CBO: Tort reform would reduce deficit by $54 billion
posted at 11:10 am on October 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Lost in the shuffle of the CBO scoring of Max Baucus’ non-existent bill on the health care overhaul system this week is another analysis by the CBO on tort reform. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf on his blog, the CBO studied the impact of both the reduced cost of litigation and the elimination of defensive medicine that would result with tort reform. Elmendorf says that tort reform would reduce the federal deficit $54 billion over the next ten years, more than the fee Baucus plans to charge insurers for the privilege of existence (via MarySue at Ruby Slippers):
CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (Those estimates take into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.)
Enacting a typical set of proposals would reduce federal budget deficits by roughly $54 billion over the next 10 years, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee of Taxation. That figure includes savings of roughly $41 billion from Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, as well as an increase in tax revenues of roughly $13 billion from a reduction in private health care costs that would lead to higher taxable wages.
But that’s not the end of the savings, either. A 0.5% reduction in health-care costs would mean $11 billion in savings per year overall, with roughly 40% of that benefiting the federal government in Medicare and other federal program costs. That amounts to a whopping $110 billion in cost savings over ten years to the entire medical industry, which would help keep premiums in check for consumers.
Unlike other mechanisms in the various Congressional plans, this would actually benefit consumers and accomplish what reformers claim to want — an end to overuse in the American system. By eliminating the defensive medicine that providers must practice to avoid predatory malpractice actions, tort reform will actually make the system more responsive and more flexible for patients. Less time will get wasted, fewer claims will get filed, and patients will get the care they need and not what the providers’ lawyers require.
Of course, tort reform isn’t in any of the packages Congress has under consideration for the coming health-care overhaul. Instead, Congress wants to play class warfare with “fees”, excise taxes, “windfall profits taxes” on an industry averaging a 3.3% profit margin while trial lawyers earn an average 14% profit margin — all of which will result in those costs getting passed to the consumer, making health care even more expensive than it is now. Why won’t Congress pass tort reform, an effort that would really reduce costs and reform the health-care system?
Update: The first headline was awkward; I’ve changed it.
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 Next »
Tort reform would save $54 billion to the deficit
…….
That sounds awkward.
artist on October 10, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Please stop all this racist math stuff.
elduende on October 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Because it aint about healthcare.
farright on October 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Tort reform would be the right thing to do in ALL industries. Of course you can never count on the Left to do the right thing..ever. If it’s good for America it will automatically be rejected.
Guardian on October 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Would that be in addition to the $81 billion they claim or is it already a part of the $81B?
Abby Adams on October 10, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Republicans need to bang the drum on tort reform every freaking time they engage in the health care debate.
Without tort reform in the health reform package it means that Obama and the libs should not be taken seriously.
It’s absence proves their agenda is about political control and not about reducing health care costs.
there it is on October 10, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Obama and the democratic party are so tied to plaintiffs’ lawyers that there is zero chance of meaningful tort reform. Missed in most of the discussion of the various health reform bills are provisions that would expand the opportunities for plaintiffs’ counsel to bring lawsuits.
GaltBlvnAtty on October 10, 2009 at 11:22 AM
There is not a snowball’s chance in hell of meaningful tort reform, ever, in this country. The Democrat party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ABA and ATLA.
mchristian on October 10, 2009 at 11:23 AM
The President said we would look at all options. He did
not say we would talk about them or consider them.
uber on October 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM
The linked chart shows what we are up against. The legal lobbyists are rich and send 80% to Democrats. That will take one heck of a grassroots effort to counter. Got to get corruption out of our government!
Christian Conservative on October 10, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Here’s the problem:
When 300M people act independently in their own self-interest, good things happen.
When 535 people act independently in their own self-interest, Congress happens.
p0s3r on October 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Huh.. imagine that…
Isn’t there a politician or political group somewhere that could push that issue and get it into a plan?!
Surely SOMEBODY tried to get this into the bill, right and this would validate their position and maybe we should consider them as more intelligent leaders who use REAL SCIENCE to make their decisions?
