Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers

boyntonstu · 31st October 2009, 05:57 AM

Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers
by Capitol Confidential

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, 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.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/...rs/#more-23042

Jut some usual Pelosi/Obama doubletalk!

Say “up”! Mean down.

Darth Rotor · 31st October 2009, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

Pelosi ... Blows ... Trial Lawyers

Would have been a better headline.

About as true, too.

DR

Puppycow · 31st October 2009, 08:19 AM

OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right.

The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough.

But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK?

For the left, the reverse: Limit CEO pay, but don't you dare limit attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages.

geni · 31st October 2009, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

Section 2531, 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.

Fairly sensible position. Gets the stuff out of courts without starting a fight with lawyers.

Suddenly · 31st October 2009, 09:31 AM

Caps on awards and caps on lawyer fees are in reality a method to keep those injured by medical malpractice from filing suit. Medical malpractice cases are extremely expensive to litigate, so roughly 100% of those suffering harm have to hire a lawyer on a contigency fee basis. Those lawyers are put in a position where they have to front all expenses of litigation, including retaining at least one medical expert on top of all of the depositions and other discovery, and if the case fails, they get nothing. Zero.

The market has generally fixed the fees for this as expenses + 33% of the award. Cap on rewards and fees basically forces the services to be offered under market rates.

It will keep lawyers from taking these cases, which admittedly will result in less malpractice awards, leading to (let me pause to laugh) lower insurance rates. Everyone wins except for the malpractice victim.

(Note the lack of "reforms" setting artificially low fee limitations on insurance company lawyers)

Caps on awards are also stupid in and of themselves seeing they by definition harm those hurt the worst by medical negligence.... but that is another issue.

That language is a good thing in that it only rewards real reform, not just carrying the water for the insurance companies. A no-fault system of medical malpractice litigation on a workers' comp model is overdue....

Bob Klase · 31st October 2009, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

It will keep lawyers from taking these cases, which admittedly will result in less malpractice awards, leading to (let me pause to laugh) lower insurance rates.

Did you mean to say "higher insurance profits?"?

Beerina · 31st October 2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by boyntonstu

Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers
by Capitol Confidential

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, 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.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/...rs/#more-23042

Jut some usual Pelosi/Obama doubletalk!

Say “up”! Mean down.

So you're saying the left wants to limit or cap the salaries of doctors, drug companies, medical device companies, and so on, but not the lawyers'?

Huh. Go figure.

Brainster · 31st October 2009, 11:46 AM

At least Howard Dean was (somewhat) honest about why they weren't taking on tort reform in this bill:

Originally Posted by Howard Dean

And the 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 in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth.

BTW, those groaning about health insurance profits should look at the CBO study which indicates that premiums for the public option will be more expensive than those found in the marketplace.

Quote:

The public insurance option would typically charge higher premiums than private plans available in the exchange, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House bill.

That surprising conclusion raises doubts about Democratic promises that a government-run insurance plan would provide a lower-cost alternative to consumers. At the same time, it calls into question Republican charges that the plan amounts to government takeover of health insurance -- because only 6 million people would enroll in the plan, according to the CBO.

WildCat · 31st October 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

Did you mean to say "higher insurance profits?"?

How so?

Peephole · 31st October 2009, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

BTW, those groaning about health insurance profits should look at the CBO study which indicates that premiums for the public option will be more expensive than those found in the marketplace.

This isn't connected to profits in the way that you think, this has to do with private insurers refusing expensive treatments for their customers and dumping the unhealthy, lowering their costs.

Skeptic · 31st October 2009, 12:29 PM

"Blows a kiss to nasty, greedy trial lawyers" sure sounds a lot better than "makes it harder for big hospitals to throw out those their medical malpractice hurt with the trash."

Rika · 31st October 2009, 02:05 PM

... See point elsewhere, etc.

(Also, bills are written in legalese for other reasons, reasons that are plainly obvious if you think about it.)

Bob Klase · 31st October 2009, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Klase
Did you mean to say "higher insurance profits?"?

How so?

If there are "less malpractice awards" then the insurance companies will pay out less money. They could either lower rates or keep that money for additional profit. Or do some of each. Given that insurance companies are for-profit organizations do you think it's likely that rates will be lowered by the full amount of money no longer paid out in malpractice awards?

