Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    (snip)"Within the first month of his second term, this long-sought goal is accomplished by President Bush, with no heavy breathing, much less muscle strain. An epic battle is won with scarcely a casualty. The tort bar is vanquished. There are still more items to address in reducing the toll this vastly wealthy interest group exacts from the wealth-producing sector of the economy, but this is a major step forward.

    Keep in mind that class action litigators, with their billions a year appropriated from wealth-producers, are a key element of the Democratic Party financial base. Nobody is going to be moving from Persian-carpeted suites in high rises into the poorhouse in the next few months, but the prospect of multi-billion dollar class action settlements replenishing the ample coffers of predatory law firms is diminished, which means that future "investments" in Democrat contributions will be less generous.

    The end came quickly because the old means of obstructionism no longer work very well. Short of a Senate filibuster, the Democrats are unable to prevent legislation attacking obviously self-serving interest groups from passing both chambers of Congress. Who among them is going to stand-up for the right of law firms to earn millions or billions in cash, while sending discount coupons or checks for 33 cents (which need a 37 cent stamp to be applied-for) to the supposed “beneficiaries” of their legal action?

    The meme of an obstructionist, special interest-protecting Democratic Party is fully established in the public mind. Democrats are on the defensive against it. The MSM’s ability to bottle-up coverage of embarrassing positions is shattered. Defending the outrageous can be no longer accomplished in private. The old order of battle, in which GOP forces could always be outflanked by a combination of stealth- and publicity-reliant forces of the left is gone, replaced by robust Congressional majorities and battalions of nimble fact-checking bloggers feeding information to the heavy artillery of Fox News Channel, talk radio hosts, and those members of the MSM unwilling to look foolish by studiously ignoring stories which are being talked about at the water coolers, diners, bars, and family get-togethers of America."

    (snip)"By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career.

    The political poker game being played by the President and his team did not end with the election of 2004. His father spoke of a “vision thing.” The current President Bush is not so much given to talking as to doing. Make no mistake, the Democrats have made a series of sucker bets, and they are in the process of losing far more than they yet realize."(snip)

  2. #2
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    My understanding, and I'm ready to be corrected if wrong, is that the bill moved jurisdiction to the Federal level and out of the hands of the states, where forum-shopping allowed trial lawyers to pick-and-choose where they could get the best possible results.

    I think, given the nature of class action suits, the Federal arena is more appropriate anyway.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    the bill moved jurisdiction to the Federal level and out of the hands of the states, where forum-shopping allowed trial lawyers to pick-and-choose where they could get the best possible results
    Yes, absolutely. In the past it was possible for trial lawyers to shop around for localities with very liberal judges, and with a potential jury pool population sympathetic to a particular issue. Thus the odds of winning the case, setting a legal precedent, and receiving an 'unrealistically large' monetary award from the jury were greatly improved this way. The classic example is of course attempting to bring a class action suit against a firearms company in Columbine's local court jurisdiction. The probability of a 'favorable' verdict would have obviously been vastly improved by conducting such a trial in Columbine versus, say, in the firearms company's home state of Texas ! Similarly, class action lawsuits against tobacco companies have a far more 'sympathetic audience' in, say, California versus North Carolina.

    Besides the monetary award issue, the hidden 'evil' of forum-shopping sympathetic state courts is that, arguably, the precedent set in such courts does have implications extending far beyond state lines. This issue is akin to today's current legal controversy about legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, with efforts underway to invoke the 'full faith and credit' provisions of the constitution to effectively extend the jurisdiction of the Mass Supreme Court decision into other states - other states whose own voters/juries/judges would almost certainly NOT arrive at the same decision. By moving the jurisdiction to federal courts, the case will thus be heard with national implications in mind from the onset, and trial lawyers with political agendas will no longer be able to obtain a politically friendly decision in a politically supportive state or locality nor attempt to proliferate that politicall friendly decision's de-facto jurisdiction to other states which are nowhere near as politically supportive.

