Err, Paul Ryan brought up a tort reform amendment. It was voted down in a party line vote. Check your facts.
I'll take a savings of $35,000,000,000.00 a year. That's $116.67 for every man, woman and child in the US or $466.67 for a family of four. That's real money.
Sure it is. Anytime something goes wrong medically, there's going to be a lawsuit and regardless of how good the doctor is and the excellence of the care provided. I would say that the 90% of the cases that are frivolous are brought by lawyers who will take the case on spec (a % of the settlement or award) and who end up funding the plaintiff's costs. From their standpoint, it's worth a shotgun approach. Take 10 cases and if you lose 100% of the costs on 9 of them but make $5M on the 10th, you're way up. I see the bogus claim that tort claims only cost some small % of the overall costs. There's a lot more to it than the amount of settlements and the cost of malpractice insurance. It drives good doctors out of practice altogether or into other specialties that are reasonably (or excessively) profitable. And then there are a lot of extra procedures performed by doctors just to cover their asses for the expected lawsuit, no matter the medical outcome.
Not sure where you are getting the 35 billion/year. CBO estimates a savings of 11 billion for 2009. But yes, let's take that savings. It still amounts to only a savings of half a percent. barfo
It's too bad, then, that the republicans have never had majorities in the house and senate and held the presidency at the same time - if that had ever happened, they would have been able to enact real tort reform. I mean besides 2001-2006, of course. Six years isn't nearly enough time to get things done. barfo
"It will be tough to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they're looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits... some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable." (President Obama, American Medical Association June 2009). "Anyone who denies there is a crisis in medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer." (Barack Obama 1996 Illinois State Senate race). Now the vaunted CBO and GAO won't score the savings anywhere near that number. (Both argue that so many states have enacted different tort reform laws that an assessment of savings is not possible). But the CBO has reviewed the few credible reports that do exist and concluded, "A number of those studies have found that state level tort reforms have decreased the number of lawsuits filed, lowered the value of claims and damage awards... thereby reducing general insurance premiums. Indeed premiums fell by 40% for some commercial policies". (CBO Report June 2004) Then there is the restriction to accessible healthcare resulting from malpractice lawsuits. A GAO report in August 2003 concluded, "Actions taken by healthcare providers in response to malpractice pressure have contributed to localized healthcare access problems....pregnant women in rural central Mississippi (for example) travel 65 miles to locate obstetric wards to deliver because family practitioners at local hospitals faced with rising malpractice insurance premiums stopped providing obstetric services." Since those states that have enacted tort reform have such disparate caps on pain and suffering malpractice lawyers "venue" shop for states with higher caps and more plaintive-friendly juries. The attractiveness of class action suits, which can result in millions of dollars (30 to 40% of the award goes to lawyers), often result in pitifully small payments to the injured parties. Let's be clear, there are thousands of legitimate malpractice cases where doctors and hospitals cause terrible damages. National standards for medical malpractice would mandate full payment for economic damages a cap of $250000 in punitive damages would be a reasonable award in most of these cases. Where the cap is insufficient in particularly egregious cases a "Health Court" could hear appeals and make awards above the cap from a compensation fund provided by the healthcare industry. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...he_hole_on_health_care_tort_reform_97919.html Let's impeach the guy who wrote that article. Go for it.
So a doctor accidently chops off the wrong arm or someone contracts the AIDS virus due to neglegence of the doctor's office and they are limited to economic damages and 250,000 in punitive damages. Sounds like a hell of a deal . . . for the insurance company.
"Where the cap is insufficient in particularly egregious cases a "Health Court" could hear appeals and make awards above the cap from a compensation fund provided by the healthcare industry."
There's absolutely no question that era will go down as a shameful one for the Republicans. The question is why are the Democrats trying to top them?
It's mostly just his opinion. No need for impeachment. It's not a bad argument except for the "let's just stipulate that whatever figures anyone throws out are correct" part. And I think he misstates the conclusions of the 2004 CBO report. But I don't have any problem with his conclusion, even so. I think if the democrats are confident they have the votes to get the overall bill passed, it would be a good thing to add in tort reform too. As long as they are in a position where they might not have the votes, they are probably smart to hold on to tort reform as a possible bargaining chip for that one last senator's vote. barfo
Do you believe that physicians should be required to be perfect? There's gross negligence and there's medical mistakes. The former should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; the latter needs to try to make the patient whole, not to win the lottery.
That's the total cost. Tort reform isn't going to completely eliminate medical malpractice liability, unless you've got in mind to say no one has the right to ever sue a doctor for any reason. barfo
Tort reform would have the added benefit of reducing the practice of defensive medicine, which would allow services to be provided to more people.
You're right. My bad. Let's use the $11B number. That's $36.67 for every man, woman and child in the US or $146.67 for a family of four. I think that's a significant savings. Why not pursue it? Howard Dean told the truth.
Even when they had a majority, they couldn't get it passed. The plaintiff attorney lobby is one of the two or three toughest.
Prosecute? I'm not talking criminal charges against the doctor. But I do believe doctors should be held to a high standard given what is at stake. I might even be OK with a standard of gross negligence for a patient to prevail (although I think regular negligenceis a perfectly fine standard). What I think is ridiculous is limiting how much a patient can recover through legislation . . . that is for a jury to decide under the facts of the particular case.
I really don't think they tried too hard. I was incredibly disappointed with those Congresses and the domestic policies of our President. It was a great chance to scale back government, and they expanded it dramatically.
