Hell Freezes Over...

[Thrawn]

Nice avatar.

Bush never had one and still pushed through whatever he wanted.

Some but not all. There was a lot that he wanted to get done that even the Republicans fought him on. Some good and some bad.

[George Berryman]

Bush never had one and still pushed through whatever he wanted.

Some but not all. There was a lot that he wanted to get done that even the Republicans fought him on. Some good and some bad.

Bush got wide bi-partisan support because most of his policies were popular with Americans at the time Congress sent them off to him to sign into law. And the same Democrats bitching about Republican filibusters now sure as Hell weren't bitching when Senate Democrats filibustered him. And the same "tax cuts for the rich" Democrats demonize Bush over were widely voted on by Congressional Democrats.

What we're seeing now with Obama is the direct opposite. His policies aren't popular with the public, so even when they had a supermajority for a year you had local constituents pressuring their representatives & senators against it. I admired Scott Brown pointing out that he's all for health reform but wants it done at the state level. I suggested that to a Democrat friend of mine three years ago - to let each state decide how much socialist health care they want. But that's an easy call for me to make since I live in Texas and the state favors limited government.

[CrazyChris]

1. Tort Reform. As a practicing nurse I can tell you almost all health care professionals want some kind of tort reform that will drastically reduce frivolous lawsuits.
I would ask you for specific examples but I don't want to have this conversation now. I would only point out that the last 2 years of Bush's presidency the Dems controlled the House and Senate.

Hey! That's my future livlihood you're talking about! (JK, I don't really care about medical malpractice law). What specific tort reform measures would you like to see adopted?

[Thrawn]

CrazyChris wrote:

Hey! That's my future livelihood you're talking about! (JK, I don't really care about medical malpractice law).

What specific tort reform measures would you like to see adopted?

I would start out small. A few what I deem reasonable measures at first.

Cap on non-economic damages
There would be separate caps for "non-economic "damages at $250,000. Virtually all medical malpractice awards include a substantial amount for "pain and suffering". It is this element of damages that would be limited. Although several states presently have medical malpractice "damage caps" of some type, only five states have the limit on non-economic damages proposed by this legislation. Although proponents of this legislation argue that California's similar provisions have successfully kept insurance rates down, the evidence suggests that it was insurance reform, not damage caps, that has truly affected California's malpractice rates.

Some argue that this won't help but as someone who works in the health care field I certainly want this.

Limitation on attorney's fees

Plaintiff's attorney fees would be limited to (1) 40% of the first $50,000 recovered; (2) 33 % of the next $50,000 recovered; (3) 25% of the next $500,000 recovered; and (4) 15% of any recovery in excess of $600,000. About ten states presently have similar limits on attorney's fees.

If you make these kinds of lawsuits less appealing there will be less of them. A lot of hospitals and nursing homes will outright settle some of these cases instead of fighting them.

Allows consideration of "collateral sources" in measuring damages

In many states, juries are not informed about the extent to which injured patients may have already received benefits, usually through health or disability insurance policies. The proposed legislation will allow the jury to consider this information in determining damages. A majority of states already have similar rules pertaining to collateral sources.

Seems logical.

Mandates periodic payment of damages

The measure requires that all future damages over $50,000 be made in periodic payments. This substantially reduces the value of the award. Currently about a third of the states mandate periodic payments but most are at thresholds substantially in excess of $50,000.

This just deals with the health care tort reform. People who are against tort reform for health care argue that it is such a small fraction of the cost that it doesn't matter but it is very important to doctors and nurses like myself. There is at least one study that I know of that says 200 billion a year could be saved just by helping to cut down on defensive medicine practices. I can't tell you how many extra tests, charting, and labs we order on patients just to "be safe" and cover our butts. I tend to believe that study as opposed to the one that disagrees with it.

That would be a sensible start I think and would make many health care professionals, including myself, happy.

1. Tort Reform. As a practicing nurse I can tell you almost all health care professionals want some kind of tort reform that will drastically reduce frivolous lawsuits.
I would ask you for specific examples but I don't want to have this conversation now. I would only point out that the last 2 years of Bush's presidency the Dems controlled the House and Senate.

What's up with the second statement of mine you quoted CrazyChris? Why is that lumped in with the first part? Those two statements referred to two different points. Was that just a typo or a thought that didn't get finished? That happens to me sometimes when I type too fast.

[CrazyChris]

Thrawn, I realize this thread is over 2 years old. When you made that post, I was about half a year into law school. Now I'm finished with law school and am studying for the bar. Something jogged my memory that you had made this post and I'd like to give my point of view on some of the suggestions you made in this previous post now that I have some experience and knowledge to draw from. Would it be okay if I responded, or do you think this thread is better left to die?