On Wednesday, October 14, the New Era editors ran an editorial about using tort reform to control rising health care cost. In our lasest installment of FreeThINC's New Era Review we spend the entire video addressing health care reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cB6DA0_qwY


p.s. in the video I talk about checking out part two. Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to edit it last night. Stay posted at www.youtube.com/freethinc

A+ for effort, D- for execution. How do I recover those 9:55 of my life?

Hah! I was thinking the same thing!

Not to change the subject but I'm still waiting for those awesome recipes!!!! (how was your vacation?)

name a state that has lowered health care costs after enacting tort reform...

just one...

tort reform = legally restricting citizen rights in a court of law

Left unsaid... legally restricting ambulance chaser rights in a court of law (and they get millions without being harmed in any way)
Just keep in mind my costs in a private health cooperative are roughly one third of what health insurance premiums are... (cost based on actual invoices). Just saying...

name just one....

When republicans cite the costs of law suits they conveniently forget to tell you that total includes business to business suits (for breach of contract & etc.) , not just individual product or service liability costs.

Texas was able to lower the cost of professional liability insurance (see we don't agree on everything)

Tort reform works perfectly fine here in Pennsylvania... with auto insurance. Selecting Limited-tort will significantly reduce your auto insurance premiums. It will work the same with malpractice premiums.

Give people an option. Full-tort and your health premium is $X. Select Limited-tort and your health premium is $x. Attorneys are not representing the unfortunate out of concern, it is a business for them. Put a cap on what the representing attorneys can claim on a settlement and watch how many of them switch to another specialty.



I bet those 'victims' would have never seen $320k in their lives through work.

I totally agree. I think the Pennsylvania Rules of Court apply reasonable safegaurds to ensure that the courts aren't flooded with frivilous lawsuits and it would be very unfortunate if the legislature or courts applied caps for verdicts.

The thing about civil litigation is that no two cases are the same. The law has to be applied to the facts of the individual case. Thats if you make it to trial, and secure a favorable verdict. If a state has appropriate safeguards to weed out frivilous and malicious lawsuits then there is no need to cap awards for damages, because those cases wouldn't make it that far. Has anyone who responded to my posting ever witnessed the litigation of a medical malpractice lawsuit in PA. It gets really crazy really fast. It is really hard for the plaintiffs, and if they do have a valid claim and lose then they have to pay legal fees to everyone. Although judgements can be expensive, more often then not they are deserved.

To limit options for people who were ligitimately harmed by the negligence of a physician is completely henious.

And with absolutely no information you reach that conclusion? Are you're willing to bet those odds. You must be popular at the 7 card stud table.