meritless cases are settled in the plaintiff's favor simply because the cost of litigation is greater than a payoff. You know all this, but (seemingly being a glib lawyer yourself) ignore facts inconvenient to your argument.

As to simple-minded juries: juries vary considerably and experienced trial lawyers try to filter out prospective jurors who might be able to assess the merits of the case with being unduly influenced by the lawyer's spin.

What you have said so far is essentially without merit, though I'm sure you'll not admit it, probably not even to yourself.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 119
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 2:01 AM EST
kiva

Sorry, the Constitution does grant the Federal Government the authority to regulate.

What does regulate mean? It means to make regular.

It is regular for a person who lives in Pennsylvania to want to buy Insurance from an insurance company in New Jersey if the New Jersey Company's rates are cheaper or are a better deal.

Currently, the States are interferring with that free commerse.

If you are un-aware that the state are interferring with this commerse then there is no reason to respond. You simply lack sufficent knowledge to engage in this conversation.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 120
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 2:09 AM EST
I will say it again.

TORT REFORM DOES NOT REQUIRE LOSER PAYS.

Loser pays is optional. It may not or may not be authorized by law.

TORT REFORM DOES NOT LIMIT DAMAGES.

Actual damages can be fully compensated.

TORT REFORM DOES NOT ABOLISH JURY TRIALS.

As with other lawsuits, both civil and criminal, Jurers are given parameters in which to decide compensaion and or penalties.

Anyone who post anything contrary to the above does not know what they are talking about.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 121
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 12:11 PM EST
Useful Idiots-Tort Reform
Your Wrong....most of the so called Tort Reform proposals MANDATE limits on compensatory jury awards. Most limits "non economic" injuries to between $250,000 to $400,000 and no more! FOR YOU TO STATE OTHERWISE IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE AND IS AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD OTHERS!
Thus if your 3 month old child develops a infectious disease, due to the negligence of a MD or Hospital, and is permanetly paralyzed in both legs, the jury maybe want to award $1 Million BUT the TORT REFORM proposals will limit their award to the CAPS between $250,000 to $400,000. Is that a fair/reasonable law? Is that fair compensation when the jury determines otherwise? Does that VIOLATE the 7th Amendment? Yes. Of course it is.
Such CAP proposals are being pushed by the Insurance lobby to protect their bottom line returns and totally disregard the importance of the jury system. Are their Caps being placed on Insurance companies profits? NO! Are limits being placed on Physicans fees and annual income? No!
Why is it that only the rights of those persons injured by "medical/hospital negligence" have their RIGHTS capped by these Tort Reform proposals? THINK!
Of course so called TORT REFORM limits the RIGHTS of injured persons....









Flag as Offensive

Reply # 122
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 12:18 PM EST
"BALANCED"--A White House Shill?

The more I read of the poster "balanced," the more I'm thinking he is on the White House payroll. I mean that literally. I'm not kidding.

Virtually all of his comments seem geared towards winning over independent voters, the voters Obama is currently desperately trying to get back.

Notice that he is assertive and sometimes a little aggressive, but never to the extent that he would alienate his audience--independents. He/she also seems to have a LOT of time on his hands; even stays up real late to swoop in and post his comments in the number-one position immediately after townhall's nightly updates. It's all a little curious.

I'm kind of new to townhall.com, so I can't be sure about this, but I think it's worth thinking about. I really can't imagine that THIS White House has no minions assigned to this website to try to win back independents because independents are undoubtedly flocking to conservative websites such as this. In fact, that's inconceivable to me. In my opinion, "balanced" fits the profile of a White House shill.

Anyway, I'll leave it up to the rest of you to decide whether or not you think that is likely or not.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 123
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 12:20 PM EST
"BALANCED"--A White House Shill?

The more I read of the poster "balanced," the more I'm thinking he is on the White House payroll. I mean that literally. I'm not kidding.

Virtually all of his comments seem geared towards winning over independent voters, the voters Obama is currently desperately trying to get back.

