What exactly is ';tort reform';. Please explain with facts. Thank you for not ranting, raving or insulting?

(community guidelines)What exactly is ';tort reform';. Please explain with facts. Thank you for not ranting, raving or insulting?
Tort reform is essentially eliminating frivolous law suits.


One measure that could be taken is implementing ';loser pays.'; Presently, or system is set up that anyone can sue a medical practitioner for anything. A law firm can be engaged and paid with tax dollars regardless of the merits of the case. Most of time, insurance companies will settle out of court to avoid the legal fees. Either way, the lawyers are paid. It was set up that way, on the surface, ';to protect the little guy from the fat cat corporations.'; It was actually the trial lawyer ';full employment act.';


Implementing ';Loser pays'; will eliminate all frivolous law suits over nite. The lawyer will not take the case unless he'll be paid.


Other forms of reform are eliminating ';jackpot lawsuits.';


Here is an example of a frivolous law suit...not a medical one, but along the lines that doctors get sued.


';Lady sues McDonald's for broken coccyx for big money (over 1 million). The gist of the story is the lady sued McDonald's because she slipped on a spilled drink and broke her tailbone. The specifics of it are, moments before she slipped, she threw the drink at her boy friend. In the process of storming out...she slipped in the puddle.





Most doctors do pro bona work. They have to by law. There is a certain time of the year when a certain group comes into the emergency room for cuts and lacerations. This group is illegally in the US and don't pay for medical care received. This is where many of the malpractice lawsuits are coming from. The lawyers representing these unfortunate people seek huge rewards (aka. ';jackpot';). See it this way, ';Party A is dependent upon his hands for a living. Dr. X could not repair his hand to party A's satisfaction. Dr. X is a wealthy fat cat, poor party A is a laborer. We seek X million dollars.'; The courts often grant the award. It's all play money.What exactly is ';tort reform';. Please explain with facts. Thank you for not ranting, raving or insulting?
An example: you go to Canada with a numb and tingly hand, you likely get an Aspirin, a physical exam, and told to follow up. Here, you get MRI, MRA, Carotid dopplers, echocardiogram, Neurology consult, a night in telemetry and blood work. Upwards of $20,000, as opposed to a couple hundred...but still go home with an aspirin. Mathematically, some of these patients will still go on to have a stroke. But here, if you havent done all of these tests to ';cover your butt';, you get sued. Tort reform would give physicians the power to practice good, not defensive, medicine. The outcomes are the same in both places.
Tort reform is trying to limit the right of a citizen to sue.





In the case of medical malpractice, it limits the amount of money a patient can recover in a lawsuit. Most states limit the award for pain and suffering, because that is usually how juries award large amounts of money.





Most states have tort reform. They also limit what an attorney can be paid in a medical malpractice law suit.





Changes to tort law have never resulted in a decrease in malpractice insurance premiums or medical costs. California implemented tort reform in medical malpractice cases 25 years ago.
The most powerful economic engine in the world is the American economy.


The Republicans seem to comprehend that.


But, the most powerful component of that engine is the American CONSUMER – responsible for 70% of that economy.


Yet, the Republicans seem not to get the connection between that fact, and the fact that CONSUMERS ARE THE VERY PEOPLE THEY CONSISTENTLY WORK AGAINST!


When will they learn, you can't have a good economy if it's bad for the middle class?





THEY SAY THEY ARE FOR SMALLER GOVERNMENT.


But, what they mean is that they are for smaller government interference in BUSINESS.


They don’t want consumer protection measures, or any kind of government oversight.


So, a business can be negligent in manufacturing a product and a consumer can be injured. That consumer won’t have universal health coverage; the republicans don’t want them to have that. The injured consumer can’t afford the lost income from time off work, much less the expensive medical procedures they need, but when they sue to be compensated for this disaster, the republicans call that a FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT, and have taken measures to minimize financial damages TO THE BUSINESS!


They use code words like “Tort Reform” or warn about ';Trial Lawyers';, but the outcome is the same.





FACE IT; REPUBLICANS SEEM TO CARE MORE ABOUT BUSINESSES THAN HUMANS.
It's basically the idea that tort laws (civil laws regarding compensation for injury to the person) favor plaintiffs too much. Tort reform efforts are typically fueled by isolated cases involving extremely high damages awards for seemingly minor injuries, such as the McDonald's coffee case, depicted in the media.
limiting awards, eliminating frivolous lawsuits- if the person filing loses and its determined to be frivolous they pay... A few other things but that is a start. In relation to health care, many countries don't allow lawsuits- if something goes wrong, the government ';hears'; the case and they make a decision on the award- I understand most don't have appeals. Sweden I hear has a system kind of like that. I do not advocate that personally but 20 million for a foot is excessive (not that I would be happy about losing a foot by malpractice)... You cannot compare out cost to theirs if you aren't going to accept their cost controls
Redefining the limits in injury lawsuits and putting some logic into how much and if money is awarded. America is sue-happy because they know the courts will force the deep pockets (companies) to pay you for your pain and suffering, injury or pay your family for your death. While many of these suits DO have merit, so many more are without any whatsoever and are allowed to be judged often by a jury on emotion only. And if not that--a judge simply following the precedent of those suits and their outcomes. If you slip on the floor and break your ankle due to negligence of a company--I don't think it warrants you getting millions from them. Real negligence and injury gets lost in this scheme. And it is a scheme. Ambulance chasing lawyers make their living this way. (and every one around them benefits) But....Congress is NOT interested in this avenue as most of them are lawyers. Keep in mind...huge payments in settlements accomplish only one thing....higher costs to you to pick up the tab, even if you run them out of business. The next company will pad their profit to keep the kitty full in case of such instances.
Tort reform would set limits on the amount of the judgments juries award victims of medical malpractice.


It is designed to keep bad doctors in practice.


A doctor who amputates the wrong leg and then is forced to amputate the proper one would not have to pay penalties for being a bad doctor.
It means limiting or capping payouts for lawsuits.


Interestingly, states that have capped lawsuits have not seen malpractice insurance rates fall, and in 2004 the CBO found that the reason doctors insurance was going up so fast had nothing to do with lawsuits. The insurance companies were just trying to make up for their own bad investments! Is it possible they are doing that now in health care?
Getting rid of frivolous lawsuits.