How can you demand change in health care (to make it more affordable) and not stand for tort reform?

Question

Only in the US, no other country in the world but ours, allows trial lawyers to create frivolous law suits and not be accountable to compensate the defendant, if they lose the case. How can anyone who truly wants health care reform, support these cretins who prey upon tragedy for their own personal gain? They fill our courts with frivolous suits, they cause medical providers to carry HUGE insurance, force patients to have needless procedures and operations; they force medical givers to shut down or move because juries throw "lottery winning" awards, at these con artists. Insurance and drug industry attributes a great deal of their costs, to defend against these cretins. What a hypocite you are if you support trial lawyers and rail about health care costs! To most, we see you as practicing a staregy to break the backs of our economy, to replace our way of life with socialism and communism.

I expected liberals to ignore the question and claim the problem is corporations (your true enemy capitalism); you never dissapoint me.

Trial lawyers DO create false law suits, our society is highly litigous- thanks to liberals supporting trial lawyers.

Answer 1

Amen remember this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html
or this
http://www.ketv.com/news/14133442/detail.html
or these
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/StupidLawsuit.htm

Answer 2

Actually, in the US currently, a lawyer cannot create a frivolous lawsuit without penalties -- and the penalties only start with having to pay the legal costs of the other side. The lawyer is also personally liable for sanctions (to the govt), in addition to the plaintiff being liable for the costs.

The issue is what counts as "frivolous" -- and that has been the subject of numerous changes to civil procedure rules at both the state and federal level for decades.

But most tort reform bills actually have nothing to do with whether a lawsuit is frivolous or not -- they are only concerned with the maximum amount of damages that can be claimed if the person wins. And by definition, if the plaintiff wins, then the lawsuit was not frivolous.

Besides, health care is an almost entirely unrelated issue -- since it deals with providing an initial service -- not holding someone accountable for (potentially) tortious activity.

You do highlight the one tenuous link -- the fact that high awards on a win (which by definition means a non-frivolous suit) can drive insurance costs up.

The problem is with the way the system is structured, and the types of damages that are available for different causes of action. Very few who actually understand the civil litigation system are working to craft reasonable solutions -- and the solutions that legislators are trying to craft are generally unreasonable and unworkable.

Answer 3

If doctors paid the damages awards from malpractice cases themselves, your question might be valid. However, most malpractice claims are paid by insurance companies.

Thus, any evaluation of tort reform needs to start by examining the books of the insurance companies. If you are insured by a mutual insurance company, you have the advantage of getting a financial summary once a year. Taking a look at my own, I noticed several things.

First, a large proportion of the income of insurance companies comes from investment income not premiums. As such, we should not be surprised that there has been a historical connections between large increases in premiums and poor results on investments.

Second, a large proportion of the expenses of insurance companies is administrative -- accountants, executive, agents -- and not related to any claims.

Third, claims paid and expenses related to claims have been relatively stable over time. There is no historical correlation between these figures and increases in premiums.

Finally, in my state, the top ten judgments are published each year. They are not particular high considering that you are dealing with someone who died from malpractice. (#10 is typically between $1 million and $2 million). Most cases do not end in lottery type settlements (and the percentage of frivolous law suits is not high).

As noted in other answers, if a law suit is frivolous (not supported by any evidence), the plaintiff does have to pay the defendant's legal costs. If the law suit has merit but the facts are in dispute, plaintiffs do not have to pay the defendant's legal costs.

It would help if you actually knew what was going on in the courts and were not merely being a shill for the insurance industry.

Answer 4

Well for one, this implies that no doctor has ever made an egregious error in treating a patient or has never ignored the standard of care because of their own hubris.

That having been said, I am all for tort reform. Punitive damages though should not be capped.

Any losing case should have to pay for the defendants attorney's fees though.

Answer 5

The real issue in American health care isn't the need for tort reform. the real issue is the billions of dollars skimmed off the top that goes to insurance companies. Next, is the billions to the pharmaceutical companies, next is the absurd amount paid to physicians. (Many specialists make $2 million or more a year).
Other countries don't need tort reform, they have national health insurance. they also have fewer death of children and longer life spans.