STOP lawyer bashing. "Junk" lawsuits are NOT driving up healthcare costs.

[UdoKier]

http://starbulletin.com/98/02/23/editorial/special2.html

This story is a bit old, but it shows how at the time, malpractice premiums only accounted for 1% of overall healthcare spending. If you have any morre recent data, please post it!

Lawsuits are the only way individual citizens can get redress when abused by doctors, or by corporations, who otherwise have nearly unlimited power to do as they please.

I'm sick of lawyer-bashing!!!!

[TheSuaveOne]

1. I'm...

...sick of lawyers taking these stupid cases...common sense people, common sense...la

[madmax]

3. Everybody hates lawyers

Until they NEED one.

[TheSuaveOne]

6. And I will still hate them...

...after I need one. I'll just call them a necessary evil...la

[Yupster]

123. If you're getting divorced

You probably hate him even though you need him.

[calico1]

4. I agree.

The solution is not a cap. Many lawsuits are more than justified. The solution is throwing frivolous suits out to begin with. By putting a cap on settlements the wrong people are being penalized.

[sangh0]

7. Frivolous lawsuits DO get thrown out to begin with

.

[TheSuaveOne]

10. Yeah...

...like the McDonalds lawsuit...sure the woman didn't know that her coffee might be hot enough to burn her. Sure I agree that many cases are warranted, but there are far too many that should never get to trial...la

[K-W]

13. Lets use some common sense

and realize that it is far more likely that you dont understand the details of the case, than it is that lawyers, judges, and a jury were all acting like idiots.

[sangh0]

14. HaHa!

You must know a lot about the subject because you picked the ONE case that Freepers know about

[Bozita]

15. Perhaps you'd like to tell us where the lines should be drawn

[TheSuaveOne]

18. On a case...

...by case basis...la

[sangh0]

21. Can I make a prediction (see below)

or can I make a prediction

I bet s/he does the same when I ask "And what's standard do you use to make these case by case decisions?"

And what's standard do you use to make these case by case decisions?

[sangh0]

19. I'm sure he does, but I bet

it's nothing that can be codified in law.

[Yupster]

124. I'd like to see fewer

class action lawsuits.

I've been in three now, and in my opinion, all three were nonsensical, and the only ones that made any money were the lawyers.

[Sandpiper]

20. Yeah, she deserved those third degree burns on her genitals

After McDonalds continued to serve their coffee 20 degrees hotter than all of their competitors, and had over 700 complaints about coffee burns, and had settled $500,000 in past lawsuits for burns.


Please learn the facts before spouting off.

[TheSuaveOne]

23. If she...

...spilled it on herself, you bet she did...la

[sangh0]

25. And what's standard do you use to make these case by case decisions?

You said you would make these decisions on acase by case basis. Care to tell us what standard you would use to make these case by case decisions?

[TheSuaveOne]

30. Nope...

I sure can't. But the attorneys who represent these cases should be able to, and if these cases are found to be frivolous, then the attorney and the person submitting the case will be responsible for the people's time...la

[sangh0]

37. You can't but you're sure someone else can

According to lawyers and the judge, the McDonald's case was not frivolous.

But you know better than the lawyers.

But you still think the lawyers know better.

For your next act, can you explain why we invaded Iraq?

[sangh0]

52. And just as I predicted, you wimped on the question

and didn't explain how to identify frivouls cases. I bet you don't even know what the phrase means.

[TheSuaveOne]

Thank you...

...for the personal attack...la

[sangh0]

72. Can't answer the question, huh?

And what's standard do you use to make these case by case decisions?

[TheSuaveOne]

82. More like...

...been there done that...but thanks for playing, please try again...la

[sangh0]

86. Still can't answer the question?

But that won't stop you from claiming "done that".

[chiburb]

102. Methinks someone has made a bet...

That he can get over a certain # of posts before receiving last rites. I won't name names of course, but I suspect you know what I mean...

