But limits placed on malpractice awards have seen benefits to the public, both in (somewhat) reduced costs as well as increased access to medical care hasn't it?
But limits placed on malpractice awards have seen benefits to the public, both in (somewhat) reduced costs as well as increased access to medical care hasn't it?
I wouldn't trust any "research" that came out of the Bush administration. It's well known that they frequently manufactured and selectively chose numbers to prove whatever they wanted to.
But, it is well established that malpractice insurance premium increases are entirely unrelated to malpractice awards, but directly related to losses insurance companies incur in financial markets. The whole argument for capping malpractice awards is based on insurance companies lying about why rates increase. The truth is they go up because the insurance industry knows they can get away with raising them.
"Tort Reform, if the company suing loses, they pay bigtime. that would slow this crap down."
Be careful what you wish for....
I lived under that kind of system half my life and generally, when lawsuits come around, it's the little guys that get the shaft every single time. In fact the big guys tell you flat out they'll bury you in paperwork until you can't pay your lawyers any more.
Limited tort reform I'm O.K. with, but a loser pays system is a losing proposition. The fat cats would just sit back, put a lawyer on staff and laugh at anyone who sues them because once loser pays comes, they won't give a shit and they definitely won't settle, particularly if you need to hire a lawyer.
NOT FORGETTING... there will be NO more contingency fee based lawsuits if loser pays is introduced. Which lawyer in his right mind would represent a client and try to collect HIS fee, having lost... when the other guy is also putting him into bankruptcy.
"Tort Reform, if the company suing loses, they pay bigtime. that would slow this crap down."
Be careful what you wish for....
I lived under that kind of system half my life and generally, when lawsuits come around, it's the little guys that get the shaft every single time. In fact the big guys tell you flat out they'll bury you in paperwork until you can't pay your lawyers any more.
Limited tort reform I'm O.K. with, but a loser pays system is a losing proposition. The fat cats would just sit back, put a lawyer on staff and laugh at anyone who sues them because once loser pays comes, they won't give a shit and they definitely won't settle, particularly if you need to hire a lawyer.
NOT FORGETTING... there will be NO more contingency fee based lawsuits if loser pays is introduced. Which lawyer in his right mind would represent a client and try to collect HIS fee, having lost... when the other guy is also putting him into bankruptcy.
Tort reform alá Republicans...No thanks!
Some of the proponents were proposing caps on what the loser is required to pay for that reason alone, so that the bigger side doesn't just rack up the bills, or set up a situation of possible mutually assured destruction.
It's tough to support any change in how politics is done, because invariably, it seems like it's subverted so that nothing of substance really changes for the better, and it becomes even harder to change how politics is done. I'm also partial to the idea that "shock doctrine" might indeed be a conscious game plan in politics, though I can still see how it can look like it when it doesn't exist.
That's because we have a 'capitalist' legal system in this country. It's set up to allow people to seek redress through the courts and to create financial incentive for lawyers to aggressively pursue these cases with the hopes of reaping profits from properly representing their clients.
The alternative, if we actually want to protect people's rights, and not just descend into a state where people can cause injury without consequences, is to have the government itself become much more aggressively involved in enforcing civil law and handing out financial and other penalties.
Take your choice. But it's the anti-government crowd who are making all the noise about "tort reform", so what they are really arguing, many of them thoughtlessly, without even understanding what they are arguing for, is to strip citizens of their right to seek redress in any meaningful form.
That tells you that it's the Democratic party that is looking out for protecting the rights of the people and that the Republican party has simply become the tool of the rich and powerful who would prefer to trample those rights with impunity.
(And, since you bring it up, a flat tax, especially a national sales tax, is close to the most regressive -- i.e., unfair tax -- possible.)
Not gonna bite about the endless shallow comparisons between the Republicrats and Demicans, however....
1) I'm concerned about mega anything, whether it's corps or govs or unions or civil services. Individuals always get trampled in the footsteps of leviathans.
2) and FWIW - I've always opposed the "fair tax" (i.e., national sales tax) because it's not only regressive, but because it'll lead to unprecedented cheating. One can avoid nearly all state sales taxes now and tripling or quadrupling it would only exponentially increase the inducement.
Also it would give vertically-integrated businesses huge advantages over ones which operate by stringing together several levels of value-adds with resells in-between.
The simple fix to the Flat Tax regression problem is to exempt the first X dollars to not hit the poor and then phasing it out in stages over the next X dollars to give a smaller bite to the lower middle-class and a somewhat smaller one to the middle class.
