Tort Reform: A Tapestry of Lies

[Sandpiper]

The fact that the "tort reformers" do not have ordinary people's interests at heart is the fact they constantly have to weave a tapestry of lies in order to sell their position.

Anyway, here are some of the most popular tort reform lies, followed by the truth:


LIE: Lawsuits drive up insurance premiums

TRUTH: The current rise in insurance rates is the result of bad investments by insurance companies being passed on to consumers.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/healthcare/nw/nw003146.php3


LIE: Capping damage awards keeps insurance rates down

TRUTH: From 1991 to 2002 the 19 states that enacted caps on damages saw insurance premiums increase 48.2%.

DISTURBING TRUTH: During that same period, states without caps had premiums increase by only 35.9%
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2003/06/02/29436.htm


LIE: We have a glut of frivolous lawsuits that are clogging up the court system.

TRUTH: Only about 10% of Americans who are injured ever file a claim for compensation.
http://www.citizenworks.org/issues/democracy/demo-issuepapers-tort_ref.php


LIE: Runaway juries give excessive damage awards

TRUTH 1: Punitive (non economic damages) are awarded in about 4% of cases by BOTH judges and juries.
http://www.swlearning.com/quant/kohler/stat/resources/stats/ch06_1.html

TRUTH 2: Of the 4% that get punitive damages, about 18% of those awards are reduced on appeal by an average of 43%.
http://www.rusklaw.com/tortreform.htm


Feel free to pass this on.

[wicket]

1. great info, thanks!

:kick:

[snippy]

2. Even if you disregard the lies of the advocates for tort reform,

their own solution contradicts their argument that frivolous lawsuits need to be reduced. Their proposed solutions make no mention of frivolous lawsuits. Instead they propose capping non-economic damages in ALL lawsuits, even the ones involving the most egregious misconduct by the tort feasor resulting in the most serious and debilitating injuries. So they want to reduce frivolous lawsuits by limiting the damages in the most meritorious lawsuits. It makes no sense.

Another argument against the proposed damage limitations is that it is a government taking without compensation. A legal cause of action against someone is an intangible property right. It is unconstitutional for the government to take property without compensation. I don't think that any federal court has ever decided a case involving limitations on damages based on this principle, but I think a few state Supreme Courts have.

I have found these two lines of argument to be the most effective at persuading republicans and others that the proposed tort reforms are Bushshit.

[imenja]

3. Some reform is necessary

But I certainly don't trust the Republicans to carry it out, since they are in the pockets of the insurance companies and other corporate interests.
I don't want people without money to have their rights to the courts restricted by unwise tort reform, but something needs to be done to reduce frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps the ABA or state bars would become more proactive in policing their own profession.
It bothers me that so many people see misfortune as an opportunity to sue. I myself was the victim of a false injury claim from an auto accident, and the insurance company settled to avoid legal costs. Of course it was my insurance rates than paid for it. This is hardly the most serious of problems, but it occurs far too often. If the legal profession takes it upon themselves to penalize bad lawyers, perhaps they can stave off tort reform.
Another observation: the Republicans are able to use the Democratic Party's relationship with trial lawyers against us. Some reform might help that.
The political cry for tort reform seems to be growing. Florida recently passed, overwhelmingly, a constitutional amendment limiting lawyers fees. I voted against it, but something like 70% of voters supported it. There were two additional amendments directed against doctors.

[Sandpiper]

4. Why do we need reform for a crisis that doesn't exist?

The tort reform movement is nothing more than a slick marketing campaign by doctors and big business to excuse themselves from accountability.

Would you care to see a membership list of the American Tort Reform Association?

[imenja]

5. It's political reality

Seems to me that either the lawyers embrace limited reform themselves or have it imposed on them. Your choice.

[Sandpiper]

6. Yeah, let's sell out again for political convenience

It's worked really well for us so far.

[imenja]

7. I don't buy it

Not many Americans are going to see protecting trial lawyers as an issue to fall on the sword for. You raise many important points in your original post, but your political righteousness rings a little hollow. The legal system serve an important function in society in that the threat of law suit is sometimes the only thing that keeps companies from behaving in ways that risk human life. It is, however, laden with abuses. Most people have some sort of personal experience with it's excesses. Resisting all reform is neither politically expedient nor the right thing to do.

