On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

That's really an inflexible position, flawed in a couple respects.
First, you ignore "defensive medicine."
Second, if it's as you say that there's a "good idea whether it will
work or not," why can't what works be federalized?
Seems to me this is a case of the trial lawyers being in the Dem
pocket. Big mistake not reconciling this and shutting up one of the
Rep talking points.
I don't think the right to redress medical grievances will be hampered
by engaging in tort reform, if done right. But it might cut into the
business of the malpractice suit lawyers.
I don't have the facts and figures, as I haven't studied it, but my
impression is that it could be easily reformed, but for trial lawyer
lobbying. Special interest bull****.
Dems are no more immune to criticism on that than are Reps.

--Vic



..