Notice that he is assertive and sometimes a little aggressive, but never to the extent that he would alienate his audience--independents. He/she also seems to have a LOT of time on his hands; even stays up real late to swoop in and post his comments in the number-one position immediately after townhall's nightly updates. It's all a little curious.

I'm kind of new to townhall.com, so I can't be sure about this, but I think it's worth thinking about. I really can't imagine that THIS White House has no minions assigned to this website to try to win back independents because independents are undoubtedly flocking to conservative websites such as this. In fact, that's inconceivable to me. In my opinion, "balanced" fits the profile of a White House shill.

Anyway, I'll leave it up to the rest of you to decide whether or not you think that is likely or not.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 124
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 1:19 PM EST
kiva

As I said too complicated for you.

Because some states have banned use of Cell phones when driving, does that mean all states have banned use of cell phones while driving?

No it does not.

Because you cite some states that screwed up their tort reform bill, does that mean all states will screw up their tort reform bill?

You don't want limits on damages? No problem. You don't have to limit on damages with tort reform.

You can have effective tort reform by just limiting the penalties.

Is that simple enough for you?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 125
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 2:10 PM EST
David
What is "without merit?"

The FACT that the COST of professional liability insurance bears a direct relationship to the RISK it covers resulting in higher premiums for those who can cause greater damage than those who cannot?

The FACT that approximately 1% of the cost of delivering health care is represented by the cost of medical malpractice claims?

The FACT that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is only around 4% of the overhead of doctors or hospitals? Or the FACT that liability insurance is a cost of doing business for EVERY business, that cost being higher based on how RISKY that business is?

The FACT that Judges have the statutory RIGHT and DUTY to dismiss "frivolous" lawsuits and sanction Plaintiffs and lawyers who file them -- but DON'T?

The FACT that "outrageous" judgments are ROUTINELY reduced at the Appellate level when those simple-minded juries award "too much?"

The FACT that the only way to reduce the COST of medical malpractice lawsuits is to either reduce the NUMBER of them being filed or how much they PAY when the doctor/nurse/pharmacist/hospital is found to be negligent/incompetent?

The FACT that most states ALREADY have enacted "medical malpractice tort reform" by making it harder to file, harder to win, and capping the damages when the Plaintiff does win?

The OPINION that there is no difference MORALLY between being killed by a negligent doctor driving a truck and a negligent doctor wielding a scalpel and, therefore, there should be no LEGAL distinction?

Which of these are "without merit?"
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 126
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 2:58 PM EST
kiva

In Louisiana, we have a cap on judgments of ~$500,000 and no punitive damages for med/mal, which may be why our insurance premiums and medical costs are lower than those in California.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 127
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 3:16 PM EST
Kiva
Yes. It's the same in Texas, although lower caps.

Are you comfortable with making doctors, nurses, dentists, nurses, hospitals a special class of persons who, unlike every other class of persons or any other business, doesn't have to fully compensate someone for their injuries in the event that the one they hurt is REALLY hurt badly? (If you haven't figured it out, the judgments TEND to correspond to the degree of injury. When you cap, you limit those who are HURT THE WORST by the negligence/incompetence of doctors.)

Are you satisfied to get rid of punitive damages which are awarded in cases of INTENT and GROSS NEGLIGENCE in an effort to PUNISH that person for their EGREGIOUS behavior -- but only for doctors?