[Sandpiper]

9. I offer hard data, you offer antecdote

You spout platitudes about a system that is "laden with abuses" but offer nothing to back up your assertion.

And your desire to compromise with a position that is based on lies and misinformation, and that would ultimately limit the access of ordinary citizens to the courts (tort reformers have no intention of limiting businesses from suing each other) is equal parts disturbing and disheartening.

Educating the public is the answer. Capitulation to the corporate position is not.

[imenja]

13. people lives are a series of anecdotes

In my first post I noted that I did not wish to restrict the access of people to the courts and that I had voted against the tort reform amendment in my state. What I suggested was that you people get your house in order and do something about the unscrupulous lawyers in your profession. To suggest there are none is ludicrous.

Yes, I cited anecdotes. And every American can site similar ones. For me it's being threatened with a law suit when a student doesn't like a grade he or she receives on an exam. Others encounter other problems. Naturally human experiences mean nothing compared to your "statistics." It's one thing to say that most problems with the medical system aren't due to personal injury and malpractice cases. It's another to say there are no problems in the system. Even John Edwards acknowledges reform is necessary.


Another "anecdotal" (and to you inconsequential) experience I had was as a juror on a personal injury case. Through that experience it became clear to me that the public is increasingly suspicious of personal injury claims. My guess is that concerns over the excesses of the tort system are working to limit verdicts as well, though I have no "statistics" to prove that. The same people who you see as too ignorant to understand the morally righteousness of your profession are the ones who set verdicts.

If you think your strategy will be successful, go for it.
It's pretty clear to me that it's not working though. I already cited the recent Florida constitutional amendment. I doubt that it's an anomaly. Most of the commercials on the air about that particular amendment gave the perspective of the trail lawyers, but the public overwhelmingly voted for tort reform. The lawyers, apparently, weren't able to educate the public or buy their way out of the rising tide of public opinion.

I was suggesting you see the writing on the wall, to protect your profession and the good it has the potential of doing. But frankly it makes no difference in my life if lawyers get the hint or not. I'm not the one making millions of dollars off the system. You guys are. Since you refuse to consider any reform, I suppose the trial lawyers will start to spend even more money buying off Republican politicians than the insurance companies do. One thing is clear, neither the bar associations nor the insurance companies give a damn about the interests of the American people. We are always the ones who lose out.

[Sandpiper]

27. Long winded posts don't make up for lack of facts to support your argument

You talk much and say little.

One thing is clear, neither the bar associations nor the insurance companies give a damn about the interests of the American people.

And the way you cavalierly impugn an entire profession tells me all I need to know about your real feelings on the matter.

[imenja]

34. Not a winning case

I cited facts from my own life. That you chose to ignore them is your problem. Somehow I don't see your having much success with juries, since you have so little regard for human experiences.

I'm sorry you find reading five whole paragraphs unduly burdensome. I found myself repeating things I already said since you had chosen to ignore them the first time. Obviously it's a waste of ink. If you refuse to listen to one of the few people in Fla who voted against tort reform, you're not likely to make much progress with your cause.

[Sandpiper]

35. Again, what facts have you cited

Other than your antecdotal story?

You use tort reform buzz words of a system "laden with abuses" I ask you for proof, and the best you can come up with is "once upon a time, I had a bad experience."

And from this instance that you cite, from your own narrow experience, you extrapolate that to the entire civil court system as an example of it being "laden with abuses" and use it as an opportunity to take a gratuitous swipe at the entire legal profession.

You facts are lacking, your logic is faulty, and you try to mask this with rambling 10 paragraph diatribes that do little if nothing to bolster the point you're trying to make.

You're a teacher? I hope you aren't responsible for teaching students any sort of logic or complex reasoning skills, because you seem to be sorely lacking in that department.

