Need for Tort Reforms - PhillyBlog

Pollock · #1 (**permalink**) 10-17-2006, 08:22 AM

Tort Reforms have been an important part of the Bush agenda. According to President Bush, the Congress needs to protect America’s patients, doctors, and hospitals from the staggering costs of out-of-control lawsuits by passing important medical liability reforms. He has pointed out that most of the doctors have abandoned Pennsylvania because of the high cost of medical insurance. This is mainly due to the unnecessary law suits.

The cost of malpractice insurance threatens the very survival of adequate medical care. Medical malpractice insurance premiums are substantially higher in certain states like West Virginia than they are in other surrounding states. For some specialists, the premiums in these regions are more than double what the premiums are for the same coverage in the neighboring states. The result is doctors leaving that region in search of greener pastures. Medical students and residents being trained in medical schools of areas with higher premiums are becoming more likely to leave those regions to start their professional careers in other states.

In such circumstances, Tort Reforms are needed to stop lawsuit abuse and assist the medical community. The republicans believe that to solve the problem of exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums, regions such as West Virginia must enact significant tort reform. The lawsuits have taken a heavy toll, and unless something is done in this regard, they will continue to do so.

There is a need to curtail frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in order to bring balance and reason into the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Texas for Lawsuit Reforms, an organization started by Mr. Dick Weekley, is aimed to help such regions to bring about balance.

For more info on Mr. Tort Reforms, login to:
www.pacificresearch.org/press/clip/2006/clip-05-24-06tlr.html

GMonkey · #2 (**permalink**) 10-17-2006, 03:47 PM

Ah, yes. Without tort reforms it's harder for OBGYNs to practice their love on women.

Guess what, if a hospital accidentally amputates the wrong leg of one of the Bush Twins, you think that George and Laura will be cool with a $250,000 cap on lawsuits? That will bring about a tort reform reform.

zete_374 · #3 (**permalink**) 10-17-2006, 05:24 PM

What has Rendell done for tort reform? Why are the doctors leaving Pa and going to other states?

lutton · #4 (**permalink**) 10-18-2006, 02:10 PM

Tort reform is a red herring. They've enacted it in other states and it has barely changed the costs of insurance.

They real reason insurance is so expensive is that the insurance companies made bad investments (which secure their ability to pay claims) and have to make up the losses in premiums.

Also, just like the so-called 'death tax,' it affects far fewer people than the conservatives would like you to believe. Very few lawsuits are adjudicated with tremendous pain and suffering compensation (which is the part upon which limits would be placed). The ones we hear are about are the exceptions; we hear about them because they are unusal. (And often they are drasticly reduced by the judge or on appeal.)

In fact, why don't you do some looking into Sen. Santorums position on the matter, and what he and his family choose to do in their own personal injury case...

zete_374 · #5 (**permalink**) 10-18-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutton

Tort reform is a red herring. They've enacted it in other states and it has barely changed the costs of insurance.

They real reason insurance is so expensive is that the insurance companies made bad investments (which secure their ability to pay claims) and have to make up the losses in premiums.

Also, just like the so-called 'death tax,' it affects far fewer people than the conservatives would like you to believe. Very few lawsuits are adjudicated with tremendous pain and suffering compensation (which is the part upon which limits would be placed). The ones we hear are about are the exceptions; we hear about them because they are unusal. (And often they are drasticly reduced by the judge or on appeal.)

In fact, why don't you do some looking into Sen. Santorums position on the matter, and what he and his family choose to do in their own personal injury case...

What did Rendell do for tort reform?

Michael Tree · #6 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutton

They real reason insurance is so expensive is that the insurance companies made bad investments (which secure their ability to pay claims) and have to make up the losses in premiums.

This is exactly right. There's a cycle of insurance premiums, and every time the cycle goes up malpractice premiums skyrocket, and republicans and doctors start yelling "tort reform, tort reform!" The thing is, malpractice rates have nothing to do with the number of malpractice claims filed, or the amount paid out in damages. If you look at the insurance cycle, it corresponds almost exactly to the ups and downs of the stock market. When the market is down, insurance companies lose money on their investments, and raise their insurance premiums to compensate.

"Tort reform" is nothing more than letting businesses and negligent doctors hurt people with impunity. If a defective product or medical mistake kills or maims a person, the manufacturer or negligent doctor should have to compensate the victim for the harm they caused. It's simple justice.

lutton · #7 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zete_374

What did Rendell do for tort reform?

I don't know. But I know it's not neccesary.

lutton · #8 (**permalink**) 10-20-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

"Tort reform" is nothing more than letting businesses and negligent doctors hurt people with impunity. If a defective product or medical mistake kills or maims a person, the manufacturer or negligent doctor should have to compensate the victim for the harm they caused. It's simple justice.

It's funny how little people really know about this subject. As you said, the victim should be compensated for 'the harm.' The tort reform would be primarily about 'pain and suffering' compensation. Plaintiffs would still be receiving full compensation as awarded for actually losses, like income, medical expenses, etc.

As I said there are occaisionally outrageous awards for the P&S component, but ususally those awards are reviewable and changable by the judge or on appeal.

But I believe that juries should be able to award pain and suffering compensation without any arbitrary limits.