/s
Skywise on October 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Look, I think the social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.) are important, but I cannot fathom why the GOP doesn’t not campaign on this issue as a litmus test. The plaintiffs’ lawyer lobby is a very, very, very narrow slice of society. Every GOP candidate running against a Dem candidate (especially in purple districts) should be screaming about any support that the Dem gets from this lobby. These costs are killing our economy. And all they have to do is make John Edwards the whipping boy. I’d run campaign ads against a Dem recipient of plaintiffs lawyers dollars with picture of Edwards, his home, Riehl Hunter, their kid, and the first page of Edwards’s wife’s divorce complaint and say, “Dem candidate is supported by the lobby that is making you pay for this nonsense.”
BuckeyeSam on October 10, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Tort reform is critical, but NOT caps on verdicts. The two most basic changes needed are: (i) eliminating the “American Rule” on attorneys’ fees (which makes a mockery of conservative principles of responsibility), and (ii) reforms in allowable jury arguments (which now weigh heavily in a plaintiff’s favor – by denying defendants the right to point out basic economic facts to juries).
This isn’t all – and it’s a bit more complex than it may sound at first, but verdict caps are wrong – it is simply more government regulation that is bound to go wrong, and impose injustices along the way. Verdict caps basically mean that you (as a juror) are not to be trusted when it comes to money. Reform of closing argument rules would correct the problem without resorting to legislating a cure for juror-stupidity.
ManUFan on October 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Postscript: I hit submit prematurely.
Last night, Greta interviewed Hatch, who apparently requested this report. Hatch lamented that there are at least some GOP members of Congress who won’t cross the plaintiff’s lawyers lobby either.
They should be exposed and thoroughly ridiculed.
BuckeyeSam on October 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM
But that’s not the end of the savings, either. A 0.5% reduction in health-care costs would mean $11 billion in savings per year overall, with roughly 40% of that benefiting the federal government in Medicare and other federal program costs. That amounts to a whopping $110 billion in cost savings over ten years to the entire medical industry, which would help keep premiums in check for consumers.
–The CBO did not say that the savings would be passed on to consumers. The consumers have not seen the direct cost benefit of tort reform here in Texas. What happened was more doctors came to Texas and hospitals generally used the savings in other ways to improve their operations.
Jimbo3 on October 10, 2009 at 11:30 AM
If only the republicans had controlled congress and the white house, they would have gotten tort reform done.
e-pirate on October 10, 2009 at 11:31 AM
And probably doesn’t included the savings from the innovation stifled by litigation or the threat of litigation.
Speakup on October 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM
One idea that stood out to me in Jindal’s recent heathcare op-ed was calling it “lawsuit reform.” A simple shift of semantics that addresses the same problem. It also uses the word “lawsuit” that many view negatively and can undertand.
This is a huge problem that needs to change, but realistically never will with the liberal-leaning lobbyists. We need to do what we can to bring the change, even if it’s using different terminology, but more importantly pols who aren’t afraid to fight for it.
conservative pilgrim on October 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Damages, in general, fall into four categories: medical care (past, present, and future); economic (lost or reduced past, present, and future income); non-economic (pain and suffering, lost of consortium, and the like); and punitives.
I don’t have a problem with caps on non-economic. With punitives, maybe the rule should be that the judge make a legal determination that punitive damages are warranted before that prospect is presented to the jury.
Another solution could be to eliminate jury trials for medical malpractice cases. We have specialized couts already: U.S. Tax Court (sure, the taxpayer can choose to go through federal district court or the U.S. Court of Claims, too), patents (I think they go through a court in DC, then are appealed to the DC circuit). The point is to provide a judicial system with expertise that’s geared towards reasonable compensation rather than jackpot justice.
BuckeyeSam on October 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Well, tort reform still sort of seems like a separate issue to me. It seems is should apply across the board, not just to healthcare or it doesn’t make sense legally.
I’d like to see a real change, where the loser has to pay the costs. It would eliminate the frivolous lawsuits. I do think that major reforms have resulted due to tort actions that are a good balance between profiteering at the cost of consumers and consumer protections.
AnninCA on October 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM
According to another CBO report from 2004, thirty-eight states have reformed joint-and-several liability rules by statute since 1986 and 18 states had enacted statutes limiting noneconomic damages. So, well more than half of the states already have implemented tort reform. See http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5549&type=0&sequence=2#F5.
Jimbo3 on October 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM
My sister just paid $1,800 for a catscan.
