The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in So Much for Tort Reform

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

Jim_Satterfield — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:46:51 -0000

Do you really think that the current crop of Republicans would support those regulations, JD? Seriously? There are certainly some Democrats who join in on this foolish belief that corporations can be trusted to not repeat their previous mistakes or even create new stupidities such as computer programs based on mathematical models that have as their base unwarranted assumptions about home values and mortgages.

As far as tort reform, conservatives limit themselves (So far as I know.) to the idea of limiting awards. That&#39s not enough. We need an entire new structure when it comes to anything that has to do with technical and scientific issues, including medicine. Techies want to tear their hair out sometimes because of software patents and patent trolls. No more jurisdiction shopping. No more competing paid experts. A pool of experts in various fields that are treated like someone drawn for jury selection. Then a second panel of "technical judges" would review the decision to see if they catch something that the first crew didn&#39t. Don&#39t limit awards since you&#39ve already taken major steps to eliminate the worst abuses of the current system. There needs to be a real threat of meaningful penalties in this field to avoid "cost benefit analyses" that lead to rationalizations of unacceptable risk. Purely partisan? I judge the Republican Party as I see the people with power in it act.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

Jim_Satterfield — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:46:51 -0000

As far as tort reform, conservatives limit themselves (So far as I know.) to the idea of limiting awards. That's not enough. We need an entire new structure when it comes to anything that has to do with technical and scientific issues, including medicine. Techies want to tear their hair out sometimes because of software patents and patent trolls. No more jurisdiction shopping. No more competing paid experts. A pool of experts in various fields that are treated like someone drawn for jury selection. Then a second panel of "technical judges" would review the decision to see if they catch something that the first crew didn't. Don't limit awards since you've already taken major steps to eliminate the worst abuses of the current system. There needs to be a real threat of meaningful penalties in this field to avoid "cost benefit analyses" that lead to rationalizations of unacceptable risk. Purely partisan? I judge the Republican Party as I see the people with power in it act.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

JeffersonDavis — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:06:31 -0000

Thanks, T.

I find it extremely frustrating to see that people still wear their horse-blinders thinking that their beloved party is so much better than that "evil" party over there on the other side. I firmly believe that 70% of people in America are clammering for another party. I know I&#39m sick and tired of choosing from the lesser of two evils.

The time is ripe for a third/fouth/fith/sixth party out there. The only way to do it is to totally get rid of the primary system IMHO. What do you think?

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

T-Steel — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:25:51 -0000

Regulate the crap out of every industry that has a hand in health care - and that includes Tort Reform and the blood-sucking Trial Lawyers.

Healthcare COULD have been reformed in that manner. Instead, both Democrats and Repbulicans fought for their respective corporate interests that continue to line their pockets with cash.

AMEN JeffersonDavis. A-to the-Frickin&#39-MEN! Both parties are filled to the brim with corporate interests. Jazz makes some good points. But ultimately, until we can really limit corporate influence in Congress, we are going to be stuck on slow motion for awhile.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

T-Steel — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:25:51 -0000

Regulate the crap out of every industry that has a hand in health care - and that includes Tort Reform and the blood-sucking Trial Lawyers.

Healthcare COULD have been reformed in that manner. Instead, both Democrats and Repbulicans fought for their respective corporate interests that continue to line their pockets with cash.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

T-Steel — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:25:51 -0000

Regulate the crap out of every industry that has a hand in health care - and that includes Tort Reform and the blood-sucking Trial Lawyers.

Healthcare COULD have been reformed in that manner. Instead, both Democrats and Repbulicans fought for their respective corporate interests that continue to line their pockets with cash.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

JeffersonDavis — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:55:04 -0000

Jim....

You really are the most partisan person I read on here. "Hatred that republicans have for actually reforming anything?" Come on, bro!

Since this is the Moderate Voice, don&#39t you think a moderate approach is warranted?
Regulate the crap out of every industry that has a hand in health care - and that includes Tort Reform and the blood-sucking Trial Lawyers.

Healthcare COULD have been reformed in that manner. Instead, both Democrats and Repbulicans fought for their respective corporate interests that continue to line their pockets with cash. If you think for one second this has something to do with providing the poor with health benefits, go follow the money, become a bit less naive, and then come back and praise your party.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

JeffersonDavis — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:06:31 -0000

Thanks, T.

I find it extremely frustrating to see that people still wear their horse-blinders thinking that their beloved party is so much better than that "evil" party over there on the other side. I firmly believe that 70% of people in America are clammering for another party. I know I'm sick and tired of choosing from the lesser of two evils.

The time is ripe for a third/fouth/fith/sixth party out there. The only way to do it is to totally get rid of the primary system IMHO. What do you think?

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

T-Steel — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:25:51 -0000

Regulate the crap out of every industry that has a hand in health care - and that includes Tort Reform and the blood-sucking Trial Lawyers.

Healthcare COULD have been reformed in that manner. Instead, both Democrats and Repbulicans fought for their respective corporate interests that continue to line their pockets with cash.

