Why are the Republicans screaming for tort reform?

[arne33]

A study published in 2005 by Tom Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, found that after all costs, including legal fees, insurance costs and payouts, the cost of medical malpractice suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending.

Oh, I see its just more rhetoric they use to oppose health care reform.

[matchitisiw]

A study published in 2005 by Tom Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, found that after all costs, including legal fees, insurance costs and payouts, the cost of medical malpractice suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending.

Oh, I see its just more rhetoric they use to oppose health care reform.

Your assessment is substantially correct.

However, there is more to it, and it becomes obvious when one reads their actual proposed legislation.

The idea is to recast the entire legal system into one where corporations, wealthy people, companies, and major institutions can sue working class, poor, and middle class people, but the REVERSE cannot be the case. In short, it's another scam wherein the wealthy get even more money from everyone else. It's another form of "redistributing wealth" all right, but that escalator goes UP only.

Read it, it's exactly that simple, once the verbiage is cleaned up.

[favian]

A study published in 2005 by Tom Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, found that after all costs, including legal fees, insurance costs and payouts, the cost of medical malpractice suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending.

Oh, I see its just more rhetoric they use to oppose health care reform.

Your assessment is substantially correct.

However, there is more to it, and it becomes obvious when one reads their actual proposed legislation.

The idea is to recast the entire legal system into one where corporations, wealthy people, companies, and major institutions can sue working class, poor, and middle class people, but the REVERSE cannot be the case. In short, it's another scam wherein the wealthy get even more money from everyone else. It's another form of "redistributing wealth" all right, but that escalator goes UP only.

Read it, it's exactly that simple, once the verbiage is cleaned up.

to help americans

[banys]

the same reason liberals scream racist

[aethelbert35]

One study by one prefessor and it must be FACT, right?

LOL

[montrel68]

Tort reform and dropping liberal induced interstate insurance trade regulations would solve all of the healthcare problems your people whine about without a bunch of government BS.

Its just that easy. It doesnt matter what your liberal law professor says. Of course he would take that position. Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.

[taryn31]

Tort reform reduced the cost of medical care when enacted in Texas. I am afraid that Mr Baker's "study" is not entirely correct, but you know that don't you?
What I find interesting is that liberals ask these "questions" then don't bother to come back. They seem to believe that their pearls of wisdom are not open to debate.

[hjortur]

You are not including the unintended consequences of malpractice law suits which cause hospitals and doctors to call for billions of dollars worth of tests and procedures to immunize themselves from liability.

[urian27]

Their pockets are lined with the Insurance lobbyists money. Who wouldn't try to block health reform (insurance reform)? They received 155.5 million dollars last year. You want some rhetoric? How about death panels, popping off grandma. You republicans should be ashamed of yourselves.

[jerard]

Because unlike your guy's plan...it actually IS reform...

For example, my former pediatrician was much beloved by his patients and in the community...he was the last true "private practice" doctor I had the privilege of seeing.

When he was in his sixties he wanted to take some time to be with his grandkids, but his true love remained his practice. He would have liked to work part time , but he basically had to work for three days just to cover the costs of his liability insurance. I suppose he could have raised his prices astronomically, but I'm sure you and your professor friend would have just classified him as "another greedy doctor."

He ended up retiring full time and spent another decade feeling depressed and without purpose.

Nice try comparing "costs" to "combined spending" but academics and politicians have been playing that game for centuries....Compare, for instance the "cost" of a $300,000 house vs. the amount spent after that 30-year mortgage is up... you get the skewed picture...

...and by the way...the actual malpractice suits are only a small fraction of the costs rung up by the current litigious society in which we live. My old pediatrician, for example, had NEVER been sued...so your statistics would show that he had $0 costs associated with malpractice suits....the cost of COVERAGE and associated procedures, are the issue...funny that a lawyer would miss that point.