So tired of this debate: like so many other right-wing issues, this one is complex enough to require a modicum of thought and reflection. The bad guys take advantage of that bit of complexity to weave another web of bad policy based upon deceptively reductionist arguments.
Let's wade through it.
In Georgia, Missouri, Washington and more than a dozen other states, Republican legislators have made malpractice premiums a priority this year, groups that track such legislation said. In Kentucky, Maryland and Mississippi, Republican governors have already waded into the fray.
The impending battles over malpractice costs have in some states been wrapped in the broader cloak of "tort reform," intended to restrict the civil liability of many types of businesses. They also come at a time when President Bush has pledged to push for federal restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits.
A coupla points to make here: as the NYT notes, malpractice reform is a subsection of tort reform. The business lobby is using malpractice reform interchangeably with the term "tort reform" - their first deception. Remember the story about John Edwards winning $25 million for a 6 year old girl that had her guts sucked out of her anus when she got caught in a defective wading pool pump? A pump that had injured and even killed several people previously? A pump whose design flaw was the omission of a 3 cent screw? Well, tort reform, as most commonly proposed - as proposed at the federal level - would limit her award for "pain and suffering" to $250,000. By using doctors (especially ob/gyn's) to lead the rush toward malpractice (tort) reform, the business lobby has hit upon an effective method of using one subsection of tort reform to bludgeon their way into getting the whole kit and kaboodle.
Next question. Why are doctors such a big part of this? I used to wonder why doctors got mad at lawyers instead of the insurance companies that charge them outrageous rates while making record profits and awarding their executives outrageous compensation packages. Then I married a doctor. She hates lawyers. Talking to her enlightened me.
Unfortunately, law is like making sausage - it's incredibly ugly up close. Every step of the way, from trolling for clients until the final gavel falls, lawyers antagonize doctors. While doctors collect much of their pay from insurance companies, when a doctor gets sued, it gets nasty. Their every decision is put under a microscope. In depositions and on the stand, they are brutally cross examined by lawyers.
But I ask this of you: Would you have it any other way? If you were injured, would you want any less from your lawyer?
This next bit really pisses me off:
Julie Rochman, senior vice president for the American Insurance Association, a trade group, said malpractice litigation was costly not only because judgments could be very large, but also because many doctors practiced "defensive medicine" involving unnecessary but costly procedures to avoid lawsuits. Ms. Rochman also said that many insurance companies had stopped issuing policies, reducing competition and causing premiums to rise.
It's almost too easy: First of all, what does "defensive medicine" have to do with litigation costs? The people that want malpractice reform don't even seem to understand their own arguments - but that's not surprising because their arguments are not based in logic - especially when it comes to "defensive medicine". "Defensive medicine" lowers litigation costs. Why? Because if a doctor practices "defensive medicine" correctly, the number of lawsuits is reduced because doctors do a better job diagnosing and treating maladies. Which brings me to the next point: every time you hear the term "defensive medicine" know that it is a complete fallacy. If doctors are ordering more tests so that they don't get sued, isn't that a good thing? Think about the opposite: a doctor doesn't order a cat-scan, doesn't find the operable brain tumor, patient dies and doctor gets sued. The truth is that most medicine is "defensive". You get physicals because you want to catch any sicknesses early. As a part of the physical, doctors draw blood, take urine samples and stick their fingers up your butt. All of that is meant to "defend" against disease before it gets too far. "Defensive medicine" is good medicine.
The silver lining?
As the fight continues in Maryland, Georgia and Missouri are examples of how recent Republican electoral victories are expected to lead to sharp restrictions on personal injury lawsuits.
In Georgia, Republicans won control of the House last November for the first time in 140 years. House Democrats blocked malpractice bills twice in the last two years, but Republicans now predict that legislation restricting lawsuits will pass.
In Missouri, the Republican-controlled legislature twice passed bills restricting lawsuits in the past two years, only to have the Democratic governor, Bob Holden, veto them. But a Republican, Matt Blunt, was elected governor in November, and one of his first promises was to enact "meaningful litigation reform."
Though Mr. Blunt cited rising malpractice premiums as the reason for his pledge, trial lawyers say the Republican measures are likely to restrict lawsuits against an array of businesses.
(emphasis mine)
OK, this is kind of cheesy for a silver lining, but I've got to take something from the last elections... This is another example of Republican overreach. It will happen over time, but eventually someone will get hurt in Mossouri and find tht their access to the courts has been cut off. Think Firestone and SUVs... It'll make the papers... It'll just be another pitcher of cold water thrown into the face of a sleeping electorate. The wake-up call is going to be ugly.
It's funny, because you hear Rove talking about owning the agenda for decades... We'll see...