So much for lower cost healthcare in MN, Gov Dayton apparently is anti-Tort reform. The most interesting thing I found in his strange ranting comments was that he seems to truly believe that Tort reform efforts are there only to "protect company profits".
Maybe this is a key difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans realize that companies do not pay for frivolous lawsuits or excessive settlements, we the customers do.
The actuaries and accountants of insurance and other companies determine the probable costs / risks of doing business, and set their prices and premiums appropriately. (ie within market range) Therefore flood insurance premiums are higher in flood plains and malpractice insurance is higher where the settlements are likely larger or more prevalent. And since every company has to account for the risk, they all raise their rates.
Ironically people like myself have no problem paying the extra 10, 20, 30+% on our insurance premiums. It is the poor folks that the Democrats claim to defend that are most hurt by failing to pass Tort reform.
The link to ALEC is below, though I do not know if the GOP bills were aligned with ALEC or not. Nor do I know if ALEC's agenda is good, bad or indifferent. I just know that if you want costs to drop significantly, we need serious TORT reform in the USA.
Thoughts?
KARE11 - MN Gov Dayton Vetoes Tort Reform
MinnPost - Dayton Veto / Stinging Criticism
ALEC Tort Reform Boot Camp
State Lawsuit Climates
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
This is an area ruled by anecdote and rumor.
Are there are a lot of frivolous suits filed in Minnesota? How would one go about measuring that? What were the specific measures proposed? And how do we know those measures will deter just frivolous suits?
Is there a problem with frivolous defenses? Do deep pocketed corporate defendants use their resources to drive cash strapped plaintiffs into the ground with needles court costs and legal expenses? Have we had hearings on that?
--Hiram
"malpractice insurance is higher where the settlements are likely larger" So where are the statistical models to back up this claim? Could it have to do with insurance company investments.
http://robertsfight.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/medical-malpractice-premiums/
One could look at the number of cases dismissed "without merit" I would think, and conclude that most of them would not have been filed if it were made more painful-- like with "loser pays." One could also look at those cases settled for pennies on the dollar and argue those might be similarly lacking in "merit"-- where money is given to the plaintiff to "go away" rather than because of an actual tort.
J. Ewing
For your convenience.Roberts Fight Malpractice
I do not disagree that investment return could be a factor, however I do not think it is a primary cause. Besides the bond market would roughly impact all insurance companies about equally, since the typical bond rate is often driven by the economy. G2A Correlation vs Causation
I've never researched malpractice premium variation across states, however I am very aware of how auto insurance premiums vary by states and "risk". I used to live in SD where premiums were very low. This was in part because they do not have "no fault" insurance. (besides having few cars to hit)
Then I lived in Plymouth and drove downtown. When I looked into moving closer to work, living downtown and driving fewer miles, I found that the premium increase would wipe out any savings. Apparently living down there was higher risk for my car than driving many miles back and forth.
My point is that risk drives premiums more than anything else. I mean with so many insurance companies out there, how could they be price fixing unless it is a massive conspiracy. The benefit of America is that if there is excessive profit, someone is always there to undercut the competition.
My TORT pet peeve is illustrated in this case that I was close to.
The experts from all sides testified as to the potential causes and blame of an accident where a man got killed.
At which time you would think the jury should render a verdict regarding fault.
Instead the plaintiff Lawyer gets to put the wife on the stand, where she spends an hour crying and telling the jury how important her husband was to her and her financial well being.
What does this have to do with assessing fault??? I mean pull her out before setting damages, but not during the assessment of fault stage. We have a long way to go ...
One could look at the number of cases dismissed "without merit" I would think, and conclude that most of them would not have been filed if it were made more painful--
There are lots of cases dismissed "without merit" that have a lot of merit indeed. I personally have seen judges make that ruling on no basis at all, in cases where they were quickly reversed, and when damages were ultimately awarded.
In any case, this wasn't a case that anyone bothered to make before the legislature. I, personally, was shocked and astounded at how little legislators knew about this vital area in which they were legislating.
--Hiram
"Instead the plaintiff Lawyer gets to put the wife on the stand, where she spends an hour crying and telling the jury how important her husband was to her and her financial well being."
What does this have to do with assessing fault?
Nothing, but it doesn't have anything to do with tort law either. This was simply a case where the judge screwed up. From the facts you give, there was nothing material or relevant about the wife's testimony, and it shouldn't have been allowed. And also, in the facts you have given, there is no reason at all to conclude that the case was frivolous, or shouldn't have gone to the jury.