    Also, the mere 'fear' by a corporation's board that the company could be sued in a locality 'sympathetic' to the trial lawyers, and thus be ordered to pay bankruptingly large amounts in damage awards, often resulted in corporations entering into a settlement agreement to avoid taking such a risk. This 'fear of bankruptcy' factor allowed trial lawyers to repeatedly "extort" settlement money from major corporations without ever having to prove the validity of the charges or the fact that those corporations were actually guilty of anything. By moving the venue for future cases to Federal courts, the 'fear of bankruptcy' factor will be greatly reduced and corporations will be much more likely to allow accusations to actually be brought to trial rather than agreeing to settle - thus the actual validity or ridiculousness of charges made against the corporation, the factuality or fantasy of any scientific evidence presented against them, and the actual innocence or guilt of the corporation's activities, will be litigated in full public view. This is of course a major worry for trial lawyers, because if taken to court and proven wrong, the trial lawyers then not only go on record as having brought false accusations or dubious scientific evidence in the first place, but the same disproven accusations can never again be brought against a similar company (where the trial lawyers could have previously expected receive more settlement money from the similar companies by bringing identical charges against them).

    In the final analysis, this bill is likely to result in more jobs & lower costs for US consumers, as corporations can scale back their legal costs and settlement costs. This bill is also likely to reduce the number of future liberal cause lawsuits in general because the trial lawyers, THE major contributor to the Democratic party, will no longer have the 'golden goose' of corporate settlement money to help finance non-corporate lawsuits on behalf of other liberal causes.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-19-2005 at 09:15 AM.

  4. #4
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    One of the major drags on our economy comes from corporations having to focus a large amount of attention toward pleasing bureaucrats in government regulatory agencies and keeping a large staff of lawyers on stand-by to deal with a host of lawsuits, which may or may not be legitimate.

    However, this bill to me seems first and foremost a power grap by the federal government, and not necessarily a big step towards tort reform.

  5. #5
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    [QUTOE]I think, given the nature of class action suits, the Federal arena is more appropriate anyway.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed.

    However, this bill to me seems first and foremost a power grap by the federal government, and not necessarily a big step towards tort reform.
    Paradoxically and uncomfortably, I agree again. However, I see no other way of resolving the flood of litigation other than mass executions of standing members of the ATLA and using their carcasses as chum.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    However, I see no other way of resolving the flood of litigation other than mass executions of standing members of the ATLA and using their carcasses as chum.
    It sounds like you've been spending a good deal of time in corporate board rooms LOL !

  7. #7
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    I think, given the nature of class action suits, the Federal arena is more appropriate anyway.
    Most Class Action lawsuits are in fact within a single state. i.e. all class members reside in or have the origination of their claim in the same state. To my understanding, this bill would not apply to those suits.

    All multi-state claims are shifted to Fed Court under this bill. Seems obvious, however, jurisdiction and forum case law is less than uniform across the states, and some holes do exist. I'm in favor of this change in principle. Class action forum shopping in backwoods rural communities is well documented and clearly abusive.

    However, this bill to me seems first and foremost a power grap by the federal government, and not necessarily a big step towards tort reform.
    In my experience, Federal judges shove cases back to state courts at EVERY possible opportunity. Judges see lawsuits as hot potatoes, not power. Certification of a class in a class action suit is a particularly difficult process, and loathed by most.

    ...mass executions of standing members of the ATLA and using their carcasses as chum.
    Been spending too much time on rotten.com?

    Why such hatred for the advocates? People sue people; businesses sue businesses. The lawyers are merely hired as their advocates. Saints, the lot o them.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    ...
    the company could be sued in a locality 'sympathetic' to the trial lawyers~
    Repeating this garbage wont make it true. Nor will it ever make sense.

    Lawyers represent and act as advocates for BOTH sides of a lawsuit. How sympathy for the representatives of BOTH sides of a dispute is possibly relevant to this law is difficult to understand.

    I expect you mean that the locality is sympathetic to unsophisticated plaintiffs. Those people claiming to have been swindled or screwed by corporate evil doers. THESE are the plaintiffs. Of course corporations never screw people over. Saints, the lot o them.