After haggling with the catscan provider, the price was lowered to a much more manageable $450.
If the actual costs involved are closer to the accepted $450, why was the cost intialy tripled? To get her to pay for other’s free catscans? Hmmm.
bradley11 on October 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM
And if some idiot Republican puts tort reform in the ObamaCare bill (and swings a few R votes), we’re going to have a government in charge of health care and a government in charge of deciding its own liability. Not a great combo.
Ronnie on October 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM
That sounds good.
conservative pilgrim on October 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Buckeye Sam, very few plaintiffs recover punitive damages.
Jimbo3 on October 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Scientists and engineers produce wealth, lawyers divide wealth. Let it be written, let it be done.
Seriously, way too many productive people become lawyers. It’s a national weak point with a shadow of decades.
NaCly dog on October 10, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Is there a specific tort reform package that’s been proposed? It keeps getting mentioned as sort of a cure all, but how exactly would it work? Like, how exactly does one go about reform? Is the GOP aware of the details, or is it more of a philosophical, amorphous rallying cry? It sounds great, and on the face of it I’d support it, but ive never really heard any details.
ernesto on October 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Tort reform will never happen as long as we keep electing lawyers to Congress.
BrianA on October 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Non-economic damages are, primarily, for pain and suffering. If someone causes you a permanent injury – and a consequent lifetime of pain – I hope you are as magnanimous. I see absolutely no reason to make the person responsible for causing pain and suffering pay for it. That is the conservative value – responsibility/accountability for consequences of your actions. And I have confidence in the average juror to assess its value – if permitted to hear the proper arguments.
Right on. And they are usually well-deserved. Excessive verdicts are usually successfully appealed.
ManUFan on October 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
… I see no reason NOT to make the responsible person pay for it.
ManUFan on October 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM
s there a specific tort reform package that’s been proposed? It keeps getting mentioned as sort of a cure all, but how exactly would it work? Like, how exactly does one go about reform? Is the GOP aware of the details, or is it more of a philosophical, amorphous rallying cry? It sounds great, and on the face of it I’d support it, but ive never really heard any details.
You know all of those republicans that ole Nancy was so upset with their decorum, that would wave their papers of alternate plans and ideas? The ones you have been closing your eyes against, and stopping up your ears? .. no of course you don’t.. you somehow thinks it gives you an excuse for ignorance.
If you are so damn smart.. any reason you haven’t asked your favorite lefty rulers why they don’t go with tort reform?
Noelie on October 10, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I don’t either. Fine, no caps. I do, however, quibble with the point about successful appeal of excessive punitives. If that’s successful appeals are common, then it’s a waste of the system’s resources. As I suggested, a bifurcated trial leaving to the trial court judge the determination whether punitives should be presented to the jury.
You want to leave it with the jury in all events with some modification of closing statements, fine. Whatever.
BuckeyeSam on October 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM
If the federal government would get completely out of health care how much could we reduce the deficit? If they hadn’t gotten the health care market in the first place cost wouldn’t be an issue today.
DerKrieger on October 10, 2009 at 12:15 PM
so is that a yes or a no? if you would, spare me your petty personal BS next time as well. they arent my favorite lefty leaders, and the fact they ignore tort reform on its face doesn’t please me in the slightest. Now, there was nothing stopping the GOP from pursuing it when they ran the show but thats neither here nor there.
Im just genuinely curious as to the actual policy options. Tort reforms been thrown around for years, but its never been publically explained outside of ‘end frivolous lawsuits’. How do we go about doing that? Is there a specific set of torts that we’d totally abolish? are we talking caps on payouts?
ernesto on October 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I capped it because I left it out of the first entry by mistake – a typo. I was highlighting my error – not trying to score any political points. Sorry.
ManUFan on October 10, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I remember when I got my wisdom teeth out, that I had to sign a document saying if they screw it up, too bad, deal with it. Why can’t doctors do something similar concerning malpractice?
The Calibur on October 10, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Here’s the assumed package that the CBO used in its estimates:
A cap of $250,000 on awards for noneconomic damages;
A cap on awards for punitive damages of $500,000 or two times the award for
economic damages, whichever is greater;
Modification of the “collateral source” rule to allow evidence of income from
such sources as health and life insurance, workers’ compensation, and automobile
insurance to be introduced at trials or to require that such income be subtracted
from awards decided by juries;
A statute of limitations—one year for adults and three years for children—from
the date of discovery of an injury; and
Replacement of joint-and-several liability with a fair-share rule, under which a
defendant in a lawsuit would be liable only for the percentage of the final award
that was equal to his or her share of responsibility for the injury.
