What exactly do Republicans want in the way of "tort-reform?"

[Syrinx]

I'm talking in regards to health care. I'd be okay with somehow getting rid of bogus lawsuits. But do Republicans really want to deny you the right to seek damages if a doctor really screws you up?

[Lasher]

1. They want limits on malpractice lawsuit awards.

They are mainly shilling for insurance companies.

Edit: And yes, they do really want to deny you the right to seek damages if a doctor really screws you up.

[thunder rising]

5. Yep! And, in the states that enacted the limits it did not reduce insurance rates at all

Turns out that it wasn't that big of a deal anyway. I'm sure the CEO just picked up the change in his bonus.

[Lesleymo]

7. Right. We have it here in Texas ...

... and we have crappy, super-expensive options to choose from (if we have a choice at all) plus the highest level of uninsured residents. And STILL my congressmen continually email me about how everything would be great if only the states had the "freedom" to run everything. argh.

[TexasObserver]

18. Yes, contrary to the sales pitch the health industry made.

For years they made the same argument in Texas. If only they could limit malpractice awards, the huge savings would result for Texas consumers, their storyline ran. It was a lie. It's always been a lie. They know it's a lie. But it's used to sell the theme to voters.

The health insurance industry had hammered away its talking points in media for 30 years, and it has had a huge impact on the perceptions of the public. The bad guy isn't the doctor who cut off the wrong leg. It's the lawyer who wants to make the doctor pay for that mistake.

[Yurovsky]

2. 2 objectives at work, I think...

First is to curry favor with rich doctors, big pharma, and hospitals. Make a mistake and owe nothing is what these groups want.

Second I believe is merely an attempt to weaken a powerful progressive ally (the trial bar).

The big losers would be the average American, whose avenue to justice and compensation when subject to negligence in a medical setting would be virtually eliminated.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Several things

1. Limit your ability to sue for malpractice the doctor, the hospital, the staff, the technicians, the laboratories, etc.

2. And if you can sue, then limit the amount of claim (the amount of money you had to spend due to the error like medical bills), the amount of money lost from not being able to work due to the injury/mistake, the amount of money lost due to the pain and suffering incurred due to the mistake (and this is what I believe they're really going after), future earnings, and other amounts like loss of consortium (the lack of "companionship") sufferered by your spouse and/or child.

[HillbillyBob]

14. That was about the way it was explained to me by a lawyer

They want a cap of something like 50 or 100 g. And being an HIV patient I know just how far that much will go..and not very far. My meds alone last year were 16,699$, thats not counting labs, dr visits, what the cost of my house hold bills, access(walker some times, eventually we will have to make the house wheel chair accessible. Making the house accessible means changing out the doors (my walker will not even go through the interior doors or get to the shower.
I had surgery on my leg that put me on a walker for weeks trying to get around the house was a nightmare, I would have to get on my bottom and scoot to the bathroom. Making the house accessible will cost about 30,000, then if I had to have a special vehicle that would be 50 or more. How would I manage on 10,200 a year SSD? HIV is not all, I have a messed up back from on the job back injury from a collapsing scaffold, the boss lied and said I did not work for him and fired me when I was laying on the concrete floor not able to get up by myself.

[Vinca]

4. They've got a thing about "trial lawyers." Sick people are none of their concern.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Distraction

[KharmaTrain]

8. To Screw The Lawyers

But caps on settlements and raise the bar as to who and what can be sued. I'm for tort reform, but not on bona fide suits...if a person has been wronged by a sloppy doctor or hospital, they shoud sue for all they can get. What needs to be revised is which suits can go forward...and the speed of those trials...to cut down on the waste of time and money many doctors are stuck with when they're named in a large cattle-call law suit that drives up their malpractice rates that are passed along to patients. These aren't doctors who are sued, but happen to be involved in a patient's treatment...or just were in the hosptial on the wrong day. There needs to be some type of arbitration to determine the merit of a case and push it forward quickly to trial or settlement.

The GOOP wants to carry the water for the insurance companies who would love to control the pay-outs no matter what...and to stick it to the doctors and lawyers. I'm all for reform that lowers the costs (not the settlements) that frivolous suits and long litigation takes.

[mmonk]

9. Absolute limit on any liability of their one and true god, the corporations

they have devoted their lives to serving.

[TexasObserver]

10. What they want is an issue to avoid the reality of health care costs.

As long as they can assert that the problem is something minor - like tort claims - they can avoid the responsibility for the harsh escalations in health care costs.

Also, they want to hurt financially the attorneys who sue health care providers and support Democrats.

There isn't any group in America more difficult to sue than health care providers. They have more protections than any group.

In answer to your question, YES, the GOP and health care industry really do want to deny citizens the right to seek damages if a doctor really screws up. They've already done it in a number of states, including Texas.

Health care is a mess because it has been run it with very little oversight from anyone. It's a machine designed to make money, reject criticism, and bury mistakes.