--Hiram
I added the State Lawsuit Climates link above for your review. Thanks Randy. MN Publius Perspectives
I browsed this report. Lawsuit Climate Report
It looks like MN is better than many other states, yet we have room for improvement if we want to make it into the top tier of most business friendly. And it confirmed my belief that this factor does impact business decisions significantly.
Ironically Iowa, North Dakota and Nebraska were ranked above us. I wonder what we should learn from them?
Also, I wonder if the vetoed bills would have been enough to improve our score?
Since I did a poor job of addressing Mark's question. Some other links:
NYT Would Tort Reform Lower Healthcare costs?
Wiki Tort reform
Injury Board Tort Reform
Their message seems mixed to me. However if we think of "healthcare cost" as an elephant and ponder the age old question. "How do you eat an elephant?" I think the old answer applies here "one bite at a time..."
It seems tort reform is an important bite we need to take.
One reason people bring malpractice suits is that their expenses aren't covered effectively by insurance. If they were, that eliminates one reason to sue. Minnesota is not known as a state that's friendly to plaintiffs where medical malpractice is concerned. And I think you will find that there are many more cases of medical malpractice than there are lawsuits based on those incidents. Lawsuits are a small part of a much larger set of issues. Among them, how do we deal with the costs resulting from a doctor making a mistake? Or what might arguably be a mistake? Or what might just be a bad outcome, which must be paid for even without malpractice?
--Hiram
--Hiram
"I mean with so many insurance companies out there, how could they be price fixing unless it is a massive conspiracy."
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. If risk drives costs, then every insurance company offering a similar policy will arrive at a similar price. On the other hand, trial lawyers work on contingency and therefore they benefit by having the maximum number of cases, regardless of merit.
J. Ewing
That's kind of what I was trying to say. The Liberal contingent for some reason thinks that companies will pocket all the huge savings gained through tort reform and risk reduction. Which of course is unlikely due to the intense competition in these areas of business.
"On the other hand, trial lawyers work on contingency and therefore they benefit by having the maximum number of cases, regardless of merit."
Not necessarily. An attorney who operates on a contingency fee basis is usually responsible for the costs of litigation. Those costs can get very high, and the attorney is vulnerable to tactics from defendants who can further drive up his costs. So the contingency fee attorney has to choose his cases carefully, not necessarily on the basis of merit, but on what he thinks will be profitable. Lots of meritorious cases aren't brought on a contingency fee basis because the lawyer knows he can't make a profit on them. I suspect a typical med mal attorney turns down lots of cases of provable medical malpractice simply because of the risks are involved.
Contingency fees are a way poor people who can't afford paying an attorney's hourly rate can get access to the justice system.
--Hiram
Nothing wrong with contingency fees in theory, but in practice they give too many people an opportunity to sue "for free" when they should be told "they have no case." As a result, defendants are forced into court to defend these lawsuits, and the cost of insurance-- specifically malpractice insurance-- goes up to cover those costs, however slight.
The usual form of tort reform is called "loser pays" and it eliminates the "profit" in filing frivolous lawsuits because defendants will not "pay off" to avoid the expense of trial in such cases. The other typical reform is to refer medical malpractice claims to an arbitration board to decide on the merits before involving the courts.
The problem is two-fold. First, the US has 7 times the number of lawyers per capita as any other country, and they need to make a living. Second, a lot of that cash finds its way into political influence, with Trial Lawyers usually in the top two or three industries in federal AND state donations, mostly to Democrats. Why do they fear reform?
J. Ewing
It makes sense to me that if you believe in “we the people” that this has to start from a base of trust. It appears to me with all of the voter ID initiatives taking place in this country that Republicans/conservatives are having a problem with “we the people”. “We the people” can be trusted to participate in the free market, participate in this Democracy, and to not only be responsible citizens to bear arms but to sell and purchase arms at unregulated gun shows.
Yes, “we the people” can be trusted in all of these human endeavors but we cannot be trusted to vouch for another citizen or participate in a court room out our back door in a state court as a member of a jury.
http://robertsfight.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/trust-and-we-the-people/
Trial lawyers are given magic wands and fairy dust when they graduate and corporate lawyers are just left with a bunch of money and time.
The justice system in not perfect but what do you want, a Democracy or Wal-mart.