[imenja]

43. Here's a statistic

65% of Floridians voted for malpractice tort reform. They obviously had their reasons, despite an ad campaign by the bar association.
The Democrats have apparently signed on to the Bush's administration's class action tort reform legislation. It's expected to pass easily.

I suggest you read Joan Scott to dislodge your fetish for statistics (*Scott, Joan Wallach. “A Statistical Representation of Work: La Statistique de l’industrie à Paris, 1847-1848.” _Gender
and the Politics of History._ New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.). Statistics represent one form of evidence, but no more reliable or unbiased than other evidence. In my research, I use both quantitative (4000 arrests from 19th century Bahia, Brazil)
and qualitative evidence. They serve different functions. The first sheds light on general trends, the second on the daily experiences that convey the human experience.

[dpibel]

12. "Protecting trial lawyers"

There isn't a client in the world so demanding of mega-damages as a tort-reform advocate who's been rear-ended.

Most people have no experience with the legal system at all, let alone "person experience with it's excesses."

Tort reform and demonization of plaintiff's attorneys are nothing but another propaganda device to work on getting people to give up their rights for the sake of making the rich richer.

You didn't like the result of your encounter with the law. By and large, half the people involved in any lawsuit don't. But I've never known an insurance company to settle a claim where there was no liability. I'd be interested in knowing the details of your problematic case.

[imenja]

14. details of the case

Details of the case: I was turning into a through road from a business. The woman was approaching, started honking, and then clipped the rear side of my car. She did not slow down but instead honked, yelled profanities, and drove right into me. Technically the accident was my fault because I had turned onto the road. She could have slowed down but chose not to. I was almost completely on the other side of the street when she hit me. Her car had the most minor damage imaginable, as did mine. Hers had a dent barely visible to the eye. She had a child in the car. She left the child in the car and ran into a nearby gas station to get a "witness." I was concerned about a child being left alone in the car and suggested she remove him so that another car didn't run into her vehicle and harm the child.

When the policeman came, he did not give anyone a ticket. He said he did not think I was at fault, but since I was the one who had entered the street from the business location, as a technical matter the law would decide I was at fault. He said he wasn't issuing a ticket because he didn't want to give me one (I suppose it was the difference between actual fault and technical legal fault).
Since the damage was so minor, he suggested each of us fix our own. (I never bothered with mine) I had no problem with that, and she expressed no objection at the time.

The next day I received a call from my insurance company. She had issued a complaint. I was surprised, since I had no indication she would do so. She claimed both she and her child had been injured. I wondered why, if her child had been harmed, she would have left him in a car stopped in the middle of a very busy street. The adjuster told me her claim for medical injuries was much higher than the damage to her car, which was minimal. Despite my efforts to insist they speak with the police officer, they never did so. Their concern seemed to be to get the case off their desk with as little work as possible. Ultimately the company paid her, though I don't know how much. I expect it was not a great deal, but less than their court costs would have been if she would have pursued the matter. I know for a fact she was not injured. The accident was very, very minor. I suspect that she may have purposely run into me. Apparently she had been a plaintiff in other auto cases as well.

The incident was not of great importance, but it irritated me. My insurance rates went up when I moved to another state simply because a
company had paid out for an accident I was in. I imagine they didn't have to pay much, but it still worked against me.

I was also the victim of an auto accident in which my car was totaled and I had some medical injuries that required physical therapy. I did not seek a lawyer. I instead negotiated a reasonable settlement with the other person's insurance company. This guy had been talking on a cell phone and ran into me while I sat at a red light. That was a far more serious accident that the one I spoke of above since my car was destroyed and I was in a state of minor shock afterward, but I was able to resolve my medical issues with a couple of weeks of physical therapy. I didn't take advantage of the situation for financial gain like the woman above did. The issue is fundamentally one of character. The woman in the first accident lacked character and saw the accident as an opportunity to make money. That she could find an unscrupulous lawyer empowered her in doing so. I could have sought a lawyer in the case in which I was injured in order to profit from the accident, but I saw no reason to do so. I believe one needs to operate with integrity in life.