[customerserviceguy]

11. I've long advocated for a replacement for the tort system

Yeah, it all sounds good to be able to get compensated for malpractice, but the reality is: It's going to take an extremely long time, during which you're probably going to be living on a reduced or possibly non-existant income. You're going to have to find other doctors to testify against their "brothers". At the end of the whole process, a lawyer is going to take most of it for fees and expenses, and the errant doctor/hospital is going to have you agree to some sort of gag order, so you really can't warn anyone else about them.

What if we used something like a Worker's Comp board, instead? Income could be provided to the person making a claim, and medical care would be provided to try to undo any damage. Procedings would be put of record, and instantly, anyone could see how many claims had been filed against a particular doctor or hospital, and the outcome of those cases. Similarly, doctors and hospitals could see who was claim-happy, and do the twenty or thirty extra tests on these individuals to protect themselves from bogus claims.

We'd stop clogging the courts with all of this, there's plenty of work for ambulance chasers anyway, there are going to be enough stupid people ramming into others on the roads, and even they'd get to court a little faster. My trip to the doctor should not be a lottery ticket for a lawyer.

[Enthusiast]

12. Thanks for the

Republican talking points. We never get to hear enough about bogus law suits and ambulance chasers.

[customerserviceguy]

28. Which part of the current system do you like the best

The long delays for justice? Maybe it's the secrecy of the final result? Perhaps you like having multiple unneccessary tests, just so your doctor can prevent you from suing him?

The President has suggested working with the Republicans on health care reform, either they're going to spurn him, or they will engage him. If they do engage him, it's going to be on the issue of tort reform. Rather than just using caps on damages (now that's a Republican talking point) we should explore reasonable solutions to the problem of the tort system driving medical costs up.

All I was trying to do was to put forth my suggestion for how we could meet them halfway, and still produce some fairness in the system.

[TexasObserver]

13. You have a very uninformed view of the process.

Those lawyers you're maligning are major backers of Democratic candidates, nationwide. They get paid between 25-40% of a recovery you wouldn't have unless they took your case on a contingency. They also front all the costs, such as those experts they have to pay to prove up your case. They do all this, and you begrudge them getting paid and recovering their out of pocket expenses.

The reason those lawyers must expend such time, effort, money and energy is because the health care industry and their insurers have so thoroughly controlled the public perception of the process. Even on a progressive Democratic board such as this, the procession of posters mouthing right wing health care talking points - such as the one you have made - never ends.

If you're concerned that lawyers are getting too much of the recovery the plaintiff gets, then support legislation that requires health care providers to pay the attorneys fees and litigation costs of the plaintiff when the plaintiff wins. The health care industry is quite happy to oppose paying attorneys fees when they lose, because they love to pit you against the ONLY person who will help you make a case against them.

You also seem not to realize that attorneys represent Workers Comp claimants, that they get paid for doing so, and that it's been this way a long, long time.

Your trip to the doctor is not a lottery ticket for anyone. If you end up with serious harm as a result of malpractice, you'll be going from attorney to attorney and finding out the bad news: almost no one wants to represent you in a malpractice case. That case that you think is clear cut isn't clear cut. It's hard to make. And an unappreciative client almost certainly won't have what it takes to make the long haul on such a case. It's the hardest case to make in America. No group has protections from being sued like the health care industry.

Your point of view on this topic is indistinguishable from that of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

[COLGATE4]

20. Thank you!

Thank you for articulating the truth about med mal lawsuits. They are difficult and expensive to prepare and try (if you can even get it into court). They are certainly not the 'lottery' that the Rethugs make them out to be, but they are unfortunately the last recourse someone seriously harmed has against those who commit medical malpractice on them.

[customerserviceguy]

30. And what I advocate

is something else to replace it that is not fraught with the uncertainty, secrecy, and outright fraud that the current system produces.

Making trial lawyers wealthy is an unwise use of our healthcare dollars, as is the overprevention practiced to protect the health care industry from them.

[customerserviceguy]

29. I would ask you the same questions that I asked of the person

above you, but I think I know what you like about the present system. You admitted right off the bat that it is part of the funding package for a Democratic Congress. That reminds me of my reich wing friends from about 25 years ago, who were upset that Ollie North was selling missles to Iran, until they discovered that the money from the scam was being funnelled to the contras in Nicaragua.

What does the current system (that you back) of financing Democrats with a pinch off of the backs of our medical bills get us? John Edwards.

Most places I'm familiar with have good workers comp boards, we replaced suing employers with guaranteed financial compensation and medical expenses for workers. All I'm suggesting is that we study such a system for use in the medical arena, and that the outcomes be made public. That iron wall that protects the health care industry (that you correctly point out) needs to come down, too.

[TexasObserver]

33. More right wing propaganda.

I've already told you what's wrong with the current system. It doesn't provide for attorneys fees and court costs being awarded to plaintiffs who prevail, and it should. If you REALLY cared about the injured patients, you'd be interested in that, but you do not care about the injured. You want a system that will limit their claims, limit their rights, and it make harder for them to get legal representation. In summary, your position is the one embraced by the GOP, the health insurers and the health care industry.

Med mel lawyers are one very small group of lawyers that give to the Democratic party. As with many other kinds of lawyers, they support the Democratic party because of their ideals and they represent plaintiffs because of their ideals.