Brainster · 31st October 2009, 03:30 PM

BTW, guess who's going to be determining whether states are in compliance with this part of the law? Heath and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Guess what position she had before she went into politics?

Quote:

Sebelius served as executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association (now Kansas Association for Justice) from 1977–1986.

GreNME · 31st October 2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

"Blows a kiss to nasty, greedy trial lawyers" sure sounds a lot better than "makes it harder for big hospitals to throw out those their medical malpractice hurt with the trash."

But, but... Free Market! Democracy!? Why do you hate America? Haven't you read the damned Constitution?

Ziggurat · 31st October 2009, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right.

The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough.

But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK?

From a market perspective, those are two very different issues. Fees are something a client agrees to. Damages are not, but are instead extracted by force from an unwilling party. So limiting damages is not a market interference in the same way that limiting fees, or salaries, is.

Skeptic · 31st October 2009, 05:08 PM

I don't see how "free market" makes it imperative for the government to determine how much damages people can demand. The court (or jury) doesn't have to agree with them, naturally.

mhaze · 31st October 2009, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right.

The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough.

But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK?

For the left, the reverse: Limit CEO pay, but don't you dare limit attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages.

Well, what is the goal? Is it to lower health care costs? If so, then malpractice insurance costs are a substantial driver for both doctors and hospitals. I don't think CEO costs are a substantial driver.

If the goal is to be fair to everyone, then note that CEO pay is limited by reality of the market, but malpractice awards are not.

The scheme is of course an effort to lower income to hospitals and doctors while leaving legal industry the same or higher.

Nothing complicated about the political origins of the scheme, and no reason to try to rationalize it on some basis of "fairness".

TShaitanaku · 31st October 2009, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Would have been a better headline.

About as true, too.

DR

Especially since

Quote:

"Trial Lawyers give Pelosi Face time for New Health Reform"

If we're speaking strictly about quid pro quo issues

TShaitanaku · 31st October 2009, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

At least Howard Dean was (somewhat) honest about why they weren't taking on tort reform in this bill:

Well, that, and the fact that tort reform has very little to actually do with either healthcare costs or insurance rates. Look at what has happened in the states that have instituted such reforms.

MikeMangum · 31st October 2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right.

The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough.

But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK?

For the left, the reverse: Limit CEO pay, but don't you dare limit attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages.

There's a very, very big difference between the two. One is an entirely voluntary payment of money from one person or group of people to another in exchange for services, the other is a lawyer using the power of the government to force you to pay money to someone else.

I would have thought it would have been difficult to conflate the two.

MikeMangum · 31st October 2009, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Suddenly

The market has generally fixed the fees for this as expenses + 33% of the award. Cap on rewards and fees basically forces the services to be offered under market rates.

There is alot less support for reducing lawyer fees (except in class action suits) than there is for reducing awards for "pain and suffering" and the like.

Quote:

It will keep lawyers from taking these cases, which admittedly will result in less malpractice awards, leading to (let me pause to laugh) lower insurance rates.

Yes, it will keep lawyers from taking some of these cases, specifically the ones with the least merit and the least chance of success.

That's the point.

lomiller · 31st October 2009, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So limiting damages is not a market interference in the same way that limiting fees, or salaries, is.

If you don’t have to pay the full cost of the damage your business does to someone else, then you don’t have a free marketplace to begin with.

For example lets I run a toxic waste disposal business. The way I dispose of my waste is to dump it into your yard. Since I am legally protected from paying damages, you can’t sue me for the cost of cleaning up your yard. For a small fee however, I’d be more then willing to dump the waste into someone else’s yard instead! Clearly, in such a system you get none of the benefits of a free marketplace.

Puppycow · 31st October 2009, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

There's a very, very big difference between the two. One is an entirely voluntary payment of money from one person or group of people to another in exchange for services, the other is a lawyer using the power of the government to force you to pay money to someone else.

I would have thought it would have been difficult to conflate the two.

A lawyer can't force anything that a judge and jury won't agree to.

TShaitanaku · 31st October 2009, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

Yes, it will keep lawyers from taking some of these cases, specifically the ones with the least merit and the least chance of success.

Unfortunately, "least chance of success" has little to do with "least merit." A case can have a small chance of success due to issues that little to do with the culpability or other merit issues of a case.

