It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Healthcare is a lie, no tort reform allowed

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:22 PM

Tort reform refers to proposed changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages. Tort is a system for compensating wrongs and harm done by one party to another's person, property or other protected interests (e.g. reputation, under libel and slander laws). Tort reform advocates focus on personal injury in particular. Accident compensation procedures, compensation, and reform proposals vary greatly among jurisdictions, with a general upwards trend in compensation.[1]

From Wiki.

If there were to be honest change from this or any other administration, then tort reform would have been on top of the list. Cost, cost, cost is the major impetus for this "change" but no one is really looking into what drives that cost.

You want to explain why the lawyers pay so damn much for politicians? (see image)

To silence the ONE THING that would lower cost.

You want a conspiracy? I'll give you one, lawyers are running the damn show and laughing all the way to the bank. They laugh at the liberals, they laugh at the republicans, they laugh at democrats, conservatives, anarchists, it's all a big joke to them.

I want to vote out anyone that doesn't agree to tort reform.

They, and Obama, will ruin this country.

Again, please move this, MOD's if it's in the wrong place. Any mistakes are mine and mine alone, but if anyone disagrees with me then you all are mean people who kick kittens and cut in front of old people at banks.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by mikerussellus]

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

Hey, good post as always(we think alike).I was thinking and I could be way off but when the gov.takes over healthcare ,how can any one sue?you can't sue the gov. without the gov.'s permission.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

The trial lawyers paid off $$$ Obama and took tort reform off the
table. The white house cut deals with almost all the special interests
groups and ignored the general public. Bad idea.
The ObamaCare single payer disaster is history.
Hopefully, we will just get a bunch of watered down nothing.
Now we need Sarah Palin to attack Cap and Con.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:56 PM
The question I have is if malpractice lawsuits as serious as some people claim. IMO, insurance companies make it out to be a huge problem to justify the high premiums they charge doctors.

Overall, malpractice insurance and claims account for, at most, 2% of US health care spending, according to the US General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

According to the USA Today article, the cuprit of soaring malpractice premiums is the downturn in the stock market which reduced insurance company reserves and investment income. To illustrate this point, the USA Today article cites the experience of The St. Paul Companies, one of the nation's largest writers of medical malpractice insurance, who stopped writing such insurance because of investment losses, including $70 million in Enron alone.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:59 PM
That was the first of three questions I posed to Obama in my e-mail to him. If they (Obama and company) want true reform, tort reform is the place to start. True reform won't take place until the lawyers are taken out of the equation.

Another factor in true reform is finding some way to lower the cost of pharmaceuticals. I pay (with insurance) $60 for a 30 day supply of medication every month. That's $2 a pill!

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by genius/idoit

My thanks, sir. Ad to answer your point, we won't be able to sue the government.

And that brings an interesting point. If the docs all work for the government then what will they do in terms of malpractice insurance, and what will the lawyers do then?

I know that the bill (HR3200) calls for caps in what doctors would make, but no mention of insurance and/or liability issues.

Would this mean that they can't control what they can charge, yet they can get sued for any amount?

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by jam321

Wouldn't tort reform then negate that issue entirely? Without that issue, insurance companies would have no other choice BUT to lower their rates.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by soldiermom

I'm glad to see that great minds do think alike. Legal reform (hardly ever talked about) would do a great deal in relieving us the burden of additional cost.

But with lawyers outnumbering humans in DC, seeing this passed would be a longer shot than Bigfoot and Elvis doing a reunion tour at Area 51.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by Eurisko2012

To the tune of 43 million dollars. They got a great deal, if you look at the billions being made off lawsuits. Edwards made 173 million off lawsuits from docs and hospitals concerning MS and how it might be exacerbated during birth.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

It is a longshot. I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I'm not holding my breath.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:43 PM
To the good folks out there, I wanted to post this thread to shine the light (as it were) on something no one wants to talk about.

Tort reform is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. We know it's there but are too afraid to take any action. The mere threat of lawsuits seem to scare more people than swine flu and alien abductions combined.

To me, it appears that lawyers and lawmakers use the legal system as a big club to beat down anyone who may say something they don't like. Talk about our 1st ammendment rights? They have been gone for decades as the lawyers have now ruled in how we speak and what our words are supposed to mean.

Clinton, as a lawyer, redefined what "is" means.
The current bill redefines healthcare, and patient treatment.

In the military, when we "borrowed" something from another unit, it wasn't stealing, it was a "re-allocation of pre-existing resources".

Words by themselves are meaningless. But when we give them power, and those that then control that power use it poorly, we get ONLY those that have redefined these words running the show.

