PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Dean says Obamacare authors don't want to challenge trial lawyers


mlyonsd
08-27-2009, 04:47 PM
Dean says Obamacare authors don't want to challenge trial lawyers

By: Mark Tapscott (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bios/26406784.html)
Editorial Page Editor
08/26/09 5:50 PM EDT


Whatever else he said Wednesday evening at the town hall hosted by Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate Howard Dean let something incredibly candid slip out about President Obama's health-care reform bill in Congress.

Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka "Tort reform"), Dean responded by saying: “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth,”

Dean is a former physician, so he knows about skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates, and the role of the trial lawyers in fueling the "defensive medicine" approach among medical personnel who order too many tests and other sometimes unneeded procedures "just to be sure" and to protect themselves against litigation.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently described in an Examiner oped (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Tort-reform-must-be-part-of-health-care-reform-8096175.html)the medical-malpractice caps enacted by the state legislature at his urging that reversed a serious decline in the number of physicians practicing in the Lone Star state and the resulting loss of access to quality medical care available to Texas residents. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbor also shared some of his successes in this area in a recent Examiner oped. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-is-going-too-far_-too-soon_-too-fast_-and-costing-too-much-8096158.html)

Credit goes to the American Tort Reform Association's Darren McKinney for catching this momentary outbreak of political honesty by Dean. McKinney has conveniently posted an audio recording of Dean speaking here, (http://www.atra.org/newsroom/dean-comment.mp3) so you can listen for yourself. Mckinney has also offered more comment here, (http://www.atra.org/newsroom/releases.php?id=8405) helpfully even including a link to the Examiner's recent analysis of the degree to which trial-lawyer political contributions go to Democrats in Congress.

Those contributions are why Dean knows it would be a difficult task indeed for Obama to persuade congressional Democrats to do anything that might offend the trial-lawyers lobby. The Examiner's David Freddoso and Kevin Mooney did the reporting on this link here. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Trial-lawyers-seek-return-on-contributions-to-Senate-Democrats-53177542.html)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dean-says-Obamacare-authors-dont-want-to-challenge-trial-lawyers-55140567.html

mlyonsd
08-27-2009, 04:48 PM
Obamacare....brave.....bold.....oh never mind.

Direckshun
08-27-2009, 05:05 PM
He's pretty much right.

The reforms in the bill could have been so much sharper, too, if Obama's administration wasn't trying to pull money out of the insurance industry in exchange for stepping away from the single payer option and perhaps now the public option so that Democrats can have a warchest for 2010.

It's incredibly disappointing, even with as much as I support HR 3200.

JonesCrusher
08-27-2009, 05:06 PM
Who are the authors, why after 3000 pages of destroying every aspect of our current health care system would they draw the line at lawyers. Tort reform should have been the meat of the plan not the fat trimmed.

Chiefshrink
08-27-2009, 05:44 PM
Of course they are all on the take. Everyone's hand is in the cookie jar and you definitely don't want to break the jar.

Saul Good
08-27-2009, 05:46 PM
He's pretty much right.

The reforms in the bill could have been so much sharper, too, if Obama's administration wasn't trying to pull money out of the insurance industry in exchange for stepping away from the single payer option and perhaps now the public option so that Democrats can have a warchest for 2010.

It's incredibly disappointing, even with as much as I support HR 3200.

I think this is the first time I've seen anyone say that they support the bill. The rest of the libs seem to somehow be both against the bill and against those who are against the bill.

KC Dan
08-27-2009, 05:51 PM
My lord, I love this guy. He is the bestest!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc

ahhhh, good times...

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 05:54 PM
I am for tort reform and they should make a punitive fine to those that bring frivolous lawsuits but I am against caps at least general caps.

Reading Gov. Perry's piece Texas put a cap at $250,000 or $750,000 on non-economic damages.

I am surprised all you free-marketeers aren't up in arms about this. If a doctor kills my mom why should the government tell me how much she is worth? That should be left up to the jury to decide how bad the doctor fucked up.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 05:58 PM
I am for tort reform and they should make a punitive fine to those that bring frivolous lawsuits but I am against caps at least general caps.

Reading Gov. Perry's piece Texas put a cap at $250,000 or $750,000 on non-economic damages.

I am surprised all you free-marketeers aren't up in arms about this. If a doctor kills my mom why should the government tell me how much she is worth? That should be left up to the jury to decide how bad the doctor ****ed up.

non-economic caps are just that. Dems want to price cap everything artificially but leave artificial "things" uncapped....go figure

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 06:01 PM
non-economic caps are just that. Dems want to price cap everything artificially but leave artificial "things" uncapped....go figure

I am not a Dem. Saying my mom is only worth x amount is against all free-market principles.

The jury is the market let them decide.

Saul Good
08-27-2009, 06:05 PM
I am not a Dem. Saying my mom is only worth x amount is against all free-market principles.

The jury is the market let them decide.

A jury doling out a fine is not about free market. A jury operates outside the market.

orange
08-27-2009, 06:06 PM
Dean also offered his version of tort reform:

The man then asked why tort reform was not part of any health overhaul.