Maybe that is why the Republicans are so hot for tort reform. It is those damn juries, you know, the common man.
http://robertsfight.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/it-is-that-simple/
"Nothing wrong with contingency fees in theory, but in practice they give too many people an opportunity to sue "for free" when they should be told "they have no case." As a result, defendants are forced into court to defend these lawsuits, and the cost of insurance-- specifically malpractice insurance-- goes up to cover those costs, however slight."
Who bears the cost if a trial lawyer loses? The lawyer. Who defends the doctor? Insurance company lawyers. Who is willing to settle out court, the insurance company. All med mal cases should be forced to go to court and should not allow arbitration. This would drive up the case of law suits and eventually drive the "frivolous" lawsuits.
Does anybody know how many "frivlous lawsuits" are dismissed? Once you get past the media hype does anybody know what the actual damage awards are? Just like the free markets this issue is complicated and filled with economic theory and game theory.
I trust people to make smart decisions in the court room. Do you?
Actually, not really. Now let me explain.
The surgeon explains up front in great detail that there is a 10% chance that the fragment of disk they are removing could rub and damage the nerve as it is extracted, though it has never happened to them personally. The patient is in great pain so they go ahead with the operation.
Unfortunately complications arise, the patient suffers partial paralysis and a lawyer gets involved. The lawyer finds an expert that testifies that the Surgeon's technique was old and irresponsible. And possibly performed poorly.
As you say, the Surgeon's lawyer then works to dispell these doubts. Of course, all of the "Surgeon Speak" is likely well above most the jurors understanding. (I find it hard to get 2 Doctors to give the same clearly defined diagnosis...) And the judge tries to remind the jury to be impartial.
Then the jury goes into a room and starts trying to summarize all the medical terminology, processes, he said, she said, risks, etc into terms they can understand. While pondering in the back of their minds the patients long term disability and financial ruin.
I guess I think empathy / sympathy will bias the jurors. "I mean the insurance company can afford it and the Surgeon may have made an error..." People are overall good and caring.
And given their total lack of medical knowledge, they really aren't qualified to determine if a significant error was made. That is why technical review panels or abitration should be used in these cases.
Then if necessary, let a jury help set the settlement amount if someone is found at fault.
Another thought.
If you trust people so much... What do you have against arbitration by qualified experts?
Very confusing.
Another thought... Would these compassionate rulings be "frivolous lawsuits" or something else?
Either way we pay for them.
"Then if necessary, let a jury help set the settlement amount if someone is found at fault."
Now we are getting somewhere. Solutions. This is the great strength of innovation and progress and yet most people do not understand this great strength of the free markets and Democracy in being used to solve policy issues.
We tune into our favorite indoctrinaire to support our egos. So how do you take the great strengths of the free market and Democracy and use them to govern and solve social issues?
What is interesting is that I read a study somewhere, I wish I could remember, where they took random samples of med mal cases and had them reviewed by experts.
Interestingly enough these experts ruled in favor of a higher percentage of med mal then juries. Jury were more biased in favor of the doctor.
I have always thought medical malpractice cases should be decided by a panel of doctors. Sort of seems like a way to limit the exorbitant $ that go to the lawyers as well.
In most cases it seems that I would lean towards awards that supplement disability payments if ther were unmet needs. There would have to be major error/malpractice for me to vote in favor of any sizable punitive or pain and suffering award.
We need to understand that people make rational decisions, yes, but a lawyer (or anybody else) will follow the incentives that the system provides. To do otherwise would be foolish. The lawyer knows that any case beyond the most frivolous WILL go to court and will cost the defendant something to defend. If the lawyer is willing to settle for less than the cost of defending the suit, he gets paid. The insurance company lawyers, also responding to the incentives of the system, will pay the lawyer off to avoid the greater cost of mounting a defense, even though they are in the right. They also know that going to trial will usually result in potentially much higher costs due to sympathetic juries. It's a lot easier to get sympathy for somebody injured by a doctor than for a faceless insurance company.
The solution is to simply change the incentives of the "system" to promote justice.
J. Ewing
Don't forget that the Declaration of Independence mentioned jury trials: "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury." The more I hear, the more I feel like we need to re-read the Governing Documents of the United States. Politicians no longer trust "We the People" to make logical choices on jury trials in civil cases, but do trust juries to make even larger, more critical choices in criminal cases. Why should juries not also be trusted with issues of much lower concern like money an injured person deserves.