[TheSuaveOne]

103. Sorry...

...wrong answer...plese try again...la

[chiburb]

105. Enjoy your stay...

What time is study hall over?

[TheSuaveOne]

106. That was rather rude...

...thanks so much...la

[sangh0]

108. Still can't answer the question?

or just hoping we'd forget?

[chiburb]

110. Another clue...

"plese" try again...

[Sandpiper]

28. McFacts about the lawsuit

You obviously are completely ignorant about products liability law, so to help you out, here's why McDonalds got burned in court:


McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

[TheSuaveOne]

33. That's fine and dandy...

...I still feel the case is frivilous. McDonald's was not responsible for the woman spilling it on herself...la

[K-W]

39. Well, you are plain wrong.

McDonals was not responsible for the woman spilling anything. They were responsible for the temperature of the cofee.

I think you are trying not to understand this.

[sangh0]

42. Translation: Facts don't count

What counts is "He knows it's wrong and the evil must be defeated"

[Sandpiper]

46. McDonald's was responsible for knowingly and wilfully serving coffee

That was hot enough to cause third degree burns.

[sangh0]

49. TSO doesn't care about the law or the facts

So why argue the law and the facts?

[Sandpiper]

57. You're right

It's funny how the most ignorant people are always so sure that they know "a better way."

[sangh0]

63. Sound like anyone you know?

From politics, maybe?

[TheSuaveOne]

70. You too...

...thanks for the personal attack. Sure attack my ideas, but don't come after me personally...la

[sangh0]

74. Please let me know when you have an idea

and then I'll comment on them. Until then, why don't you explain how to identify a frivolous case?

[Sandpiper]

87. And then after that

Explain how he would change the current mechanisms within the rules of civil procedure for ejecting frivolous suits.

[RapidCreek]

127. What personal attack?

You made a statement and have nothing to back it up. Thus it is a frivolous statement. Being such a vocal opponent of frivolity it seems you'd avoid it yourself.

Judge not, unless you are prepared to be judged by your own damn standards....and when you are don't cry and whine about it.

RC

[fob]

85. Why do you hate America?

You don't trust 12 of your fellow Americans to hear the case and determine the facts?

Why do you hate your fellow Americans?

[UdoKier]

117. Don't you know, they let coloreds on juries.

It's like turning our whole healthcare system over to a bunch of OJ Simpson lovers!


ACCCCKKK!


;)

[JohnnyRingo]

132. She ...didn't...spill..the coffee..on ....herself......

but you knew that...right?

[JohnnyRingo]

29. You seem to know VERY little about the case

I suggest you use Google before you continue to make a fool of yourself on this issue.

Would YOU sue over injuries requiring skin grafts?
How about if the company told you to fuck yourself when you asked your med bills be paid?

[TheSuaveOne]

36. Sorry...

I wouldn't...I keep myself and my family insured, and have to pay a pretty penny for that premium every month. Why is it that high, I go back to the frivilous lawsuits...la

[K-W]

45. Fine, if faith based economic policy is your cup of tea.

Some of us actually prefer to look at the facts and find out what is actually causing high premiums, rather than finding a convienent scapegoat and closing our minds.

[TheSuaveOne]

51. How...

...hot is that cup of tea...better warn me if it's too hot...la

[sangh0]

56. Why? You'll just ignore the facts

the way you've done throughout DU

[K-W]

73. I'll try and make this simple for you.

What if I served you a cup of tea containing bright red, permanant fabric dye.

You put it on your desk, you get out of your chair and accidentally knock the tea all over yourself ruining your clothes permanantly.

Obviously it is 100% your fault that you spilled the drink. But it is also 100% my fault that the drink had dye in it.

Using your logic, you would be 100% liable for the damage done to your clothes. This is of course absurd, I was 100% responsible for putting the dye in the drink, I should, legally and ethically, be held completely respondsible for covering the damages to your clothing. It was the red dye that caused the damage more than it was spilling some tea (a common incident among humans).

