only if it "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."
Dionysus
HEAD: A Buried Tort Bomb
SUB-HEAD: A stealth provision that would undermine state damage caps
In his September address to Congress, President Obama made a nod to
bipartisanship by acknowledging that excessive litigation "may be"
contributing to rising health costs, and he proposed state "demonstration
projects" to test medical tort reform. This wasn't much of a concession, but
it apparently was still too much for House Democrats, who are using their
bill to subvert reform that is already on the books in many states.
Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that
provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative
medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and
"maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging.
Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if
its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."
Holy Bill Lerach.
Huge contingency fees and damage awards are the mother's milk of frivolous
lawsuits. That's why 30 states have adopted caps on awards as the core of
their reform, with huge success. Texas imposed malpractice caps in 2003, and
the state has been rewarded with fewer lawsuits, a 50% drop in malpractice
premiums, and a flood of new doctors. The House bill is intended to
discourage other states from doing the same.
The Pelosi bill also provides these incentives only if states adopt
watered-down alternatives to existing malpractice caps. Those alternatives
include certificate-of-merit rules, which in theory require lawyers to get
medical proof before suing but in practice mean that lawyers recruit and
finance "expert" witnesses.
States could also provide "early offer" rules, which are supposed to
encourage fair settlement of legitimate claims. But as organizations like
the Manhattan Institute have noted, those offers only work if combined with
restrictions on lawyer fees and damage awards that reduce the incentive to
go for the jackpot judgment.
The Senate bill avoids tort reform entirely, notwithstanding Mr. Obama's
showy pledge before a national TV audience.
Never mind that reducing medical lawsuits is a rare reform provision that
really would reduce health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates the savings at $54 billion over a decade. Consulting firm
Tillinghast Towers-Perrin has suggested the direct cost of medical tort
litigation is more like $30 billion annually. PriceWaterhouseCoopers
estimates that last year $240 billion in health expenditures were the result
of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures to protect against the risk of
lawsuits.
The hidden Pelosi tort bomb is one more example of the stealth radicalism
that defines ObamaCare. If it passes in anything like its current form, we
are going to be cleaning up the mess for decades to come.
*****************
That needs repeating: The Senate bill avoids tort reform entirely,
notwithstanding Mr. Obama's showy pledge before a national TV audience.
No surrender!
Dionysus
zzbu...@netscape.net
> FROM WSJ
>
> HEAD: A Buried Tort Bomb
>
> SUB-HEAD: A stealth provision that would undermine state damage caps
>
> In his September address to Congress, President Obama made a nod to
> bipartisanship by acknowledging that excessive litigation "may be"
> contributing to rising health costs, and he proposed state "demonstration
> projects" to test medical tort reform. This wasn't much of a concession, but
> it apparently was still too much for House Democrats, who are using their
> bill to subvert reform that is already on the books in many states.
>
> Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that
> provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative
> medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and
> "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging.
> Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if
> its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."
Well, it would have to that way, since the only thing the ABA evens
knows about Medicine is Micheal Jackson, So that's the non morons
invented Digital Books, rather than Chicago. That's why they
invested
Atomic Clock Wristwatches, GPS, Drones, and the 21st Century,
rather than LAX Roller Blade Stooges. That's why they invented
Phalanx,
and Post 1950 Cell Phones, rather than Times Square Bimbos.
That's why they invented On-Line Publishing, HDTV, Home Broadband,
rather than Apple Imusic idiots. That's why invented they Self-
Replicating Machines,
rather than Disneyworld.
Econotron
news:VvadnVaiEKtEBmDX...@giganews.com...
> FROM WSJ
>
> HEAD: A Buried Tort Bomb
>
> SUB-HEAD: A stealth provision that would undermine state damage caps
>
>
> In his September address to Congress, President Obama made a nod to
> bipartisanship by acknowledging that excessive litigation "may be"
> contributing to rising health costs, and he proposed state "demonstration
> projects" to test medical tort reform. This wasn't much of a concession,
> but it apparently was still too much for House Democrats, who are using
> their bill to subvert reform that is already on the books in many states.
>
> Buried in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 1,990-page bill is a provision that
> provides "incentive payments" to each state that develops an "alternative
> medical liability law" that encourages "fair resolution" of disputes and
> "maintains access to affordable liability insurance." Sounds encouraging.
> Read on, however, and you come to this nugget: The state only qualifies if
> its new law "does not limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages."
>
>
Ha-ha-ha. They are real free marketers, when it comes to the attorneys.
e.