I'm not.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-highest-paid-professio ns-in-the-united-states.htm
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 128
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 4:39 PM EST
Left the U.S. as many physicians will.
Your article is right on the money. The only, only reason that drugs and health care costs so much in the U.S. is lawyers. Being a neurologist and having had 2 frivilous lawsuits filed against me and many more against fellow physicians, I am more than qualified to say this. Billions of dollars are spent on defensive or "cover your a.." tests each year in fear of lawyers. Oftentimes doctors are sued and lose on junk science (etiology of cerebral palsy ) as was the case in which John Edwards made his fortune. Drug manufactures - one bad drug after a mandatory 7 years of FDA testing and they are bankrupt. To cover themselves drug cos. and docs pay increasingly outragous malpractice premiums ($180,000 for rural OB/GYNs). No one can afford to practice like this except for goverment doctors i.e. V.A., public health, military. Due to increasing medicare, medicaid goverment cuts, insurance costs, and anticipating Obamacare I said I would leave the U.S. if Obama got elected and I did as many others will. My only regrets are leaving my faithful office staff of 5 behind and many patients who were dear to me.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 129
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 4:47 PM EST
Left the U.S. as many physicians will.
Your article is right on the money. The only, only reason that drugs and health care costs so much in the U.S. is lawyers. Being a neurologist and having had 2 frivilous lawsuits filed against me and many more against fellow physicians, I am more than qualified to say this. Billions of dollars are spent on defensive or "cover your rear end" tests each year in fear of lawyers. Oftentimes doctors are sued and lose on junk science (etiology of cerebral palsy ) as was the case in which John Edwards made his fortune. Drug manufactures - one bad drug after a mandatory 7 years of FDA testing and they are bankrupt. To cover themselves drug cos. and docs pay increasingly outragous malpractice premiums ($180,000 for rural OB/GYNs). No one can afford to practice like this except for goverment doctors i.e. V.A., public health, military. Due to increasing medicare, medicaid goverment cuts, insurance costs, and anticipating Obamacare I said I would leave the U.S. if Obama got elected and I did as many others will. My only regrets are leaving my faithful office staff of 5 behind and many patients who were dear to me.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 130
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 8:55 PM EST
SHAKESPEARE QUOTE:
CAN I QUOTE WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE?

WILL I BE HAULED INTO JAIL?

OK, I WILL:

"FIRST, WE KILL ALL THE LAWYERS"

ROWDY BOOTS
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 131
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 10:44 PM EST
Huey...Can You Help Useful Idiots?
This guy thinks Tort Reform can be effective by "...just limiting the penalties..." I guess he thinks States will not LIMIT the rights of those injured by the negligence of doctors or hospital personnel. I believe ALL States that have effected Tort Reform have done so by "limiting" the rights of the injured persons.
Maybe you can better explain to Useful Idiots the gap in his "thinking".
Useful Idiot have you checked out R. Berger's "Government by the Judiciary" so you can better understand how the Commerce Clause has been unconstitutionally misapplied by the Courts? You need to work on your knowledge base before you WRITE additional irrational comments!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 132
Date: Sep 6, 2009 - 10:49 PM EST
Huey,
actually all of them are "without merit" in that you seem to be incapable of interacting with what I and others say. This may be a good tactic in a courtroom, but a simple listing of alleged "FACTS", with no response to what I or others have said previously, is without merit and not worthy of further comment.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 133
Date: Sep 7, 2009 - 12:02 PM EST
OnTheEdge

Please find the book. Throughout the years, I have heard stories about the primates, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, Castro, the Bay of Pigs, the Mafia, the CIA, mice with cancer that was induced, the Rault Building, the downtown HoJo, etc. "Dr. Mary's Monkey" ties them all together and it is chilling.

As I have said before, Obama had better be careful about picking a fight with the CIA. Kennedy did and look what happened to him.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 134
Date: Sep 9, 2009 - 9:20 PM EST
Conservative talking heads co-opting...
It seems that conservative talking heads on radio and TV are trying to co-opt the healthcare issue by making appearances and delivering petitions with much "look at me" pomp and circumstance. Don't let them take the issue and turn it into more $ for themselves. This is truly grass-roots. Let's keep it that way. Remember, some conservative talking heads warned against it when it started. Now it's time to leave them eating our dust. No more book deals explaining something they don't understand and don't control.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 135
Date: Oct 7, 2009 - 1:29 PM EST
Pros paid for success or failure?
Lawyer, Doctor, Banker, Indian Chief?

Why any of them get paid for failure is a mystery in America, and might be considered unAmerican.

As an incentive to fail, payment regardless of outcome is illogical and unhealthy if common welfare is what America is after.

As the cure for stupidity, common sense just works.
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.