WASHINGTON (CNN) – A moderate Pennsylvania Democrat came out strongly Sunday against the possibility of imposing a cap on medical malpractice damages as part of comprehensive health care reform legislation currently under consideration in Congress.
“I don’t think the way to go is to limit the rights of Americans who are injured by negligent or intentional conduct,” Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey who is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
“A $250,000 cap on damages, in my humble opinion, is insulting to our system of justice,” Casey also told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “That is not justice as we have come to understand it.”
In an interview that aired earlier on State of the Union, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain suggested that medical malpractice reform was one area where the GOP should begin to crystallize its own positive health care reform agenda now that Congress is about to begin to process of melding together several health care bills in both chambers.
But, pointing to the experience of her state, Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow suggested that the Republican approach to malpractice reform was too simplistic.
“There’s a different way to come at it,” Stabenow told King, “The Republicans have a very traditional approach over and over again – whether or not [malpractice reform] has worked.” Stabenow said damages caps imposed in Michigan had not stemmed increases in the malpractice insurance rates paid by doctors.
Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budge Office issued a cost estimate of the health care reform bill drafted by the Senate Finance Committee which concluded that inclusion of tort reform in the legislation would save $54 billion.
From CNN Politics
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
It might save $54 billion, but at the expense of American citizens who are the victims of careless or reckless doctors
I agree with my Pennsylvania Senator.
I also feel that there should be more grants for medical students. We throw away money on greedy wall street hogs, why not?
WOW AN ARTICLE ON CNN SUNDAY THAT WAS NOT ABOUT STATE OF THE JOHN MCCAIN UNION. (I find it disrespectful that this continues.)
CAPS are CRAP.
I don't agree with this....what is the incentive for quality medical care....you are targeting the wrong group...CAP the insurance companies that charge the Doctors...not the awards to the harmed persons. It just amazes me that so many are blinded that the insurance companies are the ones making this stuff up as they go along....people behind these companies sitting quite comfortably.
The person left crippled by a surgeon's knife or the child born with brain damage due to a doctor's negligence needs far more than $250,000 worth of care in their lives. And all the talk of tort reform being some sort of panacea is a lie anyway. In Florida, extensive tort reform was passed many years ago – malpractice premiums continue to rise to obscene rates and physicians continue to order duplicate and unnecessary tests. Republicans need to get a clue.
The majority of people are hospitalized for personal choice failures such as obesity related diseases (including heart disease and diabetes), smoking, alcohol related problems, and doctor compliance issues. This behavior severely overburdens an already strained health care system. People should not be allowed to sue their doctor or hospital for something that they should never have been there for in the first place.
When is everybody going to wake up and realize these caps are not going to bring down insurance companies rates. When are people going to ealize insurance companies – health, medical, etc. – have been gouging us and and tehy need to be regulated because they won't do it themselves. But then again, who among us is big enough to stop them. I really don't think there is anyone brave enough.......
They have tried tort reforms in texas and other states and it goes to show that tort reform only help the isurance companys.Texas has seen those same company charge more rather then see the isurance rates go down like those companys said it would.Tort reform is a joke and a sad one at that.Just proof that the republicans are only for big bussness rather then the aremican people.
Democants are owned by tort lawyers, a group who makes money off of suing people.
Lemme get this straight.
The rethuglicons say that if a doctor or hospital gives you the wrong medicine thru an obviously avoidable error that then turns you into a semi-vegetable requireing 24 hr. care for the rest of your life you can only get a quarter of million dollars tops?
What kind of reform is this? What do these rethugs think we Americans are – Stupid?
ABSOLUTELY NO on this kind of tort "reform" – it's feloney stupidity!
I am a supporter of Barack Obama... but at this point, I will rebel. It seems to me that the health care agenda has been subverted by Big Medicine/Big Inusrance and it isn't about coverage or care anymore...
It's about corporate libertarians getting EXACTLY what they want - more money for less services and less accountability.
I mean, what have WE gotten at this point? EVERYONE MUST BUY IT and YOU CAN'T SUE AND HURT US if we screw up.
It won't matter if they have to cover your cancer because pre-existing conditions have to be covered. It won't matter that they can't cap your treatment.
They can just give you something that kills you and all they have to pay is $250K. THAT'S CHEAP.
The State of Florida allows a doctor to practice with no malpractice insurance at all. The doctor need only post a sign in his / her waiting room stating that the doctor has no malpractice insurance. The doctor then needs only to post a bond of $250,000. Florida has a statute that limits a doctor's liability to $250,000, but Florida's physicians continue to use malpractice suits as a reason for unnecessary testing. Doctors will not be satisfied until they have no liability at all. They are horrible about discplining their colleagues for malpractice and own all of the politicians through their donations, PACs, etc. It is a very sad situation that Democrats do not bring this situation up, but they too are owned by the AMA and insurance industry.
It's time that healthcare insurance become NON-PROFIT, period. If you are going to force everyone to have it, then you should not be able to make any money of it. No one should.
Let the government pay for it from taxes and cut the money-changers out of the temple.
This is saying the obvious, but it needs to be said. These two are bought and paid for by the American Trial Lawyers Association (which recently re-named itself the Association for Justice, because the name "trial lawyer" is too...honest?).
Reformed Republican, don't believe the hype.
The $250,000 damage limit is on PAIN AND SUFFERING ONLY – non-economic damages.
There is no limit in any state in the US to economic damages, such as lost wages, medical expenses, etc.
I thought I'd throw in a little truth here, just for a change. Stabenow is mis-representing Michigan law. I know – I am a practicing Michigan lawyer.
any one that wants a cap on how much damages from a doctors mistake in treating a patent is out of this world .. a doctor that doesn't preform there job should be held accountable .it is also a sad way for checks and balances to see how many people in the medical proffesion, probably shouldn't be in it .. education and keeping people responcible for there actions .is the ability to recover from damages.. no limit is a good way to keep them ontop of there game
I know someone who was crippled for life due to medical malpractice. There's no way she could survive the rest of her with all the additional expenses caused by her condition on a mere quarter of a million dollars.
Again, the Right shows their true priorities: increase insurance companies profits while making sure the middle class victims get screwed over.
A cap on medical malpractice? This is just one more way to protect big corporations and screw the little guy. It's what Repubs have always done best.
If any Dem supports this, he/she needs to be voted out, including our President.
That's great. You go in to have your tonsils removed and some shizophrenic, drug-addict doctor removes your left kidney, right lung, and left leg, and you get $250,000.
Tort reform is fine, but that's going way too far. If someone is negligent or intentionally hurtful, they need to pay an appropriate and heavy price. What we should be focusing on is not awarding tens of millions of dollars to people who happen to be the unlucky statistics when there is a small chance of a legitimate procedure going badly. That's not negligence.
Interesting. We can cap doctor salaries and what is paid for medical procedures but not how much we can go after those same doctors. Looks like we want to run the good doctors out of town.
Jim The majority of people are hospitalized for personal choice failures such as obesity related diseases (including heart disease and diabetes), smoking, alcohol related problems, and doctor compliance issues. This behavior severely overburdens an already strained health care system. People should not be allowed to sue their doctor or hospital for something that they should never have been there for in the first place.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim, what expert told you that the majority of people are hospitalized for personal choice failures? I get tired of reading comments from righteous people who seem to have no faults. People get sick for a variety of reasons including personal choice issues. We are human and humans are not perfect nor are we all alike with all the same challenges and abilities. Good for you and those who live a perfect life and have accomplished good things in their lives. You are lucky. But, that does not mean that people who have not been as lucky as you or as healthy as you don't deserve every opportunity this great country can offer including affordable health care for all, despite their life style choices. It also shouldn't prevent someone from suing a doctor, hospital, nursing home or any other medical practice for negligence. Doctors are humans too and they make mistakes and they should be held accountable for mistakes they make.
Where have we heard this type of talk again and again? While you're at it, get yourself a healthcare savings account! Can the conservative spin of rhetoric get anymore tired and old. Rome burned while Nero fiddled!
Think Republicans care about YOU,,,HAAAAAAAAAA of course they want a plan that protects the RICH that's what they are about money and greed.
I am a physician, and trust me, most physicians really do try to do the best they can for their patients. Sometimes people die, even when they are being treated correctly: some cancers are beyond ANY doctor's skills. We are still learning how to treat most cancers. Doctors should be protected from some people's idea that they can sue just because there is a bad outcome. Physicians work incredibly hard for the money they make. They train for many years st great personal and financial expense just to be able to practice and they are required to continue their education for the rest of their lives. The government and the insurance industry legislate much of what we are allowed to do, even though they did not go to school to learn how to prescribe appropriate treatments. Adequate health care is getting scarcer, in large because it is so personally and financially risky to practice now. Bad outcomes happen, and although there are physicians who are negligent, there are also patients who think they are entitled to sue someone if a treatment doesn't work.
Pat!
Then why put it in a Federal bill?
Limit damages only to the extent of what it will cost to take care of an injured person's liabilities and a reasonable amount to take care of them for a lifetime if it is needed.
The payments for "pain and suffering" are ridiculous. We ALL take chances of getting injured or even dying by the hands of doctors or fellow drivers on the roads. In a heartbeat any of us can be the responsible party for accidents.
Greed to so rampant in the United States. I am ashamed of my fellow Americans at times.
What's the cap in France, Germany, Cuba, Canada or anywhere where health insurance works?
Democrats have no clue at all about financial matters.