Now the cofee is the exact same thing. Yes the woman is 100% responsible for spilling, but the spill wasnt the problem, it was that the cofee was irresponsibly hot, and since the company was aware they were serving irresponsibly hot cofee, and had done nothing to fix the problem, they were held liable to the damage thier actions had a large part in causing.

[SidDithers]

114. Now, now...

You'll just confuse him/her with logic.

You've made it very clear for the rest of us, who chose to listen. Good analogy.

Sid

[KitSileya]

131. And it wasn't as if they didn't know

that there was "red dye in the tea." They'd had many complaints about it before.

If this had been the first time anyone got injured by the hot coffee, McDonalds might have been able to argue that they wasn't aware of the injury potential. However, I would still have held them at least partially responsible for the woman's medical bills. But they'd had 700 complaints before, and they'd settled previous complaints - hence, their fault.

KitSileya

[sangh0]

47. Self-employed?

Otherwise, your employer should be paying for it, and your insurance won't pay for the job you lost due to your injuries.

[TheSuaveOne]

59. That is...

why, I keep at least 6 months pay in the bank. For just those types of emergencies...la

[sangh0]

64. And when you're injured

who will pay your salary?

[JohnnyRingo]

79. Good one....You would wipe out your life savings to avoid a lawsuit

where someone else was negligent.

Are you related to Mother Theresa?

[GOPisEvil]

88. If the lawsuit was "frivoulous", the plaintiff wouldn't have won.

Obviously a jury of her peers felt the case had some merit. I bet McDonald's is more responsive to complaints of this nature today. It was their lack of responsiveness in dealing with this issue that led to them being found negligent.

Class-action lawsuits are one way that citizens can exercise control over corporations.

[DBtv]

92. I call bullshit on that one.

Give me a freaking break.

[JohnnyRingo]

107. Here's an example...

If personal injury suits are capped at $250,000, and GM lets a defect go by that may injure or kill 100 people, but the cost of recall is $5 mil, they will likely accept the human loss (and suits) as the cost of doing buisness and forgo the recall.

It's ok as long as it isn't a loved one of yours (or mine).

[UdoKier]

118. Wow. That's impressive.

I wonder what percentage of Americans can afford to sock away 6 months pay in case of emergencies...

15% maybe?

It's nice to know that people as wealthy as yourself care enough about the working folks and come to DU and vote democratic. I applaud you, wealthy man!

[JohnnyRingo]

67. The fact that you think she spilled the coffee on herself shows your

ignorance of the case.

If you become injured by a defective product, it would be unbelievable to "turn the other cheek" to avoid monetary damage to the "poor" company.

I don't think your insurance company would take care of you for an "accident" without seeking compensation from the negligent party, anyway. Would they?
So you wouldn't sue for damages...but your insurance company can?

[DBtv]

91. Bullshit.

It's high because the insurnace companines don't think they should have to pay ANY claims. They raise the rates far beyond any demonstrable need and push the bullshit meme that frivilous lawsuits force them to do it, a claim unsupportable by statistics.

Why are you defending the immoral profiteering of cash bloated "insurance" companies and against the rights of The People to redress against dalmaging corporate malfeasance?

[RapidCreek]

128. It's high because you'll pay it.

It's high because your insurance provider is attempting to recoup losses incurred due to failed investments. It's high because insurance companies are not regulated by usury law.

I find it interesting that you don't complain about frivolous insurance premiums but instead seek to limit your own remedies.

In my neck of the woods, that's called being a sucker....and god knows there's one born every minute...then again so do insurance companies and the Rethuglican mouth pieces they employ.

RC

[K-W]

38. Thats idiocy.

A restaurant serves a beverage that is rediculously hot. So hot that anyone consuming it or spilling it is in danger of being hurt severely. They clearly know the problem exists, yet they have done nothing to solve it.

