Quote of the week, from Charles Krauthammer (on Obamacare)

[LA Ute]

No. I am guided by the 7th amendment. The jury is the backstop of the legal system and I would not interfere with it except to the extent that well established common law principles allow. Essentially the framers view. You will have to ask my conservative friend LA which he is such an enemy of the constitution.

I can give you a counter study to your ABA report (which I found to be a real howler) but that's not my point. My point is that tort reform is not even being discussed in the health care reform debate, and it should be. Now, if you want to arge that the its omission from the discussion results from reverence for Constitutional principles, be my guest.

By the way, how do you find any impediment to tort reform in these words:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

MICRA in California has never been challenged under this Amendment, and I don't think any tort reform has been. Are you saying a cap on pain and suffering damages would derogate the right to trial by jury? Or are you just messing with me?

[Jarid in Cedar]

I can give you a counter study to your ABA report (which I found to be a real howler) but that's not my point. My point is that tort reform is not even being discussed in the health care reform debate, and it should be. Now, if you want to arge that the its omission from the discussion results from reverence for Constitutional principles, be my guest.

By the way, how do you find any impediment to tort reform in these words:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

MICRA in California has never been challenged under this Amendment, and I don't think any tort reform has been. Are you saying a cap on pain and suffering damages would derogate the right to trial by jury? Or are you just messing with me?

MICRA is generally viewed by the medical community as a resounding success. It is a model that many other states(some successful, some not) have tried to mimick.

[LA Ute]

MICRA is generally viewed by the medical community as a resounding success. It is a model that many other states(some successful, some not) have tried to mimic.

Well, it solved the malpractice insurance crisis in CA, and it sure seems like we still have plenty of plaintiffs' attorneys who are doing very well, thank you. And yet trial lawyers find MICRA to be an abomination. Strange.

I like UtahDan anyway.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Well, it solved the malpractice insurance crisis in CA, and it sure seems like we still have plenty of plaintiffs' attorneys who are doing very well, thank you. And yet trial lawyers find MICRA to be an abomination. Strange.

I like UtahDan anyway.

Yet another example of the militants of any discussion who will never be satisfied with any compromise.

I too like UtahDan as well. Plus he hasn't led a case against me so that helps too

[Hallelujah]

Doctors would be absolutely thrilled if malpractice awards were limited to covering future healthcare costs that resulted from the alleged error. Thrilled.

Malpractice has an artificial 35-40% increase built into it to just pay attorney fees.

[DU Ute]

Malpractice has an artificial 35-40% increase built into it to just pay attorney fees.

Just further proof that doctors are lawyers' stooges! Woo Hoo!

[Hallelujah]

Courts exist to resolve disputes between private parties. Juries exist to help resolve disputes between private parties. Juries are not the government. When a jury decides to award a huge settlement for pain and suffering, this reflects the society's expectations at large, and those expectations are a byproduct of the existing health-care system (see ER? I'm laying blame at the feet of the system now, and not just the doctors). The system is capitalist.

So, how is tort-reform not a form of government meddling with the free market?

Poster child for tort reform: lady spills McDonald's coffee in lap while driving and the idiotic jury finds in favor of the dipwad of a woman. Why, because McDonald's had the money? Multiply that thinking across the healthcare spectrum and you see the size of the issue, created by juries under a false premise and no understanding of the unintended consequences of granting such ridiculous awards.

The tobacco lawsuits would be poster child #2. The tobacco companies have been given license to sell their products. Then they get sued because their product actually killed someone.......even though everyone knows tobacco will kill you.

[Hallelujah]

Just further proof that doctors are lawyers' stooges! Woo Hoo!

You'll have to explain that one. Doctors set the malpractice rates? Let me test out your mathematical skills. Let's assume that a person legitimately has a claim for $1M that includes actual medical expenses and something called pain and suffering. The lawyer would have to sue for $1.5M so he/she gets their $500K. That's an artificial inflation of the reward.

Next time you need medical attention, I suggest you see an attorney or perhaps an auto mechanic or (name any other profession).

[DU Ute]

You'll have to explain that one. Lawyers set the malpractice rates?

Next time you need medical attention, I suggest you see an attorney or perhaps an auto mechanic or (name any other profession).

I knew that would get your panties in a bunch. It's just too easy.

[Hallelujah]

I knew that would get your panties in a bunch. It's just too easy.

Just saying if doctors are stooges, go somewhere else for your healthcare. Even with malpractice, most docs make a pretty good living. But if you are interested in reducing healthcare costs, you should take a look at malpractice. My guess is that doctors would give up 10-15% of their fees (which Medicare is suggesting) if they didn't have to pay malpractice.

It would save everyone money. Yes, EVERYONE. But then again some stooges don't get that.

[LA Ute]

You'll have to explain that one. Doctors set the malpractice rates? Let me test out your mathematical skills. Let's assume that a person legitimately has a claim for $1M that includes actual medical expenses and something called pain and suffering. The lawyer would have to sue for $1.5M so he/she gets their $500K. That's an artificial inflation of the reward.

Next time you need medical attention, I suggest you see an attorney or perhaps an auto mechanic or (name any other profession).

Well, let's not get carried away here. There needs to be tort reform, and pain and suffering damage caps would be the best/easiest place to accomplish that. That said, the contingent fee has its place. In a case where there are real damages and the lawyer has to do real work to help his client get an award, the lawyer deserves to be paid. Adding a portion to the recovery to pay the lawyer is not an "inflation" of the award.

[Hallelujah]

Well, let's not get carried away here. There needs to be tort reform, and pain and suffering damage caps would be the best/easiest place to accomplish that. That said, the contingent fee has its place. In a case where there are real damages and the lawyer has to do real work to help his client get an award, the lawyer deserves to be paid. Adding a portion to the recovery to pay the lawyer is not an "inflation" of the award.

It's an 'artificial' inflation, as I mentioned. Unless someone or group came up with what is a 'reasonable' fee for the 'real' work, the 30-40% is artificial. Or are you saying all attorneys are 'doing real work'?

My uncle knows two well known trial attorneys, less than 5% go to trial. Mostly a few letters. In fact they are betting on not going to court.

[Hallelujah]

Well, let's not get carried away here. There needs to be tort reform, and pain and suffering damage caps would be the best/easiest place to accomplish that. That said, the contingent fee has its place. In a case where there are real damages and the lawyer has to do real work to help his client get an award, the lawyer deserves to be paid. Adding a portion to the recovery to pay the lawyer is not an "inflation" of the award.

So where is the tort reform in the healthcare package?

[LA Ute]

It's an 'artificial' inflation, as I mentioned.

Keep in mind that I am on your side. Docs are my clients. Attorneys who provide real services deserve to be paid, just like doctors do. If the fees from a recovery are an "artificial" inflation, you're saying attorneys don't deserve to be paid. Contingent fees have been abused, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[LA Ute]

So where is the tort reform in the healthcare package?

If you will read my post and what Krauthammer said, I think it is ridiculous that tort reform is not part of the discussion. That is because the trial lawyers own the Democrats, and the Democrats have an 80-seat majority in the House and filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate. It's terrible. Are we on the same page here?