Just wait until the government is the only source of health care, then try to sue. Good-luck with that. Look at workman's compensation. You will be lucky to get 10k for a malpractice wrongful death lawsuit when big brother is running your health care. Socialism does not work, in-sane pain and suffering judgments benefit NO ONE EXCEPT lawyers.
Case after case where big judgments have been awarded the plaintiffs are worse off after the fall out from the trials. Look at the percentage the lawyers receive, look at the taxes on the pain and suffering portion, look at the expenses the lawyers also receive, add them up and many times the plaintiff owes money. NOT because the judgment was too low, but because of the crooked Democratic lawyers.
How about a 250k cap on insurance executives salaries and no bonuses.
I dont understand why americans think their screwed up system is the best. Whole world medical system is not based on malpractise while the americans are very anal about the malpractise. They concentrate on the things that happen one in thousands while ignoring the burden that cost society. I think the whole system is biased towards lawyers and you can sue for everything in USA. I worked in Europe, Asia and USA, no where else people are more concerned about the malpractise and interested to sue than USA.
People and doctors should concentrate on the ways to prevent mistakes. Its human to do mistakes, happens every part of life. We should concentrate on the ways to help the people who suffered and also people who did the mistake to prevent future errors.
There are millions of dollors wasted on people with insurance just to prevent lawsuits and that already over burdens the system. I think we should realize that the natural resources are limited however we develop out technology and should be used appropriately. If we just concentrate on how to sue the people, one day we dont have any resources left to take care of the people even in dire emergency.
While the cap is for only pain and suffering and punitive damages (not actual health care costs or lost wages), it is still isn't going to lower costs. Two steps would help:
* Pull the medical license of every doctor who loses multiple malpractice suits. According to one study, 5% of doctors cause about half of all malpractice claims.
* Make insurance companies price premiums based on actual claims rather than "worst case" theories. The number of malpractice claims and total payout has dropped for four years but premiums haven't dropped. Why? Insurance companies say "Since one claim cost millions, we'll assume every claim will cost millions".
In Canada where doctors have formed their own nonprofit insurance cooperatives, malpractice insurance is 30% to 50% cheaper than the U.S.
Please take a hard look at the democratic party and look how many of the elected officials and spouses are lawyers. Then look at the Republican party and see what profession prevails. That, to me helps explain the difference in where they make there money. It is and always will be about making money and power. It has absolutely nothing to do what is right for the American people. I sometimes wonder what I was doing in the Marine Corps. I blame both polical parties for speading hate. What we need is a third national policial party. If you notice, that is the only time when Dems and Repubs get together to kill something.
John McCain is one of the Republicans who are not nice men.
Not decent, actually out and out rotten.
He thinks that it is best for us to spend our money toward bullying and killing in Afghanistan, etc. Yet, he is against someone who has been on the tragic end of mistakes made during medical procedures only getting a maximum of $250,000.
Many people who are victims of botched medical procedures, are disabled (at least from holding down a job) for the rest of their lives.
These innocent victims deserve at least a statistically average income (about $45,000 per year) for the rest of their lives.
Unbelievable, but in this question I agree with republicans. In this planet where I happen to live, there were just recently 5 million of people killed in Congo Civil war. Yes they all deserve tens of millions dollars for their suffering but there is not that kind of money on planet. Suffering and feeling pain is extremely common thing everywhere and it is deeply unjust and nonsensical to pick some hundreds out of the millions and give them (read: their bloodsucking lawyers) hundreds of times more money that they could have earned by honest work. Everyone wants to be millionaire but to become millionaire you should do something productive. And nobody should ever make more money by "suffering" than by honest work. For me, all these "suffering millionaires" are just lucky thieves who got money stolen from everyone who ever paid health bills.
And any guarantee that this or any other measure being discussed will bring down the cost of health insurance? There isn't even a guarantee that the rate of cost increases will slow. I don't know about anyone else but this bill looks to me like it is shaping up to be a big "WIN" for industry and a net loss for the consumer.
Texas capped the pain and suffering for malpractice and we were told it would lower our health care premiums. What a joke. We still pay some of the highest in the nation and rank last for percentage who is covered by health care.
Health care insurance companies can not be trusted. Period.
Ok to cap compensation of working people, but not ok to cap non-economic damages thru frivolous lawsuits????
You should always be able to sue for actual damages. The problem comes from the punitive side where obsence verdicts are issued to "teach a lesson". Does the McDonalds coffee between the legs lawsuit ring any bells. As a country we have gotten stupid. Let's throw out the incumbents next election and get people in office who truely will serve the will of the people and not themselves. Term limits need to be next.
Bob Casey is insulting, as well as all the liberal dems who are in the tank for the trial lawyers. The trial lawers, one of the biggest problems in the nation, own the liberal dems, and their fistful of lobby dollars has bought and paid for the liberal dems .
SHAMEFUL AND DISGUSTING !
What is insuling is implying that doctors "intentionally" damage patients. That would be criminal and way beyond tort issues. So the word "intentional" needs to be omitted. What is also insulting is the ludicrous pay-outs for pain-and-suffering in cases were there was no negligence. We see it over and over again in headline after headline of lawsuits. Lawyers work on a COMMISSION. Trial lawyers are nothing more than corrupt salesmen. They seek out "victims" for big payouts. They get a commission of the "winnings" after they have paid for all of their charges, their retainer, their court expenses, etc... Their commission is paid on top of that. Unlike other professionals, they give NOTHING back to the world. All they do is take in their corrupt slimy ways. Pharmaceutical companies invest in research that will help people and contribute to scientific progress, and they have contributed billions in free drugs to Africa as well as right here at home. Still they fall victim to the most evil interest group of all lawyers. As a physician, I can tell you that trial lawyers are the ones that are ruining medicine in this country. Shameful!
That's a great idea, making healthcare non-profit. We should take the profit out of everything while we're at it. Why not? People need food, too! Make supermarkets non-profit! Only in very short order you'll quickly discover that no one is going to be willing to work for free to sell you food. Same with healthcare.
Casey is rifght. The damage that can be inflicted on an unsuspecting patient may cost a lifetime of therapy and costly surgeries to repair or treat. $250,000 is nothing compared to the cost that the victim is likely to incur just to continue their damaged lives.
Limiting malpractice lawsuits is the same as limiting sentences in criminal proceedings. Where is the concern for the victim?
The better idea is to reform the way lawsuits are brought forth – filtering the frivolous ones, while at the same time letting the serious cases be heard.
Malpractice suits are punitive. They are intended to punish those who do something wrong, including insurnace companies who do not allow doctors to perform proceedures with full rigor. Not only should there NOT be a cap, these suits should also include insurance companies who are trying to increase their bottom line by demanding that doctors do not perform the things the doctors know are more effective. $250,000 is not nearly painful enough for those who have caused pain and in some cases killed patients. This once again demonstrates that the Republicans are lap dogs of big insurance. It is not only insulting. It's shameful. Enjoy your time in office, those of you who are not advocating for the American people. Your time is short.
An injured person should be able to sue for the full amount that the injury caused. Period. However, since this is national issue, we really should have a national law that governs malpractice lawsuits.
I remember some time ago that the republicans were jumping up and down and doing their cry baby stunt about malpractice being the cause of high health costs....I also remember a survey came out that proved beyond a doubt that 1/10 of 1% of the cost of health care came from lawsuits.
Now how in Hades can that small amount of damages awarded to someone who has been disabled, or thrown out of work only amount to $250,000. If that is the case, according to the republicans, than lawsuits are negligible when it comes to Health Care costs. So by suggesting this aren't them under minding their own claims. But it doesn't take much to prove republicans are disgustingly stupid.
I am as liberal as they come, blue through and through. But I think this is a very common sense approach to lowering costs. Just like there are caps on auto insurance payouts.
I do not know a physician that is not dedicated to what is better for his patients. Everyone must understand that in evaluating patients with complex diseases and in a complex medical environment, error do happen. Nevertheless, we do have in Pennsylvania a vigorous error reducing process that has objectively decreased medical errors and consequently both morbidity and cost. In spite of this, physicians continue to practice defensive medicine to the tune of @ $50 B/year. This is $ that can be better utilized. A cap on pain and suffering makes sense, since all other expenses would be otherwise covered. This cannot be the only fix though. Physicians must continue to study, participate in vigorous error reducing processes and perhaps we should also consider specialized courts for these cases.
I lost an eye because of an incompetent doctor. I was going to sue but in N.C. I could only get $250.000. You have to have two expert witnesses to say he was incompetent. They wanted $125,000 each to testify. That leaves nothing for the lawyer or victim. DO NOT CAP. I have lost an eye –have had 3 surgeries and will never recoup what I lost. The doctor is still in business and making lost of money every day.
The limit needs not be so much on the victim as it should be on the amount that lawyers can skim off the awards. Greedy lawyers are the problem, not the victims getting what is left of the settlements after the lawyers get their "fair share"!!! Put a cap on their cut and they won't bleed the system!!!.
Why isn't the press looking into the outrageous costs doctors must pay the insurance companies, how much profit they are making from these policies and whether they are justified??
Any tort reform should not focus on capping the rewards of malpractice suits, but work to cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits that are allowed trough. As much as Republicans like to ignore them, there are cases of malpractice in which the doctors were clearly negligent, and victims need to be compensated in those cases. As much as Democrats would like to ignore them, there are cases of "malpractice" in which the judge should be able to say "get out of my courtroom."
There need to e fewer cases, not a cap on rewards. Otherwise, the doctors will simply feel compelled to order the same tests for fear of a $250,000 lawsuit instead of a $2,500,000 lawsuit. It's the lawsuits that they want to avoid, not the amount.