And you are arguing the restaurant does not deserve to be held accountable at all and has no responsibility when someone spills this beverage? Thats insanity. The woman didnt bathe in the cofee, she spilt it, like every human being on the planet has done to themselves at one point or another.

The case obviously had merit. Lawyers, judges, and a jury who all knew WAY more about the case than you do all thought it had merit. Who on earth do you think you are to get a news blurb understanding of a case and determine an entire host of people incompetent because to you it seems silly?

[TheSuaveOne]

48. Sounds...

...like you are defending your profession...la

[K-W]

55. Maybe you should stop making rediculous assumptions.

And perhaps I should stop taking you seriously.

[sangh0]

58. Sounds like your defending Bush*

.

[TheSuaveOne]

60. Not at all...

...I am trying to be able to afford insurance. Personally, I think the medical and legal sides are both to blame, but since the thread was about lawsuits, I chimed in on my opinions on them...la

[sangh0]

66. So why do you defend Bush*?

Bush* dossn't like lawyers either, unless they're his.

[sangh0]

68. BTW, are you ever going to answer the question you were asked above?

Or are you going to ignore it and hope no one noticed you can't answer a simple question?

And what's standard do you use to make these case by case decisions about frivolous lawsuits?

[TheSuaveOne]

77. Probably not

...la

[sangh0]

80. Why not?

.

[JohnnyRingo]

84. I think we already know

Have we had enough fun with this one yet?

[sangh0]

93. And now it has disappeared from the thread

Coincidence?

[TheSuaveOne]

97. *poof*

...la

[sangh0]

99. Still no answer?

Your profile makes you sound like a real debater on the Internet.

What happened?

[TheSuaveOne]

101. I have no problem...

...backing down, when I don't have all the evidence, just doing a little research. Thanks for caring enough to do a background check on me though...la

[sangh0]

109. Still can't answer the question?

WHy don't you just lie about it, the way you claimed earlier that you HAD already answered the question?

[chiburb]

113. Just waiting for the afternoon fax...

Before he responds with his preznit's talking points...

[SidDithers]

116. buh bye.

Sid

[sangh0]

120. Damn!!! Now I'll never get his answer to the question

:-)

[newportdadde]

31. McDonalds coffee lady..

Please educate yourself.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[Dookus]

40. you should learn more about that lawsuit

McDonalds had paid MANY settlements for similar cases. Their coffee was kept MUCH hotter than the industry standard, and much hotter than safety and common sense would dictate.

The woman was very seriously burned. Very seriously.

McDonald's final "fine" amounted to the revenue they make in coffee sales in two days. It was a perfectly valid suit, McDonalds was clearly in the wrong, and justice prevailed.

[Sandpiper]

90. Not to mention

The final award was reduced on appeal to $480,000. But the corporate media never bothered to mention that fact.

[RhodaGrits]

41. that was not a frivolous lawsuit. n/t

[UdoKier]

53. Yeah . Those genital skin grafts are no sweat!

The fact is that woman's injuries were severe.

The argument over whether MccDonalds is responsible or not is a bit iffy, but her damages were considerable, and the settlement was eventually reduced substantially. That case is NOT the norm, and McDonald's can certainly afford it.

[Bozita]

26. Bill O'Really v. Al Franken -- totally without merit

Case lasted only long enough for the judge to stop laughing.

[K-W]

11. That already happens, stop believing rumors and misinformation

on this issue.

[Sandpiper]

12. No doubt

Putting caps on damages awards penalizes the injured and protects the wrong doer.

Back asswards justice.

[jdj]

125. capped states have higher premiums

capped states have bigger increases.

[K-W]

9. I'm sick of people believing the frivolous lawsuit meme and acting

as if they understand the legal system better than lawyers.

