One is a bottom-feeding scum sucker.

The other is a cute little fish with whiskers.

Ironically, the above provision of the health care bill seems to recognize what FEDERAL tort-reform fanatics consistently fail to recognize: the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate and preempt state negligence law. If this congress thought it had the constitutional authority to directly outlaw these tort reforms, it would have simply done so. But even this congress felt it necessary to coerce the states in the same way it coerces them with federal highway funds. When congress can’t regulate directly, it regulates by legislative bribery and coercion, “unconstitutional conditions.”

If the feds have the authority to regulate state tort law, they have the authority to preempt existing state tort reforms whether those reforms are in statutes or the state’s CONSTITUTION. Those asking for FEDERAL tort reform desperately want to grant the central government a power it does not even claim to have.

Suppose congress does have that power and exercises it by revoking all state tort reforms. What is your complaint then? That they don’t have that authority under the constitution? You begged them to take it. Your only complaint can be that they didn’t exercise it the way you wanted. But they do that a lot.

The trial lawyer lobby will thank you if the feds took up that power. They would not have to scatter themselves and their plentiful resources among 50 state capitals with 50 state legislatures and 50 state governors. I’m sure they’d tell you: keep asking for federal tort reform.

You know, one of the greatest ironies I’ve ever experienced was seeing a good church friend who aspired to be a lawyer and almost became one have to give up her dream…because of brain damage after a car accident.

Truth really is stranger than fiction.

Dark-Star on October 31, 2009 at 5:59 PM

FIFY, pal.

And here is a secret no one will ever tell you: the only thing that malpractice insurance providers need is a set number; it does not matter if it is 250k, 500k or 5m. Because they need certainty to build it into their risk pool models and price accordingly. With certainty comes a workable insurance system.
txlitigator on October 31, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Here’s another secret: it matters to the policy holder. And I say that with some certainty.

Cybergeezer on October 31, 2009 at 10:20 AM

You know, one of the greatest ironies I’ve ever experienced was seeing a good church friend who aspired to be a lawyer and almost became one have to give up her dream…because of brain damage after a car accident.

Truth really is stranger than fiction.

The big cost is allegedly from the cost of defensive medicine (unnecessary tests), but a doctor will only be held liable if he deviates from “the standard of practice.” If the standard of practice dictates that a test be given, he needs to give it. If the standard of practice does not require that a test be given, then the doctor cannot be held liable. The problem is with the “standard of practice.” Not the lawyers or the patients or jury. Do the doctors expect too much from themselves. Perhaps. The problem is with doctors not adhering to the standard of practice. Either the doctors need to do better for their patients or loosen up and allow doctors to screw up more often. I vote for the status quo.

(A) the litigation alternatives contined in the law consist of certificate of merit, early offer, or both; and

Contined?

Must’ve been written by a bunch of bastino’s.

When will the people of this country wise up!

From President Obama’s speech to Congress on health care reform: Now, finally, many in this chamber — particularly on the Republican side of the aisle — have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of h…

Only Pelozi could think of sucj a thing….APPALLED!

Republican hands are not clean on this issue, they had 8 years to pass some kind of tort reform and didn’t. Now all they can do is whine about Democrats not doing they job Republicans should have done when they were in power. This is a Washington problem, not a Democrat one.Socratease on October 31, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Right on.

Socratease on October 31, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Excellent point. Bush campaigned on this issue in 2004, and I know many doctors who were otherwise against Bush, but certainly favored him on that issue. But absolutely nothing came of it, which was very disappointing.

But, reading this provision – doesn’t it mean that states can impose “loser pays” type tort reforms as long as the end damages aren’t limited on successful cases?

Let’s be sure here – most of the current abuse comes in the settlement process – where insurance companies attempt to limit their losses and hassle by settling out of court. But if you to “loser pays” – then then the whole settlement process is de-incentivized and the game becomes high stakes in court with all costs going to the loser.

Can’t “loser pays” fit into Nancy Pelosi’s box here?

Once/if OboobaCare/PelosiCare/ReidCare passes, and is the only game in town, tort reform would basically become illegal.

Akzed on October 31, 2009 at 11:15 AM

You must be a real conservative. Not getting a government handout for doing something is equivalent to that thing being illegal?

1. This is a states issue, yet you are claiming that the federal government should be the one enacting reform. Some states have already started to enact reform, with success, and this is the way it should be. Blaming ObamaCare for *not* intervening enough is hilarious.

2. You want absolute caps on damages AND attorney pay, even though you rail against caps on executive pay. As Marcus and txlitigator have pointed out above, the key to successful reform is caps on pain and suffering damages, not overall caps. In fact, overall caps may have constitutional issues, and would certainly be silly regardless, because some medical mistakes are simply very expensive and some are not.

3. You say $54 billion to make it seem like a lot, but if you gave the number per year, or better yet, the percentage of health care costs that this would save, it would be almost negligible. That’s not to say that $5.4 billion per year is only negligible to the fatcats in Congress, it just means that when the health care industry is spending so much money, predictions about shaving %0.01 off the costs are unlikely to be very accurate, and efforts are better spent elsewhere. I am for tort reform, but I also recognize that it’s much less important to health care costs overall than other issues like simplifying the system so that overhead is drastically cut (administrative costs, most of that unnecessary, amount to about 10%).