Is tort reform really bending over backwards?

I'm with bmags, the headline goes too far.

I have no problem with tort reform other than it is always used as an excuse by the right to shoot down health care reform.

In fact, I've always held that it is a good idea to introduce tort reform into the negotiations as a way of luring more doctors onboard.

Tort reform? Yes, as long as the public option is approved, as well.

And you still won't get a vote.

If Obama and the Dems OK tort reform will it imediately or sometime in the future be tort reform for all business interests?

I think this is a conduit for the Republicans to get the entire business community insulated from lawsuits.

What's wrong with the tort reform?

And where are the Con party leaders saying, 'If Obama seriously addresses tort reform, we'll do X as result.'? This is a 'negotiation', right?

Yeah, the same place they've been through this whole fiasco... AWOL with their pants around their ankles bending over backwards and showing us a full moon

Ooohhh, here's a surprise. Obama is giving in to the repubs. Who'da thunk it?

Please define "tort reform". Then, please show ONE example of how "reforms" have (a) saved taxpayers or policy holders money, (b) brought down health care providers' insurance rates, (c) uncovered fraud that an otherwise impartial jury has not, (d) improved health care delivery or service, or (e) done anything to lower the rate of death caused by preventable error (estimated at between 90,000 and 195,000 annually in the U.S., depending on which study one looks at). Anyone? I didn't think so.

That's not bending over backwards--it's bending over forwards, grabbing ankles, taking The Position, getting ready to be screwed.

Oops, sorry theWalrus, I see you already said that.

I don't know, Tom Baker's The Medical Malpractice Myth seems to actually have done a lot of good solid work on showing that the results will be well, nothing.

Don't you get tired of confirming people's impression about "knee-jerk liberals"? I can almost hear it: "Look here, Rush, watch this. Just push this button and they start screaming, mainly at each other. Works every time. Just beautiful!"

#1 - A demonstration project does not equal taking jus compensation out of the hands of seriously injured victims of malpractice. Even if Obama was being coldly cynical about this (which I don't think he is .... entirely), agreeing to fund some pilot projects certainly takes a big stick out of the hands of the Republicans at little or no cost and maybe even sways some of them to his side. This is a bad result?

#2 - Don't be so quick to assume that tort reform in this area is necessarily something the conservatives *really* want .. or wou;d make the progressives and (more important) the patients suffer. As a genuine, down to my bones liberal who has worked for decades in the courts, I can assure you that there are MANY aspects of the malpractice liability system that could, and perhaps should, be changed .. and it wouldn't ruffle the hair of a single progressive if they were.

There are two groups primarily responsible for, and benefiting from, the current mess of malpractice litigation: the attorneys (yes, I'll admit it) and the insurance companies. It's really very simple: the insurance companies make a practice of settling even frivolous lawsuits ("cheaper than going to court") and when that happens, the result is -- guess what? --- MORE and more frivolous claims!! The attorneys, you see, get 1/3 of the recovery whether its a good case or a bad case, and bad cases that the ins. co will settle don't require very much work at all .... so they keep on bringing them in. AND because they are having to pay out on claims (rather than fighting the frivolous claims and letting the attorneys know that that cow isn't there to be milked any more), the insurance companies are *forced* (sniff, sniff) to raise their premiums, bringing in much more than they paid out to close those frivolous suits. That, of course, means the doctors raise their fee for services, which, of course, means that Guess Who gets screwed once again.

Here's a really big hint that maybe "tort reform" is something the Right just wants use to work up the crowds, and keep around as a sure button to get all those Leftist knees jerking up and down -- but really have no interest in accomplishing. Look at this sentence from the story:

"The HHS department has had the power to support such demonstration projects since 1999. The President announced at his address to Congress last week that this program would start shortly."

Now, let's see .... who was it that was in power and could have DONE something about tort reform in the years between 1999 and now?

Trust me, there is a great deal in this area that should be reformed and that it would please progressives just fine if it was reformed. A cap on recovery (the big scary bugaboo that springs up whenever "tort reform" is mentioned) is about the least likely change that would be put in -- it goes smack against centuries of common law and could well be be found unconstitutional in the end as well.

There are, however, a lot of things that would put a spoke in the current ins. co/attorney money train -- things like immediate review of cases by an independent board to asses merit - or tinkering with the American system for payment of attorney fees, going more toward the one used in Britain - or, as suggested, specialized courts (which would save untold amounts of time and expense).

In truth, I'm itching to try to find out how I could possibly get involved with one of the pilot projects or study groups. (Does anyone have any idea?)

Seriously, if the Right is accomplished at anything it's crowd manipulation -- we've gotta stop being such a predictable "crowd" for them to manipulate.

PS While it's true that liability expenses have remained a fairly constant proportion of overall medical costs --- those costs have skyrockted, right?, so the "take" from the same proportion gets bigger. A significant part of the increase in medical costs, which doesn't show up as a liability expense, is precisely what Pres. Obama mentioned in his speech: practicing "defensive medicine." Frivolous or not, every lawsuit filed against a doctor results in one doctor, and probably a lot of his/her friends, having heart palpitations and vowing to do whatever it takes to make they are NEVER sued again.