So that's my story. Not terribly serious, but irritating. When I was a juror on a personal injury case, the judge asked us about our previous experience with attorneys and auto accidents. EVERY SINGLE person had some sort of similar story. I respectfully dispute your contention that most people have no contact with the court system. All the lawyers could do was try to pick someone they thought didn't despise them beyond reason. One potential juror had fained impartiality during voir dire, but gave the most prejudicial remarks in the hallway concerning people who filed personal injury cases. He obviously held a grudge. Luckily he wasn't chosen, but I was. I turned out to be the juror most favorable to the plaintiff and as a result I persuaded the others to give her something (about $60,000). Otherwise, she would have walked out with $1.00--the determination of the foreman. (Fault in the case was not in dispute, only the extent of her injuries).

It seemed to me that sentiment against legal excesses played a role on that jury. I expect it does in other cases as well. Some reasonable tort reform initiated by the bar associations might start to lessen the groundswell of animosity in the country against trial lawyers. As I said, it's for you all to determine. I don't have a fortune at stake. It is clear to me, however, that reform will come, one way or another.

[BanzaiBonnie]

23. Thanks for sharing

your story with us. It's always a good assist to understanding. It sure sounds like that woman was at fault. I understand that there is an obligation to avoid an accident if possible.

One thing I want to address is that there are both honest and dishonest people in every profession. I am an advocate of smaller government and the least regulation possible because government can never, ever possibly make enough regulations to cover everything.

I feel privileged to know some fine examples of people who practice law. I've also seen some sleazy lawyers who have said to me. "I can fix anything if you pay me enough money." This shows me that it's generally those who have a lot of money and also are without a good moral base, can get away without as much consequence for their actions. This is usually the corporate lawyer, NOT the one the victims side.

If only 10% of people actually even file claims for damages in an accident and if only a small portion of those are dishonest, then they are going to be that way no matter how the law is structured.

Restrictions on victims rights is not the answer.

[imenja]

30. Oh I know that

I know there are some very fine lawyers and believe it or not I admire many of them a great deal--Barry Sheck, Morris Deas, and David Boies come immediately to mind. Every profession has bad apples. That's why I thought one way to deal with it would be for the state bar associations to become more active in doing something about bad lawyers. I believe the medical licensing boards should do the same.
I'm a college professor, and universities are now much more active in enforcing professional standards than they once were. There are now yearly reviews for tenured faculty as well as nontenured. Another major improvement is that sexual harassment is no longer tolerated at most institutions. The legal profession can claim credit for that, since universities were rightly sued for allowing sexual predators to remain in their positions.

[dpibel]

25. Thanks

I appreciate the details.

Although you may have inadvertently left it out, the account of the accident where your insurance company settled includes no mention of lawyers. Are you quite sure the woman retained one? Since your insurance company called you the next day, I'd be rather surprised if she didn't do just what you did (only as to procedure; not as to substance, since I accept your analysis that she was not seriously injured, although, since we don't know the size of the settlement, we also don't know the size of the claim) and handled the claim on her own. It would be very surprising if she had been able to retain a lawyer the very next day. Hence, I really wonder if your case demonstrates the evil of rampant lawsuits or rampant attorneys at all.

As for inferring something untoward from the fact that she made the claim the very next day, isn't that what you're supposed to do? I know my insurance company requires me to report accidents as soon as possible. Besides, it's prudent. You'd be surprised, I suspect, at how much hay a defense attorney can make from delay: "How could you have been hurt? You didn't even report the claim until a week later?"

As for your experience on the jury, were all of those instances actual first-hand encounters with the legal system, or were they more in the nature of, "My wife's uncle's sister-in-law once got really screwed." There's plenty of that, but there just aren't enough accidents to go around for everyone to have been involved in a lawsuit. There aren't enough lawsuits, either.

Thanks again for taking the time to provide the details of your case.

