Tort Reform

[Winnie]

Thanks! I ran across this site this morning.

More telling to me is the lack of posts and debate I requested. The silence speaks volumes to me.

I'm seeing some silence on another thread too ;-)

Maybe when I'm more up for it, I'll respond to both threads. My current feeling is that I have already stated my views on both issues and been responded to in the usual manner. I need a break for a little while from this form of "debate." :roll:

 

[Lynnie]

Thanks! I ran across this site this morning.

More telling to me is the lack of posts and debate I requested. The silence speaks volumes to me.

OK - I'll jump in again

I don't know that much about this as I am not JD. I am also not for compensation being capped.

However, I am for reasonableness and litmus tests within the judicial system to automatically send 'frivolous' cases out of the system, or if some negligence has occurred, then get that case into mediation, which is binding and much less expensive than going to court.

For true frivolous cases being filed, there could be punitive fines imposed upon the attorney accepting and filing the case.

Unfortunately, money talks.

For gross negligence in any industry, there could be a 'scale' of assets to try to attach, seize, etc.

This is just the judicial system portion and it gets deeper.

Structured Settlements! Need reform here? A lot of attorneys who practice have also secured insurance licenses, variable insurance licenses, etc to assist the claimant with his/her award after the attorney has walked away with (in some cases) up to 50% of the punitive award. Or, there might be some relationship with a CPA who holds these licenses.

There is generally an annuity set up or some other structure to assist the person who has been wronged receive those benefits for a period of time as opposed to one lump sum and runs off to Vegas for a couple of weeks, ultimately losing all of it. Structured Settlements are a good vehicle. But, are they abused?

 

[Beach Runner]

Thanks! I ran across this site this morning.

More telling to me is the lack of posts and debate I requested. The silence speaks volumes to me.

I am totally ignorant about legal matters. But don't you have a tutor?;-)

 

[Carol G]

Thanks! I ran across this site this morning.

More telling to me is the lack of posts and debate I requested. The silence speaks volumes to me.

I've been following this thread, checking the links and reading the few responses, and determining exactly where I stand on the issue... sometimes it takes me a while to form my thoughts into clearly written ideas, but I do I think it is a good thread and a worthy debate.

Some thoughts so far...

I think the words "tort reform" make for a really good talking point, but the politicized corporate machine behind the campaign stops me cold. I love the fact that we live in a country where people have the opportunity to address their grievances in our court system, and that wrongdoings by individuals and/or corporations can be redressed through common law. However, in our current state of common law, we seem to have lost our common sense (there's another popular set of buzz words.)

We all know how stupid the hot McDonald's coffee lawsuit was. But a doctor who amputates the wrong leg, and the hospital that allows such negligence, of course need to be held financially responsible for the error. So I am for tort reform regarding frivolous lawsuits. However, as is becoming glaringly obvious to me, we all vary on our opinion of what constitutes common sense, and what may be frivolous to me would not be to someone else.

Lynnie makes some good points, and offers some ideas for change. I am also against capping limits - I consider it to be one of the risks that is inherent in a capitalist free market. If you are going to play the game, be prepared to get hurt. Is imposing limits on victim compensation any different than introducing government mandated limits on corporate salaries? Both have become outrageous in scope, but limiting either seriously affects the structure and effectiveness of a capitalist system.

Which brings me back to the fact that the health insurance system should be a not-for-profit industry; there is no way to prevent corruption in a business that profits from the possibility of illness, injury and/or suffering. I know I am going to catch hell for saying this on these boards, but the more I consider it, the more I see the wisdom in a single-payer system.

I really don't like the idea of the federal government controlling our health care, but I like the idea of profiteering corporations controlling it even less. And despite the opinions of some that that is exactly what our federal government is, I still believe that our government is made up by the people, for the people.

The health and well-being of our citizenry is a national commodity, and deserves to be treated as such. Many of us are becoming more sick, more broke, and more scared than ever, no matter which side of the political spectrum we are on. Polarization and arbitrary opposition, name-calling and shouting matches are not helping anyone, and I am so grateful for the opportunity for reasonable debate. I am thrilled about the idea of the town hall meetings, though I am often disappointed in the outcome. I don't understand why so many people have to turn this, or any other political conversation, into a contest. With that mentality, unfortunately we all lose.

