Howard Dean claims TORT reform would 'make enemies'

[WriteDown]

Source: The Examiner

There is a new battle cry being touted in the ongoing debate of health care reform by a growing number of Americans; TORT reform.

TORT reform would limit the circumstances under which injured people may sue or limit the amount a jury can award at trial, or both.

Doctors are forced to spend an enormous amount of money on mal-practice insurance due to the ever growing number of frivolous law suits filed. The increase of cost to the doctor trickles down to the patient which then increases the cost of medical insurance. It is a vicious unending cycle that TORT reform could combat.

Howard Dean, former Democratic National Chairman, explained at a town hall meeting why TORT reform was not part of the proposed health care reform bill. He said, “This is the answer from a doctor and a politician. Here’s why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put in it, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on. And that is the plain and simple truth.”....



Read more: http://www.examiner.com/x-9384-Mesa-Independent-Examiner~y2009m8d28-Howard-Dean-claims-TORT-reform-would-make-enemies

---

Interesting stuff.

[musiclawyer]

1. HD is the man

Clear, direct, honest. He is the de-facto leader of the progressive wing of the party.

[Warpy]

2. He's also wrong about tort reform

Limiting lawsuits might come after universal, affordable health care but certainly not before it, when people damaged by malpractice or negligence often face a lifetime of crippling medical expenses. It should also be restricted to medical lawsuits.

Huge payouts over tort lawsuits of every type make the papers. Unfortunately, what doesn't make the papers is the way they're invariably reduced on appeal, often to a small fraction of the original award.

Tort reform is a red herring, a right wing issue only that would strip us of our right to petition the courts for adequate redress of grievances.

I'm surprised he didn't come out and say at least that tort reform would save under one percent of medical costs.

[janx]

34. If (and that's a big IF) you can find a complete video

of the Reston, VA town hall meeting with Rep. Moran and Howard Dean, you'll see that Dean's views on this have been distorted. In fact, our right to petition the courts for redress of grievances is exactly what he talked about.

But the video linked to this article left out that part. ;-) In effect, he was advocating what you are describing, and in much the same order.

I know that a complete video of that townhall meeting exists, because I watched the whole thing yesterday, but I can't find it in a YouTube search now. I only find edited snippets, and I guess that's no surprise.

Maybe someone else can locate it.

[No Elephants]

35. +1 Glad to see people see through the RW propaganda about lawyers.

[girl gone mad]

41. +1, and..

I think RWers sound really dumb when they keep pushing tort reform as the cure for high health care costs, when we already have widespread tort reform at the state level. Texas, for example, passed very strong tort reform laws, yet our health care costs are still among the highest in the country.

[Iowa]

3. Preserving the ability to sue is a safety issue, and this statement was not a progressive one.

The country is getting screwed unmercifully on health care costs, but the culprits aren't the people who were injured by malpractice and sued.

Trial lawyers are all that stand between us and unnecessary injury. The keep everyone on their toes, and that's how it should be. Look elsewhere to cut costs; this is a red herring.

[WriteDown]

4. Personally...

I think that there does need to be some sort of structure brought to tort settlements. My friend from NC was one of the OB/GYN's sued by John Edwards for something she swears she could not have prevented. Her word is good enough for me. She lost her practice and basically her life when that lawsuit was settled. John pulled his patented "this dead child wants you to" routine and that was it.

[pattmarty]

7. Provide a newspaper story or link, instead of hearsay...................

..........Your posts in the past have been somewhat "misleading".

[WriteDown]

8. The issue needs to be looked at restively. nt

[pattmarty]

11. Got burned a little by all the negative responses, did ya???

[WriteDown]

14. Not exactly...

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3963204&mesg_id=3963204

[pattmarty]

23. Aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnndd??? Your op was a propaganda piece.

[WriteDown]

27. Quotes from Howard Dean are propaganda?

Interesting.

[janx]

32. Cherry picked quotes are.

Yes indeed. ;-)

[No Elephants]

42. Obviously, WD does not burn easily or he would not still be posting here.

[No Elephants]

40. What do you mean by that?

Restively = in a restive manner

res·tive (rstv)
adj.
1. Uneasily impatient under restriction, opposition, criticism, or delay.
2. Resisting control; difficult to control.
3. Refusing to move. Used of a horse or other animal.

