PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Is there tort reform in the HRC bill?


chris
03-21-2010, 12:52 PM
And if no, why not?

Has anyone done an analysis of what the cost impact excessive tort suits cause on the R&D and operational of drug companies and medical firms?

Thanks

orange
03-21-2010, 01:01 PM
And if no, why not?


Maybe if the Republicans hadn't chosen to obstruct as a bloc they could have gotten some of their wish list.

:hmmm:

alnorth
03-21-2010, 01:07 PM
And if no, why not?

Has anyone done an analysis of what the cost impact excessive tort suits cause on the R&D and operational of drug companies and medical firms?

Thanks

No. Basically the republicans made it clear that even if they got their ideas included they would still not support the bill, so the Dems basically said "ok, well screw you guys then"

chris
03-21-2010, 01:12 PM
Maybe if the Republicans hadn't chosen to obstruct as a bloc they could have gotten some of their wish list.

:hmmm:

May I have a simple answer without the petty political slant?

If you don't know, I'd prefer you not waste my time readying your silly tripe.

Thanks

chris
03-21-2010, 01:14 PM
No. Basically the republicans made it clear that even if they got their ideas included they would still not support the bill, so the Dems basically said "ok, well screw you guys then"


So the Dems were not motivated to cut costs by limiting the tort impact? Interesting. Any idea why?

thanks

orange
03-21-2010, 01:15 PM
May I have a simple answer without the petty political slant?

No.

chris
03-21-2010, 01:16 PM
No.

OK; that WAS funny. ROFL

(At least you admit it.)

orange
03-21-2010, 01:16 PM
So the Dems were not motivated to cut costs by limiting the tort impact? Interesting. Any idea why?


May I have a simple question without the petty political slant?

Thanks.

WoodDraw
03-21-2010, 01:20 PM
Has anyone done an analysis of what the cost impact excessive tort suits cause on the R&D and operational of drug companies and medical firms?

Thanks

Yes. There have been studies that said the benefit of tort reform would be negligible. Add that to ongoing case studies, where states that have passed tort reform show no related benefits over states that don't, and I find the argument convincing.

[edit] I'm talking about costs, though. Not other benefits.

The Dems said they would be willing to put it in though. But it's like collective bargaining. If one said gives you something you want, they'll want something back. Why give Republicans anything for a no vote? They can save it for later when they need Republican votes on something.

alnorth
03-21-2010, 01:40 PM
Yes. There have been studies that said the benefit of tort reform would be negligible. Add that to ongoing case studies, where states that have passed tort reform show no related benefits over states that don't, and I find the argument convincing.

[edit] I'm talking about costs, though. Not other benefits.

The Dems said they would be willing to put it in though. But it's like collective bargaining. If one said gives you something you want, they'll want something back. Why give Republicans anything for a no vote? They can save it for later when they need Republican votes on something.

Pretty much. No credible study has ever shown that tort reform was successful in doing much to health care costs. What it does do is slightly help doctors with med mal insurance, and some of that trickles down, but we aren't talking huge savings.

Regardless of the economic benefit, I personally look at tort reform as a moral issue rather than economic. If you can prove really horrendous gross negligence or malice, I guess I'm fine with uncapping the award, but for your plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill malpractice, I dont see why a jaw-dropping gigantic verdict (above cost to treat) is justified.

If someone screws you up so badly you need $2 million worth of therapy and care, ok fine. I'd figure you should be fine with $3 million, not $20 million.

chris
03-21-2010, 02:45 PM
May I have a simple question without the petty political slant?

Thanks.

children, play nice. Not all of us define our existence from a petty political perspective.

I financially support candidates from both sides of the fence. It's all about the person.

My personal taxes are going up; and my cost of doing busienss is going up. So when trying to decide to support or not support this bill; I need to know if tort savings was possible.

Are you capable of a straight, non partisan answer?

orange
03-21-2010, 02:49 PM
So the Dems were not motivated to cut costs

Yeah, you're a real non-partisan. :rolleyes:


Send an email or letter to your Senators stating that you are now sending a political contribution to the OPPONENT of EVERY congress wo/man that voted for this Health Care bill.

And if they vote yes for the Senate bill, you will do the same.

Politicians are all the same. Getting reelected is their number one priority.

Throw the bums out.

chris
03-21-2010, 02:50 PM
Pretty much. No credible study has ever shown that tort reform was successful in doing much to health care costs. What it does do is slightly help doctors with med mal insurance, and some of that trickles down, but we aren't talking huge savings.

Regardless of the economic benefit, I personally look at tort reform as a moral issue rather than economic. If you can prove really horrendous gross negligence or malice, I guess I'm fine with uncapping the award, but for your plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill malpractice, I dont see why a jaw-dropping gigantic verdict (above cost to treat) is justified.

If someone screws you up so badly you need $2 million worth of therapy and care, ok fine. I'd figure you should be fine with $3 million, not $20 million.

thank you for the clear answer. I admit I am bias about tort reform. My liability insurance keeps increasing every year. My D&O insurance increased 22% two years ago.

chris
03-21-2010, 02:57 PM
Yeah, you're a real non-partisan. :rolleyes:


whatever. I'm crushed that you don't like me. :(

I've changed my position. Now that they have figured out how to pay for it; I'm OK. As long as the blood sucking lawyers lobby is reined in.

orange
03-21-2010, 02:58 PM
whatever. I'm crushed that you don't like me. :(

216 House + 59 Senate = 275

You have at least 275 checks to write - unless you're full of hot air. Better get busy.

What's that going to be, a dime apiece?

WoodDraw
03-21-2010, 03:00 PM
thank you for the clear answer. I admit I am bias about tort reform. My liability insurance keeps increasing every year. My D&O insurance increased 22% two years ago.

I think we'll see medical tort reform at some point, but I wouldn't hold my breath on D&O reform.

chris
03-21-2010, 03:04 PM
216 House + 59 Senate = 275

You have at least 275 checks to write - unless you're full of hot air. Better get busy.

What's that going to be, a dime apiece?

Read the edit above.

Thank you for the brief amusement. I have to get back to work to pay all these new taxes. :)

Have a fun weekend.

orange
03-21-2010, 03:08 PM
Read the edit above.


Well, then. Okay.



Have a fun weekend.

You too.