The fact of the matter is that you hear about frivolous lawsuits a huge amount in comparison to how much of a problem they actually are. In addition alot of lawsuits that are publically considered frivolous turn out to, when you actually know the details, to be perfectly reasonable.

Why dont you realize that for several reasons you have a completely warped sense of the scope and effect of the the problem of frivolous lawsuits. Why dont you use your common sense and realize that what seems like common sense with the information you have might not seem so obvious to someone who has the actual details of a case and knows the actual laws.

[UdoKier]

44. Judges almost always dismiss stupid cases. The propaganda's gotten to you.

nt

[Blind Tiresias]

126. You're missing the point

Its not necessarily that health care costs are being driven up by frivilous law suits, its that the increase in malpractice insurance makes it extremely difficult for physicians in certain fields to maintain a practice at a decent salary. I agree that we need a civil justice system for serious cases of malpractice, but the fact is that frivilous cases cost money to be heard and deemed frivilous, and that drives up the price for insurance companies to pay to protect doctors.

I can tell you that if im an ob/gyn that makes a good salary (150K), but I live in a state like Mississippi where malpractice costs upwards of 120K (im not making this figure up, i am in med school in Memphis), then there is NO WAY IN HELL I would practice there. If you want doctors to practice in your state, then you better find a better way to handle lawsuits. As I see it, malpractice caps do not solve the problem b/c they dont stop frivilous suits. The problem is that the only 2 professions that regulate health care malpractice are doctors (who shouldnt regulate themselves) and trial lawyers (who can make bank taking any case, frivilous or not).

I would propose a state-level govt agency that serves as a 'better business beaureau' that uses patient input to sanction doctors and decide which grievances can be heard by a court. Obviously this needs some fine tuning, but it can be cheaper than going to court and paying out for lawyers.

[ComerPerro]

2. Great post

I get so sick of Bush's "plan" for health care. Its just such a load of bullshit. And people believe it.

[barb162]

5. trial lawyers are our best hope for justice

other than the ballot box. Calls for tort reform are a GOP tactic to take away more rights of the average citizen and to keep more money in the hands of the rich and corporations. I also am sick of lawyer bashing and I am not a lawyer.

[Nordic]

8. Bush is such an asshole, cloaking corporate give-a-ways like this

All Bush cares about is giving more breaks to corporations so they can screw us.

And then he LIES about it and tells us it's for our own good.

I am so sick of this piece of shit masquerading as a human

[tandot]

16. Lawsuits are to blame for everything that Bush has failed in:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=1&u=/ap/20040907/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

Bush Blames 'Junk Lawsuits' for Job Woes

<snip>
Bush, linking Kerry policies to campaign donations from trial attorneys, said "junk lawsuits" hinder job creation and cost the economy more than $230 billion a year.
<snip>

This way, Bush doesn't have to take any responsibility for anything that goes wrong. It is either Clinton's fault or the fault of "nasty" lawyers like Kerry :crazy:

[UdoKier]

62. What job woes?

Last week Bush was sying the job market's hunky-dory!

Bush flip-flops again!

[Scairp]

17. I am so glad to see someone else say this

It really pisses me off that lawyers are blamed for what ails our health care system. Doctors do commit malpractice, and when they do, they should be held accountable. Juries decide the amount awarded to a plaintiff, and they keep the system honest. If you restrict the amount someone can receive due to malpractice, you undermine the legal system and give potentially bad doctors protection from the consequences of their bad acts.

[Qutzupalotl]

22. They say junk lawsuits drive up malpractice insurance for Drs.

Malpractice insurance companies could easily solve this problem if they would adopt a system similar to the one used in auto insurance: better doctors get a discount, while doctors with claims against them pay more. This would drive the more dangerous doctors away from practicing.