-Jake
Hi Jake,
I do not profess to knowing much about the Declaration vs the Constitution, however my simplified view is that the Declaration was just that. A one time document that stated that we were going to become independent and why.
Whereas the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amedments, Laws, etc are what we are bound to. I do agree that any tort reform would need to be consistent with the Constitution & Amendments.
What would you recommend regarding which cases deserve a jury trial and who should bear the cost of it?
I think that is what we are discussing here. Should we allow suits over things that occurred 50 yrs ago? How do we decide if it is a reasonable claim or is it way out there? Does the Class Action suit really have merit or is it a Law firm looking to get rich quick?
My point is that these all cost someone something? And juries take time from a group of citizens and disrupt their lives. If the Lawyers, Businesses, People, etc aren't paying for it... The tax payers and jurors are.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for your comments as well, John. It is true that the DofI was a document that has no governing rights; however, I feel the fact that it explicitly states trial by jury is important historically to indicate WHY there was a need for our own Constitution. That it was SO important to our founding fathers and "the people" who fought for independence that it was included in the reasons for WHY they were fighting. It is also expressly given in the 7th Amendment to the Constitution.
I totally understand that tort reform is not asking that trial by jury be removed, rather limiting a juries power. If we limit juries in the name of reducing, say, health care costs, should we also limit how much health care companies pay executives, doctors, etc? It is a similar argument, I believe. If the government maximizes CEO salaries, that will cut costs and potentially provide savings to the customer. Why should we limit what a person gets when damaged by negligence, but not limit other factors in concert that contribute to higher health care costs? Sounds to me like BIG GOVERNMENT telling the people what they can and cannot do either way.
I believe (no proof) that tort reform is a way to vilify "the people" and victimize the corporations and "the people" are buying it. Why are they buying it? Probably because of sound bites and propaganda. There are very, very few frivolous cases that get to trial. By the time it gets to jury, checks and balances have been taking place to eliminate the crap cases and a lot of the evidence. I sat on a jury once in a tort case and know exactly how it works from the side of the jury.
"What would you recommend regarding which cases deserve a jury trial and who should bear the cost of it?" you ask. Every civil case has the right to trial by jury unless you signed away that right under some arbitration agreement (see the 7th amendment). The cost is allocated to those who are either sued or those who are suing. That is the system we have. Britain, Germany, and France have loser pay systems that seems to work for them. Do we want to be more like them or remain America. There will be consequences to a loser pay system. That is partly why the founding fathers adopted the opposite of what they saw as an unjust system that benefited the King and the British Empire (i.e., loser pays). A loser pays system, I argue, is like a guilty unless proven innocent system which many European countries also have in place and shouldn't be adopted in the US.
"Should we allow suits over things that occurred 50 yrs ago?" There are statute of limitations laws in place to limit that number.
"How do we decide if it is a reasonable claim or is it way out there?" The courts are very effective at determining this.
"Does the Class Action suit really have merit or is it a Law firm looking to get rich quick?"
That is what a jury trial determines if it even gets to that point. The judge can grant summary judgement if the facts of the case don't produce a legitimate claim.
"My point is that these all cost someone something?"
Certainly. Why is this point relevant? There is a cost to justice. That is a cost of doing business and a cost of being a citizen of USA.
"And juries take time from a group of citizens and disrupt their lives. If the Lawyers, Businesses, People, etc aren't paying for it... The tax payers and jurors are."
Again, a cost of justice. Would you rather not have justice? If you have time, read this article:
http://torts.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/14660-Tort-Reform-Hurts-the-People-We-All-Want-to-Help-Not-the-People-We-Dont.html
Is it a perfect system? Nope. I don't believe there is a perfect system that guarantees 100% justice. I do believe that the system we have without tort reform is much more just than the system proposed by the tort reform movement.
-Jake
wow, Jake. You make some very persuasive and principled arguments. They seem to rest, however, on your assertion that the number of "frivolous" or "ambulance chasing" lawsuits is minimal. I'm afraid I do not believe that. The mere fact that someone can sue for "wrongful birth" and so drive up the cost of malpractice insurance that obstetricians will quit their practice rather than pay it is but one proof. Even if the number of cases were minimal, as you contend, I see no reason why we should not make an attempt to minimize the overall societal impact and expense of those few cases if we can.
I don't find anything unreasonable about limiting jury awards to something like treble damages. I do not believe that civil liability should be the basis for "punitive damages," since that would seem to violate the Fifth Amendment. I see nothing wrong with a board of review for medical malpractice cases, to establish the facts before going to court.