Dr. Dean replied that the more items in a big bill, the more enemies it will have. “The people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else,” Dr. Dean said.

Dr. Dean also said he believed that patients should be able to bring actions against health care professionals, but they should go to arbitration. Then the case could go to trial, he said, but the arbitration verdict should be submitted as evidence. Not much reaction to that either way.

Mr. Moran then apologized to the man whose identity he had questioned and added his 2 cents about why tort reform was not part of any bill. He said if it were, such a bill would have to go through the judiciary committee, which he said was one of the most partisan in Congress and would never have reported it out.

In response to another question, Dr. Dean defended the drug industry, even though it is for-profit. He said that drugs go a long way toward reducing time in the hospital and costs.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/dean-moran-draw-a-raucus-crowd-in-virginia/

It's a complicated matter. Probably worthy of it's own Bill.

MY version would go something like this (not just Health Care, but all torts): "Punitive Damages" are assessed to punish people for violating the public good; therefore, they should be payed to the PUBLIC. Plaintiffs would get actual damages as now, and maybe a set fee (like a reward); the trial lawyers would be payed for their work - again, a set fee. The rest would go into General Revenues for taxpayer relief, like fines.

Ultra Peanut
08-27-2009, 06:06 PM
I think this is the first time I've seen anyone say that they support the bill. The rest of the libs seem to somehow be both against the bill and against those who are against the bill.It's because the bill is terrible, and your shrill, reactionary "ideas" are even more terrible.

Brock
08-27-2009, 06:07 PM
It's because the bill is terrible, and your shrill, reactionary "ideas" are even more terrible.

Let's call the whole thing off.

Saul Good
08-27-2009, 06:07 PM
The rest would go into General Revenues for taxpayer relief, like fines.

HA

petegz28
08-27-2009, 06:08 PM
I am not a Dem. Saying my mom is only worth x amount is against all free-market principles.

The jury is the market let them decide.

Yes it is. I was just pointing out the fact that Dems always want cap prices on gas, drugs, etc, but not on the lawyers can get

Saul Good
08-27-2009, 06:08 PM
It's because the bill is terrible, and your shrill, reactionary "ideas" are even more terrible.

I'm sorry that I'm the shrill one. What are my ideas on health care, by the way?

orange
08-27-2009, 06:09 PM
Yes it is. I was just pointing out the fact that Dems always want cap prices on gas, drugs, etc, but not on the lawyers can get

Not ALL Dems - read my prior post. ;)

Probably almost all the Dems who get campaign contributions from lawyers, though.

Maybe we should have real campaign finance reform, hmm?

Ultra Peanut
08-27-2009, 06:11 PM
I'm sorry that I'm the shrill one. What are my ideas on health care, by the way?It's hard to tell, beyond calling Obama a socialist for his support of insanely pro-private interests version of reform.

Hence the quotation marks. Your answers are (a) SOCALEST, and (b) TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 06:12 PM
A jury doling out a fine is not about free market. A jury operates outside the market.

You are probably right. I just don't like caps in this case.

Yes it is. I was just pointing out the fact that Dems always want cap prices on gas, drugs, etc, but not on the lawyers can get

Put a cap on lawyers fees and what they can get I could care less just don't cap what my mom is worth if a doctor fucks up and kills her.

Saul Good
08-27-2009, 06:16 PM
Put a cap on lawyers fees and what they can get I could care less just don't cap what my mom is worth if a doctor ****s up and kills her.

It really has nothing to do with what your mother is worth.

If a doctor gets drunk after work, drives home, hits your mother, and kills her, the jury would award the plaintiff (you) a lot less than if that same doctor treated her for an illness and she wound up dying of something that the doctor should have been able to properly treat (according to a jury made up of non-MDs). Does that not seem backwards to you?

BucEyedPea
08-27-2009, 06:18 PM
Nope, the trial lawyers are in the Dem's pockets and have been for years. That and too many politicians are lawyers.

Saul Good
08-27-2009, 06:21 PM
It's hard to tell, beyond calling Obama a socialist for his support of insanely pro-private interests version of reform.

Hence the quotation marks. Your answers are (a) SOCALEST, and (b) TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.

So you made a baseless accusation in an attempt to smear someone who disagrees with a bill that you don't even support. I know, I know. My motives for not supporting it are evil and self-serving. Your motives for not supporting it are pure and mainstream.

Remember kids, when you think mainstream, think UP.

petegz28
08-27-2009, 06:22 PM
So you made a baseless accusation in an attempt to smear someone who disagrees with a bill that you don't even support. I know, I know. My motives for not supporting it are evil and self-serving. Your motives for not supporting it are pure and mainstream.

Remember kids, when you think mainstream, think UP.

When did UP become a conservative? Cause you know, only Cons and Repubs oppose the bill.

dirk digler
08-27-2009, 06:26 PM
It really has nothing to do with what your mother is worth.

If a doctor gets drunk after work, drives home, hits your mother, and kills her, the jury would award the plaintiff (you) a lot less than if that same doctor treated her for an illness and she wound up dying of something that the doctor should have been able to properly treat (according to a jury made up of non-MDs). Does that not seem backwards to you?

