• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Launches Battle to Limit Malpractice Awards

I

illustri

Golden Member
Reuters
COLLINSVILLE, Ill. (Reuters) - President Bush charged on Wednesday that trial lawyers pursuing medical malpractice lawsuits are driving doctors out of business and driving up health care costs, as he opened a contentious battle to convince Congress to limit malpractice damage awards.

"This system is out of control," Bush said in decrying the proliferation of what he called "junk" lawsuits filed by lawyers looking to enrich themselves with jackpot jury awards that are forcing insurance companies to raise malpractice premiums for doctors.

With his first big speech of the new year in an area considered a magnet for malpractice lawsuits, Bush launched a campaign to limit damages awarded by a jury for malpractice pain and suffering to $250,000, effectively ending multimillion-dollar awards. His plan would still allow unlimited damages to cover economic losses.

Legislation to cap malpractice awards passed the House of Representatives last year but stalled in the Senate.

Bush is hoping a larger Republican majority gained in the November elections will lead his plan to victory this year, but acknowledged it will be difficult for some in Congress to stand up to trial lawyers, who help bankroll many Democratic campaigns.

"It's hard work for some in Congress to stand up to the trial lawyers, I understand that. But all we're asking for is fairness. We want our doctors treated fairly. We want the hospitals treated fairly, and most of all we want the patients and the American people treated fairly," Bush said.

...
Click to expand...

trial lawyers on one side, corporations on the other
who to believe?
 
I'm beholden to neither corporations nor trial lawyers. However, having seen first hand the damage that frivolous suits do to honest doctors, something needs to be done. Whether this is the right solution or not I have no idea.
 
You know if the ABA actually followed its own rules and started sanctioning or taking away law licenses for what is a clear violation of the "frivolous lawsuit" rule, we would not need to put a cap on anything. I do not blame lawyers on capitalizing on a big money business, but I do blame the ABA for allowing so many layers to file frivolous lawsuits and keep there license.
 
With his first big speech of the new year in an area considered a magnet for malpractice lawsuits, Bush launched a campaign to limit damages awarded by a jury for malpractice pain and suffering to $250,000, effectively ending multimillion-dollar awards. His plan would still allow unlimited damages to cover economic losses.
Click to expand...
Not bad, not bad. I'm not sure I'm crazy about setting some kind of modern precedent in limiting damages awarded to individuals though.
 
You know if the ABA actually followed its own rules and started sanctioning or taking away law licenses for what is a clear violation of the "frivolous lawsuit" rule, we would not need to put a cap on anything. I do not blame lawyers on capitalizing on a big money business, but I do blame the ABA for allowing so many layers to file frivolous lawsuits and keep there license.
Click to expand...

In fairness, the physician review boards haven't been doing a stellar job of getting rid of their bad apples either. Personally, my choice on whether damage caps should be put into place would be made up according to whether doctors or lawyers are the first stop sh!tting where they eat.
 
doing something about perscription drugs (pricing and perliforation(sp?)) would be a better place to start, as would doing something about our unhealthy lifestyles. This isn't going to do much to stop insurance rates for climbing.

Also, does anyone know anything about the companies providing this insurance? Concentration, etc?
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
You know if the ABA actually followed its own rules and started sanctioning or taking away law licenses for what is a clear violation of the "frivolous lawsuit" rule, we would not need to put a cap on anything. I do not blame lawyers on capitalizing on a big money business, but I do blame the ABA for allowing so many layers to file frivolous lawsuits and keep there license.
Click to expand...

In fairness, the physician review boards haven't been doing a stellar job of getting rid of their bad apples either.
Click to expand...
this would help as well.
 
Alot of things would help really, but this was one of the the Presidents campaign promises.

/we don't need no stinkin' healthcare
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
doing something about perscription drugs (pricing and perliforation(sp?)) would be a better place to start, as would doing something about our unhealthy lifestyles. This isn't going to do much to stop insurance rates for climbing.
Click to expand...

They're not interesting in reducing prices/rates...just increasing profit margins.

 
Basically they think the juries are too stupid to figure out if a case has merit. Sorry, but I feel if someone amputates the wrong leg you deserve a whole lot of money for pain and suffering-- not to mention punitive. Lawsuits can do good. The wrong-limb-amputation lawsuits forced hospitals to implement new procedures to make sure the right body part is being operated on. I'm glad these new procedures are implemented and I doubt they would have happened if hospitals felt it was more economical to go without them.
 
Classic Bush misdirection play, blaming skyrocketing healthcare costs on lawsuits, which are a very small % of the cost.