Anyway, those are my late-night thoughts. Good topic Ms. Kitty, I hope it grows into a grand dialogue with representation from all sides.

 

[Miss Kitty]

keep it coming!

Ladies...thank you for your well thought out responses. WCW...I so agree that this term, tort reform, gets bounced around for effect and it was this because of that very thing that I started this thread. As Lynnie has posted there are many issues within the term that can be debated and that makes tore reform even more complicated to me. It really begs for an outline! Winnie...I really appreciate your input and thank you for the alternate site to read.

WCW...excellent post. Of course it would lead you back to healthcare! I think of the malpractice issue, especially in the GYN-OB practice and wonder if this specialty will be affected to a point that we will have a shortage of doctors in that field. I wonder how a jury can come up with an amount of money in a wrongful death suit, to compensate for the death of a loved one.

I am so with you, Lynnie, on the frivolous lawsuit issue. I know people shop for lawyers until they find one that will take their frivolous case. I propose the claimant and lawyer be held monetarily responsible for bringing such cases to the courts. I am tired of the lack of personal responsibility and the get rich quick attitude of these people....guess who pays for this in the end?

BR...my tutor actually agrees with most of my thoughts on this subject, plus, he ain't no tort lawyer! I am looking to this community for diversity of thought. If you are interested, read some of the sites that have been posted here. Your head will spin at times, but I know you are a good student!

BeachSiO2...cricket chirps disturb me, too.

What is it about the early morning that makes me type so much? ;-) Thanks to all for indulging me.

 

[Miss Kitty]

found this in teh Obama-Biden plan

Reform medical malpractice while preserving patient rights. Increasing medical malpractice
insurance rates are making it harder for doctors to practice medicine and raising the costs of health
care for everyone. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers
from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also
promote new models for addressing physician errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-
patient relationship, and reduce the need for malpractice suits.

Any updates on this?

 

[GoodWitch58]

I've been following this thread, checking the links and reading the few responses, and determining exactly where I stand on the issue... sometimes it takes me a while to form my thoughts into clearly written ideas, but I do I think it is a good thread and a worthy debate.

Some thoughts so far...

I think the words "tort reform" make for a really good talking point, but the politicized corporate machine behind the campaign stops me cold. I love the fact that we live in a country where people have the opportunity to address their grievances in our court system, and that wrongdoings by individuals and/or corporations can be redressed through common law. However, in our current state of common law, we seem to have lost our common sense (there's another popular set of buzz words.)

We all know how stupid the hot McDonald's coffee lawsuit was. But a doctor who amputates the wrong leg, and the hospital that allows such negligence, of course need to be held financially responsible for the error. So I am for tort reform regarding frivolous lawsuits. However, as is becoming glaringly obvious to me, we all vary on our opinion of what constitutes common sense, and what may be frivolous to me would not be to someone else.

Lynnie makes some good points, and offers some ideas for change. I am also against capping limits - I consider it to be one of the risks that is inherent in a capitalist free market. If you are going to play the game, be prepared to get hurt. Is imposing limits on victim compensation any different than introducing government mandated limits on corporate salaries? Both have become outrageous in scope, but limiting either seriously affects the structure and effectiveness of a capitalist system.

Which brings me back to the fact that the health insurance system should be a not-for-profit industry; there is no way to prevent corruption in a business that profits from the possibility of illness, injury and/or suffering. I know I am going to catch hell for saying this on these boards, but the more I consider it, the more I see the wisdom in a single-payer system.

I really don't like the idea of the federal government controlling our health care, but I like the idea of profiteering corporations controlling it even less. And despite the opinions of some that that is exactly what our federal government is, I still believe that our government is made up by the people, for the people.

The health and well-being of our citizenry is a national commodity, and deserves to be treated as such. Many of us are becoming more sick, more broke, and more scared than ever, no matter which side of the political spectrum we are on. Polarization and arbitrary opposition, name-calling and shouting matches are not helping anyone, and I am so grateful for the opportunity for reasonable debate. I am thrilled about the idea of the town hall meetings, though I am often disappointed in the outcome. I don't understand why so many people have to turn this, or any other political conversation, into a contest. With that mentality, unfortunately we all lose.