I don't know if that would be the case. Plus in the case of the DWI killing you have the criminal aspect of it where as a doctor screws up and kills a patient probably isn't going to get arrested.

Ultra Peanut
08-27-2009, 06:27 PM
So you made a baseless accusation in an attempt to smear someone who disagrees with a bill that you don't even support. I know, I know. My motives for not supporting it are evil and self-serving. Your motives for not supporting it are pure and mainstream.

Remember kids, when you think mainstream, think UP.The point was that YOU HAVE NO IDEAS beyond calling single payer socialism and calling pro-corporate mandates socialism and calling the status quo socialism. Everything is socialism, such is the depth of your (general "your") arguments.

Saul Good
08-27-2009, 06:32 PM
The point was that YOU HAVE NO IDEAS beyond calling single payer socialism and calling pro-corporate mandates socialism and calling the status quo socialism. Everything is socialism, such is the depth of your (general "your") arguments.

I've laid out my ideas very clearly on multiple occasions. You are a hate-filled person and can't seem to look past your hatred to see reality. That's on you.

Show me one time where I called any of those things Socialism.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2009, 06:37 PM
The point was that YOU HAVE NO IDEAS beyond calling single payer socialism and calling pro-corporate mandates socialism and calling the status quo socialism. Everything is socialism, such is the depth of your (general "your") arguments.

Well most everything is these days. It's been the socialist century. Just gotta wait 'til 2017 for it to complete it's centennial. By then it should collapse.

jiveturkey
08-27-2009, 06:48 PM
Why is tort reform suddenly a priority? Didn't the right have control for a while? Now they expect the left (who's in bed with lawyers) to take care of it? The dems should probably privatize Social Security while they're at it. ;)

KCTitus
08-27-2009, 08:26 PM
Why is tort reform suddenly a priority? Didn't the right have control for a while? Now they expect the left (who's in bed with lawyers) to take care of it? The dems should probably privatize Social Security while they're at it. ;)

You are correct...the 'right' aka republicans did have control for 12 years and failed to enact tort reform. That's on them. I dont expect socialists or fascists to 'take care of it', they prefer to enact failed systems from across the globe. I would say however, there was a push to privatize SS and that got demonized by the left.

Reaper16
08-27-2009, 08:34 PM
I've laid out my ideas very clearly on multiple occasions. You are a hate-filled person and can't seem to look past your hatred to see reality. That's on you.

Show me one time where I called any of those things Socialism.
She said "general 'your.'" You are being lumped in with many of your like-minded peers here on CP because of, well, that like-mindedness.

headsnap
08-27-2009, 08:48 PM
She said "general 'your.'" You are being lumped in with many of your like-minded peers here on CP because of, well, that like-mindedness.

nice...

so, he basically said 'you people'....


:shake:

KCTitus
08-27-2009, 08:50 PM
so, he basically said 'you people'....


Thats Race-us

Reaper16
08-27-2009, 08:55 PM
nice...

so, he basically said 'you people'....


:shake:
Don't act like there has been a deep division of thought on this issue amongst the board's right/center-right posters.

headsnap
08-27-2009, 08:58 PM
Don't act like there has been a deep division of thought on this issue amongst the board's right/center-right posters.

double standard noted.

Reaper16
08-27-2009, 09:02 PM
double standard noted.
Can you explain that?

***SPRAYER
08-28-2009, 04:58 AM
Stop the presses: a Democrat politician has actually spoken honestly.

At a town hall meeting in Reston, Virginia, a patriot acceded to Dem Rep Jim Moran's insulting demand that he present ID, then asked a question that has been on many minds: if the Dems have any serious interest in lowering healthcare costs, why don't they do something about the looting bonanza by ambulance-chasing shyster lowlife like John Edwards, the astronomical cost of which is passed along to consumers?

As Rep Moron scuttled away in search of a safe crevice, Howard "Dr. Demento" Dean took the mic and amazingly told the truth. Via CNS News:

[T]he reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers … and that is the plain and simple truth.
Moron courageously crept back out and confirmed it.

Dems don't dare aggravate trial lawyers because they have been bought and paid for by these thieving parasites, as well as by corrupt unions (which are granted a cash bonanza in the ObamaCare bill) and the ultra-left, Soros-financed Shadow Party, which wants to move toward totalitarian socialist rule — the true purpose of ObamaCare.

http://www.moonbattery.com

Simplex3
08-28-2009, 06:16 AM
I am for tort reform and they should make a punitive fine to those that bring frivolous lawsuits but I am against caps at least general caps.

Reading Gov. Perry's piece Texas put a cap at $250,000 or $750,000 on non-economic damages.

I am surprised all you free-marketeers aren't up in arms about this. If a doctor kills my mom why should the government tell me how much she is worth? That should be left up to the jury to decide how bad the doctor fucked up.

If jurors weren't all retarded you wouldn't need caps. Handing someone millions of dollars for 'pain and suffering' is just stupid. If money will alleviate your pain and suffering then you didn't really care for the deceased anyway.