|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
Posted on 10/14/2009 10:54:09 AM PDT by AreaMan
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
 |
|
|
Manhattan Moment
James R. Copland: Here's what is stopping tort reformBy: James R. Copland
|
In his September 9, nationally televised speech before a joint session of Congress, President Obama made news by saying that medical-malpractice litigation "may be contributing to unnecessary costs" in the U.S. health-care sys¡©tem.
Since then, trial-lawyer advocates--including their lobbying arm, the American Association for Justice (AAJ), and various allied "consumer" groups such as the Center for Justice and Democracy--have been engaged in a fierce counter-attack. Front-and-center among the lawyer-advocates' arguments is that litigation is too small a piece of the health-care puzzle to make much difference.
In a letter to Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, such self-styled consumer groups claimed that costs consumed by medical-malpractice litigation represent "less than 0.6 percent of all health care spending."
To reach this number, the groups are playing a deceptive fraction game, in which they embrace a small numerator based on a ridiculously narrow interpretation of litigation costs and a large denominator encompassing every dollar spent on health care.
The lawyer-allies would count as litigation expenses only the malpractice litigation claims paid out directly by insurance companies in a given year. Conveniently, the lawyers' advocates ignore self-insured hospitals and legal-defense costs, not to mention defensive medicine--the cost of excessive tests, procedures, and referrals that doctors order due to fear of liability.
Ninety-three percent of doctors say they have practiced defensive medicine, and the real cost savings from reforming malpractice liability stem from curbing such wasteful practice. Academic researchers have reached different conclusions on how much money tort reforms save by preventing defensive medical practice, ranging from two percent of all health costs in some studies to as much as nine percent in others.
Such a percentage itself is much larger than it might seem. If we look at the difference in U.S. health spending relative to that in other developed countries--such as Canada, Germany, or France--medical-malpractice reform would eliminate anywhere from six to 27 percent of all additional health costs.
While defensive medicine costs a lot, it is hardly the only cost-escalation stemming from lawsuit abuse. The lawyers' advocates try to ignore the vast health-related litigation, apart from medical-malpractice lawsuits, which targets nursing homes, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and HMOs.
And the cost of this litigation matters, too. From 1992 to 2003, the cost of litigation per nursing-home bed rose 700 percent. When trial lawyers almost sued the vaccine manufacturers out of existence in the 1980s, they drove up vaccine prices as much as 4,000 percent.
After that vaccine-liability crisis, Congress acted responsibly to establish an alternative compensation system outside the tort system, which hurt the trial bar's profits but preserved the vaccine markets. But Congress will not take any meaningful steps to curb lawsuit abuse as a part of comprehensive health reform this year, notwithstanding that 83 percent of the American public wants them to do so.
The reason is clear - money. The trial lawyers' political action committee is the second-largest donor to Democrats' federal campaigns, and lawyers gave $127 million to Congressional candidates in the 2008 political cycle--more than doctors and health professionals, hospitals and nursing homes, pharmaceutical companies, and HMOs, combined.
As medical doctor and former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean admitted in a town-hall meeting this summer, "The reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers."
It's a myth to think that liability reform alone could cure the nation's health-care problems, but it is equally a myth to think it doesn't matter. Unfortunately, because of the trial lawyers' stranglehold on Congress, meaningful liability reform, this year, is simply wishful thinking.
James R. Copland is the director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute and the project manager for its Trial Lawyers, Inc. series, including a Health Care update published Oct. 13.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Find this article at: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Manhattan-Moment/Here_s-what-is-stopping-tort-reform-8379073-64098807.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. |
|
| ||
|
|
||
Where is Obama’s pay CZAR for attorneys?? Oops, that’s right, he and the hulk are both attorneys too.
They are GREEDY.
They EXPLOIT the victim further to satisfy their FREED and feel PIOUS about it. They typically take 40-60% of ANY settlement. The “victim” is victimized all over again.
