Tort Reform. This is what rethugs want, all those brainless people

at the town halls?

Does this mean if someone is horribly injured by someone during an accident and a doctor does the wrong thing, like take off a leg, or a boob, or an arm, when your appendix was at risk, we should forgive doctors?

I'm dumbfounded at their dumbness.

The mindless teabagger zombies just do what they are told.

Then there will be hell to pay!!

Look to Canada for the model.

Anyone who gets injured by any means, fault or no fault, gets standard compensation.

I believe that the title of the lecture was "Reforming Tort Law by Eliminating It" or something. Back in my law school days.

Here is a little summary http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/25/1/278

"In 1974 New Zealand jettisoned a tort-based system for compensating medical injuries in favor of a government-funded compensation system. Although the system retained some residual fault elements, it essentially barred medical malpractice litigation. Reforms in 2005 expanded eligibility for compensation to all "treatment injuries," creating a true no-fault compensation system. Compared with a medical malpractice system, the New Zealand system offers more-timely compensation to a greater number of injured patients and more-effective processes for complaint resolution and provider accountability. The unfinished business lies in realizing its full potential for improving patient safety.

IN 1974 NEW ZEALAND adopted a government-funded system for compensating people with personal injuries (operated by the Accident Compensation Corporation, or ACC), replacing its former tort-based system. A generation of New Zealanders has now grown up knowing the ACC as the primary method of dealing with personal injury claims, including medical injuries, and avoidance of litigation is widely regarded as a social gain.1 Reforms in 2005 removed the final fault element from the compensation criteria for medical injuries, making it a true no-fault system.

Contextual differences in health funding, social security, and community values limit generalization of the New Zealand experience to other countries. Nevertheless, this system merits close consideration for its efforts to compensate injured patients quickly and equitably, while offering accountability mechanisms focused on ensuring safer care rather than assigning individual blame. Exhibit 1Go lists some of the features of the New Zealand system in comparison with the U.S. system."

<snip>

More at link.

The corporatocracy wants to eradicate the ability of ordinary citizens to use the courts. Caps on malpractice, mandatory arbitration clauses, venue rules, etc., are all ways that the plutocrats protect their wealth while still availing themselves of the courts to go after YOU. But there's no explaining it to dumbass teabaggers.

today. Nothing about the bigger picture, but what he wouldn't have to deal with. That disgusted me.

Fortunately I know others who are able to see the big picture. My GYN, I'm proud to say, is a proponent of single payer and posts materials in support of it in her waiting room.

Congress does very little to regulate and the Executive Branch hasn't been exactly stellar in consumer protection and safety measures over the last twenty years...

It's funny, protecting Americans from sudden terrorist attacks is a high priority but keeping people safe from malfunctioning products and poorly designed products isn't worth the trouble...

Stacking the courts with RW pro-corporate judges.

Tort reform needs to inclued dumbassed lawsuits like this. Unless it does. No way.

Some type of tort reform is needed for OBGYN where it has reached epidemic proportions and is abused.

Are you talking about babies who die?

I'm not getting that argument.

obgyn specialists - suing every time there is a problem with a birth even though doctors are following standard protocol



their malpractice is 600% that of average doctors. In some areas they are quitting practicing their speciality in large numbers. I believe that the state of Nevada no longer has any private obgyn practices.


here is a typical article about the problem in Tennessee.


http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/12487601.html


So while the tort reform argument is generally not supported by the facts it seems to be supported in obgyn and also neurology ( I believe).

Either because they believe in idiotic lies, or they're just plain mean.

The problem is that such awards should not be based in compassion or even concern for the needs of the plaintiff, they should be based in the facts of the case. Now can you honestly say that juries only award money to mothers of messed up babies whose condition was the direct result of a deliberate, negligent, or avoidable failure on the part of the medical staff?

And what purpose do punitive damages serve? Have they ever put a doctor out of business? Hell, doctors in Palm Beach who have had their licenses revoked , set up shop in the Bahamas.

It's a nice little euphemism for 'the people lose their rights.'

Thanks for the quote. :hi:

costs needs to be investigated including the legal system. Why would they be excluded from scrutiny and no one else?

of healthcare costs, what is gained by "reforming" the legal system?

n/t

The reason that premiums went up so much is that the carriers didn't do a good job of underwriting when malpractice insurance first came out and they made bad investments with the premiums. The awards have never been the problem. It's ridiculously hard to win a suit, even if it's clear that the doctor or hospital screwed up. The burden of proof is very high and juries are notoriously sympathetic to the defendants. Doctors and nurses are right up there with cops, in terms of public esteem. Which means that juries will err in their favor more often than not. I have an attorney friend who does medical malpractice. She's a crackerjack lawyer and she says that she turns down most potential clients because she knows she can't win or get a settlement unless it's an airtight case of negligence.

but I keep getting told malpractice doesn't cost us a dime.I want it investigated. I want no stone unturned. If we can't have single payer I want our current system turned inside out!

You know as well as I do...it hasn't worked out well in Texas for the little guy.

be a good swap for the public option.

:grr:

I don't think so.

I've seen horrific things happen under "tort reform".
It needs to be a distant memory.

You can pass tort reform all you want, but the USSC will shoot it down if they believe that the law was passed to protect certain people from people who have legitimate claims.

But that seems just the camel's nose I'm sure it will spread like crabgrass and touch upon plenty of other liabilities corporate America should be bearing but they refuse to do so - enter tort reform - HCR is just the springboard to what they really want imo

I've seen plaintiffs who were severely injured where the jury decided the doctor/hospital was not liable, although I thought it was pretty obvious that the doctor/hospital was liable.

The effect is a bigger burden for the taxpayers to pay for the disabled.

it to unruffle some feathers. That would be a crime imo.