Tort Reform

[Winnie]

Opps! Sorry about getting off topic, I forgot the subject of the thread for a few minutes.

On tort reform.

I'm not sure how it figures in, but those cases where insurance companies and businesses pay people not to sue - settling out of court - should be curtailed or regulated.
If a company has truly done wrong to a person, it shouldn't be paid for then hushed up. It should be admitted so others might beware.
I'm deeply opposed to sealed settlements of any kind. If it is a proper outcome, there should be nothing to hide. Only in those cases where an innocent party, uninvolved in the case, may be harmed should any record be sealed.
I suppose if other types of tort reform are passed, the cost of defending in a suit wouldn't often justify out of court settlements.

 

[idlewind]

Opps! Sorry about getting off topic, I forgot the subject of the thread for a few minutes.

On tort reform.

I'm not sure how it figures in, but those cases where insurance companies and businesses pay people not to sue - settling out of court - should be curtailed or regulated.
If a company has truly done wrong to a person, it shouldn't be paid for then hushed up. It should be admitted so others might beware.
I'm deeply opposed to sealed settlements of any kind. If it is a proper outcome, there should be nothing to hide. Only in those cases where an innocent party, uninvolved in the case, may be harmed should any record be sealed.
I suppose if other types of tort reform are passed, the cost of defending in a suit wouldn't often justify out of court settlements.

Transparency should be our goal. Hiding things helps no one but the lawyers.

 

[Yarmap]

Here was Sony Bonos take on lawyers when he was in cangress in April 1995

With over half of Congress being lawyers I doubt there will be any tort reform exept in the lawyers favor.

For Sonny Bono, a Judiciary Committee hearing is no rock concert. He fidgets. He doodles. He gets up and walks around, often wandering out of the room altogether.

At a recent committee session on the crime bill, Mr. Bono, a freshman Republican from California, decided he had had enough. Interrupting a colleague, he complained that all they did was talk, talk, talk.

"With all due respect to lawyers," the former singer blurted out, "it's wonderful that you have this intricate knowledge." But the American people elected this Congress to act, he said, not to yammer.

"You break down words to the nth degree," he said, "and sometimes I find it rather disgusting, and it goes on and on. And pompously."

 

[Carol G]

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.

I agree with you here; I guess my viewpoint is that at this time, the gov't is the lesser of two evils, the other evil being a profiteering corporation. Eliminating fraud in all aspects should absolutely be a priority.

 

[Carol G]

I'm not sure how it figures in, but those cases where insurance companies and businesses pay people not to sue - settling out of court - should be curtailed or regulated.
If a company has truly done wrong to a person, it shouldn't be paid for then hushed up. It should be admitted so others might beware.
I'm deeply opposed to sealed settlements of any kind. If it is a proper outcome, there should be nothing to hide. Only in those cases where an innocent party, uninvolved in the case, may be harmed should any record be sealed.
I suppose if other types of tort reform are passed, the cost of defending in a suit wouldn't often justify out of court settlements.

Transparency should be our goal. Hiding things helps no one but the lawyers.

Also agreed, that should be fundamental.

 

[Carol G]

Sorry about the three posts in a row, but for some reason my multi-quoting was not working properly, so rather than misquoting someone, I'm posting thrice.

I've been reading about tort reform 'til my eyeballs hurt, and I think I need to take back my earlier statement about capping limits. Some of what I have read makes very good sense, and I think it may be a good idea to set scaled limits on non-economic, pain & suffering, and punitive damages. These costs are completely intangible and arbitrary under almost all circumstances - how can we put a price on anyone's pain and suffering, and how is it that one person's pain and suffering is worth $10 thousand to one court, and $10 million to another? Scaled limits have worked very well for some states, I think it is worth investigating further.

Wikipedia has an interesting section about the US Supreme Court limiting punitive damages, often ruling that punitive damages of a 4:1 or higher ratio compared with compensatory damages are improper...
Punitive damages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just more food for thought...

 

[30ashopper]

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.

are non-profit or government run systems immune from corruption? (i'd suggest you research the systems in canada or britian for answers)

also, since you feel people should have recourse in the event of negligence, do you feel you'll have that if your insurance is provided by the same institution that defines our court system?

 

[condomimi]

I agree with you here; I guess my viewpoint is that at this time, the gov't is the lesser of two evils, the other evil being a profiteering corporation. Eliminating fraud in all aspects should absolutely be a priority.

I totally disagree. Government IS the evil when they refuse to listen to the people who elected them. With a capitalistic system, you have the right to change insurance companies if you don't like their coverage, rates or service. You can't fire the government once they take over the health care system. You will end up being at the mercy of the government for your health care and they will have the power to supply what you need or ration care when funds run short. Name one government program that has functioned at a lower rate than predicted by the government. Name one government program that has operated efficiently. Name one government program that is not running out of funds. When government controlled health care - a single payer system - runs out of money, you have NO HEALTH CARE!

 

[30ashopper]

here's a thought experiment for people - pick an institution within the federal government that expends around 50 billion a year, and pick a private business that generates about 50 billion in annual revenue (microsoft for example). if you audited both entities for fraud and waste, which do you think would turn out to be more efficient and fraud free?

 

[Carol G]

I totally disagree. Government IS the evil when they refuse to listen to the people who elected them. With a capitalistic system, you have the right to change insurance companies if you don't like their coverage, rates or service. You can't fire the government once they take over the health care system. You will end up being at the mercy of the government for your health care and they will have the power to supply what you need or ration care when funds run short. Name one government program that has functioned at a lower rate than predicted by the government. Name one government program that has operated efficiently. Name one government program that is not running out of funds. When government controlled health care - a single payer system - runs out of money, you have NO HEALTH CARE!

IMO, private insurance should always be an option, for those who wish to purchase it. But, to address your capped words, I (already) HAVE NO HEALTH CARE! I'm currently working on paying for a $1000 bill from our local hospital for my annual visit three months ago with my OB where she ran a couple extra tests. I am outraged by what I am being charged for this, and I don't even come close to being able to afford it. When I went to pick up my prescription from Publix, a tube of skin creme that cost me $15 ten years ago, is now $68. I had to leave the pharmacy, in tears, because I couldn't afford it. Do you not see any problem with this?

I work, two jobs. I am a responsible adult and I pay my taxes every year. Those of you who are lucky enough to work for companies who can afford to provide you with health insurance have no idea what it is like for those of us who don't.

Government is US. WE ARE the government. And believe me, WE are listening. It is not in any way an easy problem to fix, but I believe that the government is sincere in its current effort.

And no, 30AShopper, I am not so naive to think there is no corruption in not-for-profits or in the government. There is corruption everywhere. Again, I said it's the lesser of two evils; in my opinion the for-profit corporations are more corrupt. Short answer to your second question is yes.