Posted on 11/29/2004 2:58:08 PM PST by Angry Republican
2005 should be the year long-awaited and much-needed lawsuit reform happens.
It's well-documented that lawsuit abuse costs Americans dearly. Tort costs in 2002, the most recent year available, were $233 billion. That is equivalent to the gross domestic products of Albania, Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, Luxembourg and New Zealand, combined!
Reforming our nation's lawsuit friendly courts and reining in trial lawyers is more than just saving money for a bunch of insurance companies. Our litigious society has made the price of doing business - just about any business - much more expensive. And those costs are passed on to you.
Consider the high cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums. Some medical specialists are being priced right out of caring for the sick because their insurance premiums are too high. Some doctors pay as much as $300,000 per year. Our nation's OB-GYN doctors are under assault in several states. What's a mother to do if the OB-GYNs in her state have packed up and left?
Placing caps on medical malpractice damages is a necessary start. Even Bill Clinton's Health and Human Services Department estimated that reducing the liability of doctors and hospitals by imposing caps could save the health care system between $60 to $108 billion per year. That's nearly a $400 per year savings for every man, woman and child in America.
As much as I hate to say it, federal legislation is needed to bring our nation's out-of-control lawsuit court system under control. Unfortunately, too many states are fertile hunting grounds for greedy trial lawyers as some state legislatures serve the financial interests of trial lawyers and not the best interests of the people.
You can make a difference. Contact your Congressman and Senators and tell them to end frivolous lawsuits and enact meaningful tort reform in 2005.
And that's the Point
I'm Mark Hyman.
Tort reform is a dream until I see the laws on the book and the laws enforced. Aside from tort reform take that extra money out of the politcal process also... I.E. Go further then McCain Fiengold did, and restricte the monies that go into a politcal campaign from any source. (That means you George Soros)... But once again that is a dream till I see the laws on the books and enforced.
It's LONG overdue to have some REAL tort reform... It's about time that lawyers were reigned in and stopped trying to bankrupt everyone they think they can steal a few bucks from...
While certainly not EVERY lawyer does, it is so common that they all get a bad name...
See the ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com
There wouldn't be as many greedy trial lawyers if not for all the greedy clients looking for a riskless pay day. And there wouldn't be as many big pay days if not for the greedy insurance companies who pay medical malpractice defense lawyers about half the hourly rate that other lawyers charge thereby guaranteeing that the insurance company lawyers are less skilled and more likely to give up a big award. And lets not forget the greedy doctors themselves who will make approximatley $90 to $130 for the six minutes they spend on average with each patient (after making the patiend wait an hour for no other reason that overbooking). The so called medical malpractice crisis no doubt starts and ends with greedy plaintiffs' trial lawyers. But believe me, there is a lot of greed to go around.
With that said, how do you fix the problem without punishing those who really have suffered at the hands of an incompetent medical professional? One way is to educate the consumer -- the patient -- about the effect of malpractice lawsuits upon the cost of medicine, and one of the best ways to do that is to impose a surcharge upon every patient at the time when the medical services are delivered. In other words, allow doctors to spread the cost of malpractice insurance directly to their patients with a written explanation as to why they're imposing the extra charge. Let them know that in addition toa $20 co-pay, they also have to pay an additonal $10 per visit to cover the cost of insuring against frivilous lawsuits.
Very timely as most these supported status-quo and contributed heavily against Our President.We haven't heard the last of the bastards amongst them(or did I flip that?)This is a shooting-fish-in-the-barrel thing and many are welcomed to law to fulfill the same circle with the firm always the beneficiary.
I think what you offered as suggestion is that that extra paid on the bill offset the insurance payment.The malpractice insurance.So if we pay more we support the status.
Soon we'll be going to Canada to have babies.
Here's hping that Governor Bob Ehrlich can stop malpractice suits.
Bob does have nads as demonstrated by his edict regarding the 2 Balto Sun "journalists" but I'm not sure that's enough to fight these bottom dwellers.
I'm not a fan of trial lawyers but this latest incident really has me boiling!!!
Amen on tort and liability reform.
This is the biggest impediment to small - mid business expansion.
We'll know we have a real conservative mandate agenda going when this issue passes...not a window dressing solution either.
IMHO, this is the real third rail of politics...due to the immense money and influence being applied by PAC money.
While insurance defense lawyers do charge a lower rate than some other lawyers, insurance carriers are not "guaranteeing" lesser skilled lawyers who are more likely to give up big awards. (What these lawyers lack in hourly rates is often made up in volume, and by paying associates lower salaries.)
In fact, insurance defense trial attorneys generally prepare and try many more cases than some other lawyers, so are often great, experienced trial lawyers.
Further, the plaintiff's attorneys are not, generally, the $400/hr guys, either. PI plaintiff's work is done on contingency.
Actually, that is only the tip of the iceburg.
The principal cost of tort lawsuits is that it forces potential victims to change their behaviors to protect themselves against potential suits.
Look at all of the silly labeling on all sorts of products, for example. Or the extensive, unnecessary tests performed by Drs., or all of the legal bullwork necessary to protect against these suits by the manufacturing industry.
These costs far exceed the actual awards, and they are a huge drain on our economy.
The intent is not to preserve the status quo, but to impress upon the consumer that their lawsuits have consequences in the form of higher prices for goods and services. A lawyer can't sue unless he or she has a client that wants to sue. If people are reminded of the cost of litigation every time they go to the doctor, then perhaps they will decide not to sue. Behavior modification.
Well okay, Excuse me, there is a whirlwind of thought about this,bye.
And because we're paying this bill, we cannot afford health care.
That's how simple it is.
Health care is now unaffordable, and it will remain unaffordable, until tort costs are eliminated--until lawyers, malpractice lawsuits, and plaintiffs' awards are eliminated from the system.
We are paying for these things right now, and that's why we cannot afford health care.
Don't pass Tort Reform until I can sue a lawyer!
Only plaintiffs who believe in their case will proceed and Defendents who believe they might be wrong will settle out of court.
This would go a long way to helping quality assurance, as all medical personnel are well aware that they have committed errors and likely would like to "own up" to them and do something to fix the difficulty. IOW, the personnel would be less likely to dive into a foxhole if there was some safe harbour for addressing incidents.
But I'm not talking Mega Lotto Millions--more along the lines of Workmen's Comp, with the lawyer cut out of the food chain.
Just a dream, I guess.
You said, "These medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control and need to be cut drastically. How are Gynecologists going to "practice their love," as President Bush called it?"
The idea of federal malpractice reform is simply a canard. Individual state's laws control malpractice cases along with the state courts and state juries, not Washington.
Yup, some of those in the tobacco settlement had to settle for only 10s of thousands per hour. Poor babies! </sarcasm>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.