[ArcticFox]

10. Your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense

I seriosly doubt if John Edwards caused your friend's downfall. You say the lawsuit was settled, but the reference to John pulling "his patented 'this child wants you to' routine" seems to infer it went to a jury.

Your friend's "lawsuit was settled" with your friend's approval no doubt. (I note your passive voice trying to make it sound like she had no role). There is structure to tort settlements. The structure of the settlement is whatever the parties agree to. Nobody forces a defendant to settle.

If she lost her practice, I'll take a shot in the dark and guess it's because her insurance premiums went through the roof. Again, not John Edwards' fault. If your friend was so innocent, her insurance carrier should have taken that into account.

Notice how the insurance industry simultaneously claims that such lawsuits are bogus AND raises premiums based on the outcomes of (supposedly bogus) lawsuits. The insurers are having their cake and eating it too. If they claim a lawsuit is bogus, they have no moral right to increase premiums based on its outcome. If they will raise premiums based on the outcome of a lawsuit, they have no moral right to claim the lawsuit is bogus.

Does anyone else get it?

[WriteDown]

15. I meant it was settled as in ended...

She did not agree to settle out of court.

[Doremus]

13. "I think that there does need to be some sort of structure brought to tort settlements"

Shocking, shocking I tell you. :eyes:

Is there a repuke position you don't support? Now *that* would be shocking.

[WriteDown]

16. Knowing that JE is a sorry piece of.....

something that rode the ambulance to his opulence has nothing to do with party.

[Doremus]

18. We need tort reform because of John Edwards?

That's even sillier than your usual reichwing talking points.

[WriteDown]

28. No, I was just relaying a personal experience..

I trust Howard Dean's judgment though.

[No Elephants]

43. Then, whhich Democrats do you admire and why?

[No Elephants]

30. Shocked, shocked, that you and your "friend" hold this position.

Rumor also has it that there is gambling at Rick's Casino, too.

I call bs on your "friend," though, or maybe on you.

First, I think Edwards made that 'dead child" speech in only one case.

Even if I am wrong about that, though, law is not that arbitrary. Standards have to be met, juries get instructions, decisions not supported by facts and law get overturned on appeal.

However, you say "your friend" settled. The dead child speech, if it works at all, works only to get a jury to render a favorable verdict. A case that settles is the product of an agreement betweeen their parties and their lawyers, though, not a jury. In this kind of case, though, it would be between "your friend's" insurance company and its lawyer, on the one hand, and the victim and the victim's lawyer on the other.

Maybe "your friend" is like most people. No one readily admits they were careless or fell below the standards of their profession, thereby damaging or killing a human being. Or maybe your friend is simply a mythical figure and the story an implausible mash up.

[No Elephants]

38. Exactly. Before these lawsuits, Doc could remove the wrong arm or leg and the patient had no remedy

The lawsuits both make doctors more careful and give the patient compensation. (Remember, when the remove the wrong limb, they still have to go back and remove the one that needed removing--if the gangrene or other problem does not kill the patient first.)

[No Elephants]

29. Or, as he put it, "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." The rest are, IMO,

stealth Republicans, trying to take us over from the inside and give America a one-party system.

[patrice]

37. as it is said . . . "BINGO!!"

I've been worried about this ever since we started hearing hosannahs about all of the "crossovers".

[tomm2thumbs]

5. if medical corporations know there is a 'price' on a human life that is limited, they'll adapt to it

they'll start putting their bottom lines into a 'well, if we lose 50 people, it is still cheaper than paying for correcting the equipment' and those kinds of formulas. It happens every time someone talks about limiting or capping damages on human lives or suffering. It leads to plain and simple formulas.

Same as the airlines - they know when you lose a bag that the have to cover a flat fee. They don't care about the contents, they just know the formula for figuring the amount they owe. If you think medical corporations don't already TRY to formula human lives, think again. Tort reform makes it very easy to diminish the value of lives, supposedly the exact opposite of what these freepers say they want to do. Irony.