Jimbo3 on October 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM
There isn’t a Court in the land that would enforce that kind of release – of course, the doc won’t tell you that – and he hopes you won’t ask a lawyer. But they are unenforceable.
ManUFan on October 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Question: Is the CBO counting on only federal tort reform, or is it relying on states to enact the same tort reform that it envisions? And what kind of tort reform? Limits on liability or limits on pain and suffering?
I am not an attorney, so that’s not where I’m coming from. I want to know what they’re talking about before I come to a conclusion as to what they are speculating, based on what parameters.
I’ve said this before. Federal tort reform is a canard. It’s a false issue. Medical malpractice actions are almost always filed in state courts. That means no federal jurisdiction; that means no federal savings; that means if the CBO is counting on savings from state courts, it has no means of enacting those savings.
So, please. Tort reform is a catchall phrase that is as all-encompassing as ObamaCare or insurance reform. It is a meaningful/meaningless sentiment that is wickedly more complex than a simple solution.
We need to stop this headlong rush to create a new government oversight on healthcare, really define the problems that healthcare is undergoing, and find a market response that would fix it.
Government is not the answer. Private enterprise, where the speed of business can be enacted by the entrepreneurs at a minute’s notice is the answer. Government really doesn’t run anything. If anything, government regulations are a quagmire waiting to happen.
Tennman on October 10, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Caliber, the waiver you signed was probably not effective. Professionals generally can’t have patients/clients waive their negligence.
Jimbo3 on October 10, 2009 at 12:35 PM
They should have. They didn’t behave in a positive proactive manner.
But here is what we do know the Baucus bill is actively trying to do and some of the places they are claiming to “save” the money (other than the obvious – taking out of your pocket):
Slashing the Federal funding to hospitals that bear the disproportionate share of treating the uninsured and underinsured – That means the very hospitals that treat the poor won’t receive adequate funding to do so. How do you think that Democrat pro-active move is gong to work out?
Decrease the payments to physicians who treat the poor & elderly by 25%. How do you think that Democrat pro-active move is going to work out?
Decrease funding to all all medical suppliers, including such things like: equipment & services – CAT scans, labs, nursing homes, home health agencies, diabetic equipment supplies, etc. How do you think that democrat pro-active move is going to work out?
These are some of the places your hero & the democrat party’s Baucus bill “saves money” on the backs of our seniors and by abandoning the poor. I don’t care if the Republican’s are being forced to act like conservatives now, and if you had a soul that would be the least of your concerns now too. Go read what is in the CBO, see where those “savings” are coming from, is is disgraceful… is that your party?
batterup on October 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Tennman, the CBO is assuming that there will be federal legislation, but that the financial impact of that will be muted because quite a few states have already implemented some form of tort reform. That’s why the non-malpractice insurance impact is only 0.3%.
Jimbo3 on October 10, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Slashing the Federal funding to hospitals that bear the disproportionate share of treating the uninsured and underinsured – That means the very hospitals that treat the poor won’t receive adequate funding to do so. How do you think that Democrat pro-active move is gong to work out?
Decrease the payments to physicians who treat the poor & elderly by 25%. How do you think that Democrat pro-active move is going to work out?
Decrease funding to all all medical suppliers, including such things like: equipment & services – CAT scans, labs, nursing homes, home health agencies, diabetic equipment supplies, etc. How do you think that democrat pro-active move is going to work out?
These are some of the places your hero & the democrat party’s Baucus bill “saves money” on the backs of our seniors and by abandoning the poor. I don’t care if the Republican’s are being forced to act like conservatives now, and if you had a soul that would be the least of your concerns now too. Go read what is in the CBO, see where those “savings” are coming from, is is disgraceful… is that your party?
–Bush and the GOP have been submitting annual budgets for years that did many of these same things, particularly in the area of Medicare.
