The Link This is an excellent, well-research news investigation on the total disgrace that Medical Malpractice Tort Reform is in this state. Thanks to the passage of the 2003 Med Mal tort reform, if a doctor negligentlly injures you or a loved one, you most likely will not be able to seek recourse in the court system and most likely won't even be able to hire a lawyer. And as this investigation reveals, the alleged benefits of these laws (e.g. cheaper insurance rates, more doctors), have not occurred. At the end of the day, the only winners in all of this are the insurance companies. And b/f one of our conservative friends bashes this story, keep in mind it came from that liberal media outlet, Fox News. It is one of the most well-researched news stories I have seen in years.
My insurance has gone down by thirty per cent. Plus, the two hundred fifty thousand is for pain and suffering-plaintiffs can still collect for lost incomeand medical bills.
One other point: there's a lot of evidence out there that the total # of claims post prop-12 is roughly the same as before. So if thats the case, its hard to argue that there are a significant number of valid claims being "denied access" to the courts because of proposition 12. So far, the only "evidence" I've heard that people cant file legit suits because of prop 12 is anecdotal ******** which is of course, meaningless. So please provide data showing that the total number of claims has gone down since the law passed.
anyone who believed denying someone their day in court based on the allegation that it was going to reduce health care costs to the public via reduced med mal insurance premium reduction due to reduced liability is going to believe Obama is a pro business finance wizard who has a complete grasp of fiscal responsibility. My wife is a defense attorney. She sees countless frivilous claims against her clients daily. Still tort reform in this manner is wrong. You simply cannot deny an individual his day in court nor his right to recoupe damages.
This opinion piece in the WSJ says the number of suits filed has been cut in half since prop 12 (as of May, '06). Is Newt Gingrich wrong about this, brandons?
Let me comment about the original link. That link has absolutely ZERO data post prop 12. Their entire thesis is that there was never a lawsuit problem to begin with. They dont cite any studies or show any numbers regarding the "aftermath" of the law.
There are some cases that are simply untriable due to the cap on damages at 250k Nursing home cases or indigent or the like. You know, the people who's lives have little to no economic benefit in a court of law. I'm certainly convinced that if some quack butchered me to the point I couldn't work or god forbid died you'd have plenty of lawyers that would take my or my estate's case b/c you could reasonably expect to show 7 or 8 figures in economic damages. Not so my theoretical 90 year old grandma. She has no economic benefit anymore and you'd be nuts to try a case that costs that much for the chance to win 250k. Nuts as a lawyer to take that client on. And the defense knows this so they ain't running to the table to cut a deal quick and easy.
brandon - You keep posting links that show that insurance rates have dropped for doctors. The problem is that the original link never said they hadn't. The point made was that rates haven't decreased but have actually increased for patients.
1. TMLT was able not only to stop raising rates but actually to start and continue to cut them. 2. TSBME has had a dramatic increase in applicants for Texas licenses. 3. There is no legal restriction whatsoever on anyone's ability to recover by lawsuit any economic loss he has sustained. Damages are capped at economic + $250k noneconomic. 4. If the legal system is too inaccessible, the answer is not to shunt money from healthcare into it. If no good lawyer will take a case for his cut of economic damages plus 250,000 dollars, maybe "good lawyers" should charge something closer to what good doctors do. The amount per hour the world's best surgeons make for the services bundled in the global fee for a life-saving I&D of a spinal infection or lifestyle-saving arthroplasty are dwarfed by what a "good lawyer" needs to take a medmal case. 5. If a doctor is injuring someone through willful negligence, society is better served by criminalizing the behavior and ending his practice than by soaking his insurance company (and secondarily other policy holders).
This is the problem with you when you are on these tort reform threads. You get so emotionally wrapped up in them that you don't even think about what's being said in the thread. The link cited listed one of its research points as to whether Texans have benefited. It said that insurance companies have A LOT, doctors have a little, and everyone else hasn't. You are arguing with things that haven't been said on this thread. You are beating the hell out of that strawman, though. The news story utilized per capita rates because the TAPA executive director claimed that we were 48th in physicians per capita before the reform. The TAPA guy used per capita because even he knows that's all that matters. You are being silly, again, on a tort reform thread.
Five years ago, West Texas had 0 fellowship-trained pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. That number is up to 3 now. Subspecialties like this that take care of children often have long training required without commensurately higher incomes. I suspect that the thousands of children with deformity that no longer have to choose between traveling across/out of state and going without care would take exception to the notion that nothing has improved for patients.