This is the typical Republican answer for everything: take away the rights of the people and let the big corporations steam roll us into the ground. Tort reform does not work. We tried it here in Florida, and the malpractice insurance rates stayed pretty much the same. There was only a little movement downward. Now I ask you, what does the state of Florida do about those who are truly injured at the hands of an irresponsible physician? Take for example the man in Tampa who had the wrong leg amputated? Does the state of Florida honestly think that his claim was frivolous? Do the republicans honestly think that tort reform is going to solve the healthcare crisis in this country and lower medical bills? Give me a break. How stupid do they think we are?
It's a needed idea or soon you will have very few physicians willing to accumulate over $200K in medical school loans only to see half of their salary go to malpractice premiums. There is already a shortage of many specialties in states with no cap. Important to note too that this cap is ONLY for "pain and suffering."
I'm a democrat and a huge supporter of health care reform. But we need tort reform, too. One area where the dems are purely in the pocket of the lawyers, sadly.
I cannot believe that I might even consider, perhaps even agree with something from the Republican side of Congress.
How do so many people, elected to office, whom have credentials showing some form of education which alludes to having some intelligence get so many things out of proportion.
The world isn't complicated, politicians make it complicated.
1. We absolutely need a "monetary" cap on Medical Malpractice suites.
2. This "monetary" cap would be raised if it was proven to be 'negligence' in a Court of Law, not an 'acciden't.
3. The "fine" and "prison time" cap would be raised again if it was proved to be' intentional' in a Court of Law, however, the monetary cap could remain the same as 'negligence'.
If this doesn't make sense then who do we have representing us in Congress?
Just the usual group of schmucks who have gotten elected by kissing some lawyer group's ass.
ONE SIMPLE SOLUTION TO A BETTER GOVERNMENT..........
Pass a law that NO ONE with a law degree can run for office!
Any sort of cap on a malpractice lawsuit de-values and insults the jury.
Who better to decide the level of compensation than the 12 men and women who sat, listened and evaluated the unique circumstances of teach case?
The system isn't broke, it just that insurance companies aren't getting the results they, and their board of directors, want. But they have bought many Republican, and some Democrat, legislators who should be more concerned about their constituents, not big business.
Merit is clueless in regards to what was posted. Florida has a lower malpractice ratio than other states because of the actions in the early 90s of the Florida legislature. Why did these actions become necessary, essentially because alot of doctors quit due to the out of control medical malpractice atmosphere at the time. All but a few level 1 trauma centers in the state closed because there were no doctors willing to cover because they could not afford the malpractice coverage. Why should a physician, who spent upwards of 300K dollars for college and medical school, then get to start earning an income when they are in their mid 30s, pay off their loans, and pay anywhere from 40K to 200K per year in malpractice insurance because the trial lawyers have turned the ability to practice medicine into a defensive efffort. Only in America can you smoke 3 packs a day, become morbidly obese, and when you wrap your car around a pole while driving drunk, sue the doctor and hospital because you have complications from your lifesaving procedures. Next time, call the trial lawyer to come save your life.
tate October 11th, 2009 12:14 pm ET
Democants are owned by tort lawyers, a group who makes money off of suing peopl
______________________
Sorry tate – Lawyers are only partially to blame. We (yes we) also have to take responsibility in the number of lawsuits that should never see courtroom lights. We have become a society of "let's see how fast I can make a buck" and "I'm entitled to" that lawyers take advantage of it.
Having said that – yes 250K – regardless of what it is for is ridiculous. Physicians do make mistakes – they are not gods, but human beings. If a person is made incapacitated, then they should be given a settlement that takes care of lost wages, payment for any health bills that they incur plus a cost of living adjustment. For those who are permanently injured, then all of the above for life.
What needs to stop is the percentages that the attorneys get (on top of their $100-500/hr fees) which can run anywhere from 1%to 5% of the settlement as well as advertising on TV (we've all seen them) encouraging people to sue.
Yet another problem with Republican ideology. The right-wing is quick to cap damages, but they will have nothing to do with capping the profit of insurance companies - which is really the heart of the matter. Of course, let's not all jump on the Democratic bandwagon. Why don't any of the bills going through the house or senate have a cap on insurance company profits? If there was a cap, then there would be no need to even have a "public option".
Right on, Sen Casey.....Some of your Democratic peers are in need of divine intervention......Common sense and humanity don't seem to be working.....Republicans are totally out of the picture......They need hearts and brains......
Why is this insulting?? It just means that people cannot milk the system. Now days everyone wants to sue over everyhting.
It's sad.
I just don't get some people's concerns. Pretty much everybody agrees that our health care system, including health insurance, needs to be changed. Some people are using sound bites to dis the Obama/dem plan, but they aren't coming up with alternatives. This issue is too iimportant to everyone to use party lines, sound bites, etc. for political purposes, or to just basically "bad mouth" someone of an oppposing party. Where are some statesmen who will work for the good of the country – not just please party members???
Tort Reform – YES!!! $250K – NO!!
Just use a simple formula – The CBO has estimates on the expected cost of living and wages for the future.
If someone loses their ablity to work, then compensate them 2X all future earnings based on their current wages – Federal Tax free.
If someone loses their ability to physically or mentally function doing their current activities, then compensate them 2X all future earnings based on their current wages.
All compensation is additive.
If someone was not currently working, whether too young, old or unable, compensate them 1X all future earnings based on the avergage income for a person living in their geographic area.
He's right. While I think there certainly needs to be regulations to prevent excessive malpractice awards, a cap of $ 250,000 on all malpractice awards is insulting. Neglect on the part of a doctor can easily result in millions of dollars of future medical expenses by the patient, why should they be left to incur that burden on their own?
Yeah the insurance companies would love for us to set a cap at $250.000 on malpractice suits and leave them in control of health care. Then they would be giving it to us in both ends. Talk about going from the frying pan and into to the fire OMG!
You couldn't even buy a Republican politician for $250K ....close but not there yet.
Any surprise that the Repubs come out on the side of their wealthy constituents here?
What a joke, they don't even try to hide their motives any more!
I practice anesthesia. I am a Obama supporter and a strong proponent of reform of both the healthcare reimbursement system and the insurance system. Why should we be forced to buy our policies from a scalper who will cancel you without a blink upon any need to pay out. That isn't insurance, it is a scam. But, If we are going to cover everyone we must distribute both cost and risk broadly and fairly; everyone has to be in the pool, providers and physicians need to stop being incentivized to do more and more complex procedures without evidence of benefit, (pay generous salaries, and get rid of CPT reimbursement by individual contact service) primary care has to be available and efficient and as well paid as a surgeon doing his specialty, and patients and customers have to realise that it is a human enterprise, with all that entails. Malpractice is the full convergence of three factors: duty to perform to a standard of care, failure to do so and resulting injury to the patient. That is not what 99% of claims are...they are poor or undesired outcomes related to known risks. Tort reform is an essential part of reform, but this cap on non monetary damages is too low. Compromise. Make it higher, but cap it so people don't get rich because someone tried to help them and failed. Make it only for punitive gross negligence.
Just try getting your arm cut off by mistake and see if $250,000 will care for your family!!
Tort reform only hurts those injured by doctors' mistakes. Why should patients suffer the economic consequences of their doctors' mistakes? Let juries do their job and decide damages for themselves. Certainly if juries are competent enough to decide whether someone should live or die in a death penalty case, they are competent enough to decide how much someone should be awarded in damages.
Malpractice reform SHOULD be getting the 'crappy' doctors out of practice so the good doctors are not penalized by them!
Yank the licenses from the crappy docs after 2 cases of malpractice and let them be plumbers. At least, they cannot hurt anyone else!!
The current proposal may be a good one,I just do not think any of us know. I wish we could read it or see the details, but language changes in it about hourly. We all know we need reform, and I think if the proposals were laid our line by line so that we could see what the real impacts will be, American citizens could voice together which one makes more sense. My proposal is probably too simple, plus it will expose the ridicolus amout of pork and non-related spending included in the bill.
The industry in this country that makes its living suing health care workers is insulting. Defensive medicine and needless procedures are some of the issues that is making healthacre in America unaffordable.
Doctors practice defensive medicine sending the patient for unnecessary tests to cover their buts, that's what drives insurance coverage costs up. Maybe caps aren't the answer. Maybe lawyers who file frivolous law suits should be suspended, disbarred and/or fined. Maybe a Congress not full of lawyers would do something about that.
Come on everybody let's be honest about this. People see these multi-million dollar payouts as hitting the lottery. Heck yes I would trtade an arm for 3 million, wouldn't you?
The only reason to be opposed is that people don't want their chance to hit big bucks to be reduced! Besides the limit is only for pain and suffering not expenses or long term care.
Don't forget that the lawyer always gets a third of the settlement. How do you think that John Edwards got the money to become a candidate. Why no anger at the lawyers for taking so much of the victims money?
Bob .... As any can tell you, I generally take the Dem side of an argument. But, on this one you are wrong. I am in favor of tort reform at some level but not at the $250,000 level. We should cap malpractice awards at $750,000. That would be enough to reduce the out-of-control awards and Attorney greed.
The multi-million award$ are just plain nuts. And so is the minimal level of $250,000. I'd be in favor of a cap between $500,000 and $750,000.