Dr Adequate · 31st October 2009, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right.

The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough.

But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK?

For the left, the reverse: Limit CEO pay, but don't you dare limit attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages.

I thought that these "efforts to limit CEO pay" applied only to companies that the government was bailing out. In which case I think it's fair: the government has a right to say: "We'll give you a zillion dollars so long as you use it to keep your employees in work rather than buy your CEO another private jet". The companies have no right to get the money with no strings attached --- because they have no right to get it at all.

Dr Adequate · 31st October 2009, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

There's a very, very big difference between the two. One is an entirely voluntary payment of money from one person or group of people to another in exchange for services, the other is a lawyer using the power of the ~~government~~ law to force you to pay money to someone else whom you have wronged.

Better.

Dr Adequate · 31st October 2009, 06:43 PM

By the way, can someone enlighten me ... a question that occurred to me the other week when I was reading a John Grisham novel.

It seem as though the phrase "trial lawyers" has the specific meaning of "lawyers whose legal practice consists mainly or exclusively of appearing in civil cases for the plaintiff". Why? There are plenty of other ways in which a lawyer can be involved in a trial. Why does "trial lawyer" have such a specific meaning?

lomiller · 31st October 2009, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I thought that these "efforts to limit CEO pay" applied only to companies that the government was bailing out. In which case I think it's fair: the government has a right to say: "We'll give you a zillion dollar so long as you use it to keep your employees in work rather than buy your CEO another private jet". The companies have no right to get the money with no strings attached --- because they have no right to get it at all.

It’s more like “we as an owner and largest shareholder of this business have a right to a say in how much will be paid to the person we hire to run the business.”

GreNME · 31st October 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I don't see how "free market" makes it imperative for the government to determine how much damages people can demand. The court (or jury) doesn't have to agree with them, naturally.

But you don't understand! If people with their lawsuits are allowed to reap huge judgments from doctors and hospitals due to sympathetic juries (OMG judicial activism!), then the Free Market is negatively affected by their librul claims of entitlement to health!

Keep in mind, Skeptic, that while I may be in parody mode here, the caricatured arguments I'm making are not all that far from the average core argument from the political right in the US on this issue.

Dr Adequate · 31st October 2009, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

The scheme is of course an effort to lower income to hospitals and doctors while leaving legal industry the same or higher.

The phrase "of course" is a great substitute for evidence. All the creationists I debate with swear by it.

Ziggurat · 31st October 2009, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

If you don’t have to pay the full cost of the damage your business does to someone else, then you don’t have a free marketplace to begin with.

The problem of externalities can be quite difficult, but it doesn't really apply here. The limitations on awards that are generally discussed in regards to tort reform are not for direct economic damages, but for more ephemeral things like punitive damages, emotional distress, etc.

Dr Adequate · 31st October 2009, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The problem of externalities can be quite difficult, but it doesn't really apply here. The limitations on awards that are generally discussed in regards to tort reform are not for direct economic damages, but for more ephemeral things like punitive damages, emotional distress, etc.

Then you should have been more precise. What you said was: "limiting damages is not a market interference".

P.S: I don't think you mean "ephemeral". The word means "of short duration; here today and gone tomorrow". I think you might mean "intangible" ... I'm not sure.

Ziggurat · 31st October 2009, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

P.S: I don't think you mean "ephemeral". The word means "of short duration; here today and gone tomorrow".

May the dictionary gods curble your miglets until your floon falls off.

GreNME · 31st October 2009, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I don't see how "free market" makes it imperative for the government to determine how much damages people can demand. The court (or jury) doesn't have to agree with them, naturally.

Explain that here.

MikeMangum · 31st October 2009, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Better.

Yeah, because every time someone is awarded a large settlement, it's obviously because they've been wronged. Right?

mhaze · 31st October 2009, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by MikeMangum

Yeah, because every time someone is awarded a large settlement, it's obviously because they've been wronged. Right?

Of course.

Now can we get the mods to correct the thread title to "Pelosi Blows Trial Lawyers"?

Meadmaker · 1st November 2009, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

By the way, can someone enlighten me ... a question that occurred to me the other week when I was reading a John Grisham novel.

It seem as though the phrase "trial lawyers" has the specific meaning of "lawyers whose legal practice consists mainly or exclusively of appearing in civil cases for the plaintiff". Why? There are plenty of other ways in which a lawyer can be involved in a trial. Why does "trial lawyer" have such a specific meaning?

