.jpg)
There is a new battle cry being touted in the ongoing debate of health care reform by a growing number of Americans; TORT reform.
TORT reform would limit the circumstances under which injured people may sue or limit the amount a jury can award at trial, or both.
Doctors are forced to spend an enormous amount of money on mal-practice insurance due to the ever growing number of frivolous law suits filed. The increase of cost to the doctor trickles down to the patient which then increases the cost of medical insurance. It is a vicious unending cycle that TORT reform could combat.
Howard Dean, former Democratic National Chairman, explained at a town hall meeting why TORT reform was not part of the proposed health care reform bill. He said, “This is the answer from a doctor and a politician. Here’s 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 it, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason that 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 everyone else they were taking on. And that is the plain and simple truth.”
(See the video here)
As the American people delve deeper and educate themselves on what health care reform entails it becomes apparent that lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, are far more concerned with their own interests over the interest of the American people. If this surprises anyone, it shouldn’t.
Comments
Just goes to show that the special interests with the deepest pockets get preferential treatment in legislation. Hmmm... Wonder what would happen if we took lobbyists out of the equation? Maybe then the will of the constituents would be taken seriously.
"Tort reform" sounds like such a great thing - and it could be if done correctly. But let's call it what it really is, a restriction on the ability of a jury of peers to make awards as it sees fit on the facts before them. Putting an arbitrary limit of $250,000 on non-economic damages (which include pain, suffering and loss of life's pleasures) is not the answer. What if economic damages are $6 million? Worse yet, what if there are no economic damages? A better approach is to mandate that non-economics can only be a certain multiple of the economics (much like punitive damages limitations). If there are no economics, then non-economics can not exceed $1 million. That gives insurance companies what they want and allows people injured by negligent doctors to be justly compensated. One other note - the trial bar is considered a "special interest" by some, but their interest is protecting public rights. Everyone wants "tort reform" until they are one of the trial bar's clients.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!