View Story | 35 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61927-2005Jan9.html?sub=AR
The system is severely and fundamentally flawed (skewed towards allocating the moneys toward lawyers, insurers, etc.), and anyone with a basic understanding of economics can see that.
Just look at the healthcare industry, you have doctors who have to take out gigantic insurance policies just to make sure that they stay in business. Why? Lawsuits, much of which goes towards "pain and suffering."
Sorry but an anecdote does not a stance make, this is a huge issue that needs fixing immediately.
by kf on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:08:27 PM PDT
So how about a little fact to back that up?
You have made some pretty big assertions including "The system is severely and fundamentally flawed (skewed towards allocating the moneys toward lawyers, insurers, etc.), and anyone with a basic understanding of economics can see that." without a single fact or source.
by debraz on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:15:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
It breaks down the costs of our current system.
by kf on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:17:26 PM PDT
Regardless, it does not break down the benefits! Aren't safer products worth something? Shouldn't injured people be made whole again?
Further, the whole tort reform argument keeps getting interwoven with health-care costs. The problem is not med mal lawsuits, but the small percentage of doctors who are responsible for a large percentage of them.
by kaekee on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:31:16 PM PDT
by julie37 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:33:34 PM PDT
The commentary then goes on to suggest that there shouldn't be awards for pain and suffering, since the tort system is really an insurance system. Of course, there is no basis for the underlying presumption, and no discussion at all about what "pain and suffering" really mean. As for the insurance analogy, he doesn't even try to defend it, for it is utterly indefensible. After all, if it is "insurance," isn't it insurance for ALL your injuries, not just what it costs to repair, to the extent possible, damages? Remember, MANY people injured are not repairable, and suffer the rest of their lives. The discussion on economic damages is equally vapid, claiming only that different claims get different awards.
The final conclusion, that the unpredictability of the tort system "undermines the potentially salutary effect on corporate behavior" because companies won't reach rational decisions to make their products safer is logic Humpty Dumpty would be proud of. Just read the Pinto memo and you know it is the unpredictability that makes the system WORK. If Ford could estimate exactly what the costs would be, they can decide on a profit basis whether it's okay to immolate their customers.
Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.
by dhonig on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:35:52 PM PDT
It does not break down the costs of our current system, anymore than Shrub's economic summit broke down the "challanges" of this fine-ass robust economy we find ourselves facing. And on this, you base your assertions?
by debraz on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:37:06 PM PDT
They also count payouts for fender-benders, most of which do not generate lawsuits.
John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.
by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:42:49 PM PDT
Second, I didn't say or imply that one anecdote refutes the whole argument--but I'm sick of hearing people refer to that case every time they talk about tort reform--when that's the WRONG case to use as an example of out of control jury verdicts.
Finally, there are many many other ways in which frivolous lawsuits could be dealt with without capping punitive damages. One that is working successfully in some counties is having joint panels of doctos and experience lawyers "certify" a medical malpractice case before it can be filed, thus weeding out cases without merit. Do you really think that $100,000 is sufficient to compensate people who have been disabled for life or who have lost a child at the hands of a negligent doctor?
My husband used to practice medical malpractice law (defense side), and no one is more familiar or aggravated by frivilous lawsuits than he is. But the fact is that the reason medical malpractice premiums keep going up is a) because the insurance industry is allowed to charge whatever it wants, and b) the insurance industry keeps insuring bad doctors. I know of doctors that get sued on a regular basis, by all kinds of client with legitimate claims, yet they keep getting insurance, and all the other doctors in their group wind up paying the price. I don't know of any other field where people would keep getting insured when they get sued left and right by their clients. I sure wouldn't be able to get legal malpractice insurance if I got sued that much.
I agree that there needs to be something done, but capping punitive and compensatory damages is NOT the way to go.
by julie37 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:23:34 PM PDT
I disagree, however, that capping punitive and compensatory isn't the way to go. And I think you kind of made my point, "do you really think $100,000 is sufficient to compensate people who have been disabled for life?" OK, what is? A. they will be compensated economically for lost wages for their entire future, and B. how is ANYONE supposed to determine a price for "pain", let alone a jury who most likely know nothing about the victim?