  9. #9
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    I expect you mean that the locality is sympathetic to unsophisticated plaintiffs. Those people claiming to have been swindled or screwed by corporate evil doers. THESE are the plaintiffs. Of course corporations never screw people over. Saints, the lot o them.
    No, in some states Judges are elected. So the trial lawyers win huge monetary awards, then takes some of their winnings and make large campaign contributions to judges to fund their campaigns and keep their jobs. Taking campaign contributions from the very lawayers trying cases in their courts may not make the judges more "sympathetic", but it gives the appearance of it.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  10. #10
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    No, in some states Judges are elected. So the trial lawyers win huge monetary awards, then takes some of their winnings and make large campaign contributions to judges to fund their campaigns and keep their jobs. Taking campaign contributions from the very lawayers trying cases in their courts may not make the judges more "sympathetic", but it gives the appearance of it.
    The "trial lawyers" are representing BOTH sides. They are in fact NEITHER party. The lawyers win nothing. They may or may not get fees based on an agreement with their clients, the plaintiffs or defendants. The PARTIES, plaintiffs or defendants, win or lose.

    Even in the event of a contingency fee for the Plaintiff lawyers (paid by the client), in most class action cases, JURIES are responsible for all findings of fact. Not Judges. Believe it or not, most judges are more defense leaning than plaintiff leaning. Could it be the large mega-rich lawfirms defending these corporate evil doers is tipping the scale in a direction opposite to the one you suggest? Ever heard of O'Melveny and Myers? 120 year old firm. 900 lawyers, 14 offices worldwide. Defending corporate evil doers against pesky peasants for over a century.

    One place you will find enormous bias is in arbitration. Arbitration Judges are usually retired state judges selected by the parties and they make major bucks. Insurance companies are arbitration junkies, and give these (rhymes with whore) arbitration judges lots of repeat business....at least the ones that rule in their favor regularly. A system of rampant pro-insurance company anti-consumer corruption. A blight on our country. Steer clear of arbitration.

    Anywho I'm in favor of removing multi-state class actions from state to fed court.
    Last edited by stant; 02-21-2005 at 01:53 AM.

  11. #11
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    The "trial lawyers" are representing BOTH sides. They are in fact NEITHER party. The lawyers win nothing. They may or may not get fees based on an agreement with their clients, the plaintiffs or defendants. The PARTIES, plaintiffs or defendants, win or lose...

    Anywho I'm in favor of removing multi-state class actions from state to fed court.
    No, lawyers are representing both sides. Generally speaking, large corporations hire big law firms and pay them on an hourly basis. Your average Joe hires some contingency-fee lawyer who takes a large precentage of the settlement, if any. When we talk about "trial lawyers" we are talking about the ambulance chasers. Ever been in a car accident? These parasites will fill your mailbox with junk mail encouraging you to sue. The worst of the lot are the "class-action" lawyers who run ads encouraging people to get invovled in a lawsuit. I used to think these types were doing a great public service, making these evil corporations pay and all. I used to have a regular that was a lawyer. He had made a fortune suing hospitals. He said whenever you hear about one of the class action suits getting settled, to be sure and read the fine print. He told me about a class action suit against General Motors, the "injured parties" got coupons good for $1000 of their next purchase of a GM truck. The trial lawyers got millions of dollars. You'll notice this is always the case. The poor old injured consumer gets coupons or something stupid like that. The lawyers always get cash.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  12. #12
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    I used to think these types were doing a great public service, making these evil corporations pay and all.

    * * *

    The trial lawyers got millions of dollars. You'll notice this is always the case. The poor old injured consumer gets coupons or something stupid like that. The lawyers always get cash.
    Don't be so quick to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and/or condemn the entire system due to the abuses of late, as the basic premise is not only sound but, when properly employed under the correct circumstances, can and has been used to serve the public good very effectively. Remember Ford and the exploding Pinto? The automotive industry has candidly admitted the class action suit in that case literally changed the way the industry evaluated known risks - whereas before that case they'd balance the costs of fixing the problem with the costs of paying off the anticipated lawsuits due to the injuries and deaths they KNEW they were going to cause, after the case they realized that kind of calculation was unacceptable to the public.

    Also, class actions are not only used by the plaintiff's bar to prosecute mass causes of action - corporations make much use of them as well in what is called a "reverse class action" when they're facing a large number of cases and want to dispose of them all at once.

    While the change in the law was warranted, as the trial lawyers are undoubtedly guilty of much abuse under the old system, the basic concept is valid and serves a real purpose.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  13. #13
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    If I understand the concept behind class action lawsuits, I disagree. To me the basic concept is unconstitutional and should be thrown out. However, if the courst won't end the process altogether, then congress should at least end some of the abuses.