You think, talk, act like someone who is merely a standard, run of the mill, advocate for all the same GOP talking points they've used the past 30 years. Your point of view is indistinguishable from Glenn Beck's.

The fact is you don't know anything about the current system or the workers comp system. You have a hodge podge of silly Palinesque slogans and "answers" that don't make any sense except to a Tea Bagger.

[justgamma]

15. Because they want government to interfere in our lives.

They love having government tell everybody what to do. They don't trust people to do the right thing.

[T Wolf]

16. THE MAJOR problem is that they want to treat people differently depending on

their wealth status....

A corporate exec gets his "actual" losses covered (lost wages, financial impacts, etc.). The pain and suffering is minimal, or eliminated.

A minimum-wage worker gets their much-lower financial losses covered. No pain & suffering award to provide ANY relief to us worker bees.

Clear now?

[iceman66]

17. They absolutely do.

Like everything else the Republicans advocate, it's all about protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

If they have their way, health care providers would be able to commit malpractice with impunity.

What doesn't get pointed out nearly often enough is that if we nationalized health insurance we could nationalize malpractice insurance as well. Then 'tort reform' would be a non-issue.

We lost the ability to make this argument when we abandoned the concept of single-payer.

In no single-payer system anywhere in the world are malpractice insurance costs a big issue for doctors.

[spanone]

19. it's a cheap 'populist' talking point cause everybody hates those lawyers, ya know

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. My understanding is that the great state of Texas enacted tort reform and it hasn't made a dime's

worth of difference. Why doesn't anyone ever point that out? And it's a Red State with a Red Governor, so you have to assume it was a Republican version of "tort reform".

[TexasObserver]

26. You are correct.

The meme that tort reform would save consumers health care costs is one more big lie. It saves malpractice payouts, which are a tiny, tiny part of the overall health care costs. We've known this a long time. The Texas Medical Association participated in a survey done in the 1990s in Texas which proved it was only a tiny part of the costs.

Another common meme that isn't true: "We have to make all sorts of unnecessary tests because of malpractice claims, and that drives up costs."

Reality: Many malpractice claims come from failure to diagnose, and failure to order the tests that would have facilitated such diagnoses is a major cause.

You can't sue anyone for malpractice in Texas without being able to make a prima facie case against them. This notion that anyone with a bar card can file a med mal case is ludicrous. Anyone can file a suit for negligence in an auto collision. But filing a med mal case takes a world of knowledge and resources in today's hospital friendly justice system.

The health care industry has more favorable treatment in the judicial system than any group in America.

[Bitwit1234]

22. I don't think they will be satisfied till people are not allowed

to sue for any malpractice from Health Care Institutions. Even if the cut off the wrong limb etc. They don't want the Health Insurance companies to pay for anything.

[Rapanui1]

23. They are pro-life--If you are born die soon

They are pro-life--If you are born die soon. Jesus needs more souls and GOP needs more assoles

[supernova]

24. I think we should give them this

I was shooting the bull with my brother yesterday. My brother, call him Jack, sort of half-jokingly suggested he'd join the tea party. :P Just to let you know where he's coming from.

Jack buys into all the conservo-bull about "tort reform."

Here's what we came up with that both he and I would be satisfied would be satisfied with:

Jack's main concern is that that when you have a big damage award, most of the award goes to the lawyers trying the case, not the victims. I do know if this is even true. However, I suggested we pass a law that says that for any high value case -- usually these are class action suits -- that the plaintiffs get the majority of the award, not the law firms trying the case. And I'd say even 75% - 85% percent goes to the plaintiffs.

That would keep law firms in check, if there are any "frivolous" suits and still get the plantiffs the compensation they need.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

27. "Most" goes to the lawyers ??? Usually its 25-33%. Without that

split, how does "Jack" think people would pay for the thousands of hours it takes a team of lawyers to prep for a case?

[PVnRT]

25. Lawyers who deal with those cases are traditional Democratic supporters

That's the only answer you need.

[Xolodno]

31. Its a bait and switch...

Health Insurance companies don't cover Professional Liability for doctors. Its covered by regular insurance companies and they almost always choose to settle. Its very expensive to fight mal-practice suits and I know of one company awhile back that decided erroneously they were going to fight every single claim that looked frivolous. Long story short, they ended up a few years later getting out of Professional Liability due to losing way too much. Yeah, they stopped a lot of bogus claims, but it often cost more than if they just settled. Bottom line, capping award amounts won't do jack squat. Don't get me wrong, something does need to be done and a better system needs to be put in place that will indeed drive the fee's for doctors down, but capping award amounts is a joke.

[DailyGrind51]

32. They want to be be free from both government regulation AND legal accountability.

[laughingliberal]

34. For the most part 'bogus lawsuits' is a RW talking point

As one attorney I know is fond of saying, "Tell these people to come up with a frivolous lawsuit and go out shopping for an attorney to take it on contingency."

I can attest to this. I had a uncle who was very ill with Parkinson's and depression who hung himself in a psychiatric unit the day after he was admitted for suicidal ideation. He, obviously, should have been under close observation but was not. My aunt met with a half dozen attorneys and not one was willing to take the case on contingency.