[imenja]

28. the insurance company told me she retained a lawyer

The company told me she had a lawyer. I never dealt with the lawyer myself, but there would have been no reason for the lawyer to contact me. I was a graduate student with no money. I didn't object to her reporting it the next day. I object to her claiming physical injuries when she had none. I was surprised to receive a call at all, since the conversation with the policeman had left with the impression insurance companies were not going to be involved.
As I noted, not the most serious of cases, but it bothers me that some people seize upon such incidents as an opportunity for profit. It's symptomatic of a dishonesty that pervades society--government, the corporate world, and elsewhere. I don't blame lawyers for causing this lack of integrity, but some use their profession to empower it.
I noticed that class action reform is on the top of the Bush administration's agenda. _Washington Week_ said a bill had been written that had wide support among Democrats and likely would be passed easily. Though I don't know the details, I imagine it's not a good bill. This administration's never are.

[imenja]

44. Question about lawyers' dress

In the personal injury case in which I served as a juror, I noticed that the defense lawyer worse a very cheap suit. He was clearly by far the superior attorney of the two, and my guess was that he was employed by the insurance company (no defendant was present in the courtroom). We were given no information about insurance so we weren't allowed to consider such factors, but I thought about it then and since. Do you think I may be correct that the attorney deliberately worse a cheap suit to appear more like a "common man" in an effort to better connect with the jury?

[dpibel]

55. Could be

Another hidden fact in the tort reform debate is how much money goes to insurance defense attorneys. They get paid by the hour, and they get paid no matter what the outcome. It's amazing how many depositions are required to settle the simplest case; somehow serious settlement negotiations never start until after those hours are in.

Also note your evaluation that the defense lawyer was the better of the two. Insurance companies don't go cheap. On the other hand, there are a distressing number of private practitioners who buy into the myth that personal injury is easy money.

Take my word for it (or not): PI's not the easy road to riches.

[SharonAnn]

56. Hmm, a couple of times in my family's life, the only redress was a

lawsuit. Even when my mother was killed by trucker who was blind in one eye. The insurance company would do nothing for my father or the rest of the family until my father sued.

I have never failed to remind Dad, when he starts ragging on "trial lawyers", that a good trial lawyer was the only reason he got any recompense. Without that lawyer the system would have let the company off the hook.

[Blue Wally]

18. Doctors which I use in Florida

All require you to sing a notice that you acknowledgeb that they are operating "uninsured". Of course, they have their homes protected by Florida's stringent "homestead laws" where the primary residence cannot be attached to pay debts or court settlements (why OJ Simpson now lives in Florida) and have their stocks, bonds, and other intangible assets placed in irrevocable trusts. Essentially there is no money there to sue for. I think most of the doctors needing insurance are those which are required to have it as a part of their hospital affiliation.

[imenja]

19. really?

I go to doctors all the time in Florida and I've never signed such a paper. I know there is a huge problem about malpractice insurance premiums here, but my understanding is that they still have to be insured if they want to practice. I don't know how the new amendments passed--malpractice tort reform and restrictions on doctors with judgments against them, will affect all that. None of those amendments address the the insurance companies that seem to operate without restriction in the state.

[Blue Wally]

57. I seem to catch all the ones that do.

My Internist and my Rheumalogist both have signs at their reception areas that state that they are uninsured. They didn't make me sign a statement, though. My wife went to a OB-Gyn for her annual checkup that made her sign a paper acknowledging that she knew the doctor was uninsured.

[Tennessee Gal]

8. It is not about abuse of the legal system.

It is about insurance companies increasing their premiums BIG TIME! It is about insurance conglomerates wanting increased premiums because they invested in the stock markets and lost. They have to get that money back somehow!

[AP]

10. Doctors are getting ripped off just like any other worker. Talk about ...

...looking for deep pockets. The insurance companies are much worse than your average plaintiff. 10% of injured people sue. 100% of doctors are paying super high premiums to insurance companies.

How's this for a solution: socialize health insurance. Have doctors pay in in premiums exactly what they pay out every year in awards. Start a public-private joint venture to manage it and closely regulate it. Merge that with the state licensing system: if the state has to repeatedly pay out damages, they take away that doctor's license.

In other words, take the 50% profit margins out of the medical insurance business in order to protect the delivery of health care in America.

You know what the insurance companies would say to a state that tried to do that? They'd say, "wait a minute. Tort liability isn't that big a problem. Can we please keep our license to print money?"