    I've heard about the "reverse class action" suits. It's my understanding it works something like this: XYZ Breast Enhancement Corp. is accused of making faulty breast implants. They get sued. XYY, not able to litigate thousands of claims all over the country and facing potential bankruptcy, aggrees to make it a class action suit and settle. So XYZ sends every women that got their breast implants a check for pennies on the dollar for their claims (if they are lucky to get any type of cash payment). Meanwhile, the lawyers that initially filed the suit walk away with millions.

    Two questions: First, how can any lawer claim he has his client's best interest in mind, when his client, who supposedly was injured gets such a tiny fraction of the money they were suing for, while the lawyer walks away with a fortune? There is an inherent conflict of interest there. Secondly, what about the woman whose implant truly was defective and caused her serious physical damage? She is forced by courts to accept the settlement, despite the fact that she might be able to clearly prove that her actual damages were many times the tiny check the company sent her. Hasn't she been denied her day in court? How is this not a violation of her due process rights?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  14. #14
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    I've heard about the "reverse class action" suits. It's my understanding it works something like this: XYZ Breast Enhancement Corp. is accused of making faulty breast implants. They get sued. XYY, not able to litigate thousands of claims all over the country and facing potential bankruptcy, aggrees to make it a class action suit and settle. So XYZ sends every women that got their breast implants a check for pennies on the dollar for their claims (if they are lucky to get any type of cash payment). Meanwhile, the lawyers that initially filed the suit walk away with millions.
    Although it can, and unfortunately sometimes actually does wind up working that way (the asbestos cases are a good example), cases such as those are the exception, not the norm. Moreover, even in those types of extreme cases, what's the alternative? Like you said, the corporation is facing potential bankruptcy - so first ten thousand get theirs and everybody else gets nothing? FYI, settlements in class actions have to be "proposed" in writing to all class members, who then have an opportunity to make their objections to the court - and in the end, cannot be settled without court approval.

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Two questions: First, how can any lawer claim he has his client's best interest in mind, when his client, who supposedly was injured gets such a tiny fraction of the money they were suing for, while the lawyer walks away with a fortune? There is an inherent conflict of interest there. Secondly, what about the woman whose implant truly was defective and caused her serious physical damage? She is forced by courts to accept the settlement, despite the fact that she might be able to clearly prove that her actual damages were many times the tiny check the company sent her. Hasn't she been denied her day in court? How is this not a violation of her due process rights?
    Re: Q1 - again, that's not the norm. Also, remember who the lawyers are taking on in cases like that, i.e., GM, Exxon, etc., - takes a lot of money on the front end and years of working with no income at all before a corporation like that will pay out large amounts of money... IF they wind up doing so at all.

    Re: Q2 - Nobody's forced to do anything. All class actions contain an "opt in/out" provision, whereby potential class members are required to make an election as to whether they want to be in the class and, hence, bound by the outcome of the suit, or out of the class and, hence, responsible for pursuing their own cause of action in a separate case.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  15. #15
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    If I understand the concept behind class action lawsuits, I disagree. To me the basic concept is unconstitutional and should be thrown out. However, if the courst won't end the process altogether, then congress should at least end some of the abuses.
    The sort of cases discussed in this thread so far are unlike the vast majority of class-action lawsuits, which involve claims for small monetary damages by thousands of simililarly wronged plaintiffs against a single defendant. Take as an example a phone company that is systematically and illegally or unfairly overbilling all its customers $1.85 a month. Taken individually, these claims are not even worth a trip to small claims court, and no mechanism exists for plaintiffs to realistically recover their damages. Taken together as a single class action, however, a million such plaintiffs are damaged to the tune of $1.85 million a month. Class action offers a method, in the absence of regulations, or enforcement, or simply due to rampant government corruption, for citizens to tag corporate evil doers who would otherwise get a pass on all sorts of nonsense like this.

    And don't think for a heart beat that these cases are either typically windfalls or quickly extorted paychecks for scumbag plaintiff attorneys. Those exceptions do exist, as do abuses, but they are rare. I'm all in favor of legislation that can eliminate abuses and give class-action back the good name it deserves across the board.