J. Ewing
Technically the court systems are a part of Government. Thus they are a form of "Big Government telling the people what they can and can not do either way".
Granted we citizens accept this interference in our personal lives in the name of "justice". As such we citizen's have the right to keep improving the balance between "justice" and "interference".
Thus a 6 yr statute of limitations may be too long, therefore we try to shorten it to 4 yrs.
Or society may see jurors as going to far with awards, therefore set a "reasonable" cap on them.
Or society gets tired of seeing Law firms keeping 30+% of a $100,000,000 class action law suit while the plaintiffs get a $30 check... Thus we may choose too limit the Lawyers share of the settlement.
The reality is that the Tort reform discussion and review are actually society's way of reviewing the balance. Then they adjust the laws as needed.
Now isn't that also trusting the common person to make the correct choice?
Jake's link,
Tort Lawyers - Reform Hurts...
Now that I have read the link, I am thinking that Fred may be a bit biased in his interpretations. That... and since it is on Lawyers.com...
Then I start to wonder where does personal responsibility fit into this discussion? And what is the value of a human life? G2A Value of a Life?
As for personal responsibility, where were the Doctor's life insurance policies? What would have happened to his family if he had just dropped dead one day?
Don't these people carry long term disability insurance? What if the they have a stroke?
Were they negligent and therefore desperate to find someone to make up for their error?
As for the value of a human life, are any of us really worth multiple millions of dollars?
The most fun about this discussion is that both the Pro and Con Reform folks sure find some interesting examples of the extremes to push their agenda and pull our heart strings.
Technically, juries and "We the People" are a part of "big government" too. My problem is when one branch of government oversteps its authority and limits other branches or, more importantly, the branch that allows juries (i.e., The People) to be directly involved in justice. By legislating caps on tort cases, you are essentially placing either the politicians or the companies who lobby the politicians in a higher position than the jury without even hearing one piece of the case.
Again, I want to reiterate my concern that juries can be trusted with criminal cases to make the right choices and fairly listen to both sides for what may end up sending someone to their death, but they cannot be trusted in civil cases to be fair. It makes me wonder.
On frivolous suits: They suck. Period. Whether a business or an individual, it sucks. Some people get put in jail for crimes it turns out the didn't commit. That sucks too. Justice is leaky, sadly. Here is an interesting read about how much effect tort reform with have on medical costs: Link Hint: 0.2% reduction in medical costs. Its not what is causing medical costs to go up.
I am not against potential reform to make the system better. I am not against caps either. There has to be equity though. Vilifying lawyers, corporation and greedy people is not the right approach. As John points out, so much of the debate revolves around outlandish cases that don't represent the norm. I, personally, try to stay away from that.
Lawyers represent both sides of the debate and both sides of a tort case, so lawyers are not the problem. I find it humorous that lawyers who defend insurance companies or the negligent are somehow good and those who represent the victims are presumed to be greedy and profit hungry ambulance chasers.
Let me suggest something different. Rather than changing the whole legal system to a "loser-pays" system, hold lawyers more accountable for profiteering on frivolous suits and encourage them to pursue the legit cases. I don't presume to know how, but that seems more equitable in my mind because the people shouldn't suffer at the hands of professionals (i.e., lawyers) that manipulate them. Also, rather than cap tort winnings based on some arbitrary flat number, protect individuals and companies by capping winnings at an arbitrary percent of net worth or something similar. I can even envision some system more like alimony or child support paying over a period of time rather than one lump sum.
The problem with frivolous cases is not the million dollar plus verdicts, but the ones that settle out of court or the ones that get dismissed and never make it to trial. To cap tort verdicts does nothing to curb frivolous cases, because they rarely if ever even go to trial.
I think we get caught up in the idea that one solution is the only solution. If tort reform is needed, I just argue that the current system of going about it is misguided and not equitable.
Here is another link with tons of references and information about tort reform Link. It is from trial lawyers, so be very critical of the information, for they are biased.
-Jake
You mention that this Fred guy is biased. How is that relevant to the discussion? He either makes good points or not. What interpretations do you not agree with? How would you interpret the information he presents different?
"How much is a human worth?" Does that affect this discussion? I think in this case, the jury has the right to determine how much injuries are "worth." Should we legislate CEO salaries of publicly traded companies? No we should not. For very similar reasons we should not legislate verdicts.