Comments
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/tortcaps/tortcaps.htm
But limits placed on malpractice awards have seen benefits to the public, both in (somewhat) reduced costs as well as increased access to medical care hasn't it?
http://www.ahrq.gov/research/tortcaps/tortcaps.htm
I wouldn't trust any "research" that came out of the Bush administration. It's well known that they frequently manufactured and selectively chose numbers to prove whatever they wanted to.
But, it is well established that malpractice insurance premium increases are entirely unrelated to malpractice awards, but directly related to losses insurance companies incur in financial markets. The whole argument for capping malpractice awards is based on insurance companies lying about why rates increase. The truth is they go up because the insurance industry knows they can get away with raising them.
Be careful what you wish for....
I lived under that kind of system half my life and generally, when lawsuits come around, it's the little guys that get the shaft every single time. In fact the big guys tell you flat out they'll bury you in paperwork until you can't pay your lawyers any more.
Limited tort reform I'm O.K. with, but a loser pays system is a losing proposition. The fat cats would just sit back, put a lawyer on staff and laugh at anyone who sues them because once loser pays comes, they won't give a shit and they definitely won't settle, particularly if you need to hire a lawyer.
NOT FORGETTING... there will be NO more contingency fee based lawsuits if loser pays is introduced. Which lawyer in his right mind would represent a client and try to collect HIS fee, having lost... when the other guy is also putting him into bankruptcy.
Tort reform alá Republicans...No thanks!
Also just because a business is a business does mean they should automatic be punished.
Sure it does - everyone knows business is evil!
"Tort Reform, if the company suing loses, they pay bigtime. that would slow this crap down."
Be careful what you wish for....
I lived under that kind of system half my life and generally, when lawsuits come around, it's the little guys that get the shaft every single time. In fact the big guys tell you flat out they'll bury you in paperwork until you can't pay your lawyers any more.
Limited tort reform I'm O.K. with, but a loser pays system is a losing proposition. The fat cats would just sit back, put a lawyer on staff and laugh at anyone who sues them because once loser pays comes, they won't give a shit and they definitely won't settle, particularly if you need to hire a lawyer.
NOT FORGETTING... there will be NO more contingency fee based lawsuits if loser pays is introduced. Which lawyer in his right mind would represent a client and try to collect HIS fee, having lost... when the other guy is also putting him into bankruptcy.
Tort reform alá Republicans...No thanks!
Some of the proponents were proposing caps on what the loser is required to pay for that reason alone, so that the bigger side doesn't just rack up the bills, or set up a situation of possible mutually assured destruction.
It's tough to support any change in how politics is done, because invariably, it seems like it's subverted so that nothing of substance really changes for the better, and it becomes even harder to change how politics is done. I'm also partial to the idea that "shock doctrine" might indeed be a conscious game plan in politics, though I can still see how it can look like it when it doesn't exist.
That's because we have a 'capitalist' legal system in this country. It's set up to allow people to seek redress through the courts and to create financial incentive for lawyers to aggressively pursue these cases with the hopes of reaping profits from properly representing their clients.
The alternative, if we actually want to protect people's rights, and not just descend into a state where people can cause injury without consequences, is to have the government itself become much more aggressively involved in enforcing civil law and handing out financial and other penalties.
Take your choice. But it's the anti-government crowd who are making all the noise about "tort reform", so what they are really arguing, many of them thoughtlessly, without even understanding what they are arguing for, is to strip citizens of their right to seek redress in any meaningful form.
That tells you that it's the Democratic party that is looking out for protecting the rights of the people and that the Republican party has simply become the tool of the rich and powerful who would prefer to trample those rights with impunity.
(And, since you bring it up, a flat tax, especially a national sales tax, is close to the most regressive -- i.e., unfair tax -- possible.)
Not gonna bite about the endless shallow comparisons between the Republicrats and Demicans, however....
1) I'm concerned about mega anything, whether it's corps or govs or unions or civil services. Individuals always get trampled in the footsteps of leviathans.
2) and FWIW - I've always opposed the "fair tax" (i.e., national sales tax) because it's not only regressive, but because it'll lead to unprecedented cheating. One can avoid nearly all state sales taxes now and tripling or quadrupling it would only exponentially increase the inducement.
Also it would give vertically-integrated businesses huge advantages over ones which operate by stringing together several levels of value-adds with resells in-between.
The simple fix to the Flat Tax regression problem is to exempt the first X dollars to not hit the poor and then phasing it out in stages over the next X dollars to give a smaller bite to the lower middle-class and a somewhat smaller one to the middle class.