Not that limiting liability is a bad idea, per se, but $250K is a paltry sum for some possible scenarios, particularly considering that most suits are settled, rather than won in court, meaning that the award is taxable... and it's merely in the ballpark of the cost of mounting a successful legal effort, anyway...

The whole idea ignores the concept of "punitive", as well... meaning that leaving folks with a lifetime of misery becomes economically attractive, just part of the cost of doing business...
 
Bush is also pushing for 100 percent recovery of lost wages, medical bills etc. Let's not forget that the 250, 000 dollars is above and beyond any money lost through the botched procedure/procedures.
 
Limiting malpractice awards and other types of tort reform will open the floodgates to bad medical practices and killer pharmaceuticals.

Being sued is the ONLY thing that protects the patients.
 
Pain and Suffering awards have merit, because they benefit the unfortunate person who has to suffer.

However, punitive damages are worthless. You know how you punish a doctor? You dont award large sums of money.....you revoke his license.

....and please, enough with the "Bush just wants to remove torts to protect corporations". Cant you guys just for ONCE keep the political BS out of something? Have you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, huge punitive damages only benefit lawyers and really serve no other purpose?

If a mistake is going to be made, it's going to be made, regardless of how much you threaten people with large lawsuits. Punitive damages wont fix the problem....holding doctors and the medical review boards accountable will.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Basically they think the juries are too stupid to figure out if a case has merit. Sorry, but I feel if someone amputates the wrong leg you deserve a whole lot of money for pain and suffering-- not to mention punitive. Lawsuits can do good. The wrong-limb-amputation lawsuits forced hospitals to implement new procedures to make sure the right body part is being operated on. I'm glad these new procedures are implemented and I doubt they would have happened if hospitals felt it was more economical to go without them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, juries are really good. Remember the McDonald's cup of coffee? That is the kind of work that juries do. Remember O.J.? Another steller day in the history of juries. Can they figure out a case on it's merit? Doesn't look like it. Weren't you pointing out that many people on death row had been wrongly conviceted a few days back? Those were juries too. When you look at the complete picture, the judge and prosecutor have a lot of influence on the jury when the judge gives the jury his/her instructions. They are pretty much bound by those instructions and the instructions can be skewed against the defendent.

 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Pain and Suffering awards have merit, because they benefit the unfortunate person who has to suffer.

However, punitive damages are worthless. You know how you punish a doctor? You dont award large sums of money.....you revoke his license.
Click to expand...
Your naive if you think Bush wants to limit this to only doctor malpractice. This would most certainly be extended drug companies just to start.
 
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: Centinel
Pain and Suffering awards have merit, because they benefit the unfortunate person who has to suffer.

However, punitive damages are worthless. You know how you punish a doctor? You dont award large sums of money.....you revoke his license.
Click to expand...
Your naive if you think Bush wants to limit this to only doctor malpractice. This would most certainly be extended drug companies just to start.
Click to expand...

Good. And when drug companies screw up you pull their license as well. Simple enough. All businesses require a license to operate within a state, or the US as a whole.
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Pain and Suffering awards have merit, because they benefit the unfortunate person who has to suffer.

However, punitive damages are worthless. You know how you punish a doctor? You dont award large sums of money.....you revoke his license.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
I'd be willing to try it with one small caveat: I demand a sunset clause that will kick in exactly 12 months after the reform bill is passed. If, after 12 months, a non-partisan independent investigation finds that health care costs have not declined, the malpractice reform bill is automatically phased out.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'd be willing to try it with one small caveat: I demand a sunset clause that will kick in exactly 12 months after the reform bill is passed. If, after 12 months, a non-partisan independent investigation finds that health care costs have not declined, the malpractice reform bill is automatically phased out.
Click to expand...

Now that sounds like a good compromise on the matter.
 
Originally posted by: Centinel
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: Centinel
Pain and Suffering awards have merit, because they benefit the unfortunate person who has to suffer.

However, punitive damages are worthless. You know how you punish a doctor? You dont award large sums of money.....you revoke his license.
Click to expand...
Your naive if you think Bush wants to limit this to only doctor malpractice. This would most certainly be extended drug companies just to start.
Click to expand...

Good. And when drug companies screw up you pull their license as well. Simple enough. All businesses require a license to operate within a state, or the US as a whole.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA HA HA

Keep dreaming if you think Bush is going to shut down a cash cow.

They'll get a slap on the wrist and an order to not sell the offending drug anymore at the most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top