    A far, far more common story, and one which you rarely hear, is documented in the horror story A Civil Action, a non-fiction account of the hellish reality of prosecuting complex plaintiff tort cases. The movie with Travolta and Robert Duvall was pretty true-to-life frighteningly accurate too.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...965265-0952812

    Plaintiff attorneys typically spend enormous sums of money to prosecute cases such as this or the hypothetical phone billing case above, including completely at risk money spent on court costs, depositions, transcript and videographer fees, travel expenses, support staff, testifying experts, expert consultants, and discovery and evidence management (copying and organizing potentially millions of documents). This doesn't even touch compensation for their own time, nor the time lost that could have been spent on other cases, potentially eroding their entire practice. And, of course, the odds of ending with a complete doughnut, nada, at the end of years of this torture are significant. The impression that the life of a plaintiff civil action attorney is easy, risk free, and lined with gold, is one that may be well suited to impressing someone of the opposite sex in a bar, but is not the reality.
    Last edited by stant; 02-22-2005 at 05:39 PM.

  16. #16
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Been spending too much time on rotten.com?
    No, just spent a lot of money on a defense attorney to give me and my business partners the right to be in business. Basically, the year-long delay in reacquiring our frozen assets contributed significantly to our having to sell to a competitor five years later.

    That said, comes around goes around; the cretin that filed the baseless charges against us is now in federal prison for IP crimes. Seven years.

    Still, it's not hard to feel that we were run roughshod by the legal system and avaricious lawyers.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  17. #17
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    ....That said, comes around goes around; the cretin that filed the baseless charges against us is now in federal prison for IP crimes. Seven years.
    The system works...occasionally.

    Still, it's not hard to feel that we were run roughshod by the legal system and avaricious lawyers.
    Avarice is in no short supply. I'm assuming the "cretin" you mention was a business competitor, not an attorney. Of course, he could be both. Double the fun. Evil doers come in all shapes and sizes. And more than a few have Bar cards.

    [Edit: reread your post, and realize you could be referring to an AUSA. I could understand how rotten.com fantasies would be entirely justified in such a case. And extra sweet that this one is doing time.]

  18. #18
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Just for a little more discussion on the topic...

    *********

    [snip body of article, down to summaries]

    The recent jump in premiums shows little correlation to the rise in claims. According to the National Practitioner Data Bank of the Health and Human Services Department, the total paid out by insurance companies for claims against doctors and other medical professionals rose 3.1 percent annually, on average, between 1993 and 2003 and then declined last year.

    The average payment in 2003 for malpractice, the data bank said, was $268,605, up from $197, 753 in 1993, after adjusting for inflation. In 2004, the average payment fell to $262,486 and the number of payments made for medical malpractice cases dropped to 17,696 from 18,996 the year before.

    What may muddy the public picture is that while claims are rising at a measured pace, there have been more headline-grabbing big awards. Data compiled by the Physician Insurers Association of America show a distinct rise in payments of more than $1 million to victims of medical mistakes. In 1993, the organization said, 2.9 percent of the payments made by its companies exceeded $1 million. A decade later, 8.5 percent of the payments were for more than $1 million.

    Many insurers regard the $250,000 limit in California as a model for Mr. Bush. They see it as largely responsible for California's shift from being one of the most expensive places for medical malpractice insurance to one of the least expensive. Consumer advocates, however, say the main reason costs for doctors have fallen in California has been a 1988 law that prohibits insurers from raising rates more than 15 percent a year without a public hearing.

    And some researchers are skeptical that caps ultimately reduce costs for doctors. Mr. Weiss of Weiss Ratings and researchers at Dartmouth College, who separately studied data on premiums and payouts for medical mistakes in the 1990's and early 2000's, said they were unable to find a meaningful link between claims payments by insurers and the prices they charged doctors.

    "We didn't see it," said Amitabh Chandra, an assistant professor of economics at Dartmouth. "Surprisingly, there appears to be a fairly weak relationship."

  19. #19
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    Many insurers regard the $250,000 limit in California as a model for Mr. Bush. They see it as largely responsible for California's shift from being one of the most expensive places for medical malpractice insurance to one of the least expensive. Consumer advocates, however, say the main reason costs for doctors have fallen in California has been a 1988 law that prohibits insurers from raising rates more than 15 percent a year without a public hearing.