Because until recently (some time in the '90s, I think) the lobbying group that primarily represented plaintiffs' laywers was knows as the "American Trial Lawyers' Association", and the term "trial lawyers" became associated with those lawyers represented by that organization. After polling data indicated that "trial lawyers" had a bad connotation, they changed their hame to "American Association for Justice".

(And I might have gotten the names slightly wrong, but the key part is that their name used to include the phrase "trial lawyers", and now it contains the word "justice")

Meadmaker · 1st November 2009, 12:22 AM

I used to be a big fan of damage caps, but then I payed some attention to a bill that was proposed to cap damages. One thing I noticed was that the damage cap was pretty darned high. It would have gotten rid of a few really high awards, but would have done very little in the overall picture, and I read some comment suggesting that the net effect might have even been to raise the total amount awarded. I can't remember the reason for that, but that is what they were saying.

The insurance companies were behind the bill, and I thought it odd they would be very concerned with a bill that had a fairly small effect in the grand scheme of things, and might actually make things worse. The bill in question, and I apologize for talking about a bill I can't remember much about, would have done pretty much nothing else to lower the burden of malpractice costs on doctors and/or their insurance companies. All it would have done was impose damage caps.

Then I got to thinking about the sort of bill I would want if I were an insurance company. I wouldn't want to lower the total amount of malpractice awards. The higher those go, the more I get paid in insurance premiums. Lots of malpractice awards is a very good thing if you are selling malpractice insurance. However, what you really hate if you are an insurance salesman is lots of large, unpredictable, awards. So, the damage cap does nothing to address the real problem, but it would really help the insurance agencies.

I'm still a fan of tort reform, in theory, and I would love to see anything that reduced the cost burden on doctors that arises from the need to have malpractice insurance. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line I realized that tort reform in theory would be different than in practice. In practice, it will likely be dominated by competing big money interests willing to ~~pay bribes~~ make campaign contributions to members of Congress.

leftysergeant · 1st November 2009, 12:59 AM

I had always assumed that the right "to petition government for redress of a grieveance" included asking the courts to make miscreants pay you for the harm they do you, or to make them stop doing things that are bad for other people.

By this standard, tort deform is a non-starter.

31st October 2009, 05:57 AM	#1
boyntonstu Suspended Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 352	Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers by Capitol Confidential The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill): Section 2531, 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. http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/...rs/#more-23042 Jut some usual Pelosi/Obama doubletalk! Say “up”! Mean down.

31st October 2009, 06:45 AM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,802	Originally Posted by boyntonstu Pelosi ... Blows ... Trial Lawyers Would have been a better headline. About as true, too. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

31st October 2009, 08:19 AM	#3
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right. The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough. But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK? For the left, the reverse: Limit CEO pay, but don't you dare limit attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

31st October 2009, 09:31 AM	#5
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montani Semper Liberi Posts: 1,894	Caps on awards and caps on lawyer fees are in reality a method to keep those injured by medical malpractice from filing suit. Medical malpractice cases are extremely expensive to litigate, so roughly 100% of those suffering harm have to hire a lawyer on a contigency fee basis. Those lawyers are put in a position where they have to front all expenses of litigation, including retaining at least one medical expert on top of all of the depositions and other discovery, and if the case fails, they get nothing. Zero. The market has generally fixed the fees for this as expenses + 33% of the award. Cap on rewards and fees basically forces the services to be offered under market rates. It will keep lawyers from taking these cases, which admittedly will result in less malpractice awards, leading to (let me pause to laugh) lower insurance rates. Everyone wins except for the malpractice victim. (Note the lack of "reforms" setting artificially low fee limitations on insurance company lawyers) Caps on awards are also stupid in and of themselves seeing they by definition harm those hurt the worst by medical negligence.... but that is another issue. That language is a good thing in that it only rewards real reform, not just carrying the water for the insurance companies. A no-fault system of medical malpractice litigation on a workers' comp model is overdue....
	__________________ "We've enough coal in this state to heat the world. We've enough oil in this state to lubricate the world. We've got enough brains in this state to run the world. Good Evening." - WVU Coach Bill Stewart

31st October 2009, 11:45 AM	#7
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 14,373	Originally Posted by boyntonstu Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers by Capitol Confidential The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill): Section 2531, 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. http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/30/...rs/#more-23042 Jut some usual Pelosi/Obama doubletalk! Say “up”! Mean down. So you're saying the left wants to limit or cap the salaries of doctors, drug companies, medical device companies, and so on, but not the lawyers'? Huh. Go figure.
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

31st October 2009, 08:36 AM	#4
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 20,278	Originally Posted by boyntonstu Section 2531, 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. Fairly sensible position. Gets the stuff out of courts without starting a fight with lawyers.

31st October 2009, 10:59 AM	#6
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,445	Originally Posted by Suddenly It will keep lawyers from taking these cases, which admittedly will result in less malpractice awards, leading to (let me pause to laugh) lower insurance rates. Did you mean to say "higher insurance profits?"?

31st October 2009, 11:46 AM	#8
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	At least Howard Dean was (somewhat) honest about why they weren't taking on tort reform in this bill: Originally Posted by Howard Dean And the 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 in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. BTW, those groaning about health insurance profits should look at the CBO study which indicates that premiums for the public option will be more expensive than those found in the marketplace. Quote: The public insurance option would typically charge higher premiums than private plans available in the exchange, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House bill. That surprising conclusion raises doubts about Democratic promises that a government-run insurance plan would provide a lower-cost alternative to consumers. At the same time, it calls into question Republican charges that the plan amounts to government takeover of health insurance -- because only 6 million people would enroll in the plan, according to the CBO.
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	__________________ 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog. Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

31st October 2009, 12:04 PM	#9
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,975	Originally Posted by Bob Klase Did you mean to say "higher insurance profits?"? How so?
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

31st October 2009, 12:21 PM	#10
Peephole Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,328	Originally Posted by Brainster BTW, those groaning about health insurance profits should look at the CBO study which indicates that premiums for the public option will be more expensive than those found in the marketplace. This isn't connected to profits in the way that you think, this has to do with private insurers refusing expensive treatments for their customers and dumping the unhealthy, lowering their costs.
	__________________ 911science The Field

31st October 2009, 12:29 PM	#11
Skeptic Sum, ergo cogito Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 13,322	"Blows a kiss to nasty, greedy trial lawyers" sure sounds a lot better than "makes it harder for big hospitals to throw out those their medical malpractice hurt with the trash."
	__________________ CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all terrible, all do the exact same thing: take news wire reports, add a bunch of unnecessary opinion, and then re-brand it as "infotainment" as if this were some sort of useful service. It is akin to paying me to read a newspaper to you, while interrupting frequently with my own opinion. -- Zaphod2016

31st October 2009, 02:05 PM	#12
Rika Guardian of the Setting Sun Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 3,257	... See point elsewhere, etc. (Also, bills are written in legalese for other reasons, reasons that are plainly obvious if you think about it.)
	__________________ Stop Sylvia Browne! rha ki ga gran wael wassa Rrha ki ra chs hymmnos mea Rrha ki ra enne sos yor Was yea ra chs hymmnos, la glasden yehah

31st October 2009, 03:21 PM	#13
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,445	Originally Posted by WildCat Quote: Originally Posted by Bob Klase Did you mean to say "higher insurance profits?"? How so? If there are "less malpractice awards" then the insurance companies will pay out less money. They could either lower rates or keep that money for additional profit. Or do some of each. Given that insurance companies are for-profit organizations do you think it's likely that rates will be lowered by the full amount of money no longer paid out in malpractice awards?

31st October 2009, 03:30 PM	#14
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	BTW, guess who's going to be determining whether states are in compliance with this part of the law? Heath and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Guess what position she had before she went into politics? Quote: Sebelius served as executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association (now Kansas Association for Justice) from 1977–1986.
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,062	__________________ 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog. Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

31st October 2009, 03:45 PM	#15
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by Skeptic "Blows a kiss to nasty, greedy trial lawyers" sure sounds a lot better than "makes it harder for big hospitals to throw out those their medical malpractice hurt with the trash." But, but... Free Market! Democracy!? Why do you hate America? Haven't you read the damned Constitution?
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

31st October 2009, 04:20 PM	#16
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 13,873	Originally Posted by Puppycow OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right. The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough. But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK? From a market perspective, those are two very different issues. Fees are something a client agrees to. Damages are not, but are instead extracted by force from an unwilling party. So limiting damages is not a market interference in the same way that limiting fees, or salaries, is.
	__________________ "There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it... We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world." - Walt Whitman, 1864

31st October 2009, 05:08 PM	#17
Skeptic Sum, ergo cogito Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 13,322	I don't see how "free market" makes it imperative for the government to determine how much damages people can demand. The court (or jury) doesn't have to agree with them, naturally.
	__________________ CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all terrible, all do the exact same thing: take news wire reports, add a bunch of unnecessary opinion, and then re-brand it as "infotainment" as if this were some sort of useful service. It is akin to paying me to read a newspaper to you, while interrupting frequently with my own opinion. -- Zaphod2016

31st October 2009, 05:41 PM	#18
mhaze Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 8,234	Originally Posted by Puppycow OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right. The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough. But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK? For the left, the reverse: Limit CEO pay, but don't you dare limit attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages. Well, what is the goal? Is it to lower health care costs? If so, then malpractice insurance costs are a substantial driver for both doctors and hospitals. I don't think CEO costs are a substantial driver. If the goal is to be fair to everyone, then note that CEO pay is limited by reality of the market, but malpractice awards are not. The scheme is of course an effort to lower income to hospitals and doctors while leaving legal industry the same or higher. Nothing complicated about the political origins of the scheme, and no reason to try to rationalize it on some basis of "fairness".
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

31st October 2009, 05:49 PM	#19
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Would have been a better headline. About as true, too. DR Especially since Quote: "Trial Lawyers give Pelosi Face time for New Health Reform" If we're speaking strictly about quid pro quo issues
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

31st October 2009, 05:53 PM	#20
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Brainster At least Howard Dean was (somewhat) honest about why they weren't taking on tort reform in this bill: Well, that, and the fact that tort reform has very little to actually do with either healthcare costs or insurance rates. Look at what has happened in the states that have instituted such reforms.
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

31st October 2009, 05:56 PM	#21
MikeMangum Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 612	Originally Posted by Puppycow OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right. The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough. But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK? For the left, the reverse: Limit CEO pay, but don't you dare limit attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages. There's a very, very big difference between the two. One is an entirely voluntary payment of money from one person or group of people to another in exchange for services, the other is a lawyer using the power of the government to force you to pay money to someone else. I would have thought it would have been difficult to conflate the two.
MikeMangum Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 612

31st October 2009, 06:01 PM	#22
MikeMangum Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 612	Originally Posted by Suddenly The market has generally fixed the fees for this as expenses + 33% of the award. Cap on rewards and fees basically forces the services to be offered under market rates. There is alot less support for reducing lawyer fees (except in class action suits) than there is for reducing awards for "pain and suffering" and the like. Quote: It will keep lawyers from taking these cases, which admittedly will result in less malpractice awards, leading to (let me pause to laugh) lower insurance rates. Yes, it will keep lawyers from taking some of these cases, specifically the ones with the least merit and the least chance of success. That's the point.
MikeMangum Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 612

31st October 2009, 06:11 PM	#23
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,342	Originally Posted by Ziggurat So limiting damages is not a market interference in the same way that limiting fees, or salaries, is. If you don’t have to pay the full cost of the damage your business does to someone else, then you don’t have a free marketplace to begin with. For example lets I run a toxic waste disposal business. The way I dispose of my waste is to dump it into your yard. Since I am legally protected from paying damages, you can’t sue me for the cost of cleaning up your yard. For a small fee however, I’d be more then willing to dump the waste into someone else’s yard instead! Clearly, in such a system you get none of the benefits of a free marketplace.
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,342	__________________ War, war never changes...

31st October 2009, 06:13 PM	#24
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by MikeMangum There's a very, very big difference between the two. One is an entirely voluntary payment of money from one person or group of people to another in exchange for services, the other is a lawyer using the power of the government to force you to pay money to someone else. I would have thought it would have been difficult to conflate the two. A lawyer can't force anything that a judge and jury won't agree to.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

31st October 2009, 06:22 PM	#25
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by MikeMangum Yes, it will keep lawyers from taking some of these cases, specifically the ones with the least merit and the least chance of success. Unfortunately, "least chance of success" has little to do with "least merit." A case can have a small chance of success due to issues that little to do with the culpability or other merit issues of a case.
TShaitanaku Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

31st October 2009, 06:35 PM	#26
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by Puppycow OK, here's a silly question. I think it sort of applies to both left and right. The right gets upset about government efforts to limit CEO pay. Fine, fair enough. But then a law that would "limit attorneys' fees" or "impose a cap on damages" is OK? For the left, the reverse: Limit CEO pay, but don't you dare limit attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages. I thought that these "efforts to limit CEO pay" applied only to companies that the government was bailing out. In which case I think it's fair: the government has a right to say: "We'll give you a zillion dollars so long as you use it to keep your employees in work rather than buy your CEO another private jet". The companies have no right to get the money with no strings attached --- because they have no right to get it at all.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 31st October 2009 at 07:36 PM.

31st October 2009, 06:37 PM	#27
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by MikeMangum There's a very, very big difference between the two. One is an entirely voluntary payment of money from one person or group of people to another in exchange for services, the other is a lawyer using the power of the ~~government~~ law to force you to pay money to someone else whom you have wronged. Better.

31st October 2009, 06:43 PM	#28
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	By the way, can someone enlighten me ... a question that occurred to me the other week when I was reading a John Grisham novel. It seem as though the phrase "trial lawyers" has the specific meaning of "lawyers whose legal practice consists mainly or exclusively of appearing in civil cases for the plaintiff". Why? There are plenty of other ways in which a lawyer can be involved in a trial. Why does "trial lawyer" have such a specific meaning?

31st October 2009, 06:43 PM	#29
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,342	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate I thought that these "efforts to limit CEO pay" applied only to companies that the government was bailing out. In which case I think it's fair: the government has a right to say: "We'll give you a zillion dollar so long as you use it to keep your employees in work rather than buy your CEO another private jet". The companies have no right to get the money with no strings attached --- because they have no right to get it at all. It’s more like “we as an owner and largest shareholder of this business have a right to a say in how much will be paid to the person we hire to run the business.”
lomiller Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,342	__________________ War, war never changes...

31st October 2009, 07:15 PM	#30
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by Skeptic I don't see how "free market" makes it imperative for the government to determine how much damages people can demand. The court (or jury) doesn't have to agree with them, naturally. But you don't understand! If people with their lawsuits are allowed to reap huge judgments from doctors and hospitals due to sympathetic juries (OMG judicial activism!), then the Free Market is negatively affected by their librul claims of entitlement to health! Keep in mind, Skeptic, that while I may be in parody mode here, the caricatured arguments I'm making are not all that far from the average core argument from the political right in the US on this issue.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

31st October 2009, 07:35 PM	#31
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by mhaze The scheme is of course an effort to lower income to hospitals and doctors while leaving legal industry the same or higher. The phrase "of course" is a great substitute for evidence. All the creationists I debate with swear by it.

31st October 2009, 07:38 PM	#32
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 13,873	Originally Posted by lomiller If you don’t have to pay the full cost of the damage your business does to someone else, then you don’t have a free marketplace to begin with. The problem of externalities can be quite difficult, but it doesn't really apply here. The limitations on awards that are generally discussed in regards to tort reform are not for direct economic damages, but for more ephemeral things like punitive damages, emotional distress, etc.
	__________________ "There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it... We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world." - Walt Whitman, 1864

31st October 2009, 07:43 PM	#33
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The problem of externalities can be quite difficult, but it doesn't really apply here. The limitations on awards that are generally discussed in regards to tort reform are not for direct economic damages, but for more ephemeral things like punitive damages, emotional distress, etc. Then you should have been more precise. What you said was: "limiting damages is not a market interference". P.S: I don't think you mean "ephemeral". The word means "of short duration; here today and gone tomorrow". I think you might mean "intangible" ... I'm not sure.

31st October 2009, 08:12 PM	#34
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 13,873	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate P.S: I don't think you mean "ephemeral". The word means "of short duration; here today and gone tomorrow". May the dictionary gods curble your miglets until your floon falls off.
	__________________ "There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it... We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world." - Walt Whitman, 1864

31st October 2009, 09:40 PM	#35
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 6,412	Originally Posted by Skeptic I don't see how "free market" makes it imperative for the government to determine how much damages people can demand. The court (or jury) doesn't have to agree with them, naturally. Explain that here.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}