[SarahB]

32. I agree.

Furthermore, why don't physicians begin to "police" themselves (for lack of a better term). If I am correct, I believe about 5% of physicians account for more than 90% of the lawsuits. If the various boards took action with their own members, they could take care of things themselves. Why should potential victims of malpractice have to suffer further without adequate protection because physicians choose not to adequate discipline their own and for the profit margins of insurance companies which gouge the prices for the physicians?

[MadHound]

50. Trouble is, it is the insurance companies themselves that are the problem

Not malpractice lawyers, or the suits that they bring.

First off, the number of malpractice lawsuits are down across the country, second, the amount awarded in malpractice lawsuits is also down. However, two things are happening in the insurance industry that is having a radical effect on the prices paid for all types of insurance. The first is that insurance companies make the bulk of their money from the investments they make. Starting about four years ago, and ever since, insurance companies have been losing their ass in the markets, thus you and I and everybody else who is insured get to pay for the insurance industry's crappy investment planning. Second, there have been an increasing number of claims due to major disasters in the past fifteen years. So we are getting to pay for that also. Insurance companies, along with the AMA, is using all of this as an excuse to go after malpractice lawyers, and pump up "tort reform", in order that they can make even more obscene profits. Trouble is, even if tort reform is passed, premiums won't go down, because lawsuits didn't drive them up in the first place.

This is just a shell game being played in order to please a few at the expense of the rest of us.

[JohnnyRingo]

24. Here in Ohio, one of three states with enacted med tort reform...

...We have seen NO decrease in Medical malpractice insurance costs...NONE.

Only an increase in insurance profits.
Doctors are still quitting their practice to go sell vacuum cleaners. (yeah right)

[Justitia]

69. Ditto here in Texas

actually an INCREASE in malpractice premiums after Prop 13 passed.
Idiots.
Now the cap begins to apply to 3rd party civil cases as well.

[Skidmore]

27. Actually, I'm sick of lawyers,

doctors, insurance agents, financial managers, and all professions who somehow seem to think that they are so indispensible that they need to make exhorbitant profits off of their services. I'm hoping they all price themselves out of business. You can't squeeze blood from at turnip and right now most of us live in a turnip patch that is bearing nicely.

[Sandpiper]

34. Most doctors and lawyers

By the time they start practicing their profession, have spent $100,000-$200,000 in education and training.

In light of this, what exactly do you consider to be an exhorbitant fee?

[TheSuaveOne]

43. So...

now fees are based on the price of education? Why then are teachers paid so little?

[Sandpiper]

54. Because they are State employees that work for a fixed salary

Attorneys who work for government agencies make far less than those who work in the private sector.

[TheSuaveOne]

65. Maybe they shouldn't be...

...maybe they should work as private instructors, and charge those damned medical and legal student the same type of rates they will be charged later in life...la

[wuushew]

71. Are you trying to disrupt?

Your profile lists your hobby as internet forum dueling

[sangh0]

75. Yes, and remember

the Search feature is your friend

[TheSuaveOne]

76. Not at all...

but are we not allowed to discuss our opinions here...la

[sangh0]

83. Not if you don't tell the truth

.

[RapidCreek]

129. The problem is, is that you are not discussing anything

you made a statement and have failed to back it up with anything resembling logic or fact. Such a statement is frivolous. To discuss, one must be prepared and equipped to discuss....which you have as yet failed to demonstrate.

One who boastfully refers to him or herself as a dueler, shows up to a fight unarmed...and crys after getting his or her clock cleaned is a blowhard.

RC

[JohnnyRingo]

89. Methinks perhaps a change in hobbies would be in order

Unless incoherent babbling is considered "debate"

[Bridget Burke]

95. Perhaps he could find something he's GOOD at!

Since his "McDonald's Frivolous Lawsuit" babbling was just shot down on this very thread.

[Sandpiper]

81. Maybe you haven't heard

But they do.

There are Law SCHOOLS and Medical SCHOOLS. And none of the three Law Schools where I live cost less than $25,000/year to attend.

[Skidmore]

94. So what..

I have graduate degrees as well and spent well over a decade paying off my student loans on a salary which finally broke $30K. I'm expected to be professional, practice ethically, and I sometimes even clean up some of the messes doctors and lawyers make in peoples lives. The doctors and lawyers in my life charge many times my hourly income for their services. Yet when I go into our finest medical establishment, I often find that the physician hasn't reviewed my history, even for my last visit. The attorney's often want me to write materials for them to edit and attach a little legal interpretation to. The insurance company keeps raising my rates and a couple of years ago slammed me into a whole life plan unsolicited.

Just because you spend a lot for an education doesn't make it a given that you are worth your fee. Perhaps if some value were attached to the role of all occupations in society, we wouldn't be experiencing the demand for the bloated ranks of professionals or the outsourcing of our industries.

[Sandpiper]

104. I can only speak for the profession that I'm familiar with

And tell you that in the legal field, there's a reason for the expense. Trials are neither easy nor inexpensive to prepare for and prosecute. Preparing for a trial often takes months, and if you are working in a small or solo practice, once you've taken on a major case, it impedes your ability to take on other cases.

Not to mention, attorneys who work in public interest law, or for governmental agencies like the Public Defender, are grossly underpaid for the services they provide.

The doctors and lawyers in my life charge many times my hourly income for their services.

These people aren't getting paid by the hour for the work they do. If doctor doesn't have any patients, and a lawyer doesn't have any clients, they don't get paid, period.

[Skidmore]

111. I firmly believe that the professions that are considered

status professions have undermined themselves. They have ceased to be about providing justice or compassion and are purely profit motivated. The person who mentioned educators has a point. Educators provide an extremely valuable service, as other professions such as rehab experts, mental health workers (not psychiatrists), nursing assistants, etc. all of whom are told they are being greedy to even dare ask for more in terms of compensation because these professionals are supposed to practice out of compassion and because of the service they are providing society. Perhaps it's time to spread the pain a little more equally among workers. Making fees more affordable so the average person could hire someone without bankrupting him/herself, eliminating insurance except for catastrophic coverage, making drug companies actually compete for customers rather than hold them hostage to inflated prices (physicians are complicit in this one, I believe), and allowing private citizens to sit in on ethics boards in these professions may go a long way to reducing costs, eliminating lobbying, and reducing the cynicism the public has toward the professions in generally.

[punpirate]

35. I believe it was Jim Moore ("Bush's Brain") who said...

... recently that while this is certainly a strategy to line the pockets of the insurers, it's Rove's idea to defund the Democrats, because trial lawyers and the Trial Lawyer's Association give predominately to Democrats. Tort reform reduces trial lawyers' income, thereby making it much less likely that they donate at the level they have in the past.

Pursuing malpractice suits in states which have passed medical malpractice tort reform has becomes much more difficult. Many lawyers do not want to take cases at all, because preparation for such trials is expensive (lots of pre-trial evaluation of medical evidence, for which doctors charge), and award caps prevent returns commensurate with the work involved.

And, as in Texas, the latest strategy is to make such reform an amendment to the state's constitution, thus deflecting any challenges in court to the constitutionality of the law.

As usual, the public has been downright stupid on this matter--in Texas, the amendments were billed as a way to reduce health care costs, so Texans were fairly enthusiastic. Did health care costs go down because of the constitutional change? No. Malpractice premiums and doctor's fees are virtually unchanged. The public did, however, voluntarily throw away one of their basic Constitutional rights, and in doing so, actually voted against their own interests. That's an object lesson in the power of advertising and propaganda in the United States today.

Cheers.

[Justitia]

78. When did my fellow Texans become such morons?

Even a cursory look at this amendment showed it to be completely anti-citizen. At least it only passed by the slimmest (probably stolen) of margins.

No wonder we are dead last in the US for citizens w/health insurance.

Revenge of the Shrub Gov. Boy howdy.