Anyway, those are my late-night thoughts. Good topic Ms. Kitty, I hope it grows into a grand dialogue with representation from all sides.

Good post. Thanks for such a clear, thoughtful summary. I agree that for profit health care is problematic. I feel we have much more control over the government, than we do over the for profit companies. After all, we are the government--everyone of us has a voice. We have no voice before the company.

So many seem to fear government take over. I wonder what would happen if those who feel that way, would take the energy they are putting into the fear--and decided to work to make a positive difference.

We all might be amazed at the outcome.

 

[Bobskunk]

Good post. Thanks for such a clear, thoughtful summary. I agree that for profit health care is problematic. I feel we have much more control over the government, than we do over the for profit companies. After all, we are the government--everyone of us has a voice. We have no voice before the company.

So many seem to fear government take over. I wonder what would happen if those who feel that way, would take the energy they are putting into the fear--and decided to work to make a positive difference.

We all might be amazed at the outcome.

I think that I somewhat resent the idea that my being against a government takeover means that I am fearful and not trying to work to make a positive difference. I think that there definitely needs to be reform, but there are good ideas that don't involve a government takeover, and they seem to be being ignored. Some sort of tort reform should be discussed. Tort reform does not necessarily mean caps. I also think that the first order of business is to get serious about the tens of billions, actually more than $100 billion in annual medicare and medicaid fraud. There will always be some fraud, but eliminating $50 billion or thereabouts would pay for a program that would help to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Fortune just did a great article without political bias on the shortfall that our social security system will face in the future. I would like for the government to prove that it can efficiently run just one of our existing major programs before it endeavors to take on more. I am amazed at the trust that they are being given.

I don't think that this issue has been adeqautely debated, and I don't think that there has been adequate representation allowed from all of the parties involved in delivering our healthcare.

 

[GoodWitch58]

I think that I somewhat resent the idea that my being against a government takeover means that I am fearful and not trying to work to make a positive difference. I think that there definitely needs to be reform, but there are good ideas that don't involve a government takeover, and they seem to be being ignored. Some sort of tort reform should be discussed. Tort reform does not necessarily mean caps. I also think that the first order of business is to get serious about the tens of billions, actually more than $100 billion in annual medicare and medicaid fraud. There will always be some fraud, but eliminating $50 billion or thereabouts would pay for a program that would help to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Fortune just did a great article without political bias on the shortfall that our social security system will face in the future. I would like for the government to prove that it can efficiently run just one of our existing major programs before it endeavors to take on more. I am amazed at the trust that they are being given.

I don't think that this issue has been adeqautely debated, and I don't think that there has been adequate representation allowed from all of the parties involved in delivering our healthcare.

If you do not (generically) fear a govenment take over, then my comments do not apply to you. There are those on this board and elsewhere have indicated that they have that fear...it was that group I was referring to. I feel strongly that there is more to be gained by advocating for what we do want, rather than complaining about what we don't want, but that is just my opinion, it was not meant to be offensive to anyone in particular.

 

[Winnie]

I think that I somewhat resent the idea that my being against a government takeover means that I am fearful and not trying to work to make a positive difference. I think that there definitely needs to be reform, but there are good ideas that don't involve a government takeover, and they seem to be being ignored. Some sort of tort reform should be discussed. Tort reform does not necessarily mean caps. I also think that the first order of business is to get serious about the tens of billions, actually more than $100 billion in annual medicare and medicaid fraud. There will always be some fraud, but eliminating $50 billion or thereabouts would pay for a program that would help to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Fortune just did a great article without political bias on the shortfall that our social security system will face in the future. I would like for the government to prove that it can efficiently run just one of our existing major programs before it endeavors to take on more. I am amazed at the trust that they are being given.

I don't think that this issue has been adeqautely debated, and I don't think that there has been adequate representation allowed from all of the parties involved in delivering our healthcare.

The bolded above can't be overstated!

To the earlier point of government run vs capitalistic: We do have a voice in government, but lobbyist have a "louder" voice. They represent big groups of profit-driven people. In the free-market, every dollar speaks at the same volume. Truly egalitarian.