Jimbo3 on October 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM
The reason there is not unanimity among Republicans on the issue is probably because many conservatives feel the Federal Government has no business legislating anything about the health industry. The only Constitutional rationale is the interstate commerce clause – a very sorely abused clause that really ought not to justify this kind of intrusion into state affairs.
ManUFan on October 10, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Hey, BuckeyeSam, re your comment on October 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, patent cases are tried to a jury or a judge in pretty much the same way that any negligence case or business case is. Only the first level appeal is to a special court. By the way, that “special” court considers other types of cases besides patent cases, even though all patent appeals go through that court before a potential appeal to SCOTUS.
As I’ve mentioned before, I do NOT make, and have not ever made, money from medical malpractice cases. (And, I’ve never attempted to make money from such cases.) In my opinion, tort reform will HURT victims of negligence, and will not affect the deficit. Of course, proving what affect tort reform actually has on the deficit will be like proving that the stimulus bill has actually SAVED a million jobs.
Also, it is my opinion that insurers in the past ran up their premiums for malpractice insurance to force the issue of tort reform in some states, and in some of those states the insurers were successful. I am not aware of any evidence that medical costs (as opposed to insurance premiums, which as I say, I believe were artificially jacked up) have gone down in states with tort reform.
Ira on October 10, 2009 at 12:44 PM
The dems. are in bed with the lawyers.
ohiobabe on October 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I agree, but I have not heard of any state attacking tort reform in any way except capping verdicts. I agree with you that that approach is not the right one, but I do think other reforms (like the ones I outlined above) could be effective, and in accord with sound conservative principles.
ManUFan on October 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Hate to point this out to the “she needs to study” crowd but didn’t Palin suggest tort reform?
Just askin’
callingallcomets on October 10, 2009 at 12:55 PM
They are. I’d recommend never signing, too.
What a farce.
AnninCA on October 10, 2009 at 12:59 PM
We have a problem in our hospitals. The mistakes are bad. We now have a show on TV telling people to mark their bodies with magic markers to remind the doctor which side to operate upon.
Seriously.
That’s awful, but the truth.
Tort non-reform hasn’t fixed this, either. That’s one thing to note.
No, lawsuits have NOT improved the situation.
I make every family member and close friend swear they will not leave me alone in any hospital. I have seen what happens.
Those of you so crazy over our ‘great’ system floor me. I absolutely am appalled by the lack of basic procedures and cannot IMAGINE how some of these mistakes happen.
I’d die a thousand deaths if I were a doctor today. How could they be so irresponsible?
Tort reform needs to be sensible. Some of these jerks are in medicine for nothing more than the Porche.
Be careful out there.
AnninCA on October 10, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Whenever I talk to someone who is confused or doesn’t understand this issue, I tell them there’s only two simple things they need to know:
1. None of the proposed bills contain any Tort
Reform. No one can tell you they’re serious about containing costs without addressing that issue.
2. All of the proposed bills exempt congress from complying with any of their provisions. In short, congress is trying to sell you a car they refuse to drive.
Those two facts alone are prima facie evidence that the entire argument for this scheme is based on lies.
RadClown on October 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
It’s a non-starter.
BKeyser on October 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I’m in Texas where we have medical malpractice reform. Malpractice insurance dropped 27% instantly, while doctors scrambled into Texas and lawyers flooded Oklahoma. The fact that there is no tort reform in any of the Dims bills is all the more reason we need to KILL THESE “BILLS” and wait for a new, hopefully improved Congress.
parteagirl on October 10, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Are you seriously making the Maxine Watters argument?
Anyway.
In 2004, Urban hospitals received a 4.7% increase and rural hospitals, an increase of 6% for Medicare services – one of only 3 increases in the past 21 years. In 2005 Medicare managed care plans received at least a 6.6% increase in reimbursement rates.
So you are in favor of the Baucus cuts to the poor and the elderly that make it look like he is “saving money” in order to have a government takeover of health care? You support under funding hospitals that care for the poorest members of our society?
batterup on October 10, 2009 at 1:18 PM
How is this suppose to feed my children?
(Or.. oh yah, buy my vote.)
Mojave Mark on October 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM
You make a very good point about federal v. state authority in tort reform. The states have given up too much self-governence to the feds in many areas – not given up – sold. The states should be standing up to fight this fight. Thank you.
batterup on October 10, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Any more of these foolish ideas and The O team may not have a crisis to take advantage of.