[maxwall]

61. It's against Legal Ethics to take a frivolous suit....

...speaking as a 3rd year law student, I should know, having just taken Legal Professionalism.
The fact is, studies have been done showing that only 2 out of every 15 incidents of medical malpractice go to trial, and only about half of them win.
Most people decide not to litigate malpractice, unless it's serious.
Lawyer's tend to make their pay from the pain and suffering damages, which are non-economic. Ergo, if you cap non-economic damages at $250,000 (I think the last thing proposed), it means that the person will get substantially less in actual return from the case. And don't forget that the cases that actually do go to trial tend to be the really bad ones, where people will likely need that money to support themselves for the rest of their lives.
This whole anti-lawyer crap from the Bush*it administration is about as horrid as it gets. Almost everyone I know at school is someone who is there, trying to make a difference for a better world. Not to make money. Not to go on power trips. But to help people.
It just makes me want to puke....

[Sandpiper]

100. It makes me shake my head

As a second-year law student.

Here we have people who know next to nothing about tort or products liability law, and absolutley nothing about the rules of civil procedure, yet they're certain they know what "frivolous lawsuits" are, and want to restrict the right of the people to seek compensation for their injuries.

[RichardRay]

96. How to Decide

TSO still hasn't been able to come up with a method to decide 'on a case by case' basis what's frivilous and what's not. That's because he can't come up with any better way then to have a more or less impartial panel (often called a jury) assisted by a more or less impartial domain expert (often called a judge) hear the arguments for and against the claim (often called a lawsuit) from two skilled presenters (these people are often called lawyers) and then come to a decision.

Where would TSO (or anyone else) like to break that method down? Should we have it decided by some sort of a philosopher king? Where do we find those?

The bad thing about the adversarial system of decision making is that it is open to abuse, the good thing about it is how much better it is than anything else we've come up with.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[sangh0]

98. I don't know. Let's ask The SuaveOne

TSO, where'd ya go? I thought you liked this stuff. Your profile made you sound like a real Internet gun-slinger, but all I see is spitballs.

[Christof]

112. I'm sick of it too.

If it wasn't for lawyers, then we'd be getting screwed left and right from large corporations and healthcare officials.

I'm glad there are people who can represent us when a business, doctor, or any other person does us wrong. :toast:

[Blayde Starrfyre]

115. Trial Lawyers:Republicans::Jews:Nazis

Seriously. Take a Nazi position and replace "Jews" with "Trial lawyers" and you have a Republican speech on tort reform. "Lawyers are taking your money! They're taking money from hard-working REAL Americans!"

[K-W]

121. Its all about scapegoating. The oldest trick in the book.

Convince the people to throw the blame somewhere else and they will never hold you accountable.

[lumpy]

119. The role of insurance companies

re. malpractice premiums should be addressed. Traditionally insurance companies make tremendous profit in premiums and company investment. Who's at fault here for abysmal health care in the US? Insurance companies, malpractice suits, doctors or all of the above? Of course I am a proponent of regulation when it comes to corporate/service industries involved in vital services. Little is heard regarding the responsibility insurance companies play in health care. Trying to pin the problem on 'trial lawyers' is a copout.

[auburngrad82]

122. Here's a few takes on malpractice suits and lawyers...

Practically everyone in Washington EXCEPT dubya is a lawyer. He couldn't get into University of Texas Law School because of grades.

The AMA refuses to release information about doctors who have had multiple lawsuits even though the vast majority of malpractice suits come from 5% of the doctors. Seems to me that if you took away the licenses of the 5% who are repeat offenders then you will drastically reduce the number of lawsuits.

Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits but most of these never get to court because lawyers are in it for money and most won't take a case that won't pay off.

[athena]

130. Web site with lots of information

It's from the web site of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America:
Frivolous Lawsuits

This opinion article from the Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal is also good: Frivolous Lawsuits Don't Often Survive Court System