Pat F. If I'm injured due to medical malpractice/incompetence for the rest of my life and I'm in severe pain every day, I want a he$$ of lot more than a lousy 250,000 thousand bucks for my pain & suffering. Better yet, it's about time that the medical community stop protecting bad doctors.
It PAINS me to read the comments on this message board. Of course you need to cap medical jury awards. I especially love the comment that doing this will nt bring down medical insurance.
It is very obviously that the Dens are in the pocket of the trial attorneys.
Sure, lets continue giving out multi-million dollar awards becusce a doctor messed up on a thumb nail or someone dropped a cup of hot coffee on themselves.
Tort reform? No lets keep doing it the same way. Dumb dumb dumb
There appears to be an inconsistency among conservatives concerning tort. Suppose that the intention is to only cap punitive damages at $250k, although this is not clear from this post. Now, conservatives generally favor being "tough on crime" as a deterrent. The tougher the punishment, the lower the crime rate, they say. In this case, they should also favor unlimited punitive damages: this will surely reduce the amount of malpractice. The only flaw in my logic is that reducing malpractice is not the conservative goal.
Pat F, your statement is inaccurate. Indiana most certainly does impose a cap on economic damages. The maximum recoverable in a malpractice action in Indiana is $1.25 million....and it has not led to a significant reduction in physician premiums.
I think 1.5 million is a far better cap that 250K. But a sliding scale to certain issues. Ar best have a group that can study these lines of concern and see WHAT would be a fair compensation package to ensure a decent quality of life of someone who has been injured by medical wrecklessness.
Caps are crap to an extent. You definitely need commesurate punishment. I say that when you consider a surgeon saves at least 25 lives a year for the money they make, suits should be limited to (and paid on a plan commesurate to their savings and future career length) 3 or maybe 5 years of their salary with punitive considerations included this would be a MAXIMUM, as in the doctor got mad and intentionally neglected a patient resulting in damage or some such case. Another good example is when Doctors let their religious beliefs negatively effect treatment. This actually happens! 5 years salary on a payment plan will be enough to punish while not slamming their ability to pay the bills. And obviously, should only be taken to the maximum when Doctors have commited an intentional, or blatant mistaken process error, resulting in a high level of harm or death.
I mean, MLB players get penalized for errors and they 99% of the time dont hurt anyone. Why shouldn't doctors be sued for errors that kill or maim permanently. Good surgeons won't care about this because it will only hurt the ability of the charlatans that pose as top doctors to compete in their same market.
Regulation!!!
As a practicing physician, tort reform is essential. Almost all physicians I know are worried about being sued for poor outcome that did not involve any mal practice. Even if we did nothing wrong, we still pay large amounts to litigate and malpractice insurance companies just settle. This means that we paid even if we did nothing wrong. I guarantee several things will happen when physicans are paid significantly less for time and expense of becoming a highly trained MD with out tort reform(4 yrs of pre med, 4 yrs med totalling close to $ 300,000 of debt plus – 4 yrs training, 3 – 4 yrs subspecialty training – all at close to minimum wage)
1. Less physicians
2. Less qualified physicians
3. More Mid level providers – no disrespect but there is a difference
4. More physicians leaving the craft or the country.
Anyone who thinks our medical professionals will purposely kill or harm their patients due to tort reform needs to seek some psychiatric help. These scum sucking trial lawyers need to be put in check. They have been making millions of dollars by taking advantage of a system with no sensible regulation. $250,000 may be a bit low, but it's a great starting point to negotiate from.
TORT reform is necessary. Doctors pay more than half of their incomes for malpractice insurance and have to practice defensive medicine to protect themselves. Medicine is not an exact science.
Just another example of how the GOP is bought and paid for by the insurance industry. The insurance companies want to limit their exposure to $250k but they do not reduce their rates to the doctors (as tried in some states). The GOP will fight for the poor insurance companies until the money runs out. They don't care about the American people, just the money. So much for their other lie, Country First.
The monetary award should be handed out by the judge based on the loss of earnings of the person affected. Not by a bunch of idiots on a jury that is supposed to be "your peers". Like it or not 50% of the people that sit on a jury are dumber than a brick.
Insulting, to say the least. But I bet the insurance companies are wild about the idea.
Just how many in the House and Senate are Lawyers?
There can be several types of damages sought in medical malpractice cases. Are they talking about the type of damages that seek to pay for the victim's care for the rest of their life, the type of damages that make up for the victim's loss of earning potential, punitive damages? Is it even constitutional for the federal government to cap a particular type of damage sought in a state court?
Additionally, the idea that capping malpractice awards will reduce malpractice insurance rates ignores the fact that insurance companies are in it to make money. The only thing that is sure about capping malpractice awards is that it caps the loss that could be incurred by the insurance company, not the cost to the buyer of insurance.
Capping malpractice is paramount to ending consumer rights in the medical field.
Frivolous lawsuits are a problem indeed. An effective countermeasure would be to hold lawyers accountable for filing frivolous lawsuits. A board of peers would determine if a lawsuit was indeed frivolous and after a set number of frivolous filings the lawyer would be penalized in some fashion.
Limiting or removing consumers rights is beyond draconian.
$250k Is small potato's to the Health Insurance Empire, (oops, I meant Industry) that rakes in BILLIONS in profits! Just more PROOF that the party of Greedy Old Parasites think that the American people are nothing more than mindless sheep just wandering around bumping into inanimate objects all day long! You can't possibly get me to believe that there are people actually dumb enough not to see this! Give me a break!!!!!!!!
Medical expenses are not covered under any cap. $250k is for pain and suffering. If you seem to believe that doctors are infallable and make no mistakes, you seem to be holding them to an impossible standard (and is the reason why malpractice insurance is so high in the first place, when people sue even if it's not the doctor's fault)
Don't get me wrong, if a physician makes a stupid mistake, then they should learn from it, but let's not believe that every bad outcome is because a doctor screwed up.
It's about time someone had the nerve to stand up to the trial lawyers who have been sucking the blood out of America for decades. It's too bad we have so many congressmen and senators who are lawyers themselves or else we might get real tort reform. Talk about wolves guarding the henhouse.
As a practicing physician, I have to agree with Merit on one point: doctors ARE horrible at policing their own. However, as a military physician, I cannot be sued (in the conventional sense) and I take exception to the accusation that I practice recklessly as a result. I did not become a doctor to become rich, neither have most of my colleagues; for the best and brightest amongst us, we could have made far more money with much less responsibility and MANY fewer sacrifices/years of training in another field. We do it because we felt a calling to help others, as cliche as that sounds. This is not to say that I do not deserve to be fairly compensated for my work, just as other professionals should be.
What I object to is the "lottery" mentality that many take when they enter into a lawsuit expecting millions of dollars in pain and suffering for something that may or may not have been the physician's responsibility. In this, I do not blame the lawyers, they are only doing their job when they accept a case. I blame the judges. These ridiculous lawsuits need to be thrown out of court before they waste one second of the legal system's time. If this were to happen, lawyers would stop attempting to throw crap at the wall waiting to see if something sticks. Do I expect to completely escape liability? Absolutely not. But we need to understand that: 1) sometimes bad things happen and no one is particularly to blame, 2) one bad outcome does not entitle someone to a free ride for the rest of his life. Physicians are not the only ones who need to take responsibility, and America as a whole should not pay for those citizens who do not accept their share of responsibility.
Tort reform?yes, to some degree, such as someone being awarded a couple of mil for not having enough brains to know that coffee is hot and if you try to dirve and drink it you take the chance of getting burned. Avoidable medical errors that result in the patient being left with a disblility that did not exist before? That is a whole other issue. Does anyone else find it ironic tht this idea comes from the Republicans? The party of :pull yourself up by your boot straps personal responsibility"? Where is the responsibility of those who make the errors? The reform in the system needs to be with the companies who insure the dcotors, or more specifically with the doctors themselves. There are many ways this can be accomplished, such as lower malprctice premiums for doctors who pass periodic competancy exams and take on going training. It should not be at the expense of those Americans who's lives have been ruined by the mistakes of a disrtracted or incompetant health care professional.
It would be very interesting to know how much the Trial Lawyers Association paid Casey. The world will never know.
A cap is essential for integrated approach to cut down the avoidable cost of health care . It needs careful monitoring that Insurance Companies should not take advantage of such cap. But it should help the physicians so that their fee becomes low. It should be clearly understood that no physician or nurse does any mistake deliberately ,everyone sincerely does the job ,it is just a human error. Human errors are invariably cause the air accident and what the relatives of dead get mere 250K. Therefore , one should not view it is an insult because one republication has said so. Please rise above the party line and do the best to reform the health care. It is indeed insulting for the country ,which is predominantly the top number one but where 45000 die every year because of no insurance. That is really an insult to be country. The cap is essential and the amount is not insulting . It takes courage to put a NUMER. Being a great admirer of democratic party and above all of the President ,I suggest to all ,please do not get bogged down in unrealistic figure and to support reasonable or realistic suggestion for the reform above the party line. We claim of being highly courteous but watching the whole discussion on heath care which is full of "asking for apology " and "sorry 'I feel sorry to see the digression and nothing else except that in the name of capitalism the great business of health insurance is flourishing to the benefit of attorneys and health care industries. Please stop this and help those who are in need of heath care .
Not only should malpractice damages be capped, but all medical costs should be capped. This focus on insurance is just wrong. If you bring medical costs down across the board - doctor fees, hospital fees, drug costs, etc., then insurance won't be such an issue. People should not be forced to purchase insurance. Only the insurance companies benefit when this happens. Just control the escalation of the cost of basic medical care and let us decide for ourselves whether we want insurance or not. More insurance is not the answer - lower costs is the answer!