I personally know one that claims to be a “Christian”. This person does pro bono work the for the Christian Defense League. The “bread and butter” for this person is, drum roll, AMBULANCE CHASING and Mesothelimona cases. They rationalize it by their pro bono work for “Christians” and being “extra generous”, you know a FEW CRUMBS to “poor” people from their lofty perch in life. The bottom line is this, MONEY is their IDOL.
They are GREEDY.
They EXPLOIT the victim further to satisfy their FREED and feel PIOUS about it. They typically take 40-60% of ANY settlement. The “victim” is victimized all over again.
I personally know one that claims to be a “Christian”. This person does pro bono work the for the Christian Defense League. The “bread and butter” for this person is, drum roll, AMBULANCE CHASING and Mesothelimona cases. They rationalize it by their pro bono work for “Christians” and being “extra generous”, you know a FEW CRUMBS to “poor” people from their lofty perch in life. The bottom line is this, MONEY is their IDOL.
BTW: "The reason is clear - money. The trial lawyers' political action committee is the second-largest donor to Democrats' federal campaigns, and lawyers gave $127 million to Congressional candidates in the 2008 political cycle--more than doctors and health professionals, hospitals and nursing homes, pharmaceutical companies, and HMOs, combined..." This lawyer claims to be a "stauch conservative".
LOL! They ONLY thing they like about being a Republican is a fighting chance to KEEP MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY from victims they exploit. They are pissed at the taxes they have to pay and hunt down each and every loophole left. It's ALL ABOUT MONEY for them - regardless of what they claim to be.
So, the occupation itself, LAW, has perverted itself. Obama OWNS the lawyers because their ideology is the same as his.
Bump for later.
“And the cost of this litigation matters, too. From 1992 to 2003, the cost of litigation per nursing-home bed rose 700 percent.”
This also coincided with the boom-spike in lucrative lawsuits against nursing homes for alleged negligence in the care of patients.
The trial lawyers propaganda has gained a lot of traction. Despite a litigation system unlike any other country (especially countries with government health care), the propaganda has convinced many that litigation reform is not an important factor in health care cost control.
The debate about litigation reform is too narrow. The problem involves much more than physicians. The problem involves hospitals, drug companies, medical device makers, and other providers of health care services.
For physicians, the debate should focus on physician costs, not total health care costs. Medical malpractice insurance is a large expense for physicians especially in lawsuit friendly states. Medical malpractice threatens the supply of physicians especially in high risk specialties.
bttt
Rest assured, Obama has NO intention of doing ANYTHING to ruffle the feathers of his most well-heeled constituency.
Lawyers are what stand between you and a runaway gov’t. Where in this article is anything said about the victims? And, if you want the numbers:
http://www.centerjd.org/air/TrueRiskF.pdf
If self insureds are being left out, I don’t know how to find out how much. After all the poo-flinging, this issue usually comes down to “defensive medicine” costs, which is more of a doctor issue. Either doctors are scared silly of lawyers or doctors are feathering their own nests with extra work being paid for by gov’t or insurance companies.
While there is some of the first, I believe there is whole bunch more of the latter. Ask yourself a simple question. Why do most people go to medical school? Is it out of a deep and abiding love of humanity or to make big bucks?
Why do most people go to law school? Is it out of a desire to screw insurance companies or is it because they love the idea of being a fighter for justice like all the heroic lawyers they see on TV and the movies?
parsy, who thinks, on the whole, the lawyers have the more idealistic views.
The truth is NOTHING is stopping tort reform. 34 states have enacted caps on punitive damages, 23 states have enacted caps on noneconomic damages. The states are free to enact tort reform anytime they want.
The fedgov has no business butting in.
You can't even find the implied power to do it, unless you stretch the Commerce Clause to complete absurdity.
I agree but I am reminded of the quote by Francis Schaeffer:
What was unthinkable yesterday is thinkable today, and ordinary and commonplace tomorrow.
Dr. Francis Schaeffer
Yup—and federal tort reform is the conservative position!
LOL!
parsy, the addlepated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
