torte reform

[foxpaws]

this came up on another thread...

And how much less expensive would that health care be if not for the government intervention in the market and the abuses of trail lawyers?

my answer...

Tons - but do you place a value on something then. A life is worth.... a limb is worth... an eye is worth.... Is that fair?

I have always been interested in the topic of torte reform in the area of medical lawsuits...

So Cal - what would you do to enact torte reform with regards to the medical profession?

 

[Calabrio]

It's 2am... I'm done writing for the evening.
Here's one suggestion regarding Tort reform by Charles Krauthammer:

(1) ....our crazy system of casino malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone's insurance premiums and creates an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune.

An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).

What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.

The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from carelessness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.

other options-
Limit the percentage amount of lawyer contingency fees.
Cap punitive damages.
Or "Loser pays" a significant cost of the defense.

The need for tort reform isn't just the cost of the payouts.
It's the legal expensive of having to fight people who are abusing the system like it was a lottery.
And the excessive cost of needless preventative medicine that Doctors order in an effort to provide legal cover.

 

[foxpaws]

socialize the risk

Did I read that right?

 

[fossten]

Did I read that right?

Did you read all of it?

 

[foxpaws]

Did you read all of it?

Yes I did - I was rather shocked that he wanted to place another tax on something (health insurance) so the risk would be 'socialized' i.e. spread across the populace.

Seems rather like placing a tax on the populace so you can socialize the risk of health care in general, but in this case you are just creating a barrier between the corporation and their customers. Same idea - create a pool of money to draw from, from the populace, so that one entity isn't left carrying the bulk of the burden of the expense. Basically you are paying for your own punitive damages, in a rather more direct way than the increases we see at the office for doctors to pay their malpractice insurance, or the additional charges that are hidden in hospital charges to pay for their liability coverage.

So, Cal, the only way for this to work is to place limits on damages - correct?

 

[fossten]

So, Cal, the only way for this to work is to place limits on damages - correct?

Ah, so you didn't read all of it. Thanks for playing Straw Man. (Hint: your 'tell' is " - correct?")

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Once again you zero in on one suggestion by someone other than Cal, attribute it to him, ignore all the other options he mentioned, and ignore his comment that he didn't have time to get deep into the topic. Your gross disrespect of your fellow posters is disgusting and is only surpassed by your desperate need for attention.

Honestly I admire Cal's patience with you, as you're the most dishonest and selfish poster I've ever seen here. I wonder how much longer he'll continue to 'suffer the fool.'

On second thought - you're right. We should abandon all attempts to fix healthcare with a market based solution and instead trust all of our healthcare to the very organization that bankrupted Medicare. That'll teach us. Brilliant, fox.

By the way, it's not 'torte.' Unless you're talking about baking.

 

[foxpaws]

Ah, so you didn't read all of it. Thanks for playing Straw Man.



Once again you zero in on one suggestion by someone other than Cal, attribute it to him, ignore all the other options he mentioned, and ignore his comment that he didn't have time to get deep into the topic. Your gross disrespect of your fellow posters is disgusting and is only surpassed by your desperate need for attention.

Honestly I admire Cal's patience with you, as you're the most dishonest and selfish poster I've ever seen here. I wonder how much longer he'll continue to 'suffer the fool.'

On second thought - you're right. We should abandon all attempts to fix healthcare with a market based solution and instead trust all of our healthcare to the very organization that bankrupted Medicare. That'll teach us. Brilliant, fox.

By the way, it's not 'torte.' Unless you're talking about baking.

I was a bit peckish last night...

tort... sorry... it was late as Cal said.

But, I am really interested in this - I know a lot of attorneys, on both sides of this fence. It is nice to see different ideas and how the problem can be fixed or addressed.

I personally believe that we need to look at tort reform and do something about it. It is costing us billions, it doesn't do what it is suppose to do. There should be fair and equitable ways to still punish the bad, compensate those who have been wronged, and not have this huge expense that we all bear.

Usually limits are involved - it is very difficult finding a way to fix this problem without them.

I was interested in how others would approach this.

How about you Foss, how do you think the problem should be addressed?

However maybe I should be discussing how we should reform tortes. Perhaps we should start by removing the kiwis...

But, if you would rather demonize me - please do...

 

[fossten]

I was a bit peckish last night...

tort... sorry... it was late as Cal said.

But, I am really interested in this - I know a lot of attorneys, on both sides of this fence. It is nice to see different ideas and how the problem can be fixed or addressed.

I personally believe that we need to look at tort reform and do something about it. It is costing us billions, it doesn't do what it is suppose to do. There should be fair and equitable ways to still punish the bad, compensate those who have been wronged, and not have this huge expense that we all bear.

Usually limits are involved - it is very difficult finding a way to fix this problem without them.

I was interested in how others would approach this.

How about you Foss, how do you think the problem should be addressed?

However maybe I should be discussing how we should reform tortes. Perhaps we should start by removing the kiwis...

But, if you would rather demonize me - please do...

Peckish? So you being hungry means you can't post honestly? That's a new one. I've never heard that one before. "The dog ate my homework" thinks that's lame.

But being 'peckish' as you say (sorry, I'm still laughing at your 'poorly chosen' word) didn't prevent you from Alinskying Cal's response, did it?

Ah - here goes foxpaws leaping to victim status. What step is that again?

Let's have a pool on how many days fox will be gone this time, guys...

 

[Calabrio]

Did I read that right?

You read Krauthammer right. He did use that word.
I don't particularly care for his idea though.

So Cal - what would you do to enact torte reform with regards to the medical profession?

For starters I wouldn't start writing reform legislation after 2 AM after having already written countless pages responding to your shifty, historically inaccurate, misleading posts. So I provided you with a couple of the ideas that are most frequently discussed.

