Comments on: Tort Reform: Remedy or Red Herring?

By: c-kingsley

c-kingsley — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:17:51 +0000

“3. John Edwards.”

What, you don’t think it’s right in court to channel the spirit of a baby in the midst of being born? Why are you such a racist? Of course it has been shown that emergency C-Sections wouldn’t have helped his clients, but it’s worth (to him) the legal fees to say that the doctor should have done it anyway.

By: daveknecht

daveknecht — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:31:35 +0000

I echo the above. As a imperfect person practicing as an physician in an imperfect system I surely would want someone who is harmed to be fairly compensated. No one is talking about removing tort laws, only reforming them to a reasonable level. Anyone who thinks defensive medicine does not add to the cost of health care is fooling themselves… and/or others. Although this cost is pretty hard to quantify, it is surely significant. I have a patient who is a retired tort attorney and he can not believe this is not even being addressed by this health care bill. Reforming health care without addressing this issue is not reform (or “change”) at all. Doctors will then continue to practice defensive medicine instead of evidence based medicine, and the cost will continue to rise.

By: mamreilly

mamreilly — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:04:21 +0000

Christy,

Beautiful post.

By: christymomof3

christymomof3 — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:26:39 +0000

1. Tort reform means simply that only real damages (including medical expenses, special care even if for a lifetime, and loss of income, again even for a lifetime) may be recovered in a lawsuit, not the millions and millions of dollars in “punitive damages,” which is truly just revenge. The patient who files and loses a frivolous claim has to reimburse the doctor for legal expenses. (Frivolous? I know a doctor who was sued by a patient who claimed his negligence meant she could never bear children. She had a baby before the case came to trial, but the doctor still had to travel across the state for the two-week-long trial.) The patient still has every right to sue, but the lawyers are less motivated to file for frivolous claims just to get a big settlement.
2. Obama complains that doctors order too many tests to pad their own wallets, but the truth is that doctors lose money on tests they do in-office and usually send their patients to outside testing facilities. The primary physician doesn’t receive a dime. (note to Obama: The doctor managing the care of the diabetic patient also is not the one who gets paid to amputate the foot of the non-compliant patient.)
3. John Edwards.
I rest my case.

By: mamreilly

mamreilly — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:52:27 +0000

Mr. Connor,

No, men are not born equal in the eyes of the world. Each is given different talents, weaknesses, strengths, personalities, etc. And no, it is NOT the protection of law, as Mr. Montesquieu states in error, that “returns” that equality. The equality is derived from the fact that God sees us as equal in His eyes.

Suing another for a wrong is borderline sinful. It denies our requirement to forgive and it enables the sinful desire for revenge. It is inconsistent with Catholic teaching and is uncharitable at best.

By: Joe DeVet

Joe DeVet — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:27:07 +0000

This man is full of flim-flam, and let’s not get sucked into his flawed set of arguments.

First, no responsible politician or commentator is claiming that tort reform is the solution to the problem. However, we make a valid claim that oversized malpractice settlements, as well as overfrequent suing of doctors for any negative outcome adds at least tens of billions of wasted dollars to our annual health care bill.

The point of those who cite lack of tort reform is simply that this must be an integral part of an overall solution to whatever ails health care, and it is missing in a bill which claims to be that final solution. In a debate in which the economic, technical and ethical parameters are very difficult to clarify in our sound-bite public square, this is at least a clear example of the fraud inherent in the proposed health-care bill. That’s why it is cited–not because tort reform is the whole answer.

Second, trial lawyers contributed nothing to the problem of Enron and Madoff. They did nothing to prevent the disasters, and the small recoveries which may have been achieved were skimmed to the tune of 30-40% contingency fees. The only group whose problems were really “solved” by trial lawyers in these instances were the trial lawyers’ kids, who got a Lexus instead of just a BMW for their 16th birthdays as a result.

Third, no one is saying that all trial lawyers are to blame. My own daughter is a trial lawyer, and I have the utmost respect for her work. The medical malpractice specialists who sue and sue again regardless of merit, forcing settlements by doctors and their insurance companies just to avoid legal costs, taking a huge cut of any settlement in “malpractice” cases are the source of much waste in our health care system.

Fourth, let’s remember that it is the trial lawyers and their associations who helped get the pro-abortion Democrats elected last year. Obama and other Democrats benefited from millions put into their election war chests by trial lawyers who then demand, and get, favorable treatment for their extravagant tort claims. It is the trial lawyers who helped put us into this present situation, where socialized medicine and all its attendant evils, including increased public funding for abortion, are staring us in the face.

Let every pro-life Catholic remember this.