    And some researchers are skeptical that caps ultimately reduce costs for doctors. Mr. Weiss of Weiss Ratings and researchers at Dartmouth College, who separately studied data on premiums and payouts for medical mistakes in the 1990's and early 2000's, said they were unable to find a meaningful link between claims payments by insurers and the prices they charged doctors.
    Although the insurers claim the cap is largely responsible for the reduction in med-mal insurance rates in California, other states with similar caps have experienced no such reduction Not only does this point toward the likelihood of there being some other cause for the reduction in California, it also tends to suggest the insurers know it - 'cause they're neither willing or able to explain the differing results in the other states that have also enacted caps.

    In this regard, Louisiana is a fairly good example - especially when you consider that the cap has been in place for nearly 20 years (1986), such that the insurers have had more than enough time now to be able to either quantify the effects of the cap and reduce their premiums accordingly, or explain why the promised reductions have not come about. They've done neither - and med-mal premiums in Louisiana have basically tracked right along with those of the non-cap states. Net effect: Victims of malpractice had their recovery capped, no matter how horrific their injuries; medical providers achieved some savings due to the particular nature of the system that was created at the same time as the cap was put in place to handle med-mal claims, but saw no reduction in their med-mal premiums; and the insurers walked away with a windfall in the form of both reduced exposure and amounts in excess of the cap that they were no longer having to pay, all the while continuing to charge the same premiums as before. Of course, the insurers don't want to talk about the effect of the cap in Louisiana, or anywhere else besides California, for that matter... 'cause they know they're full of s***!
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  20. #20
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Tort Reform Bill passes ... a bad hair day for liberals

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    ...
    Many insurers regard the $250,000 limit in California as a model for Mr. Bush. They see it as largely responsible for California's shift from being one of the most expensive places for medical malpractice insurance to one of the least expensive. Consumer advocates, however, say the main reason costs for doctors have fallen in California has been a 1988 law that prohibits insurers from raising rates more than 15 percent a year without a public hearing.
    ...
    It is critical to point out that the $250K limit in Cali is for non-compensatory damages, such as pain and suffering, and punitive damages on med mal. The reforms here are not quite as draconian as this article would lead one to believe. For example, if a lawyer making $300K a year was stripped of his livelyhood by a physician's f* up, his compensatory damages for medical expenses and lost income over 10 years will be very large. A janitor making $19K a year suffering the same exact medical mal, with have a tiny fraction of the lawyer's compensatory damages. Both plaintiffs will have the same $250K P&S limit. Same jury finding of fact for each: Joe, Esq.: $4M, Jo Bob, $250K. Both men are the same age and health prior to the incident.

    Under California's med mal "tort reform" rules, guess which of these above two cases will ever see the inside of a courtroom. The higher income plaintiff's case, ONLY. Med mal prosecutions are prohibitively expensive and difficult. The cold, hard truth is that this difference in $'s awarded is logical. But it feels horribly unfair. P&S is a means to correct this sort of injustice. Ironically, this sort of disparity most likely widened care isses, since the deterrance of med mal lawsuits onlys exists for rich high-income patients, and children with life debilitating injuries.

    I see absolutely no reason physicians should get a pass on professional responsibility in a way nearly everyone else gets. the very idea is disgusting to me. Do fire fighters, soldiers, attorneys, cops, teachers, or stock brokers get a pass? It is arrogance at the absolute extreme. They have as fair an opportunity to defend themselves as anyone. When physicians, nurses and hospitals fuck up in a big way, they should suffer the consequences, like anyone in any other profession. Med malpractice insurance should be very expensive. As a physician, they've chosen a profession fairly intollerant of fuck ups. They screw up and people die. No shit its expensive. Get better.

    ****

    An initiative proposal has been circulating in Cali: a 20% cap on all plaintiff attorney's fees drawn from awards. We live in a free market, or so I thought. The erosion of an individuals's voice within the system now seems irreversible. This proposal will effectively eliminate the California plaintiff bar. They will move.

    It is astonishing to me that somehow Corporate evil doers have so brain washed the masses, that even the most simplistic obvious corruption of the system is swallowed as "a bitter pill".
    Last edited by stant; 02-24-2005 at 08:34 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 07:47 PM
  2. The house passes the National Healthcare Bill...
    By Laurisa in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 11:36 PM
  3. $2 bill bad luck?
    By Everyman in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-10-2009, 08:27 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-19-2007, 02:40 PM
  5. immigration reform bill 1348-- please read...
    By miabella in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 04:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •