How Obama’s PelosiCare screws the American Citizen

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

www.seattlepi.com...

Big Government web site
biggovernment.com...
And FOX News video,
www.foxbusiness.com...

Pelosi placed a clause that penalizes, or actually makes states ineligible for incentive payments, if the state write a law for limiting attorneys fees.
Section 2531, page 1431-1433 of the bill, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
Wasn’t part of Obama’s campaign promises about limiting the power of the Trial lawyers? Is this another broken promise of the current administration? When are the sheeple going to stand up and voice their opposition to this obamanation?

reply to post by Violater1


It wasn't a promise. He said in his healthcare speech that he was open to tort reform if it was shown to be effective.

Tort reform isn't effective. The people that believe in it are either the big companies that push the lie or the ignorant that are in their pocket. It's sad that people think tort reform is a way to help the doctors when really it's a way to help insurance companies and harmful chemical, drug, and tobacco companies save money. That way when they kill, maim, or otherwise handicap a completely innocent person, they've put a cap on their pain or placed a company-friendly price on their life.

After all, that's what tort reform is, isn't it? Putting a price tag on a human life?

If you research the real cost of medical malpractice in the United States, the history of the "tort reform" movement, and who funds the people that push for tort reform, you'll realize that it's not anything near the silver bullet for reform, it doesn't really solve any problems, and it places the average citizen into more of an expendable category that has a very specific, very low, monetary value.

This is exactly why we should have done universal healthcare, with private supplemental.

Would have been simple

reply to post by Avenginggecko


Yea it has nothing to do with attorneys making money off malpractice. Considering how many attorneys enter politics It isn't just about big pharm. Lawyers make their bread and butter on those kind of suits. Now where did Obama get his start before politics.....

reply to post by Avenginggecko

Let's see something here. Let's say that I'm a test pilot for Boowing(purposely misspelled) here in California. I'm flying along doing my job and suddenly I get a flameout and I get injured during the crash. An investigation reveals that an mechanic didn't replace a missing bolt in the engine and it stopped the turbine from producing thrust. For my supposed injuries, let say I'm awarded $100,000,000.00 The attorneys could charge, 60% This would cause a dramatic effect on the company with a detrimental cascade of events, all the way down to the consumer. A real example would be spilled coffee from McDonald's. According to PelosiCare, if California passed a law limiting my award, as well as the attorneys collected fee's, they would not receive any incentive money. And everyone knows the United States needs more money earned in a legitimate way..

reply to post by Violater1


Except your situation is so rare and so unheard of that it is practically unheard of of happening. It's like mandating that the US land area be covered in rubber in case lightning strikes someone.

If you're worried about trial lawyers enriching themselves, why aren't you lobbying for a limit on attorney commission instead of limiting the value of human life?

And please, don't give me that utter bull about passing the cost down to the consumer. Have you researched the cost of medical malpractice?

Here are some facts:

Rising malpractice insurance is due to bad insurance company investments and NOT jury awards

Tort payouts have dropped 6.9% since 1992, but malpractice insurance keeps rising. Hmmm.

unitive damages are very rare, and when awarded they are small. Punitive damages are only awarded in 3.3% of the tort trials won by plaintiffs. According to the report, the median punitive damage award in 1996 was only $38,000, not the millions awarded in rare but highly publicized cases covered by the media. The likelihood of a punitive damage award varied with the kind of tort alleged. Of the cases studies, only 3 asbestos trials, or 3.2% of asbestos trials, resulted in a punitive damage award, and those plaintiffs received only $1,100 each in punitive damages. Only 3, or 1.1%, of the medical malpractice cases resulted in punitive damage awards. Of the products liability trials (excluding asbestos) studied, only 11, or 12.5%, resulted in punitive damage awards.

Source

Tort Reform didn't help Texas

There is a mountain of evidence that shows tort reform doesn't work. You're not going to magically stop anything or noticeably reduce any costs with tort reform.

So, obviously you're completely incorrect about Califronia passing tort reform and it fixing everything. We have tort reform in Texas, and it hasn't lowered the cost of malpractice insurance or reduced the rate of lawsuits. As one of my links showed, McAllen, Texas has the second highest cost of healthcare in the nation, behind only Miami.

I can keep going with the real facts of tort reform and what they do, but I think that's enough for the moment.

Don't be fooled by the insurance companies, big tobacco, and big pharma. Tort reform is a way for them to increase their ROI, remove their accountability, and place a price on human life and dignity.




[edit on 5-11-2009 by Avenginggecko]

This bill makes absolutely no sense, and in my opinion requires a good month to go over and at least 10 lawyers to explain what each part means under the law. The point I look at is the penaltities that are there for those who do not have insurance, and it makes no sense. It is a tax that is not considered at tax, but is to be collected by the IRS? This sounds like a good bit of double talk. From what I could make out, it tries to correct alot of the problems in the medical/healthcare issues, but it is so massive and confusing, who can tell? My view on this is the following: If you don't have health insurance, you can be taxed more and if you don't pay the penalty you get a felony for not being insured.