[AliciaKeyedUp]

15. MD has state health insurance for doctors

Its costs went up 28% last year and 33% this because of lawsuits. Even their state legislature has considered holding a special session to deal with this crisis. Try telling them it's not a problem.

[AP]

17. Some info about that:

September 10, 2003

Report shows Maryland medical malpractice insurance crisis unfounded. “There is no medical malpractice lawsuit problem in Maryland. Marylanders need to look beyond the scare tactics of the Medical Society. It would be a huge mistake to restrict patients’ legal rights so that they cannot hold doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies fully accountable for deaths or serious injuries.” -Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch


Public Citizen consumer advocacy group issued a report finding Maryland doctors are not facing a Maryland medical malpractice crisis and that just 3% of Maryland doctors are responsible for 51% of the Maryland medical malpractice payouts. Although Maryland State Medical Society and Medical Mutual insurance company has claimed the state is in a crisis, Public Citizen found that 89.4% of Maryland’s doctors have never made a medical malpractice payout. Other significant Maryland medical malpractice findings that were included in the Public Citizen press release include:


- The number of medical malpractice legal claims filed per physician has dropped 17.6 percent since 1996 - from 3.4 claims per 100 physicians in 1996 to 2.8 claims per 100 physicians in 2002, according to Maryland Office of Health Claims Arbitration data.


- After annual medical malpractice payouts reported by the NPDB are adjusted for medical inflation, the total amount dropped 17.9 percent from 1996 to 2002. Malpractice payouts declined from $71.3 million in1996 to $58.5 million in 2002 in adjusted dollars. In equivalent dollars, liability insurers paid $12.8 million less in 2002 than they paid in 1996.


- The mean medical malpractice payout to injured patients dropped 29 percent from 1996 to 2002, after adjusting for medical inflation, according to NPDB data. The mean malpractice payout dropped from $310,100 in 1996 to $220,083 in 2002 - $90,017 less.


- There were only three medical malpractice payouts of $1 million in each of the past two years, compared with eight payouts of $1 million or more in 1996 and 2000, according to NPDB data.


- There is no "exodus" of doctors from Maryland. The doctor population has increased an average of 1.2 percent a year since 1996, and the state has the fourth highest ratio of doctors-to-population among all 50 states and Washington, D.C.


- The cost of medical negligence and errors to Maryland patients and consumers is considerable. Based on findings by the Institute of Medicine, Public Citizen estimates that there are 836 to 1,862 hospital deaths in Maryland each year that are due to preventable medical errors – costing residents, families and communities $323 million to $551 million each year. This is far below the annual $155.1 million cost of medical malpractice insurance to Maryland's health care providers.


- Doctors with repeated malpractice claims against them suffer few consequences. Only 20.6 percent (37 of 180) of Maryland doctors who made three or more malpractice payouts since 1990 were disciplined by the Maryland Board of Physician Quality Assurance. Moreover, Maryland in 2002 ranked 46th among all states and the District of Columbia for the frequency at which it takes serious disciplinary actions against doctors for incompetence, misprescribing drugs, sexual misconduct, criminal convictions, ethical lapses or other offenses, according to Public Citizen's analysis. - While the report finds that Medical Mutual's 28 percent rate hike is not justified, it found that overall, since 1996 Medical Mutual kept its rate increases for malpractice insurance well behind the rising cost of medical services. For instance its "midpoint" premium (for general surgery) declined 15.9 percent from 1996 to 2002. This suggests the company kept rates artificially low to gain market share. Medical Mutual also had much lower investment returns in recent years. The combination of these two factors, and other problems with the "insurance cycle," suggest that industry economics - not lawsuits - were the impetus behind the company's request for a 28 percent rate increase.


- Homeowners' insurance rates have increased 8.6 percent a year since 1996 - at least twice as fast as Medical Mutual's insurance rates - suggesting an insurance industry, not litigation, problem.

http://www.medical-malpractice-attorney-source.com/articles/maryland.html

[AliciaKeyedUp]

29. The info you cite is over a year old

I guess that's why MD consider this to be a crisis...

