This is a bold proposal by President Bush, and I applaud him for making it.
Posted on 01/16/2003 12:30:10 PM PST by kattracks
1st Add: Includes comments from Alliance of American Insurers)
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush on Thursday called for Congress to pass a law limiting non-economic, punitive damages in medical malpractice suits to $250,000.
"Our medical liability system is broken," the president told a Scranton, Pa. audience.
"A broken system like that first and foremost hurts the patients and the people of America," said Bush, because "junk lawsuits" drive up malpractice insurance premiums and drive innocent doctors out of town, according to the president.
Non-economic damages include jury awards for "pain and suffering," while punitive damages are imposed as a way of punishing a defendant. Defendants can be required to pay non-economic and punitive damages on top of damages for loss of pay, medical expenses and other costs connected to a plaintiff's injury.
\li30\sb30 President Bush's plan would cap recoveries for non-economic damages; reserve punitive damages for cases where they are justified; provide for payments of judgments over time rather than in a single, lump sum; ensure that old cases could not be brought years after an event; reduce the amount doctors must pay if a plaintiff has received other payments from an insurer to compensate for their losses; and would provide that defendants pay judgments in proportion to their fault.
In the American legal system, laws governing civil disputes are usually decided by state legislatures, but Bush said this time the federal government needs to intervene.
"It is a national problem that needs a national solution," said Bush, because the direct cost of malpractice insurance and defensive medicine raises health care costs paid by the federal government though Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' health care and health care afforded to government employees.
The House passed a medical malpractice bill last year but the measure stalled in the Senate. Bush acknowledged that the Senate remains the major stumbling block to reform and urged citizens to lobby their home state senators on the need for damage caps.
The insurance industry is pushing Congress to pass legislation this year.
Rodger S. Lawson, president of the Alliance of American Insurers, urged Congress to enact medical malpractice liability reforms to reduce the number and size of malpractice claims.
\li30\sb30 Lawson called the president's plan a "solid step forward for the American health care system and the American economy."
"Reforming the medical malpractice system is critical, because the rising costs of health care are borne by numerous insurance lines: workers' compensation, automobile, homeowners, etc. All lines share some of the escalating costs," Lawson said. More to Follow...
See Earlier Stories:
New Year No Fun For Pennsylvania Doctors
Study: Fear of Litigation Has 'Stunning Impact' on Doctors, Health Care
Either the docs can't get insurance, or the premiums are approaching their total yearly salary.
Your line is the typical one of the lawyers, interestingly enough. "It's always the insurance company's fault."
Well, who knows? Insurance is about risk pools, and there has to be some sense of safety about what you can expect when you walk into court. If all bets are off and all the courtroom presents is a lottery, no one with sense will write policies.
Fact is, there's gonna be no more booty for patients or lawyers. No matter WHOSE fault it is. And, knowing lawyers, I have a pretty good idea who got us where we are.
The first malpractice insurance companies were created by doctors to protect patients, but it's gotten out of hand.
You cannot have your doctor and eat him, too. Or, you can't have your doctor and feed him to the lawyers, too.
I am in love with this man.
This is a bold proposal by President Bush, and I applaud him for making it.
Your attitude is so typical of FReepers...actually, your "typical case" is atypical. In medmal cases, parents are not "talked into" suing....wanna know why? Because medmal cases are very, very, very expensive to work up and try...$25k for the smallest of them. As a plaintiff lawyer, I routinely rejected cases that I valued under $100k...to much risk, not enough reward....if I am putting up $25k of my money, I want reasonable assurances that I will make some money back.
Here in PA, an insurance company can not settle without consent of the doctors, so small cases are tried at exorbant costs.
And I still do not see why FReepers are so hung up on contingent fee agreements. First, it is bargained for....if you don't want to pay that much, then find a lawyer that will charge less (just remember, you get what you pay for). Second, the fee is not that much when you figure that the lawyer has the most at risk going into trial.
Tort reform is not a "conservative" position.....tort reform exists in the courts with judges and juries...they are merely doing what the Founding Fathers have told them to do. Having government step in to "protect" the insurance companies is just absurd.
NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES ONLY
Is this a joke?
So is my husband. :o)
He's a hospital adminstrator..........if the general public had any idea how much higher medical costs are because of frivolous lawsuits (the hospital is always included when the doctor is sued), they would be appalled.
IMO, the American people will support the President's position on this.
(He's on a roll, lawgirl!!)
I hear this claim from lawyers, that signers to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were lawyers, but the reality is that they were merchants, plantation owners, yeomen farmers, craftsmen, businessmen...with some who had read for the law. I recall one prominent Texas "king of torts" mocking doctors with this brag in a public interview, saying that when lawyers were creating our country doctors were still using leeches and bleeding patients.
Had I been there, I would have returned to this King of Torts, "And look who are the bloodsuckers, now--"
And watch the boilerplate about expenses...
I'm very sorry about your baby. You have my prayers.
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.