Two words: LOSER PAYS. Take it from me as a lawyer - this is the most important reform we can make. Of course, you have to contend with the "lawyer lobby," which is the base of the Democratic party donor pool, and they fight tooth and nail to see that no law is passed limiting liability.

As a matter of fact, Illinois just passed a law the other day allowing HIV patients to donate organs to other HIV patients. Doctors didn't want the transplants to be available because it only increases the risk of HIV transmission to other patients and health workers. The doctors wanted some liability protection if someone did contract HIV from the operation, but the lawyers successfully lobbied the state legislature to remove the liability protection provision.

So...medical malpractice insurance will increase again, meanwhile people complain about the high cost of health care, and they never place the blame where it should rightly go - on the lawyers.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Two words: LOSER PAYS. Take it from me as a lawyer - this is the most important reform we can make. Of course, you have to contend with the "lawyer lobby," which is the base of the Democratic party donor pool, and they fight tooth and nail to see that no law is passed limiting liability. As a matter of fact, Illinois just passed a law the other day allowing HIV patients to donate organs to other HIV patients. Doctors didn't want the transplants to be available because it only increases the risk of HIV transmission to other patients and health workers. The doctors wanted some liability protection if someone did contract HIV from the operation, but the lawyers successfully lobbied the state legislature to remove the liability protection provision. So...medical malpractice insurance will increase again, meanwhile people complain about the high cost of health care, and they never place the blame where it should rightly go - on the lawyers.

While I believe that frivolous lawsuits are a pain in the ass, your assertion about medical malpractice being the culprit of insurance rises is a stretch. Bush has made similar claims, and they are just as erroneous.

The American Bar Association recently found that only a fraction of civil cases filed - 1.8 percent - went to trial. Fewer cases went to trial in 2002 than in 1962:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pr...13-15-12-03.htm

Bush claims, "everybody pays more for health care" due to "excessive litigation (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030801-3.html), study released in November 2003 shows that medical malpractice insurers have raised rates on doctors well beyond the cost of payouts, particularly since 2001:

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

Payouts and premiums for medical malpractice claims accounted for less than one percent of total health care costs:

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

Even the president of the American Tort Reform Association said in 1999, "We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.":

http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaRe...slobyadmit.aspx


Medical malpractice costs as a proportion of national health care spending are less than 60 cents out of every $100 spent. In fact, malpractice premiums as a percentage of all health costs have declined from 0.95% in 1988 to 0.56% in 2000:

http://www.consumerfed.org/Med_Mal_House_testimony.pdf


On the other hand, prescription drugs costs make up about 11% of all health costs - the second largest portion after hospital spending - and are projected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reach 14% in 2010 ("Drug costs for seniors next hot Congress issue," The San Diego Union-Tribune, 6/9/03).

And isn't it funny that despite all these facts, the President got his way with the Medicare bill that didn't put a cap on prescription drugs for seniors?

Actually, no, it really isn't funny at all.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Well if we're talkin' bout the fivolous kind....then of course I have a problem with them. They are by definition frivolous. The question is what standard to apply to minimize the damage to the collective community while still applying a reasonable, just verdict. The only winners in the whole system are the trial lawyers. Ever watched a trial lawyer deliver a real closing argument--the part where they hold out till the last second to tell you the amount they're asking for in damages? The part where you've watched the whole case and have probably made a decision in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendent? The jury, having probably made up its mind isn't told the public price tag until the last minute when they have most likely already made their decisions. It's impossible for them to lose. A jury attempts to give an objective decision while they are not supposed to really consider the public cost. To not award the money would mean having to tell a 12 person lie. That is how the system works, and that is why plaintiff's attornies/ambulance chasers are one of the worst kinds of scum.

Shit, I can't believe lefties aren't all over tort reform. It's for the friggin "greater good" for chrissake!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok ...Two words: LOSER PAYS. Take it from me as a lawyer - this is the most important reform we can make....

Wouldn't the right term be called "tort reform"?

___________________

mmmmmmmmm, lawsuits

___________________
Why must I walk this wicked path?

Why is Bush so against these types of lawsuits, when he himself had filed one himself?:

quote:

On November 2, 2000, the New York Daily News reported that Bush sued Enterprise Rent-a-Car in Austin over a fender bender involving his daughter, even though no one was hurt, and insurance would have covered the collision.3 Bush "also tried to sue the woman who was driving the rental car but was unable to serve her with papers." Lawyers familiar with Texas insurance law "said such a suit would normally be unnecessary." One lawyer involved in the case said Bush sued because he "had paid for the repairs out of his own pocket" and that Bush pursued legal action even though the parties "exhaustively tried to resolve it short of a lawsuit."

http://www.misleader.org/daily_misl...df08032004.html

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Why is Bush so against these types of lawsuits, when he himself had filed one himself?: http://www.misleader.org/daily_misl...df08032004.html

I love the Internet.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Why is Bush so against these types of lawsuits, when he himself had filed one himself?: http://www.misleader.org/daily_misl...df08032004.html

and thats precisely why hes a good leader, hes just like a normal american.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Wouldn't the right term be called "tort reform"?

No. Tort reform encompasses quite a number of ideas, including things like caps on damages. "Loser pays" is part of tort reform, but does not represent the entire idea.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

"LOSER PAYS", sounds like it was your professional opinion.

But it's all fiat anyway. Along the same line as promissory notes.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Why is Bush so against these types of lawsuits, when he himself had filed one himself?: http://www.misleader.org/daily_misl...df08032004.html

his own pockets?