Finally, consider the police departments who will realize how much cheaper it is to simply wipe someone off the map than to incarcerate them. They'll be giving a wink and a nod to their officers to 'take care of the problem' while figuring they still have a 50/50 chance of winning in the trial anyway if it even went that far. Placing a flat fee on humans is basically what tort reform is aiming to do and it is wrong.

[laughingliberal]

21. Trust me. They already do that

It is how they justify the short staffing conditions-cheaper to pay a few lawsuits than hire enough nurses. As an RN I was appalled in the difference of the attitude of hospital administrators after the for-profits took over.

[The Magistrate]

6. 'Tort Reform', Sir, Is a Red Herring Anyway

The companies gouge the doctors on the premiums, the amounts are a trifling percentage of total costs, and cost of health care has not dropped in, or more correctly, not risen more slowly in, states that have adopted limitations on malpractice pay-outs.

The real solution to any supposed problem with malpractice suits would be to pull the licenses of doctors who perform negligently, just as the real solution to various corporate liability suits is criminal sanction against executives who harm the public by their business practices, and the real solution to complaints of police abuse is criminal prosecution for felony assault of police officers who engage in it.

[pattmarty]

12. Amen, brother. Also you never see mentioned that the large majority..............

................of civil suits involving money damages (I'm not a lawyer, so excuse my legal ignorance) I forget the percentages but they are large in favor of corporations suing other corporations. The shit you ALWAYS see on TV are some poor bastard that had both of his legs amputated when he was supposed to get a vasectomy, and he got 15 million or whatever. Those cases are a very small percentage of the money suits.

[laughingliberal]

22. Correct

Malpractice insurance rates have risen just as fast in states that enacted aggressive tort reform as have health care costs. As Molly Ivins said, "tort reform, an nice little euphemism for the people lose their rights."

[No Elephants]

44. As always, Molly Ivins was exactly correct. The people lose their rights AND

doctors have less incentive to be careful.

[TahitiNut]

33. Exactly. The same insurance companies gouge the doctors that gouge the patients.

The "trust" in American citizens and their basic wisdom is sadly absent on the right, particularly when they're serving on a jury.

[janx]

36. YES.

Twenty-five years ago, I might have gone with the idea of tort reform. Litigious crap has been going on for a long time. But since the insurance companies are ripping off both doctors AND patients, a new system is required. Howard Dean understands that as well or better than anybody.

[jberryhill]

49. It's a state law issue, anway

I find it interesting that those who bemoan federalism (a word which has been tortured more than any detainee), are the most ardent advocates of "tort reform".

The cry of "states rights" melts away when it comes to this issue.

[ArcticFox]

9. Tort Reform is a Right Wing Red Herring

I am sad to hear of Howard Dean buying into this nonsense. Maybe I should not be surprised, as he is a doctor. But I thought he was one of those that could see through the BS.

Malpractice insurance is high not because plaintiffs are ripping off the system or getting rich filing bogus lawsuits, but because:

1. Malpractice carriers often unreasonably refuse to settle a case, choosing instead to pay far more in legal fees trying to dissuade plaintiffs' attorneys from filing future lawsuits (as added benefits, these legal fees can be used to justify higher premiums and are likely written off as business expenses on tax day).

2. Malpractice carriers exaggerate the cost of insuring doctors (as in paying large amounts in legal fees rather than settle a meritorious case for a lesser amount).

3. Malpractice sometimes causes injuries which prevent a person from working the rest of his or her life and/or which mandate living assistance.

4. Doctors DO make mistakes.

No plaintiff's attorney in his right mind is going to counsel a client to push a case to trial in the face of an offer that even comes close to compensating the client's damages. And remember, "compensating the client's damages," in this context will never make a client whole, or happy, or better off than the client would have been without the malpractice.

The obstacles to obtaining anything close to full compensation for damages for personal injury are extremely high even without "tort reform." A plaintiff generally agrees to part with about 1/3 of his or her eventual compensation at the time of hiring an attorney. (Attorneys need to charge so much in part because of the scorched earth policy of many insurers). The plaintiff must hire expert witnesses at hundreds of dollars per hour to prove that malpractice occurred, and likely must hire other expert witnesses to prove the extent of damages. (While these expenses might be advanced by the attorney - another reason for charging a 33% contingency fee - they are ultimately the client's responsibility). In the end, a plaintiff might receive half the amount of damages.