I don't mean to go off on a rant, but this healthcare bill, just isn't.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by jam321

The question I have is if malpractice lawsuits as serious as some people claim. IMO, insurance companies make it out to be a huge problem to justify the high premiums they charge doctors.

Overall, malpractice insurance and claims account for, at most, 2% of US health care spending, according to the US General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The Doctors seem to think malpractice insurance is a big problem. I found a site where Doctors were talking among themselves. What they had to say was interesting.

Hey marcus, how about states where malpractice insurance costs are too high for doctors to be an OBGYN… at least Texas has passed tort reform, allowing those costs to be more reasonable… phreshone on April 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Friends in Florida or New York practicing *gasp* when I tell them what my yearly malpractice premium is. Also why if you are pregnant in Las Vegas you’re more likely to find a cabbie willing to deliver your baby. Marcus on April 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Marcus… doesn’t Pennsylvania have the worst problem with the cost of OBGYN premiums, and a total lack of doctors willing to deliver… Texas tort reform was only recently passed, I should have known that it will probably take several years for the insurance companies to see a level of savings to pass along as a reduction in premiums… My belief for a long time is that the biggest problem with medical delivery is the lawyers… do premiums essential double or triple the cost of your personal time to make a rational cash return on you efforts?? phreshone on April 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM

....Ever wonder why your Gyn doc is now offering Botox and specialty care “spa” services in his/her office? It’s because the reimbursement for care has gotten so abysmally bad that just practicing medicine, including surgery, is not profitable anymore. I know two Ob/Gyn docs who have closed practice and are now hospitalists in L&D because they now make approx 30% more as hospital employees than they could in private practice.

The ridiculously low reimbursement for Medicaid pts. is just part of the reason they have trouble findings docs who accept it. These patients have a larger percentage of high-risk pregnancies with drug-use, PIH, long histories of STDs/PID, gestational diabetes, poor nutrition, etc. What incentive does an MD have to take even less money than usual to treat a pt that requires more intensive care with a possibly poor outcome that may lead to a lawsuit? ...

My premium per year is 23,000 post reform. [texas tort reform]

In Pennsylvania I’g guess they are charged over 100,000.
;-P Marcus on April 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM

I thought a couple of years ago, the premiums were closer to 200k in penn… phreshone on April 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM

For those who forget Doctors are people too and They can decide WHERE or WHETHER or NOT TO PRACTICE!

We have only begun to see the exodus of doctors from Medicare. The feds have instituted a program called RAC, or Recovery Audit Contractor. These are basically bounty hunters paid a percentage to come in a recover what they feel are overpayments to providers. In the pilot program in Florida, providers were hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in presumed overpayments. There is little option for appeal. Those hit with a windfall bill will never again see another Medicare patient. There will be an army of Dr. John Galts in the near future.

I just love the theoretical world of the left. They honestly believe hard working people are just going to suck up and accept their fate as servants of the federal government. Boy are they in for a surprise. BardMan on April 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM


National Health care can be mandated by law but if the doctor's decide they rather flip burgers for a living because they can earn more that way, we are in deep DooDoo. I for one do not want a doctor practicing medicine on me who is in a blind rage because the US government made him a slave, do you?

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:31 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

This is what I'm saying!!!

Nice addition.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

I am not arguing that malpractice insurance is not a problem for doctors. I am saying that insurance companies are ripping the doctors off by charging high premiums.

In 2007 there were about 12,000 malpractice claims paid out for a total of about 4 Billion.

Here's the data broken down by State.

I just feel that the premiums insurance companies get far exceed the amount they pay out. Especially when you considered that these premiums are further invested and making more income for the insurance company.

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 10:40 PM
Liability is NOT causing increase in costs.

This lie is being spread by the AMA.

When doctors make a mistake and injure a person - someone is going to have to pay for their mistake.

For example if a OB causes a child to become brain damaged - someone is going to have to pay for the care. Either the State, the parents, insurance or the doctors.

The AMA is also making it seem like doctors are getting sued for every little mistake.


The insurance companies make it so expensive to sue a doctor, almost no lawyers will sue unless there is a permanent injury or death.

This is a very personal issue for me. My mother's doctors made a HUGE blatant error - very obvious and easy to prove. She had to undergo two major surgeries and was in the hospital for four months. No lawyer would take the case since her injury was not permanent. It seems like her case would only be worth a few hundred thousand. This wasn't going to be enough to cover the costs. If they cap the cost to recover - no doctor could ever be sued.

top topics


log in