Tort reform isn't the solution to all of the problems that are associated with health care or the cost of health care. It is but ONE of the problems that needless burden and expense Doctors.

The root of the problem is that we need to eliminate the lotto like system that attorney's and some individuals associate with medical lawsuits. The best way to accomplish that is through and common sense disincentives.

You focused on my Krauthammer quote, but limiting the contingency fees and capping PUNITIVE damages and a "loser pays" for frivolous lawsuits are all legal tools that can be used to bring down health care costs.

There are other smaller options that aren't as easy to explain too, such as preventing defendants from bringing the case before a court where the defendant doesn't reside. These ambulance chaser shop for "generous" or poorly educated courts and juries, courts that have histories of granting ridiculous awards.

But tor reform is NOT a one shot solution, tort reform is part of a cocktail that will help correct the health care market.

The biggest issue is getting the government out of the healthcare industry, and then changing the way we receive and utilize our insurance. People, the consumer, need to be more directly involved in their healthcare and the costs, so that they make direct, informed, and rational decisions regarding the cost.

Without that, we inevitably run into huge distortions of the supply & demand curve as individuals use the resources as though it were free, which inevitably leaders to either high prices or shortages.

 

[fossten]

So, fox, why do you suppose the Democrats are against 'torte' reform and the other options posed by Cal?

 

[foxpaws]

Peckish? So you being hungry means you can't post honestly? That's a new one. I've never heard that one before. "The dog ate my homework" thinks that's lame.

But being 'peckish' as you say (sorry, I'm still laughing at your 'poorly chosen' word) didn't prevent you from Alinskying Cal's response, did it?

Ah - here goes foxpaws leaping to victim status. What step is that again?

Let's have a pool on how many days fox will be gone this time, guys...

4 days- starting Friday AM... coming back Monday evening...

If you want I can post my work schedule foss - since you have this rather unnatural need to know where I am at all times....

Heck, Cal started the peckish bit - he talked about Batali, which made me think about Beef Cheek Ravioli with Black Truffles and Crushed Duck Liver... and the fact I won't be in Vegas for another month... or even near another Batali restaurant until then... /s/s/s/s/s

Oh, that trip is mid May- need my schedule now foss, so you can plan ahead?

Note, Cal got my response - I was just surprised that he posted that - it seemed very 'un Cal' like... I wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to start the discussion using 'socialized risk' as a starting point...

I knew he was tired... I was too... and peckish...

 

[fossten]

So, no response to my question about the Democrats, fox?

I guess you have no answer...

 

[cammerfe]

Woo Hoo

"torte", "peckish"---when this kinda stuff comes up...

I always have trouble with my fantasies regarding you anyway. Now, if we could only do something about this lean toward Liberality....
KS

(Gee, I just re-read the above. Have I objectified you improperly?)

 

[foxpaws]

So, no response to my question about the Democrats, fox?

I guess you have no answer...

I veer from the Dems on this - I believe in tort reform... I think they like it because it seems that it should be good for the 'common man' and a lot of them are lawyers...

I know you like to believe I am a DemBot... but I am not Foss...

 

[foxpaws]

"torte", "peckish"---when this kinda stuff comes up...

I always have trouble with my fantasies regarding you anyway. Now, if we could only do something about this lean toward Liberality....
KS

(Gee, I just re-read the above. Have I objectified you improperly?)

KS - there is nothing better than a good objectifying every now and then...

So, fond of tortes are we?

 

[fossten]

I veer from the Dems on this - I believe in tort reform... I think they like it because it seems that it should be good for the 'common man' and a lot of them are lawyers...

I know you like to believe I am a DemBot... but I am not Foss...

I gave you no indication that I believe any such thing. You seem to have an unnatural obsession with what I think of you. More of your desperate need for attention is my guess.

I happen to believe that you are a well indoctrinated authoritarian who carefully cherrypicks the issues you discuss so as to spread your propaganda in the most efficient manner possible. You carefully avoid taking a stand on nearly every issue but rather nitpick and parse the positions of others, attempting to undermine their confidence in their beliefs.

 

[foxpaws]

You read Krauthammer right. He did use that word.
I don't particularly care for his idea though.

It did seem a bit odd - tax and then pool money from taxes... not very 'cal' like... somewhat socialist...

Tort reform isn't the solution to all of the problems that are associated with health care or the cost of health care. It is but ONE of the problems that needless burden and expense Doctors.

The root of the problem is that we need to eliminate the lotto like system that attorney's and some individuals associate with medical lawsuits. The best way to accomplish that is through and common sense disincentives.

So, do you look at tort reform just for doctors, or for medical institutions as well - or how about drug companies - should they be included too?

You focused on my Krauthammer quote, but limiting the contingency fees and capping PUNITIVE damages and a "loser pays" for frivolous lawsuits are all legal tools that can be used to bring down health care costs.

so capping damages - punitive ones - are a way to help fix the problem - it is actually in fact, the best way to really do it without stepping on rights - your day in court - the ability to make the wrongdoer pay for his mistakes, et al.

The biggest issue is getting the government out of the healthcare industry, and then changing the way we receive and utilize our insurance. People, the consumer, need to be more directly involved in their healthcare and the costs, so that they make direct, informed, and rational decisions regarding the cost.

Without that, we inevitably run into huge distortions of the supply & demand curve as individuals use the resources as though it were free, which inevitably leaders to either high prices or shortages.

But, that doesn't have anything to do with tort reform - which is really what I was interested in, and why I created a thread just for this...

So, back to damages - how would you decide where to cap damages?

 

[fossten]

But, that doesn't have anything to do with tort reform - which is really what I was interested in, and why I created a thread just for this...

Look who's trying to stay on topic all of a sudden.

In fact, getting government out of healthcare has EVERYTHING to do with tort[e] reform.