[AP]

31. Half full/half empty. I saw the date on this story and thought,

"How could AliciaKeyedUp be so confused when there's info on the internet that's less than 18 months old that totally contradicts what she's saying."

[AliciaKeyedUp]

33. Perhaps you ought to look at my other post

That is from December 18th -- this year.

[AP]

39. What part of that article contradicats the 9/03 analysis?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

40. The legislature clearly disagrees with you assessment

Since they agree there is a crisis.

[AP]

42. They also thought there was a crisis based on pre-9/03 data.

And the crisis seems to be that the private insurance companies are jacking up premiums without good reason to do so.

Why are you being so obtuse?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

45. Why are you ignoring the reality of what is going on?

That BOTH PARTIES seem concerned about?

[AP]

54. Both parties are concerend that insurance premiums have gone up...

...however, I'm not sure whether both sides agree to the cause of the problem. Also, it looks like these are private insurance companies that are jacking up their premiums. Or at least I can't tell from what I've seen that this is a state-run program which is having a probelm meeting payouts with pay-ins, which I think was the impression you created from your first reply.

[Sandpiper]

26. How bout doing your homework next time

n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

32. I did

Perhaps you should follow the news and please note this seems to be a bipartisan issue:

Ehrlich to Call Special Session On Malpractice
Insurance on Dec. 27 Agenda, But Funding Detail Unsettled

By John Wagner and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 18, 2004; Page A01

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) announced last night that he will call the Maryland General Assembly into a special session in 10 days to enact medical malpractice reforms, even though he and Democratic leaders have yet to agree on all aspects of the complex legislation to curb doctors' escalating insurance costs.

Ehrlich and the legislature's top Democrats said they are close to a consensus on a package of long-term legal changes but remain divided over one key issue: how to pay for a proposed state fund that would help roll back an average 33 percent rate increase facing most of the state's doctors in January.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8804-2004Dec17.html

[Sandpiper]

36. I'm well aware that Med Mal insurance premiums are rising

Trying to blame it on malpractice suits is a favorite canard of the Medical profession that has been thoroughly discredited.

Again, do your homework. Capping damages has never stabilized insurance prices anywhere it's been tried.

The reason? Because that was never the problem in the first place.

In my own state of California, MICRA was passed in 1975 capping non economic damages at $250k in response to rising malpractice insurance premiums.

The result? No affect at all as Med mal insurance premiums increased 450% from 1975 to 1988.

What finally stabalized insurance premiums was Prop 103, which rolled back insurance rates and imposed caps on insurers.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

37. I am not advocating anything

But if you honestly think there is nothing wrong with the current malpractice situation, then you are misinformed.

If you impose caps on insurers, they will simply stop insuring. The increases in Maryland are state insurance.

[Sandpiper]

38. Really?

If you impose caps on insurers, they will simply stop insuring.

That's strange. Rate increases were capped in California back in 1988 and it didn't cause insurers to stop insuring.

It just meant they didn't get to gouge customers to please their investors with 50% profit margins anymore.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

46. Few states have the benefits California has

Maryland (the issue here) has a small population and many insurers might readily withdraw, as they have done in other small states.

I don't claim to know the solution, I do claim to be able to see a problem that others here fail to recognize.

[Solon]

47. I have a question...

Why all the blame being put on "frivolous" lawsuits? Why not several problems leading to an increase in cost, such as bad investments, coupled with higher unemployment, leading to less people paying into the system, leading to perhaps, higher premiums? I mean is that even possible, or were there a rash of billion dollar lawsuits, like 10 or more that were won in the last decade?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

48. The Maryland medical community

Has been saying that the increase is because of the risk of being sued, especially for obstetricians.

[Solon]

49. I know that is what they are saying...

but what is the real cause, also does the MD insurance program cater to doctors or patients? That I would like to know. As far as the doctors are concerned, many, I would think, are on private carriers, and the main reason for the increase in premiums there is because of the possibilities I mentioned in my other post. Where is the rash of lawsuits these people keep on talking about? I think its a red herring.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

50. Obstetricians seem to be a major focus

Not just in Maryland, but around the country.