Republicans – they'll support anything that screws individual Americans.
Like supporting two very expensive wars in Iraq & Afghanistan so the defense industry gets a windfall and government spending further increases the deficit – so they can defeat health care for Americans.
And now they want Americans to again pay for it.....this time with a cap on malpractice awards.
Malpractice insurers will win big time under this......they'll still continue with their monopolistic ways (zero anti-trust) enforcement.
America wake up – it's time to vote every last remaining Republican out of office.
how can you ; really pass a health care bill that will define and include helping the masses, when virtually "everyone" who has a seat in congress are in the back pocket of the lobbyist and dick amrey . and their deep pockets. who throw money around to both dem and republicans. no faith in this corrupt system where only the [haves] get the entitlement.
Solutions to the "healthcare crisis"
Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines and you immediately have more competition, just like what happened with auto insurance. Cost = $0
Allow doctors to have their patients sign a waiver to their right to sue for anything other than gross negligence. Cost = $0
Both of these provide options to people with and without insurance without FORCING anyone to opt in, or out, or pay in.
My problem with the current proposals is that it forces people to fund a government program even if they don't participate. How is that American? If an insurance company forced you to pay them without providing you a service the government would put them out of business immediately, yet the government engages in that sort of practice all the time.
DONT TREAD ON ME
The cap is because.. doctors are so scared of getting sued out of existence that they order tons of tests just to prove what they already know which increase YOUR insurance rates. Insurance like Medicares pays so little to doctors that they have to see a patient every 10 minutes. And they wonder why the patients healthcare quality decreases. Not to mention that 10minutes per patient helps them pay for their malpractice insurance.. A state has X amount of doctors, each doctor takes 8 years to train. And during that time they have tons of loans and get paid around 40g's for there 48hr work weeks which is around 9dollars an hour. They screw up once and now they owe a patient a few million or a million in damages?? they cant pay for that, especially not a primary care doc.. there license is gone and thats it. no job and that state with X amount of doctors is not minus one that it needs to train a kid 8years for.. and he is scared out of his mind. Tort reform needs to happen along with increasing doctor payments AKA government medicare, limiting malpractice.. so that patient care increases. patient care increasing will limit mistakes. and make more doctors want to go to primary care. Insurance companies need competition? drop state lines, why does health insurance have to do with ur job?? everyone should get their own, regardless of what company they work for? an insurance company has 90 percent of people in a city? monopoly laws? ... i am not for a government healthcare... just because i think 100things also need to be done before a "public option" should even be considered. This needs a multiple front approach.. and with the deficit "thanks bush" we cant afford it now.. so why dont start attacking all the smaller things until we have the money. Arguing over something that isnt feasible at the moment and that shouldnt be the spot light of healthcare reform isnt smart.. but then again politicians arnt either.. Everyone hates the lawyers.. guess who the politicians are.
Tort reform is not for health insurance companies you dumbies. Doctors don't get medical malpractice insurance coverage from healthcare companies; if doctors pay less for coverage they can charge less for their services and thus the less that healthcare insurance companies have to pay out. Why is it so hard to realize that insurance is all about risk; if you pay out more than you take in you go out of business. Sure, you can make it non-profit and allow pre-existing conditions however how do you pay for it if your expenses are more than your revenue? I have yet to hear ANYONE discuss this yet! Until they do I don't think reform has a chance.
"This is saying the obvious, but it needs to be said. These two are bought and paid for by the American Trial Lawyers Association (which recently re-named itself the Association for Justice, because the name "trial lawyer" is too…honest?)."
I'm not sure how that's worse than being bought and paid for by the health insurance industry, which is what most of the Republicans are.
Any bill that is produced that does not include real tort reforms can not be taken seriously. At this very moment, on the cover of the Tampa Bay Yellow Pages, there are three different advertisements for three different malpractice firms. JUST ON THE COVER! On my way to work, I see SIX roadside billboards, advertising the services of malpractice attorneys. This along a four mile stretch of northbound 275. If you don't think physicians think about these things, you are wrong. I know I do. I know my colleagues do. What a shame. You can bet I am going to order every test in the book to CMA. I am not about to give away what took me over a decade and a half to earn. Not a chance. The arguments against real tort reforms are old, tired, and stopped holding water a long time ago.
University of Michigan Medical School '94
I know that the just threat of getting sued plays a huge role in how physicians conduct themselves on a day to day basis. With today's medicolegal climate, when I see a fairly routine patient with a fairly routine complaint, I am much more inclined to order a $10,000 work-up to get a 99% diagnosis, than to spend $300 to get a 97% diagnosis. Knowing that there are dozens of malpractice attorneys around the corner salivating to get their hands on me and that although I may be innocent of any wrong doing, I may be tied up in court for years and that a judgement may be settled out of court because it is cheaper than actually defending myself. This is 'lawsuit lotto', and the attorneys know this. They will tell you that they are protecting "patient's rights", yet take 60% or more of any award. I agree with compensating a person who is a victim of negligence however the trial lawyers have the system rigged and flood Congress with money to keep it that way. Shine it up, but it still stinks.
Look, $250k is basically 5 years of income for the average US family. It's a lot of money. Is it enough that if you die and your family wins the money, they'll be able to retire and do nothing for 30 years?
Most life insurance policies are for around $100k, and people buy them like hotcakes, because $100k is a lot of money. $250k is perfectly reasonable.
What incentive is there for me to be a doctor if almost 50% to 75% (depending on which state I practice medicine in) is going towards mal-practice insurance?
It's simple, address Tort Reform now or there won't be any doctors left to sue.
Caps on recovery of damages for pain and suffering only serves to protect insurance companies which, without regard to the existence of caps, will always make their money off their insureds. As is the case with poor drivers, insurance companies need to rate doctors and charge those with a history of negligence larger premiums instead of spreading the costs among the entirety of the profession. Incompetent doctors should be unable to obtain insurance, which should be mandated by our states for all doctors so that those without insurcance cannot practice.
Moreover, a vast part of the problem in the medical profession is that, unlike the legal profession, it does not police itself to eliminate from its midst the doctors who perpetually cause damage rather than fulfill their obligation to heal.
Finally, caps are detrimental to those who suffer for many years, decades or entire lifetimes with pain resulting from medical neglect. Just imagine, as an example of pain caused by medical malpractice, having to manually massage the abdomen and bowel to defecate rather than being able to do it naturally? Now imagine having to do that daily for 7300 days (equivalent to 20 years)? Let juries award, and appellate courts review the propiety of, what is fair and just under the circumstances of each case.
You also have plenty of Americans that will sue at the drop of a hat if they think just the little thing wrong was done and an attorney will take on the case. I've got an idea, how about we reduce what the attorney can collect if their client wins. If they only get a percent or two they may be willing to only take on the ones that really count!
Again, the GOP is sticking up for Insurance companies. I'm sick and tired of it. Physicians have malpractice Insurance. Does any one realize that? If court action even becomes necessary for malpractice or intentional misconduct by a Doctor...our Justice system provided civil laws to address these issues. Now that the GOP see's the writing on the wall for impending health care reform....they want to flank legistlation to continue protecting the Insurance companies. This is bogus...they also need to out law Peasnt's life Insurance to Coporations.............
Cap the rogue Insurance companies period!!
What the party of no is really doing here is limiting the amount of money a Trial Lawyer can make on malpractice suits, that in many cases could take years. Why is it that the party of no want's trial lawyers to work for nothing but has no problem with Insurance Executives making millions upon millions in salaries and bonuses to deny health benefits? What I see is an opposition party that wants to control what Trial lawyers can make, and to force americans to buy private health insurance rather than have a choice to purchase the public option. Sounds like they don't believe in freedom of choice anymore.
No matter whether their is a cap or not, they all still have to go through the courts. So why not just create some form of a medical malpractice payment scale based on the type of damages inflicted, then go case by case?
I mean, if you have to deal with an unintended tiny scar for the rest of your life, you may get a minimal amount of money. If they cut off the wrong leg, you get a larger amount. It all depends on case by case.
Then, OPEN STATE BORDERS on puchasing health insurance!
It's the attorneys that created this problem. Washington is full of attorneys, so do you really think they will pass a bill that will in the end hurt their income?
Again the republicans spend their political capitol backing big Insurance companies and the AMA. Evidently they care nothing about the people who are victims of bad doctors who make bad decisions. Their idea of improving health care with "tort reform" is a cynical joke. Under Bush and now fighting Obama, the republicans (and blue dog Democrats too) have done nothing other than obstruct any real change to help our uninsured, and instead have focused on increasing profits to the companies who reward them with millions in political donations. What a pathetic lot these people are: lining their own pockets with money on the backs of the poor and uninsured. It's sickening.
No---but they need to put an end to the ridiculous lawsuits people file trying to make a quick buck. Those lawsuits should be eliminated by having the losing party pay ALL fees involved. Democrats are in bed with the lawyers, that's why the strong resistance to any reform to malpractice. Face it folks, that's a reason we pay so much, the malpractice insurance costs are passed on to us. It's not all about the insurance companies.
My understanding is that supporters of a cap are touting $250,000 for pain and suffering and $500,000 for punitive damages.
That's not much if you lose your livlihood or are left permanently disabled due to negligence! What if that happened to you and now you have to retrofit your house for a wheelchair and/or are never able to work at what might have been a well-paying profession that you studied to learn for years?
