A nice summary. Of the Democrats, Obama’s statement following statement still resonates with me: “Anyone who denies there’s a crisis with medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer.”
Handy to remember come tomorrow when I go to the polls.
Related posts:
- The candidates on tort reform
- Tort reform in Oklahoma
- Tort reform: "It does not get any clearer"
- Tort reform in Texas: Working better than expected
- Texas tort reform
- Another tort reform success story
- John Edwards and tort reform?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
Doesn’t much matter for the Democrats, since they’re going to single payer anyway.
Keep THAT in mind when you go to the polls.
I am a lawyer who has been on both plaintiff and defense sides of malpractice cases. The issues related to damages, caps, etc. are so polarized that there is little room for common sense.
The real concern should be whether or not malpractice/tort reform will benefit the practitioners – or only inure to the benefit of their insurors’ bottom line. I am not advocating a position; only suggesting that the true bottom line is ignored in the hot-button debate.
Insurance companies are powerful puppet masters of legislators at every level of government. I have read reports that suggest that the implementation of malpractice caps do not benefit the individual practitioner or his/her practice group. Some states (e.g. Florida) have been reluctant to pass reform legislation when the insurance industry proponents could not satisfy the legislators that the docs would benefit. For that reason,you should consider what benefits the proposed end game would offer the practitioner when contributing to the PAC’s, etc. Otherwise, any victory might be merely pyrrhic. The insurors stir the pot and spread their rhetoric of “malpractice crisis”, and it may be true. But I suggest you ensure that their interests are aligned with yours.
I have thought on the reform issue and pondered that a pre-screening panel(to find merit) would be a good idea as a condition precedent to filing suit. I believe Massachusetts has such a system. However if a panel of, say, 3 docs, 3 lawyers and 3 laypeople were empanelled I suspect there would almost surely be 3 votes for, 3 votes against and a lot of lobbying for the final 3. In essence a microcosm of the judicial system most of us already have. In any event, I doubt it would find a truly objective determination.
Whatever happens, I still think Alexis de Toqueville’s antiquated evaluation of the american justice system as the worst system imaginable – except for all the rest is still more or less true. More or less….
Comments on this entry are closed.