Tort reform is just another right wing distraction. It is an effort to blame trial lawyers for the effects of the insurance industry's greedy practices. Please, DEMOCRATS, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS.

[No Elephants]

45. THANK YOU! So true. I hate to see Demcorats buying into the RW propaganda.

The lawyers are representing victims of carelessness. The doctors are represented by insurance companies. The Republicans have been siding with the insurances companies. The heart of Democrats, though, should be with victims.

[depakid]

17. "by a growing number of Americans" -another corporate media lie

[janx]

47. "by a growing number of Americans"--not only a lie,

but a cliche that makes my head hurt.

George Orwell, where are you?

[Psephos]

19. It's not about saving money on malpractice insurance, it's about saving on unneeded tests and tx

Unless you've worked in a hospital and seen it with your own eyes, you can't believe how much money and resources get wasted on defensive doctoring.

Easily a fourth of the tests and treatments are b.s. to keep the lawyers at bay. I've seen stats that say it's more.

[laughingliberal]

24. I worked in hospitals for many, many years

but the issue to which you are referring has not changed in states which enacted aggressive tort reform. Upon looking into the matter in McAllen, TX investigations showed that, with lawsuits at almost zero, the same unnecessary test, etc...were still being ordered. Further study revealed many of the doctors were invested in for profit diagnostic centers and labs and were profiting from the tests ordered.

[The Magistrate]

25. Exactly, Ma'am

An auto-mechanic would be called a swindler for the same behavior....

[Psephos]

26. It would be great to see a new study undertaken by Congress looking at this

Specifically, to apply what's found to the laws being written. Barring that, a meta-study from existing research should suffice.

My guess is there are elements of both what I mentioned and what you mentioned. I certainly saw unconscionable waste during my years in the Emergency Room - and not only in money, but in time, frustration, and lowered quality of care due to overdeployment of resources. It also, less measurably, breeds cynicism and drains enthusiasm, which also has a big impact on the quality of care in the long run.

Both forms of waste can be seriously reduced. I hope the decisions made and the laws written will not forgo this opportunity because of political considerations.

[No Elephants]

46. Who decides which tests are needed or not needed? Not lawyers. Lawyers .

have to prove that a test was both indicated by the symptoms of which the patient complained AND that giving the test would have led to saving the patient (or lessening the damage). Unnecessary tests don't "keep lawyers at bay." They don't do anything for anyone. Besides, it's not a matter of keeping lawyers at bay. Lawyers don't decide cases. Courts do. And not on the basis of closing argumens alone. Lawyers MUST bring in expert witnesses--doctors--who say that the defendant messed up.

[OnyxCollie]

20. Darth was going on about tort reform in the '04 VP debate.

Does anyone know where I might find a transcript of that? I tried the Google to no avail.

[janx]

31. The ultimate source for this is the Reston, VA townhall meeting

with Rep. Moran and Howard Dean. Dean was very honest about this.

The video linked to the Op-Ed piece you posted has cut off how Dean explained the rest of the equation.

As a matter of fact, the link it provides goes to RedState, a very right-wing web site, so it's no surprise that it is cherry picking soundbites.

[Sanity Claws]

39. Actually single payer would do a lot to create tort reform

One of the reasons plaintiffs are awarded mucho dinero is because health care is so expensive. Lower health care costs by taking insurance companies out of the system and you lower plaintiff awards.

[No Elephants]

48. The business about lawyers increasing the cost of medical malpractice insurance is bs. In fact,

the cost of medical malpractice insurance is right in line with the cost of legal malpractice insurance. The insurance company says to itself, "Well paid professionals with a potential to cause millions of dollars in damage through carelessness. We can probably charge a lot. Lets see. How much will the traffic bear? Quite a lot. Cool. That's what we'll charge then!"

[Gman2]

50. The real tort reform they want is, ending or reducing contingency agreements.

If they reduce the reward to less than the work involved in bringing the case, magically, they have eliminated the common man's access to justice.