Malpractice payouts have almost not risen AT ALL over the last ten years (look it up) yet malpractice insurance has OVER tripled! What does that tell you? The insurance companies are making out like bandits.
Without civil law suits, we'd still be driving Pintos to toxic waste dump playgrounds with lead painted swing sets. Handcuff the civil legal system and watch more innocent people die at the already bloody hands of corporate "free markets."
Sen Cae, you are like your Dad, "We the need help, you are telling the GOP, "We the people, not the $$$!"
Practically everything being said and done by anyone (Dems and Reps) in Washington regarding the "new healthcare system" is insulting to all of us. We need reform, not partisan, screw the taxpayer, reform. If Congress passes any legislation in regard to health care, they MUST be required to take the same healthcare that they are trying to enforce on all of us.
this is how it should be:
- no $ for malpractice lawsuit
- if the doctor has erred, as convicted in a trial that can be appealed all the way to the supreme cout, s/he would be required to donate one of internal organs
- however, if the doctor wins (i.e. no error on his part) the plaintiff must donate one of his/her internal organs
it's a win-win situation as it'll certainly de-incentivies frivilous lawsuit.
Sure, cap the payouts, but not so much to the person injured, but instead to the laywers! Why did a law firm make BILLIONS on tobacco suit when the people suing made millions each? Unreal! Cap laywer's payouts to 50K per case, per year the case goes on. This would immediately bring down "frivolous" lawsuits, becase lawyers wouldn't risk getting into them for "only" 50K.
A law firm doesn't need more than 50k per year, per lawsuit. This would actually make them have to work for their money instead of spending all their time smoking cigars in their country clubs.
Do any of you realize how many b/s malpractice lawsuits are out there. My father was a doctor and got sued many times. Not because he did anything wrong but because at some point in some patience medical history he read an x-ray. Look at it from the doctors perspective you idiots. Doctors take care of you and they are not the isurance companies. But you people treat them like they are. This cap is only on pain and suffering not on economic factors like lost wages and future earnings. Doctors all over this country should form a union and demand that this mistreatment and milking of there income stop. I bet if that happened all the insurance companies and lawyers would change there tune and so would all you. Doctors are the only friend you have when it comes to your health act like it!!!! Or just maybe they will start refusing to treat certain people for liability purposes. Wouldn't that shut you all up!!!
What else would you expect Dem Senator Casey to say? He has always been in the "trial Lawyer's" pocket. They supported every campaign he ever ran. He isa lawyer himself as he was attorney General of Pa. first.
Just look at thenumber of ambulance chaser commercials on TV in Northeast Pa. Without malpractice cases, many many of which are jokes, these guys might actually have to take on real legal cases. OH NO !!!!
So-called tort reform is a blatant attempt by tobacco, asbestos, insurance etc. industries to eliminate an inherited right to legal redress by a jury of our peers. At the same time these same industries want to continue to sue each other for millions. So-called reform will effect citizens only. Those in power will see to that. Lawsuits are the only way we can seek some fairness from the excesses and draw attention to the unfairness of our system. Tort reform doesn't do what it advertises, it won't lesson costs it would only increase profits as we sit back and watch another of our precious rights disappear. this isn't about trial lawyers it's about us. Tort reform don't fall for it.
xvet
This $250,000 cap is obviously being suggested by a wealthy Republican. In many situations, $250,000 wouldn't cover two weeks worth of care. $50,000,000 might be too much of a settlement but a $250,000 maximum settlement is laughable.
The insurance companies are making out like bandits. They are making billions of dollars in profits and these Republicans are going after the victims?
Really?
Thank you, Senator Casey for coming out strong.
All these people saying they want limits on damages. Yea right,untill you are the victim. My doctor amputates the wrong limb,or testicle, or screws up a med. that cripples me or damages my brain. I want justice.
A cap on non-economic damages such as pain and suffering would be a realistic way to lower insurance premiums. There should be no cap on any economic damages incurred such as the cost of corrective procedures and/or the need for future care caused by a medical error. This would allow doctors to be held accountable while preventing patients from winning the lottery from a sympathetic jury.
It is just like the republicans to side with big business over the little guy. They don't give a darn about the average "joe," their only concern is what they can do to help the insurance companies get richer! Health care reform – yeah right – what BS! Go figure!
I think that limiting damages to this figure is both insulting and unfair. Let's just say for the sake of argument that an incompetent doctor causes your death and you leave behind a wife and two young children, would this amount be sufficient to cover the needs of your family? If there's evidence of wrong-doing by a doctor, then a jury should decide the amount of compensation.
$250,000 does not begin to cover the medical expenses and suffering of someone wronged at the hands of an inept physician. Hey! I have an idea! Let's bring down healthcare costs through a public option and other initiatives, and maybe a $250,000 cap for expenses will be reasonable! As far as punishing ineptness and lassitude go, there should be no cap. If a physician is arrogant or lazy enough to get him or herself into trouble by crippling or killing a patient, then they need to pay, and pay big.
The only Tort reform needed is to use our common sense and create an accountable system that; Sets guidelines for Tests and allow patients to pay for extra Tests and if these extra Tests find something then insurance should be required to pay for it. If not the patient pays.
Also, disbar attorneys that bring frivoulous lawsuits.
Never ever limit a persons right to a judgement amount.
Let's all take responsibility.
The problem is this. Most medical lawsuits are frivolous. That means that catastrophic medical errors are few and far between. In defense of doctors, they are set against high expecatations. The problem with that is the following. 1) Doctors aren't God. They can't prevent everything and definitely can't cure a lot of things. 2) Patients need to be accountable. A lot of patients do not follow recommendations by their doctors. While there are some doctors who are not good at all, most are competent and care about their patients. With that said, I think that to have an impact of reducing unneeded tests being ordered by physicians, malpractice reform with malpractice insurance reform is needed. I know that no one likes that, but anything to reduce cost is important. The fact is I know an OBGYN who got sued because she performed a life saving hysterectomy and another who got sued by a patient whom he delivered 8 years ago because her son was not doing well in school. I mean there is something wrong with that.
My good friend's father had the wrong leg amputated. After all of that he still had to have his bad leg taken.
He received a couple million for his pain & suffering which in my mind wasn't near enough.
To offer people like this a maximum of 250k is not only insulting, it's asinine.
Capping damages like this will only lead to more widespread medical malpractice.
I think the CBO's analysis shows that the idea that there is massive waste in medicine for fear of tort liability is–to put it politely–a bit of an exaggeration.
Plus, capping pain and suffering damages is only a small part of the liability issue. It doesn't cap economic damages, which can just as easily get exaggerated. Even assuming doctors practice "defensive medicine" for fear of liability, capping pain and suffering doesn't do enough to reduce that exposure.
There is a problem with this and almost all other areas of the law: jury trials will often result in scientifically-dubious results favorable to the sympathetic, "little guy" plaintiff, but, on the other hand, alternative dispute resolution forums (e.g., arbitration) tend either to reflexive, "split the baby" results or to favor the defendant, who is the "repeat customer."
Cap insurance. Reform in the definition area of what is mal-practice would help prevent frivous lawsuits but there still needs to be protection of American citizens when the doctors and the hospitals are careless.
And malicious and/or frivolous "deep pockets" lawsuits, devoid of merit, aren't "insulting" to their victims?
This is a country where an idiot won a lawsuit against McDonalds for spilling hot coffee all over herself, alleging that the restaurant hadn't warned her that the hot coffee she'd ordered was going to be hot. A number of years ago, a friend of mine, an airplane mechanic, was sued because he'd once replaced a battery in an airplane which was subsequently crashed by an amateur pilot flying into a thunderstorm.
The medical profession needs protection from people filing baseless lawsuits. If you don't like damage caps, think of a better way to do that.
Hold on some of you disgrunteled misleading, lying Repubs are trying to make this cap on malpractice lawsuits the fault of President Obama, like Bugl3t, this anus is a repub, President Obama has not said what he would vote for yet.
This is still being argued by the House and Senant. The cap shud be 3 million, no one can put a price on life thou, to me President Obama is trying everything possible to get everyone covered under a Health care system that does not raise your premiums, or disqualify you for treatment.
Yes, there are alot of crooked politicians up there on Capital Hill that are getting super paid by the insurance lobbiest, but that has been going on way before President Obama took office.
Well to play devil's advocate on the issue, remember 20% of all medical costs is FRAUD.
They need to focuse on that aspect, you know the ones where people, insurance companies, and lawyers SCAM the system.
This is not how you do it.
Also, 50,000 Americans die each year because of doctor's and medicine. Nothing is perfect and no solution or health care reform will solve this problem.
Meaningful and fair tort reform is a good idea. Limiting damages to $250,000 is ridiculous especially since physicians are unwilling to discipline incompetent doctors.
Of course Repub are pushing what they call tort reform because they seek to cripple lawyers.
Poster "tate" (12:14 pm EST) is partially correct.
The GOP knows that many trial lawyers support democratic candidates, and that any blow to their incomes will hurt the party's fundraising.
This is exactly the same strategy they've been pursuing for the last two decades in regard to radical tax reductions for the upper class, albeit with a different target, the federal government (see G. Norquist).
Taxation and tort awards may be far from perfect, but Conservatives and the GOP, along with the activist judges on the Supreme Court, want to eradicate every form of resistance to corporate governance that exists. In other words, fools like "tate" who go along willingly in the name of "freedom" are helping end democracy in this country.