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

Let's see something here. Let's say that I'm a test pilot for Boowing(purposely misspelled) here in California. I'm flying along doing my job and suddenly I get a flameout and I get injured during the crash. An investigation reveals that an mechanic didn't replace a missing bolt in the engine and it stopped the turbine from producing thrust. For my supposed injuries, let say I'm awarded $100,000,000.00 The attorneys could charge, 60% This would cause a dramatic effect on the company with a detrimental cascade of events, all the way down to the consumer. A real example would be spilled coffee from McDonald's. According to PelosiCare, if California passed a law limiting my award, as well as the attorneys collected fee's, they would not receive any incentive money. And everyone knows the United States needs more money earned in a legitimate way..

Except that your hypothetical situation is factually impossible in almost every way.

First, attorneys may by law never charge a contingent fee more than 50%. A contingent fee by the way, is one in which the attorney pays for the entire cost of the litigation process, and then only gets paid a percentage of your recovery, if you win, ie in your proposed scenario, you would recover 100 million, which would be split 50 mil to you 50 to the attorney. It may not seem fair to someone unfamiliar with the process, but this system allows people who have been injured access to good attorneys that can afford to represent them. It's a matter of access to justice.

Second the only way you could recover that much money is if your injuries equaled that amount, or the company that built the plane knowingly allowed the plane to be built in such a way that they knew it would likely cause injury but did nothing to warn you. That's a case where a jury can award punitive damages.

Third, a cursory amount of research would show you that you have a broad misunderstanding of the McDonald's case you use in your example. See: www.caoc.com... In that case the woman had third degree burns all over her genitals, requiring extensive skin grafts. The coffee was served at temperatures far exceeding human consumption levels. McDonald's knew the danger this posed to its customers and chose to brew and serve coffee at those temperatures because they could get more out of less grounds when brewed that hot. They took a calculated risk that put their customers in harms way and a jury spanked them with punitive damages to teach the company a lesson. The judge then granted a remittitur and lowered the verdict to just over the woman's actual damages. However, the threat of getting another verdict like that taught McD's its lesson and now they do not brew or serve java lava. We are all safer because of these types of cases. Seat belts, cars that don't explode. are all thing we have because of trial attorneys.

Lastly, why on earth would you think the insurance companies should dictate what your damages are worth. The only people who should ever have that ability are sitting in the jury booth. Only a fool would allow the fox to guard the hen house in such a manner.

Please do some research and do not blindly believe everything your corporate overlords in the insurance companies tell you.

-Peace
AAH

edit for spelling and grammar

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

But the McDonalds coffee spill is not. Over 1 million payed out the first time here in California. She went back and did it spilled coffee on herself again and
sued. She won another million!

reply to post by Violater1
I put a link in my post, and will repeat it here: www.caoc.com... Which begs the question, where are you getting your "facts"?

As you'll see if you follow the link, the website is from a California Consumer Advocate group, but the famous McDonald's coffee case is actually from New Mexico, not California, and she has not sued again, at least not to my knowledge. If you could, please back up your statements with a link to verifiable facts. Otherwise, while I understand you likely sincerely believe what you are saying, I must respectfully,contend that you are unfortunately misinformed.

-Peace
AAH

edit to add the explanation regarding the website being from CA

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

Like most government shills, some posters attempt to distract, or intentionally divert attention away from the facts of the thread. I stand by my thread. There is no disputing of the facts.

reply to post by Violater1
So wait, let me see if I'm getting this straight, I'm a government shill because I respectfully disagree with your position and can back mine up with verifiable links and references?

You, on the other hand, choose to believe your position and argue in its defense based upon opinion. Oh yes, you can obviously use the word "fact." But your inability to supply any verification, and quickness to childishly call others names, easily belies your true intent: to state your opinion and angrily disagree with anyone who attempts to engage you in meaningful dialogue.

Yet you somehow label me as the one who is disputing facts.

Thus I conclude you are very silly person and are not to be taken seriously.

-Enjoy your ignorance.
AAH

Originally posted by Violater1
reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

 

Like most government shills, some posters attempt to distract, or intentionally divert attention away from the facts of the thread. I stand by my thread. There is no disputing of the facts.

Uh, what facts? Do you meant the responses Artephius and I crafted to your OP? I believe we effectively showed that tort reform is not a staple of "Obamacare" and it is not effective.

The entire premise of your OP was an attack on Pelosi and Obama for breaking a perceived promise and somehow, by inference, hurting the American people in the process.

We subsequently showed with facts and logic that tort reform is neither effective nor is it good for the American people, plus there's the little detail that Obama never promised tort reform and only said he would entertain it if it was effective...which it isn't.