It should also be noted that judges have discretion to reduce verdict amount if they are not warranted.
-Jake
I am not sure one branch of Government can overstep it's authority in this case. Those founding Fathers were pretty bright. If it seems the Legislative and/or Executive folks have gone too far on Tort Reform, it will land in the courts. Then they will have the final say on interpetting it against the Constitution. This is as it should be.
Hopefully I am not villifying either side, companies and plaintiff lawyers get enough of that from both sides. The realty is though that companies seek to cut costs to make money for the employees and us Shareholders, and the Lawyers are also out to make money. Thus the requirement for balance.
I think as a society, we need to give some guidelines regarding the value of a human life. Otherwise the variation in awards is just too great depending on the emotion, politics, etc of the Jurors and Judge. I am pretty sure the Workmen's comp folks have a table for this...
As for Fred, I think he is misrepresenting the intent of Tort Reformers, playing to the fears of the readers, and "villifying" companies, caps, etc. As I mentioned, we also need to take personal responsibility since we all know bad things can happen to good people. And sometimes the other party will not have deep pockets that can be picked.
My gut feel regarding jurors on criminal cases vs jurors on civil cases. Criminal cases are infinitely more important to me and therefore worthy of more court and juror time. In these cases we decide if someone broke the law and take away their freedom.
If someone really believes the doctor or company was negligent, maybe they should be required to go through the criminal system first ???
Whereas how much money is our society willing to spend to settle financial disagreements between private parties? I guess we will find out as the Tort debate continues.
By the way, how would anyone ever determine what percent of the cases are frivolous? I am pretty certain that many "frivolous" cases get settled out of court every day. Given the choice of buying off the Plaintiff for $30,000 or paying legal expenses, I am sure many companies are just getting out the checkbook. (ie with our money...) And I am guessing these show up as "valid" cases.
Tort reform may be needed in some tangible way. The question becomes why it is needed... The answer(s) to that question should determine the grounds for the debate. The final question should be (after all the pros and cons are debated and hashed out and all the various models and predictions made)What are the risks of reform and what are the benefits? I realize there are other arguments, but if the sole purpose of tort reform is to cut medical cost (which it often is presented that way) then a 0.5% reduction in medical prices is not worth the risk we present to victims of medical malpractice.
Malpractice cases take up 2% of total medical part of the economy costs, so no more than 2% of the costs of medical care could be due to frivolous lawsuits. We all agree that all cases are not frivolous, so that number is less than 2%. According to Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, this is right in line with the rest of the tort world. So, the benefit of tort reform is to reduce medical expenses at a MAX of 2% (You would pay $980 on a $1000 bill). One cost is that legitimate tort cases will not be adequately tried.
Cost of a human life... The most it could be is the amount the highest paid person makes a year. If there is one life out there who deserves a certain amount per year, then there is a possibility that there is another. So we have our upper limit on the price of a human life (per year). Anything above this amount should be determined outrageous. There is a CEO out there that makes $10 million per year? Then that company is essentially telling that CEO they are worth $10 million per year to that company. Am I wrong? Most states cap tort cases at $750,000 or less.
You ask about personal responsibility... Say that doctor did have life insurance that paid out enough for his kids etc to live well. Then he dies in some accident that was 0% his fault and 100% negligence. Shouldn't the rest of us who pay life insurance premiums be reimbursed from the negligent party? Someone pays, yes. Part of tort law is placing the payment on the right person. If there are tort caps then it will probably increase the cost of life insurance. If that doctor had a $10 million dollar policy, tort reform would limit the amount the life insurer could get back for someone elses negligence. How much is the max a life insurance policy can be made out for? There is another way to answer your question on how much a life is worth...
It all comes out in the wash, so tort reform is not needed in the way it is presented today.
-Jake
I believe that if there is any injustice whatsoever in the current method of adjudicating torts, and we can identify it and fix it by law, we have to do it. The "cost" to our perception of a just society is probably far higher than the financial cost, and I believe the financial cost is far higher than anyone wants to admit. Just add up the incomes of all the lawyers in the country and subtract out those who aren't involved in civil suits, and you probably have a number that runs into the 12-digit range. Even a small portion of that, if it goes to ambulance-chasers, is too high.
J. Ewing
Sorry Jake,
I am with J. Given the incredible amount of advertising that ask-gary, 411-pain, the multitude of other ambulance chasers and the class action suit chasers can afford, I am most certain the rewards enabled via lawsuits are way too high.
