The rightwing's "tort reform" blinders

[SHRED]

Funny, when the rightwing squawks about "tort reform" they exclusively mean 'person vs. insurance(corporate)' type of suits.
These are the type of lawsuits that are sensationalized by the media so therefore the righties follow along like good little soldiers with their "outrage". Good little protectors of the wealthy few they are. In essence they are being duped into supporting the weakening of our right to justice and the resulting protection of wealthy corporate interests.

They never once think, or mention (I doubt they have even investigated) the type of lawsuits that really drive cost which is the 'corporate vs. corporate' suits. Far more plentiful and far more costly to us and our justice system.

---

[Lagomorph]

1. Limit them to..

legal costs & $250K.

Saaahweeet!

[texastoast]

2. Agreed.

We first fought tort reform here in Texas in the 90s. Not one time did I hear in the media the fact that less than one-tenth of one percent of med mal suits ever reached judgment. One case I worked on involved a doctor who used an unclean liposuction tool on two women in the same day. Sepsis set in and both were dead in 48 hours.

[paulsby]

3. that ignores the problem though

it is true that the VAST majority of med mal cases don't reach judgment

neither do the VAST majority of criminal cases (they are plead out, dropped, continued without a finding, etc.)

the issue is that DUE to the RISK of a malpractice suit, where even if you are NOT civilly responsible you can spend metric assloads of money defending yourself, is that it causes doctors to practice "defensive medicine", which DOES raise costs.

and let's talk some more about tort reform. let me give you an example of how bad it was in Hawaii.

hawaii is one of the few (if not the only) states that accepts a person to sue for an injury they got while bodysurfing or such at a public beach.

it causes some AMAZING perverse incentives. this applies at county beaches, not state beaches, btw.

the reality is that our tort system DOES need reform.

i notice that people here think england is SO superior in so many ways to us, but when it comes to tort reform (they have loser pays) all of a sudden WE are better.

i find that immensely ironic

reminds me of the french and nuclear power

[no_hypocrisy]

4. The story seems consistent:

They only want tort reform until their surgeon removes the healthy lung and leaves in the cancerous one.

[Historic NY]

5. It would be interesting to see data on RW lawsuits.

[SHRED]

6. How to frame "tort reform":

Tort reform = soft on crime.

:toast:

[D-Lee]

7. Tort reform NEVER has reduced malpratice premiums and ...

has just saved money for the insurance companies. The AMA's position on this issue does NOT advance the economic interest of their members, which I find mindbogglingly stupid.

And, as to the first post, it totally left medical costs out of its calculation.

Finally, malpractice insurance companies would love to tie "tort reform" to "health insurance reform" -- shift the cost of negligence from doctors who injure their patients to the innocent general population.

I wonder what the details of this latest plan will be ...