Video: Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating

posted at 2:19 pm on August 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

A moment of clarity from Howard Dean, courtesy of CNS News, who took this video at the town-hall forum of Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). When an angry constituent wondered why a supposedly comprehensive “reform” of the health-care system doesn’t include tort reform to lower costs of malpractice insurance and reduce defensive medicine, Dean responds as “a doctor and a politician.” Apparently, neither has the courage to face the trial-lawyer lobby:

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of “taking on” the trial lawyers.

“This is the answer from a doctor and a politician,” said Dean. “Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.”

Yes, that is the truth. Instead of taking on trial lawyers in an honest attempt to lower actual costs, the Democrats have decided to demonize insurers — who have incentives in place to keep costs low — and doctors. I wonder how Dean feels about Barack Obama’s attempts to paint physicians as greedy Tonsil Vultures and Foot Rustlers? In those instances, I’m pretty sure Dean responds as a politician instead of a doctor.

Malpractice tort abuse doesn’t create all of the unnecessary costs in health care, but it causes a significant portion of them. Any attempt at a comprehensive reform without tackling that area makes the entire effort look like political maneuvering for other purposes than real reform and cost control. At the very least, it makes the Democrats look rather craven — as Dean himself admits.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And the MSM drones on….Teddy, Teddy, life without Teddy.

d1carter on August 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I wouldn’t know. I haven’t turned on the TV since I heard about his death. It’s my own personal way of mourning. I may be mowing the yard on the outside, but on the inside I’m crying. My eyes get watery from allergies when I’m cutting the weeds and I noticed that when I squint my eyes my house looks like Camelot, which just makes me think of Teddy even more.

DFCtomm on August 27, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Since the good doctor imported his comment from the headline thread, I’ll import my response on that other thread:

No loser-pays system, please.

Loser-pays presumes that the courts are clean and run correctly. Neither of these assumptions is accurate.

The courts are overloaded and many decisions are being made by anonymous staffers and “rubber-stamped” by the judge. If the law is clear, this has little importance but when the law is less clear or the subject matter is “hot button,” then it becomes problematic.

Right now, there is a bias against pro se litigants (self-represented) and this will expand exponentially if loser-pays is adopted. Most pro se litigants cannot afford attorneys, either because the case is not a “sure thing” or because they are simply poor.

Are they to be kept out of court because they cannot afford to pay the other side’s attorney, keeping in mind that most of them cannot afford to hire an attorney?

How long do you suppose it would be before the court system was completely controlled by attorneys simply because most poor people have enough problems without risking a crushing bill being presented for the “privilege” of losing a lawsuit.

If you think attorneys are a current problem, why would you give them even more power?

platypus on August 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM

platypus on August 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM

sleepy-beans on August 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM

That’s my question. And it’s a question that should be asked at every townhall. “Pardon me, Congress(wo)man, exactly who wrote this bill?”. Force the issue, make them answer.

Left Coast Right Mind on August 27, 2009 at 3:47 PM

That’s why doctors always get rolled by lawyers, they’re too nice.

If physicians really wanted to end malpractice award, they would find a way not to treat lawyers and their families.

NoDonkey on August 27, 2009 at 3:49 PM

And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. – Howard Dean

I guess we see who wears the pants mom jeans in that relationship.

Left Coast Right Mind on August 27, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Allow me to offer an alternative suggestion to Mr. Dean’s thoughts on the matter.

About 80% of the members of congress are what???

That’s right, boys and girls, they’re lawyers. And, as lawyers they refuse to take on THEMSELVES.

GoldenEagle4444 on August 27, 2009 at 3:52 PM

They were however, perfectly willing to take on the real enemy; the American People.

ronsfi on August 27, 2009 at 3:57 PM

COWARDS

rjoco1 on August 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM

All this and jackpot juries too! We’re talkin’ utopia.

curved space on August 27, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Let me add…the Republicans haven’t done much better in trying to force tort reform.
Oh sure, they put up a little minor “stink” once in awhile, but they don’t really push it, just enough to be able to say “I support tort reform”.
The dems are infinitely worse on this, but Republicans don’t have many successes.
Ironically the one success, in 2005, a few dems did hop on board. Leiberman, Schumar, etc.

right2bright on August 27, 2009 at 4:15 PM

They won’t take on the Trial Lawyers, so their going to jab the rest of us in the ass. Nice morals those Congress critters have theren.

PappaMac on August 27, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Follow the money.

Kissmygrits on August 27, 2009 at 5:06 PM

“This is the answer from a doctor and a politician,” said Dean. “Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.”

Howard Dean misspoke. What he meant was
“Its Bush’s fault, and and and its Bush’s fault and rebublicans and whites and nazis and neandarthals and brooks brothers and birthers and racists and astroturfers and everything “

macncheez on August 27, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating

But…but…I thought Obama said they weren’t going to be held hostage to the special interests…!

/hopenchange off

CP on August 27, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Related parody: “Obama Plan Calls for Making Health Care System More Efficient by Having Trial Lawyers Provide Medical Services More Directly” http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-plan-calls-for-making-health-care.html

Mervis Winter on August 27, 2009 at 5:58 PM

Video: Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating liberal Democrats are terrified of trial lawyers.
There! I fixed it!

RMR on August 27, 2009 at 7:14 PM

No tort reform because there are too many schmuck lawyers like John Edwards in Congress.

Mojave Mark on August 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM

platypus on August 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM

platypus on August 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Very fair points, and I have to admit those would be consequences that didn’t occur to me. If that isn’t the answer, then what tort reform would both allow for justice while actually bringing about reform?

The current system of course just makes for unnecessary tests for “defensive medicine” not to mention malpractice costs and driving specialists out of their chosen fields.
The number of radiologists refusing to read mammograms are starting to climb along with the number of OB/GYNs dropping the “OB” part.

This certainly is where open debate should start about real solutions, but obviously SOME form of tort reform is necessary if ANY health care reform is to be taken seriously.

DrAllecon on August 27, 2009 at 8:08 PM

I use to work as a paralegal in Colorado for over eight years. I did mostly plaintiff’s personal injury work, along with some other areas of law. The two firms I worked for were heavily involved with the Democratic party, only because they could use them as pawns to get support for opposing tort reform and keep their gravy train going. Very disturbing how much money they give and how much the Democratic party only cares about that money at the expense of the rest of the nation.

Howard Dean needs to learn how to deal with tort lawyers. The best way to fight them is with the IRS. The tort lawyers do so many crooked things with their businesses that they are terrified of IRS tax audits. That is the weapon that needs to be used against the tort lawyers and to get them to back off so that tort reform can be addressed.

MeAlice on August 27, 2009 at 8:57 PM

The entire bill IS tort reform. You can’t sue the Gov’t.

Get it??

uknowmorethanme on August 27, 2009 at 10:18 PM

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. – (Act IV, Scene II). Henry VI…

Khun Joe on August 27, 2009 at 10:25 PM

You know…according to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, excessive litigation wastes about $124 BILLION dollars of our health care every year. That sounds like a lot of money to me.

Tort reform, anyone?

StarLady on August 28, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Howard Dean, finds that Liberal law is hard to understand, because he is intimidated by the ACLU types. What else does he not understand because it is written in legalese.

MSGTAS on August 28, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2