There has to be a cap (whatever it may be), because it is a completely arbitrary system. A woman who loses a son at age 1 might get eight times as much as a woman who loses a son at age 3 just because she can cry more, the baby pictures are cuter, juries like newborns more, the lawyer is better, etc. Or a woman with no access to legal representation might get nothing because she has no resources. There needs to be a limitation, because there is no continuity or fairness between events.
Plus, on top of that, our legal system is a filter for gaining compensation for any wrongdoing, and that system is so flawed, it just piles on to the inequities inherent in my examples. The lawyers get a huge chunk of that "pain" pie. How do you justify those discrepancies, in a legal sense?
It's going to take a few bills to make a coherent system....I think capping is but one step in a very long process of correcting this garbage heap.
by kf on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM PDT
A man in Texas had his penis and testicles removed - for no reason - just plain medical error. Under your plan, this would just get the cost of his medical bills. He gets a free penis and testicle removal. Is that a square deal to you? Ready to sign on for that bargain?
Now, the Texas man is retired, and even if he weren't, he can work without a penis and testicles. Just pay his medical bills and we're good to go?
by debraz on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:06:26 PM PDT
The tort system as it is now, by paying lawyers based on a percentage of winnings, allows poor plaintiffs with good cases access to good legal representation.
Your solution would strip poor people of yet another right.
by kaekee on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:11:23 PM PDT
If you cap compensatory damages at $100k, what does that do for people who are disabled for life at age 18 and need 24 hour care until they die at 70? $100k isn't nearly enough to compensate for that kind of care.
I'm just curious as to how much contact you've had with the system. Like I said, my husband used to do medical malpractice law, and at times I would get pissed off with him for not going to trial on a claim that I thought was stupid (that's another huge problem--clients that would rather pay out $$$ than go to trial on cases they should win because it takes too much time and effort), but all in all, I think the system works pretty well. I think the media and the right has done a fabulous job of making people think that the whole thing is a mess and that doctors are being bankrupted right and left--when I don't think that's the case at all. Like I said, not that I don't think medical malpractice premiums are a problem--but I lay that at the feet of the insurance industry. (trying to find some dating on soaring insurance company profit margins)
And actually, pain and suffering damages aren't necessarily a crapshoot. Often times, juries come up with some pretty creative ways of compensating people. "Per diem" arguments are not proper in IL, but I know of one jury that gave the victim of sexual abuse $50 for every nightmare, $100 for every bad day, and $10,000 for every episode of molestation. You can argue that that's stupid, and maybe you're right, but I think it just goes to show how much thought juries actually put into damage awards. You may think that they just pull numbers out of the air, but I don't think so.
As for how much would be enough of a punitive damamges? In some of the cases I've seen, enough so that an insurance company would think twice before insuring some of these doctors again. Again, for me, it's all about deterrance and weeding the bad apples out of the system.
by julie37 on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:11:45 PM PDT
The real problem in our medical system is elsewhere. This is not where the costs are increasing. However, to an individual doctor, malpractice premiums are a significant issue. There are plenty of good docs that are paying far too much of their income for insurance.
The real problem with our malpractice system is the cases where a bad outcome is inevitable, such as many heart attacks, and the patient's lawyer finds or invents some small slip by the docotor that they can blame the patient's bad outcome on. The worst combination is an attractive patient and a bad outcome. For example, obstetricians can, through no fault of their own, face the difficult combination of a bad outcome and a cute little baby. This is a sure road to a settlement.
So there clearly needs to be a weeding out of malpractice cases where any competent doctor could have taken the same course of treatement. Similarly, serial offenders need to find another area of employment. Unfortunately, I don't hold out a lot of hope for either to happen. What doesn't need to happen is for the malpractice settlements to be capped.
by unterhausen on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 02:56:23 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 35 comments