I am not taking their side. THEY claim that they get sued if anything goes wrong, even if it is just a naturally bad birth. I saw a stat, don't know if it's true, that claims obstetricians get sued on average a couple times during their career.

From what I understand, these major malpractice price increases are actually from the Maryland public insurance system.

[Solon]

51. The biggest problem is that...

they may discuss this crisis, pass some tort reform laws, and it most likely won't make a damned bit of difference. I don't personally know enough about Maryland's public system to comment. Like, is it payed through an optional payment plan? Or is it mandatory taxes to be used by all? Are the hospitals used in Maryland mostly private or public? This makes a big difference, as much as 40% of costs can be eaten up by administration in private hospitals/insurance. As far as the Obstetricians are concerned, I don't if it is true or not, and I would like to know the source of such a thing, I have heard the same thing around here, but I strongly doubt it is as bad as that.

[qanda]

53. I believe they are saying that

Because that's the excuse the insurance companies are giving them. I saw a segment on C-SPAN about this and the wives of some OB/GYN docs were calling in saying that their husbands had not had any lawsuits filed against them and their insurance rates were still going up. Many of them know that the main problem is with the insurance companies but most people are eager to throw their rights away if they are lied to enough times about what could happen if they don't.

The only lawsuits they want to prevent are the ones you or I would file. There will be no problem when it's Bush suing to steal the election or some big corporation suing to make sure we cannot download any music files.

[DeepModem Mom]

11. Thanks, Sandpiper!

[mmonk]

16. Great post

Tort reform needs to be exposed for the canard it is. Its just a further power shift away from the citizen.

[ChairOne]

22. Public Citizen Congress Watch has the best info I've seen....

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/medmal/

The basic facts:

There are practically no frivolous lawsuits.

Malpractice premiums are so high primarily because doctors refuse to police themselves, and insurance companies follow poor investment strategies.

Tort reform is crap. It only serves to futher insulate corporations from wrongs they perpetrate on the public.

EDIT: And just to be constructive, let me add the following:

I would be ok with limiting damage awards - as long as that was tied directly to doctors substantially policing themselves.

The details would have to be worked out, of course, but that's the idea. Read the materials at the link above to see the you-can't-have-it-both-ways intuition behind this.

[underpants]

20. Another GREAT resource here:

http://www.insurance-reform.org/

[psyntist]

21. Public Protection Attorneys

Every time some brings up this subject we need to respond with public protection attorneys. They defend individuals against negligent corporations.

[BanzaiBonnie]

24. Yes, frame the issue

Do not let it stand at "tort reform." This is about victim's rights restrictions.

[Killarney]

41. fantastic post. thank you for the links

[qanda]

52. Maryland is getting ready to pass tort reform

Our Republican governor is calling a special session (at taxpayer's expense) to make sure it passes. One question: What will the doctors do when the lawsuits stop and their insurance rates still go up?

Ehrlich calls for special session

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said Friday that he will convene a special session of the General Assembly in 10 days in hopes of passing legislation to ease rising malpractice insurance costs for doctors, an unexpected announcement that caps months of studies, posturing and unsuccessful negotiations.

"We're going to get the people's business done," Ehrlich said Friday night. "This is the most important issue facing the state of Maryland."

Ehrlich said he wants legislative committees to meet on Dec. 27 and the full Assembly to pass a comprehensive reform bill on Dec. 28 that is expected to include mandatory mediation in some medical legal cases, and higher Medicaid reimbursement rates for obstetricians and other doctors.

The development offers the hope of some relief for doctors facing rising insurance costs, but it comes late: Payment to Maryland's largest provider of malpractice coverage was due Dec. 1, and policies will be canceled on Jan. 1 if bills are not paid. They were on average 33 percent higher than a year ago, an increase that has led some doctors to say they will leave their practices.

(more)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-ehrlich1217,1,7685997.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

[AliciaKeyedUp]

58. You all have a Democratic legislature

Ehrlich can't pass anything without them.