This editorial in today's NYT points to a consistency of the Bush...

[whistle]

...administration: distortion, misinformation, ignoring the facts and lies.

<snip>

January 9, 2005
EDITORIAL
Malpractice Mythology

ort reform," the Bush administration's answer to the problem of high medical malpractice costs, makes sense from only one aspect: the political. The genius of tort reform, which focuses on putting a cap on the awards from malpractice suits, is that it offends only one big-money lobbying group: trial lawyers, who are important financial supporters of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, it helps or holds harmless Republican special interests in the insurance, drug and health care industries. The only problem is that it hurts the hapless patients who suffer grievous harm at the hands of incompetent doctors.

We hold no brief for the current medical liability system, which does a poor job of compensating most victims of medical malpractice. An authoritative study of thousands of patients in New York State found that the vast majority who were harmed by medical errors or negligence never filed suit, whereas the vast majority of those who did file suit were not actually harmed by negligent doctors. Some studies suggest that, once a suit is filed, the courts do a reasonably good job of sorting out who deserves compensation, while other research has found that juries are swayed more by the severity of a plaintiff's injuries than by evidence of negligence. But in a medical system that is coming under increased fire for failing to deliver consistent quality in hospital care, it is clear that only a small number of people are being compensated for malpractice.

The problem with the president's approach, which would limit noneconomic damages to a paltry $250,000, is that it would punish many of those most deserving of compensation. If there is a problem with frivolous lawsuits, that is best addressed by raising the hurdles for filing a malpractice suit, perhaps by requiring an expert judgment on the merits of a case before it can proceed through the courts. But surely $250,000 hardly makes up for the physical and emotional damage done to people who have suffered total paralysis, permanent blindness or severe brain injury because of medical errors. Instead, Congress ought to consider requiring guidelines for judges and juries to help determine what compensation is reasonable in a given circumstance. Similar guidelines could help ensure that punitive damages are high enough to deter bad conduct; $250,000 would hardly amount to a wrist slap.
<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/opinion/9sun1.html?oref=login&th

[imenja]

1. corporate welfare for insurance companies

Besides political leverage, it benefits insurance companies and the ultimate goal of this administration always seems to be to enrich it's chosen business interests.
It's unfortunate, since some tort reform might be necessary, but if it isn't coupled with insurance regulation, doctors and patients will lose out.

[HawkerHurricane]

2. Call it 'Reducing Victim's Rights'

and watch the righties squirm. It pits two of thier favorite memes against each other.