As a mother of a disabled son, I can tell you that $250,000 for malpractice is a spit in the ocean. If you are disabled through someone else’s negligence or incompetence, $250K won’t go far, not at today’s medical prices. Then what do you do? Die quickly?
The only way to reduce medical costs is to strictly regulate insurance companies. Congress will not vote to regulate insurance because most of them are in the pockets of insurance companies, Repubs and Democrats alike.
Of course the republicans want to cap the amount average citizens can sue when they're hurt by doctors/hospitals. I agree with the previous poster who stated that the amount that insurance companies charge doctors should be capped, not the amount you can sue for when you are injured by neglectful doctors/hospitals. They should take responsibility for their failures. the bottom line is that insurance companies want to charge outrageous fess for insurance, which causes hospitals to charge ridiculous fees for service. When they screw up that service, the inusrnace companies want to bear no responsibility for any of it. They're nothing but sharks.
This is chicken feed. How much do these insurance companies,doctors and hospitals make???? Insulting is not the word – robbery is the word.
I will leave some numbers for you to mull over. Malpractice reform will bring down costs.
I am an orthopaedic surgeon who has never been sued, I am in fifth 5th year of practice.
In my first 3 years – I was in connecticut. My malpractice insurance was 50,000 dollars per year. After 3 years I decided to move to another state – I had to pay a tail coverage – the cost of that was 100,000 dollars. For those of you who do not know – tail coverage is required to cover you against law suits that may be brought 5 years from now by some one I treated in my 3 yrs in connecticut because that 50,000 dollar per year policy was like car insurance – expires at the end of the year.
Recently I met another orthopaedic surgeon close to retirement from California – his malpractice rate is 18000 per year. This is because california has a cap on pain and suffereing damages.
Currently I take no chance. Right now, if you want an MRI – you will get an MRI even if clinically it is not indicated. That is because if there is a one million chance that you have something that will be diagnosed on that MRI – I do not want you to sue me. I have put in 10 years of training and borrowed a few hundred thousand dollars and worked very hard to get where I am. My duty to protect my capacity to practice my craft is sacrosanct. You will take risks and you will pay. I will take no risk or no chance.
so will the costs come down with malpractice reform – you bet they will.
250,000 is only a cap on "Pain and Suffering" – actualy compensatory damages are still commensurate with harm.
Really that may be too low but its not crazy – 500,000 might be more in line.
If you don't cap damages you're going to force them to launch into a whole new regulation of malpractice insurance which is another bailout waiting to happen. The truth is most doctors don't make THAT much money any more and with this health reform it's going to be even less. On top of that the cost of Malpractice insurance is so high in some states they can't staff their hospitals any more because many doctors who are carrying a hundred thousand dollars+ in student loans simply can't afford to practice there.
The worst part of the current malpractice system though is that doctors are so afraid of getting sued they're afraid to try even life-saving therapies if there's any chance something will go wrong and they'll get sued. Take it from someone in the healthcare field – a LOT of people are getting standard-of-care treatments right into the grave when riskier therapies could have saved them because no one wants to risk getting sued.
A savngs of $54 billion is nothing to sneeze at. We are all going to have to take a bite out of this "poop" sandwich, if you will, for anything to succeed. I agree with Sen. Casey that a $250K cap is insulting' however, it doesn't have to be $250K. It could be higher and you could add in "sunset" provisision which migjht allow you to go back to the number in 5 or 10 years and adjust it or get rid of it if there is no discernable impact. Again, as pointed out, there is no cap on economic damages (wages, benefits, etc.) But if you are a stay at home mother, retured or eben unemployed you may have little to no economic damages. medical costs for future care are not capped either. Thus, if you are in need of 24 hour care that will be paid as part of any settlement or judgment-presuming there is liability. What most people don't know is that the vast majority of medical malpractice cases are losers. In Cook Co., IL about 25%-30% result in an injured person getting a verdict in their favor. The rest of the time juries tend to find for the medical provider. That's because there is either no liability or the injured person does not do a convincing job of proving their case.
I suppose the GOP could actually START participating in the debate, with something other than just "No."
There is an alternative to trial by jury. It is called arbitration. Of course if you are maimed by a surgeons knife you should be compensated and medical mistakes should not go unpunished.
As a surgeon, I see plenty of people who are rear ended in MVA with no medical damage to them whatsoever except for minor aches and pains. 99% of them come up with phony complains which persists till the MVA case is settled. This is the type of law suit I am talking about. there are plenty of such non-sense medical law suits..
In this society there are plenty of people who are looking to make money any how and do not care where and how it comes from. A medical malpractice is a great source of money to such people.
The only thing that will bring down costs is to take insurance out of the for profit territory. If you can't get the money from the DOCTOR's INSURANCE policy, it will come from the person's insurance. Either way, it comes from US in the form of higher rates, doesn't it? You won't see the insurance company taking a hit over any of this, because their only goal is profit and the bottom line. Here is one more case of a Republican plan that will encourage death, because if someone is really a victim of malpractice, $250,000 is nothing, and if there is no public insurance, the person needing care will eventually either bankrupt their family, or die from lack of necessary care.
Isn't this rich: a bunch of millionaire politicians putting a price tag on the people's suffering for a lifetime that barely equals their own salary for a single year. I think it's high time that we tear the entire system down and start over with people of conscience in charge rather those who are barely human.
A cap? Seriously? Some people can have serious injuries which can last their entire life and the GOP wants to cap their compensation!
That's $54 billion more profit to insurance companies. Not a dime will go to reducing cost of health insurance. Both parties should stop thinking their own pockets. They forget why they were elected and by who.
The entire concept of tort reform is based on misconceptions about our legal system.
Traditionally, for any kind of lawsuit, if the plaintiff wins the lawsuit, the usual reward is damages plus three times damages (this is known as "treble damages"). The damages pay for the actual cost of fixing what was done wrong, and the rest is to pay your attorney and give you some restitution for having to go through the courts (as opposed to your doctor fixing what he did wrong up front, or if your doctor does something intentional or grossly negligent).
Now, in your really bad cases (like the doctor who carved his initials in somebody during surgery), the jury may decide to go ahead and tack on punitive damages, which is where your multimillion dollar verdicts come in. Note the JURY decides this, not the JUDGE.
Now, with Republican tort reform, let's say your doctor gives you a shot with a dirty needle and you get Hepatitis C, and you wind up spending a half million dollars on hospitalization and medical treatment. Under the republican plan, you would only get $750,000, which after paying your lawyer would still leave you in the hole. Or the lawyer could not get paid for his work (which in medical malpractice cases can take years).
Basically tort reform is attempt to screw over both the victims of medical malpractice and the lawyers who represent those victims.
Pat F is right. There is no limit on ecomomic damages, only non-economic damages. A doctor can be sued for anything in Pennsylvania. Most of the time nobody has done anything wrong and the patient is fine, but the lawyers sue because the patient "could have been better", "has 'chronic anxiety' and can't work" "didn't know that was would be a treatment complication" even though it's specifically described in a discussion and on a treatment consent form. Cases are often settled even though there's no wrongdoing, because if a jury finds for the plaintiff for eight figures it's a "jackpot." Lawyers always take their ~40% contingency fee, so they are by far the main beneficiaries of the current tort system. Patients get only small fraction of the settlement after taxes, and settle or not, the doctor who's typically done nothing wrong gets a black mark in the National Practitioner Data Bank and has to explain the BS lawsuit every time he or she wants to work somewhere new.
This enormous churn sucks up health care dollars that could be used to reinvest in the system, improving safety and technology, maybe electronic medical records, hiring more nurses, renovating nursing units, etc. Instead of investing in health infrastructure, it's better for lawyers and malpractice insurers to have subsistence health care. Jackpot payouts justify huge premiums, and errors are just a fact of life in an unimproved health system. Those errors are addressed by retribution in the justice system rather than figuring out why they happen and revamping health care infrastructure to see that they don't happen again. But I guess this is the externality of "protecting the little guy" and "maintaining the right to sue"
what do you say to the patient who has his/her kidney removed only to find that the doctor removed the wrong kidney? Sorry, the doctor didn't mean it and we hope to get you back in the operating table to remove the right one. You think 250k will suffice for all the treatments they will have to receive in their lifetime. Before you say NO ; think about it.
We already have some really sad caps on Workman's Comp suits and payments. The justification is to protect employers. Why would we not apply the same rules to medical malpractice?
I'd like to see the insane requirements for education for some of these medical personnel greatly reduced. There is reason millions of people fly out of the country for routine surgeries that cost less due to far less education requirements and the importation od "doctors" who recieved their degrees with far less schooling in another country. That's a lot of money leaving the country. Instead of our lawmakers adding additional schooling to certain professions when someone does something that had nothing to do with their amount of education (ie: leave a clamp in a patient during surgery). How about we just remove their license?
There are a lot of great people out there, who could be great doctors but are limited due to funds and the almost insurmountable amount of education required for almost every top field of medicine.
The DEMs need to understand that you cannot feed the trial lawyers while trying to roll out universal health care? We will now be insuring everyone including the underbelly of the country. And these are the folks who do no take care of themselves, smoke, drink, do drugs and will more likely to also sue for invalid reasons (and I am sure some readers will take this to be racist – but majority of these folks I refer to are white). This limit must be low to start out with so that the change has a chance to work before the lawyers get fat. We already have the insurance companies getting fat, and I hope the final plan will lean on them significantly. I know that the trial lawyers love the DEMs because they feed them at every turn they can, but in this one case they need to draw the line. It is idiotic to spend a trillion dollars on a new health care system and increase the costs with huge legal settlements.Granted that $250,000 is too low, but it has to be no more than twice that if we are to get everyone insured.