And the point that the rewards available have given us nearly the most lawyers per capita in the world, definitely shows that we are doing something wrong. I may be biased, but we need more Engineers/Inventors and fewer Lawyers. (ie wealth creators, not wealth leeches)
All that ad time and other rewards are being paid for by us the consumers, and not helping one victim.
The point I made on MNPublius. If healthcare cost is $2,500,000,000,000 and wasteful Tort accounts for 1%. That means we are wasting $25,000,000,000/yr that could be used to help people through preventive care or reduced premiums. I am happy to risk a few more people slipping through the Justice cracks. (hope they pay their insurance premiums)
Also, I reminded them that one eats an elephant one bite at a time. In this case 1% is a pretty big bite.
As for the value of a human life, I'll pick that up again in a future post.
I wish you good success in preventing Tort reform, though I will continue to lobby for it.
One other thing: somewhat hidden in the CBO report was the tidbit that tort reform reduced costs more in HMO environments than in government insurance environments. What it tells me is that "defensive medicine" costs are being masked by government insurance rules, and that HMO organizations are practicing defensive medicine because Medicare offers cost protection for doing so. We need some sort of medical arbitration before giving ambulance chasers access to the courts if we really want to reduce unnecessary costs. And we won't see it until we get the government out of health care.
J. Ewing
I don't think 1% is important IF that removing that 1% takes away the *potential* for justice. That is just my opinion and you seem to not agree with me. That is fine. The problem is that the PUBLIC debate about this (waged thru sound bites and propaganda) doesn't make that stand clear. However, it is a fine and perfectly legitimate stand to take. Why the other side hasn't waged war with its own propaganda machines, I have no idea. Either way, the debate seems to focus on half truths, grandiose examples and inaccurate information.
As I said before, justice is leaky. I live in a condo with 145 units with a common water line. When we find a leak we fix it. The only way to totally prevent leaks is the not have water. It is the cost of having water in each of our condos. Its the same with justice. I am interpreting your argument as to cut off the water. I may be wrong.
Should we put caps on capital gains and trader salaries because some traders are involved with insider trading? It is leaky too. No, we should not.
Most lawyers do not advertise on TV like the guys you talked about, however, ALL pharmaceutical companies advertise and "lobby" doctors to use their products. Should we cap the amount of money they make? Lawyers are a part of the free market. People make money in all sorts of ways. Why are lawyers any worse? Pharmaceuticals increase the cost of health care more than than lawyers and medical negligence (13%). 25% of that goes to advertising (Link. The rationale to explain that was the HMO's already reduced defensive medicine in their daily business as managed care givers. It should also be noted that they do it with no detectable loss in health outcomes. So, it doesn't hurt patient care. That is a good thing and is good case *against* defensive medicine.
That last post didn't go thru right...
I don't think 1% is important IF that removing that 1% takes away the *potential* for justice. That is just my opinion and you seem to not agree with me. That is fine. The problem is that the PUBLIC debate about this (waged thru sound bites and propaganda) doesn't make that stand clear. However, it is a fine and perfectly legitimate stand to take. Why the other side hasn't waged war with its own propaganda machines, I have no idea. Either way, the debate seems to focus on half truths, grandiose examples and inaccurate information.
As I said before, justice is leaky. I live in a condo with 145 units with a common water line. When we find a leak we fix it. The only way to totally prevent leaks is the not have water. It is the cost of having water in each of our condos. Its the same with justice. I am interpreting your argument as to cut off the water. I may be wrong.
Should we put caps on capital gains and trader salaries because some traders are involved with insider trading? It is leaky too. No, we should not.
Most lawyers do not advertise on TV like the guys you talked about, however, ALL pharmaceutical companies advertise and "lobby" doctors to use their products. Should we cap the amount of money they make? Lawyers are a part of the free market. People make money in all sorts of ways. Why are lawyers any worse? Pharmaceuticals increase the cost of health care more than than lawyers and medical negligence (13%). 25% of that goes to advertising (Link). The rationale to explain that was the HMO's already reduced defensive medicine in their daily business as managed care givers. It should also be noted that they do it with no detectable loss in health outcomes. So, it doesn't hurt patient care. That is a good thing and is good case *against* defensive medicine.
-Jake
I got the comments cleaned up, looks like the first did work with the links.
As for Lawyers, Drugs, etc. I'll try to post on that later.
Post a Comment