PaCadle on October 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Two words, Ed: Trial lawyers.
Ryan Gandy on October 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM
what diseases could we not cure for $100Bn? A pox on those lawyers — one which is incurable!
unclesmrgol on October 10, 2009 at 2:32 PM
This is slightly off topic, but it’s one area that is desperate for tort reform. It’s these stupid class action lawsuits. You know where they sue blockbuster or some other corporation. You get a free movie rental, and the lawyers get millions. It’s corporate extortion, and it needs to stop. Im generally against salary caps, but I’m willing to make an exception with lawyers. I believe that a lawyers fee should not exceed an individual plaintiff’s award.
DFCtomm on October 10, 2009 at 2:48 PM
FEDERAL tort reform is a bad idea.
1) it would preempt all state tort reforms and state tort law.
2) every tort case would be a federal case. if it’s a federal case, 5 supreme court justices have the final say. when these 5 find loopholes in the federal law, state court judges will not be able to alter tort law. then there is no federal or state tort reform.
3) in states where they can’t pass tort reform, it is because of the tort lawyer lobby. with federal tort reform, the tort lawyers will be able to concentrate their resources on lobbying Washington — one stop shopping.
casel21 on October 10, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Good comment.
DFCtomm on October 10, 2009 at 2:51 PM
What a crock of sh*t and lies
bluegrass on October 10, 2009 at 3:00 PM
It just like the lies ” jobs saved ” theory told over and over again, absolute bull shit. Back it up with facts or shut your pie hole.
bluegrass on October 10, 2009 at 3:02 PM
***
Why would a Congress full of lawyers vote for tort reform? Sharks like eating–they never put the fish (or money) out of their reach.
***
Eleven years ago I went with my then 17 year old daughter to UA in Tucson. She was registering there as a student. While waiting there I talked to an older (40+) year old lady who had been a doctor and had closed her OB/GYN practice since she was just working to pay office and insurance bills. The lady and her daughter were both registering for careers as LAWYERS.
***
She said, “If you can’t beat them–join them!” She is probably a much richer Tort Lawyer by now.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on October 10, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Worth repeating:
slp on October 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Excellent post, I too support the repeal of the American Rule and oppose judgement caps.
Squid Shark on October 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Keep hammering this point….IF YOU HAVE TO SHOUT AT THE TOP OF YOUR FREAKING LUNGS TILL THEY BLEED…..THIS IS A TURNING POINT….*MIDWAY* THE BATTLE OF* OF SORTS… come on conservative leaders…push push push…never give in to these Rino’s or libtards….
God Bless
hawkman on October 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM
From Baucus billL
The Chairman‘s Mark would express the Sense of the Senate that health care reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance. The Mark would further express the Sense of the Senate that states should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives to the current civil litigation system as a way of improving patient safety, reducing medical errors, encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes, increasing the availability of prompt and fair resolution of disputes, and improving access to liability insurance, while preserving an individual‘s right to seek redress in court. The Mark would express the Sense of the Senate that Congress should consider establishing a state demonstration program to evaluate alternatives to the current civil litigation system.
Jimbo3 on October 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM
IF IT’S SIMPLE TO IMPLEMENT, EASY TO UNDERSTAND, GETS RESULTS QUICKLY, AND WILL REDUCE THE DEFICIT; CONGRESS IN THEIR INFINITE WISDOM WILL NOT MAKE IT LAW.
GarandFan on October 10, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Didn’t see that one coming.
You mean that ambulance chasers living in 29,000 sq ft homes are a drag on the economy?
/S
RJL on October 10, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Very good points
Theworldisnotenough on October 10, 2009 at 8:29 PM
In my opinion, we now have two options remaining. First, we can show up at the private residences in the DC area of our 535 members of congress and picket with some let’s “tar and feather them” signs and the materials to do so as props. Now I expect they would call the police just as the Governor of Maryland did when 500 patriots showed up at OUR state governor’s residence and shined flashlight beams on it to show the need for sunlight on state government’s activities. When the police arrived they ordered the people to disperse within 15 minutes for not having a permit or they would be arrested. Instead of sitting down and refusing to disperse, the good, law-abiding citizens of Maryland complied with the police order. You probably never heard about this. Had I been present I would have tried to instigate a sit-down on the streets and I’m sure I would been arrested for my efforts. But if this picketing option is utilized, we should not disperse if so ordered, but instead perform a peaceful “sit-down” under the media’s limelight.