AMEN JeffersonDavis. A-to the-Frickin'-MEN! Both parties are filled to the brim with corporate interests. Jazz makes some good points. But ultimately, until we can really limit corporate influence in Congress, we are going to be stuck on slow motion for awhile.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

Jim_Satterfield — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:36:23 -0000

Actually, Jazz, the foaming at the mouth hatred that Republicans and you have for actually reforming anything is what really knows no bounds. Have the "conservatives" ever proposed any real reforms to the system? No. Simply capping awards is not reform. Their proposals for what they consider reform of the rest of the system are designed to have loopholes so big that the Oasis of the Seas could sail through with a blind man at the helm. They would in do nothing to improve things in the real world. Only in the Republican fantasy land of what America is like.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

rod769 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:31:08 -0000

What else would one expect from a Congress in the United Suits of America? Trial attorneys and unwarranted litigation are destroying the fabric of this nation.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

JeffersonDavis — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:55:04 -0000

Jim....

You really are the most partisan person I read on here. "Hatred that republicans have for actually reforming anything?" Come on, bro!

Since this is the Moderate Voice, don't you think a moderate approach is warranted?
Regulate the crap out of every industry that has a hand in health care - and that includes Tort Reform and the blood-sucking Trial Lawyers.

Healthcare COULD have been reformed in that manner. Instead, both Democrats and Repbulicans fought for their respective corporate interests that continue to line their pockets with cash. If you think for one second this has something to do with providing the poor with health benefits, go follow the money, become a bit less naive, and then come back and praise your party.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

TheGrandPanjandrum — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:24:02 -0000

Maybe the Republicans could have actually fought FOR this particular issue AND argue against other portions of the bill in good faith. That was not the case as we ended up with ridiculous claims of granny being euthanized and "get your gummint hands off my Medicare" from the tea party crowds and their toadies in the House and Senate.

The GOP spent almost no time debating any of this bill or offering anything of substance. If they really wanted tort reform they would have fought for it. They didn&#39t. Too bad.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

dduck12 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:13:17 -0000

On a lighter note, the "tort reform" is like the football Lucy used to tee up for Charlie Brown. Wham, on his back, once again.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

DLS — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:27:44 -0000

The only kind of reform we&#39ll see is "relative," in later years when other Dem interests get as much or more greedy as well as desperate. It&#39s something that&#39s already been dithered with, but merely superficially.

The sleazier Dem crowd&#39s show will start getting really good (like imprisoned gang members who eventually turn on each other after preying on everybody else) when desperate or greedy Dims in governments start moving in earnest to start taxing punitive damages.

Heh, heh

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

DLS — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:53:29 -0000

Nobody here has noted aloud yet that 2009-10 DemoCare "tort reform" is likely to be no different than under HillaryCare, which would restrict lawyers&#39 portions of any awards to 33 1/3 per cent, nominally.

[sigh]

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

DLS — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:50:45 -0000

" tort reform was one of the tantalizing potential carrots he offered"

Who believed it?

Obama said Medicare and other entitlement (Social Security) reform was overdue, and vowed to make the needed reforms, but (especially when the Dems are stampeding to expand entitlements while contining to oppose any and all reforms), who believed it?

* * *

"Man, the lengths some of you will go to in attempting to defend this boondoggle at every turn are really astounding."

That&#39s an understatement -- be it lengths or depths. [scowl] No surprise, though. Big bell curve, low tail.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

rod769 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:40:59 -0000

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

Jim_Satterfield — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:36:23 -0000

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

rod769 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:31:08 -0000

What else would one expect from a Congress in the United Suits of America? Trial attorneys and unwarranted litigation are destroying the fabric of this nation.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

Jazz — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:05:57 -0000

At least jpe1 made an attempt to be reasonable about this, while arguing a different point than is under discussion in this post, but Jim&#39s response is really amazing. I&#39m guessing you actually already understand this but are pretending you aren&#39t, so let&#39s try again for the truly reading impaired, since I already ran this by a lawyer.

What the legislation in question is obviously addressing is states&#39 potential efforts to reform medical liability litigation. This *could* come in the form of an alternative system of "health courts" as you say, or it *could* be an entirely new body of law applying only to suits in the "regular" court system which pertain to medical malpractice litigation, etc. In either event, the legislation is not prohibiting states from doing this, and NOWHERE in this post did I so much as suggest that it did. What it does is prevent the states from receiving the additional federal funds (an attractive option) should they put in such a system of courts or new laws and those systems put any sort of cap on legal fees or settlement amounts.

Man, the lengths some of you will go to in attempting to defend this boondoggle at every turn are really astounding.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

Jim_Satterfield — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:47:47 -0000

jpe1 beat me to it. Not one of the upset conservatives here actually understood what they were reading. The entire section was about alternatives to the standard system of going to the courts. In other words, the so-called reform laws that you are defending have nothing to do with this section of the law. Did you really not recognize that? Any of you? Especially Jazz.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

jpe1 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:30:31 -0000

The alternatives aren&#39t limited to merit or early offer. Provided the alternative has either of those and doesn&#39t cap damages, the design is at the discretion of the state. They can make it an arbitration system, special medical courts, whatever.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

jpe1 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:27:37 -0000

It won&#39t have any effect. What it will do is provide an arbitration alternative to regular court, and in that system (a) there won&#39t be caps on damages; and (b) a counsel of doctors will have to certify that the suit is legitimate.

So more suits may be funneled into that arbitration process, but the existing legal system - w/ trials, caps, et& - will remain unchanged.

Re: So Much for Tort Reform

jpe1 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:25:35 -0000

You&#39re misreading. A state can have caps on damages for its regular legal process, but if it also establishes a health court arbitration system envisioned by the bill, then it can&#39t have caps on damages for that arbitration system.

So the states can keep whatever they&#39ve got on their books, they just can&#39t apply it to the new health courts.