tort refom another red herring to holding up HCR

[Lesley]

Eliminating the ability for the regular joe to file a substantial and painful monetary penalty on medical malpractice. It's been touted here and on the Senate floor. "No health care reform until tort is addressed". Baloney. It's simply another red herring to try and stop the efforts at reform.

Reporting from Washington - Medical malpractice reform is unlikely to cut healthcare spending significantly, the Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year -- $11 billion at the current level -- according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency.

The figure is far lower than previous estimates by groups backing malpractice reform. On Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) blasted Democrats for blocking attempts to reform malpractice laws. "Almost everybody agrees that we can save between $100 billion and $200 billion if we had effective medical malpractice reform," he said.

Reform advocates cast the report as an endorsement of their efforts, noting that the government would save $41 billion over 10 years on such programs as Medicare and Medicaid
...
This is the first Congressional Budget Office report to put a price tag on so-called defensive medicine, procedures and tests that stave off the threat of lawsuits but may not improve patient health. The agency found that reducing those measures through malpractice reform would lower healthcare spending by three-tenths of 1%.

.

So if I have this straight, we have a substantial number of Reps who are calling for gov't interference in the citizens' right to sue-- (those who normally hate gov't interference, screaming for gov't interference). It gets so confusing lol

Medical malpractice reform savings would be small, report says -- latimes.com

[LandJ]

I don't scream gov't interference. I live in a state where tort reform is desperately needed. I've seen it first hand. I personally have worked for a facility who's company completely closed all Florida facilities and pulled out of the state. Left the SNF's 40+ employees high and dry without a job. I have also seen a ton of bogus, ridiculous lawsuits filed against facilities I've worked for. Been depositioned a few times. And you know what? If the SNF is sooooo bad that you have to sue us.....THEN TAKE YOUR MOTHER ELSEWHERE!!! If we're that bad why would you leave her here for us to take care of? Red flag that it's a stupid lawsuit.

And nobody bothers to tell these people filing the lawsuits that they only see a teeny fraction of the monetary award. Gee, I wonder who gets it?

So yes...if they have to hold up HCR b/c of Tort Reform I'm all for it.

[BC-tinatinva]

Frivolous lawsuits - multimillion dollar awards - it's a huge component of the exponential cost of health care. Why shouldn't it be addressed?
Not a red herring - something that increases cost through sky-rocketing insurance premiums for MD's. Look at the shortage of OB practivces. Calling it a red-herring boggles me. It's a real factor in health care costs and reforming it doesn't limit the ability to litigate a malpractice case - it simply puts tha burden of cost on the person filing if the suit is found to be frivilous. Not much for mediation... but true reform is needed.

[LandJ]

Originally Posted by BC-tinatinva

Look at the shortage of OB practivces.

Don't know if it's the same everywhere, but in Florida if an OB (maybe all MDs) shows proof of xx amt of $ ($200,000 maybe) in it's own account they are permitted to drop their malpractice insurance.

[Lesley]

Tort reform in the realm of healthcare would result in minimal savings. 3/10th of a percent savings. Great Scott!!!!

Frivolous law suits abound in every industry and situations, not just healthcare. If it's frivolous law suits that are the problem...then that should be defined, and have restrictions. There is no reason the concern of frivolous law suits needs to be tied to healthcare.

it simply puts tha burden of cost on the person filing if the suit is found to be frivilous

Agreed...but across the board to all situations.

Sky rocketing insurance rates are a separate concern also....Excuses for another bump in premiums. Insurance companies have already shown that is how they work, over and over again. Justified or not, it's one of the vehicles they employ for the ever growing profit margins and exec bonuses. They are hardly going without!

There does need to be deterrents for poor health care. Just as there needs to be deterrents for auto makers making faulty equipment, or tire mfg's, making faulty tires. People's lives, family, quality of life, income, permanent problems, should not be minimized by monetary limits espcially when reducing those measures through malpractice reform would lower healthcare spending by three-tenths of 1%.

I think there is an industry problem when it comes to the magnitude and the volume of law suits. And that is the law industry. It's not unheard of for an attorney pressuring clients into asking for awards when one may never have been seeked out in the first place, or upping the amount so the attorney's cut is also increased. Why not reform things from that angle?

However, based purely on the article and the cost of law suits vs' the amount to be saved via any tort reform, it would seem that most law suits are neither huge nor frivolous.

[BC-tinatinva]

Originally Posted by Lesley

I think there is an industry problem when it comes to the magnitude and the volume of law suits. And that is the law industry. It's not unheard of for an attorney pressuring clients into asking for awards when one may never have been seeked out in the first place, or upping the amount so the attorney's cut is also increased. Why not reform things from that angle?

However, based purely on the article and the cost of law suits vs' the amount to be saved via any tort reform, it would seem that most law suits are neither huge nor frivolous.

So we are saying the same thing. It's irrelevant that "most" are not huge or frivolous.. That some are have everything to do with the cost that an MD must charge to run a practice. So yes, reform the tort laws.

[rae]

I have yet to see even one politician say that tort reform is the only reason that they are against either of the House or Senate bills. Hardly a red herring.

The question is, why are you against it? If even the CBO says that it can cut the deficit by $54 Billion, why are you against it?

I know why the Democratic politicians are against it. Money, and lots of it. Lawyers have given out more than one Billion dollars to politicians in the last 20 years, with 73% average going to Democrats. And for the 2010 campaign, that percentage is more than 80% for Democrats.

Lawyers / Law Firms: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets

Again, I understand why Democrat politicians are against tort reform. But, why are Democrats so against it?

[intheknow]

I think that they should use anything they can to hold up HCR. Letting the government get its hands on even MORE of the economy and even MORE power over our lives is a grave mistake.