So what if that changes few or no minds in Congress, what should we do then? My second option would be to emulate the 1999 Tennessee Tax Revolt but go a bit further; surround OUR Capitol and shutdown OUR two Houses until OUR employees pledge to do what we, the majority, want; stop spending and taxing and abandon unconstitutional mandates against American citizens. We would need a second DC TEA Party and then a real but peaceful march on OUR Capitol and occupation of OUR property. Of course the government could resort to the violent tactics used against the Bonus Army encamped on the Mall in 1932, but then we would know the real intent of our government.
We cannot fire or recall Congress under rulings from the SCOTUS, but we can most certainly send a message much more powerful than we have to date. Otherwise, the great national cost and personal sacrifice our forefathers made to overcome slavery will be for naught if we allow our country to now move towards serfdom for all of our citizens through unconstitutional mandated dependency on government; however on November 2010, fire them we must. I fear that unless we are much more proactive now, the mid-terms may be too late to save our Republic.
amr on October 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Tort reform and checking up on insurance fraud are the way to go. I had some routine tests done several years ago at a local heart doctor’s office who was new in the area. Because I was a “paying customer” and he was not a network doctor on my insurance plan, I ended up paying $200 dollars rather than $1,100 for the tests. Let’s fix this stuff now!
StarLady on October 10, 2009 at 9:09 PM
He looked at them with his death panel vision and killed them all.
jimmy2shoes on October 10, 2009 at 9:20 PM
And reduce the contributions to the DNC by a proportional amount.
TheBigOldDog on October 10, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I did not know that
I also did not know that spending less money saves money
Can the CBO please check that too
macncheez on October 11, 2009 at 12:20 AM
We can’t have any of THAT…!
Seven Percent Solution on October 11, 2009 at 12:43 AM
You risk losing a nursery for future Presidential hopefuls like John Edwards.
BL@KBIRD on October 11, 2009 at 12:58 AM
I’m confused by this post. I’m all for tort reform, but doesn’t this report actually make it sound like it would make very little difference? 0.5% is 0.5% even if you multiply it by a lot of other numbers. $110 billion is certainly a lot, but if it’s only 0.5%, then it’s not going to save more than that amount for consumers, will it?
Also, as some commenters have pointed out, isn’t this most a state issue?
tneloms on October 11, 2009 at 2:03 AM
Lawyers are THE cancer in our society. Why keep pumping out more leeches?
Jeff from WI on October 11, 2009 at 4:40 AM
not that I want her to vote for it, but this could be the issue Snow conditions her vote on, it would put the Dems in a mighty tight place.
rob verdi on October 11, 2009 at 6:44 AM
TORT REFORM
TERM LIMITS
TENTH AMENDMENT
Let’s fix the country to where the Founding Fathers could recognize us…….
adamsmith on October 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM
You know how we can “save” money? We can impose an excise tax on the poor victims left mangled by unnecessary medical malpractice. Let’s call it a windfall profit tax on those who did nothing for their windfall except be lucky enough to get their wrong leg amputated or maybe suffer irreversible brain damage because their anesthesiologist was updating his blog instead of keeping an eye on the vital signs. Another upside to such a tax is that doctors will be less hesitant to deviate from sound medical practice. Just because you might have something wrong with you is no reason to have the test. There is always the chance that you might not have something wrong with you, and then the test would be a waste, right?
tommylotto on October 11, 2009 at 9:11 AM
By all means, YES. Because we all know that the founding fathers were just joking when they drafted the Seventh Amendment guaranteeing our right to a jury trial. They didn’t really trust or believe in the jury system for resolving disputes. They were all a bunch of big fat socialist who thought panels and actuary charts or arbitrary cut offs set by politicians or bureaucrats should determine damages — not a jury of our peers. That jury stuff was just window dressing to impress the Europeans.
tommylotto on October 11, 2009 at 9:23 AM
This point has been made time and again. Sad part is we will most likely not see any action in this direction.
http://sparks.brushfireoffreedom.org/
ramarious on October 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »