The Supreme Court also ruled, in a 4-3 vote, that the cap is “unreasonable and arbitrary” because there is no “rational” relationship between it and lower medical malpractice premiums. It also violates equal protection provisions in the Wisconsin Constitution, the court ruled.

What this particular article DOESN’T say, however, is that the reason the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the cap after 10 years on the books wasn’t because they suddenly discovered that it was “unreasonable and arbitrary” – it was purely political.

The composition of the Wisconsin Supreme Court had stood firm with four liability reform supporters (i.e., Republicans) holding back attempts to get rid of the cap over the three liability reform opponents (i.e., Democrats) for 10 years. Then, this year, something changed…

One of the Republican members left the court, leaving Democrat. Governor Doyle to appoint a replacement justice. Naturally, he appointed a fellow Democrat to the seat, and the moment the composition of the court changed, the cap was doomed. Shortly thereafter, the new Democrat-controlled Court declared the ten year old cap unconstitutional.

Incidentally, due to the successful application of the 10 year old cap. Wisconsin was one of the six states which the AMA designates as having no medical liability issues, and was also the state where MANY of the high-risk specialists who decided to leave Pennsylvania when their own premiums got too high headed…

SO, please, no high-sounding pseudo-literate arguments about how the Wisconsin Supreme Court finally did the “right thing” in declaring the cap unconstitutional – the Court was acting in the political interests of the party which opposes liability reform and receives 72% of the political contributions lawyers and law firms have given away in the last ten years….
DBR

“Wow, when you put it in partisan political terms, I completely lose all respect for you. Talk about your ad hominems.”

I’m not DBR. But that statement of yours, Elliot, is an example of ad hominem. Just analyze it and you will realize that you yourself committed that fallacy.

No, it wasn’t an ad hominem nor would it be an ad hominem to call someone an idiot because they don’t know the meaning of a term when they are trying to engage someone in debate.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

There is nothing even slightly conservative about most “tort reform” legislation. They are true “government knows best” proposals.

Today’s Republican party isn’t about being conservative. It’s about business.

Ismd, Ms. Rovito wasn’t pointing out the facts. She was lobbying. Anyone who thinks PA’s problems can be solved with caps is ignoring the facts, or at best selectively mining them. That’s what lobbyists do.

CJD

I was talking about her original claims that led to her controversy in PA, wherein she admitted she didn’t take the time to verify all of the claims of doctors leaving PA. The rest of her previous post contained few facts but a lot of conclusions. And that is lobbying.

But, my mistake, I just realized that she is the DBR in this thread. However, even there she is doing nothing more than lobbying, in that she calls Wisconsin’s caps successful just because the AMA doesn’t have them on their “crisis” list. Considering the standard for being on the crisis list appears to have nothing to do with insurance rates, but rather whether the state has caps, that means little.

Her statement that “MANY” physicians who left PA went to Wisconsin also appears to be unsupported since the word “many” can mean anything and she cites to no authority. Nor does the implication that caps kept Wisconsin premiums lower have any basis in fact. Wisconsin also didn’t lose two of its largest insurers to those companies’ financial mismanagement, a fact caps wouldn’t have changed.

Now, her claims that it is political may well be true. But for that to be the case, she needs to point us to where the Wisc. Supreme Court even took up the issue prior to this most recent decision. If they had not previously had the opportunity, then that claim lacks merit as well.

Again Ms. Rovito has lots of conclusions, but very few facts. If you ever have a question about one of my conclusions, or I do not back it up with facts, let me know and I will be glad to.