I agree with Censorship 100%. I don't think anyone really cares how much money doctors make. They deserve to make good money for putting peoples lives in their hands everyday. Now, the insurance companies are crooks, and I have felt this way from the time my father was sick with cancer and I got to see how ruthless these companies can be. So, cap the insurance companies and let the doctors do their jobs with the passion they had when they decided to go into medical school. If you are working and you know the bulk of your money is going into a black hole how high do you think your morale would be?
If people don't see that the republicans are all about making more money for the already rich they are blind.
I am by NO means a republican or conservative, but I would actually be in favor of capping 'pain and suffering' caused by malpractice to about 1 million. Right now malpractice insurance is a major cost contributing to health care and by limiting pain and suffering damages, it keeps the monetary damages in place so docs have to pay for their mistakes in terms of added care, but also helps to keep malpractice claims in check to a degree.
But if Republicans think a simple cap on medical claims will fix the entire health care industry I think they need to be taken into the mental health care industry because they would be completely out of touch with reality.
How bout 500K then, and have a sliding scale for their mistake. This would take the ambulance chasers out of the picture.
Interesting comment about the Bond posted in FL.
Both sides need to THINK instead of name calling.
This problem ain't going away folks, and only to get worse.
Very interesting! Republican changed the bankruptcy law to protect the deep pockets and now they’re against a cap on malpractice because…. Well, in my opinion, only to be controversial and divisive not because they care.
Casey isn't a moderate. It's just that he is never around that you actually don't know his real political views. How do I know, Ihe's my Senator..
Frivulous lawsuits are the main reason that healthcare costs so much in this country. However the ambulance-chasing trial lawyers are some of the democrats most generous and faithful contributors. The democrats would rather see american citizens go broke or without healthcare than to alienate this vital segment of their financial base.
Why not review the successful outcomes of our friends overseas?
As I understand it – in some commonwealth countries, they use a three judge panel to review medical malpractice cases prior to litigation. If the case is deemed frivilous, it is thrown out, and the plaintiff's barrister is put in a bad light as presenting a frivilous case (which can affect his license to practice). If deemed legitimate, the three judge panel allows the case to proceed.
A "three strikes rule" where you lose your law license for habitually presenting frivilous cases, protects institutions but raises the stakes for defendant, as their are no caps for damages.
Something like a panel of arbitrators used in the American system might be an answer. The question is... who picks the arbitrators?
There are workable ideas out there, but don't expect either side to like them.
There will NEVER be tort reform in this country because neither the trial lawyers NOR the insurance companies really want it. Both groups are the ones making millions from malpractice. If we really want to have tort reform we are going to have to STOP the insurance companies from being allowed to cover it. That will NEVER HAPPEN. They are making way too much money from these premiums.
I hope the republicans who proposed the $250000 cap will be happy to take it if someone takes off the wrong leg .
I agree $250,000 is inadequate but there is need for a cap. My suggestion would be $1,000,000 plus reasonable cost of care if needed as a result of a medical mistake. Very few Americans accumulate more than one million dollars during their life. This should be sufficient for any situation. If death occurs and/or no care is needed $1,000.000 is a reasonable limit.
Living in a state with a $250k cap and having an uncle lose his ability to function independently, earn his own keep, and be forced to live in a 24/7 nursing care facility for the rest of his natural life (sounds a lot like prison doesn't it?), I can attest to the pure negligence of the cap system. My family almost went bankrupt placing him in a managed care facility that was up to the standards of service that he needs. My mother has three mortgages open to supplement his disability benefit to ensure the appropriate care for his condition that was caused by a clerical error for a blood test for surgery by a Dr. and a hospital that refused to give the test in time for his procedure causing him to lose his leg. The $250k he was awarded(max award) provided exactly two years of nursing care. He has so far spent 13 years in care and is now about to pass away. There must be a way to eliminate unnecessary money grabs while ensuring that those that have legitimate claims for negligent and or malicious decisions errors at a health provider are taken care of. After all, we're frequently talking about mistakes that effect the remaining years of a persons life. Is that worth $250k, $54 billion, is a life's value more than mere money? Ask your self what any of your family members lives are worth in monetary value? Than consider whether a for profit corporation has any interest in your life. It doesn't and we all know it.
In an Ideal world, I would create a non-profit insurance company.
In fact, I don't know what is preventing one from being created now.
Maybe it is all the Red Tape that states use to regulate the insurance companies? The barrier to entry is so high in some states, that BCBS is the only one left.
And, if the Democrats eliminate max lifetime and max out of pocket expenses, it will further increase the barriers to entry, decrease the competition and lead to even higher insurance costs.
So, encourage higher-out-of pocket expenses – for lower premiums, just like car insurance, I get high deductible and don't claim the little stuff.
Cap all lifetime payouts at $1 million. That levels the playing field for insurance. After $1 million lifetime, allow the person to buy into medicare.
Capping malpractice suits is ridiculous. How about the patient who is paralyzed, blinded, crippled, permanently disabled or dies due to negligence of the medical practitioner. What do they do with $250,000?
Leave this out of health care reform and instead make sure that irresponsible law suits are not filed by penalizing those who file them.
I don't agree with McCain very much anymore ... but, a cap on liability awards could very well have a positive affect on health care prices.
We all know that the little guy dreams for the big payday win of a malpractice settlement bonanza. "Hit me I need the money". Sound familiar?
I've heard that our nation's doctors are all for the plan because it would lower their insurance premiums. We could couple the cap with a Medical licensee three strike law. That way if they screw up three times then they lose their license to practice. Whatever that license may be. That would limit the unthinking screw-ups made by hospitals, doctors, nurses, technicians, and all other medical personnel and bring our costs down a bit.
This is a cap on 'Non-monetary damages'; the gravy train for lawyers. It is the source of the ridiculous overages on awards, simply because that is where the lawyer gets the biggest cut.
Such a limitation has made a HUGE difference here in Texas, and true malpractice is still actively sued over. But the truly frivolous ones are far less numerous; no legalistic lottery ticket to be won.
Pat F, while it's true that the caps imposed in all these tort "reform" schemes limit pain and suffering, in many cases the pain and suffering is the largest element because the average income for a worker in this country just isn't that high. One thing you fail to mention as well is that many of these schemes, like the one in Texas, even mandate that future lost earnings be paid out annually over the life of the plaintiff. If you really are a practicing lawyer, you understand the negotiating leverage this gives the insurance company when the inevitable appeal is filed.
All of this means that medical malpractice claims become economically unfeasible in tort reform states for all but the highest wage earners. These are very expensive claims to bring and risky because jurors tend to not want to punish local physicians unless they have done something truly egregious. Not to mention that tort reform doesn't actually work. Total claim pay-outs are .5% of our medical costs and haven't changed much over the last ten years, while medical costs have skyrocketed. So-called "defensive medicine" is less about fear of lawsuits and more about doctors and hospitals seeking more ways to make money (see McAllen, Texas). Ever wonder why every little po-dunk town has its own cancer center and so many MRI machines?
I think there needs to be a common sense approach. Certainly there are frivolous suits and certainly not every medical issue gone wrong is the doctor's fault. Suits should be restricted to true incompetence. Removing the wrong limb or organ is incompetence. Not getting the desired result is not always incompetence–doctors aren't miracle workers! Maybe what is needed more are review boards to review the suits and determine what is tru incompetence.
Let's make this simple. Instead of paying malpractice insurance, let the doctors pay the same fee as an excise tax and offer them a tax credit if no one sues them. They would have the profit incentive not to screw up so we both win. The only losers are the insurance companies playing both sides of the street. What do you think???
The amount should allow you to be able to retire for the rest of your life so you dont have to work. I think 3million should be good enough and after taxes, you'll be okay. This is the right way to do it.
OK; If you want this cap Reform The AMA. Require a nationwide register of doctors guilty of malpractice. Nationwide cap on number of offenses. Administrative law judges involved with the discipline process & a transparent, nationwide licensing authority. Quacks just move to a new state & continue to butcher patients.
It needs to be a common sense amount but not 80 million like the ones that I have heard on TV.
My wife is a Doctor of Internal Medicine in the Dallas area. I am her office manager. I have heard many physicians discuss many topics for ten years. Texas instituted a $250,000 cap on the pain and suffering portion of damages several years ago. Total damages are capped at $750,000. The law has been succeeded in lowering malpractice suits and rates and brought new malpractice insurers to Texas. It took several years for lawsuits filed prior to the change to work their way through the system. It is unfortunate that we have to have statutory regulation but in the absence of complete information, transparency and accountability the law is beneficial.
I consider my life worth more than $250,000, but it appears republicans think they are worthless.
I've had the "pleasure" of being picked for Jury Duty twice for lawsuits regarding "pain and suffering".
Both times it was Fat Lazy Black Women thinking they had their ticket to riches. They were disrespectful to the court, showing up late, chomping on chewing gum, getting calls on the cell phones. Both times we said NO, but I wonder how many other juries say Yes?
I couldn't believe the colossal waste of time and money for Lawyers, Court Room, Judges, Jury, etc.
The next time I'm picked, I'm going to ask the Plaintiff to take my $20 Jury Duty pay and drop the case instead of wasting my day. Otherwise you're getting Nothing.
Hmmmm, What other industry gets paid a guaranteed 33% profit +their expenses? Lawyers simply put a monetary value on a loved one's life or limb with the results being paid for by everyone else in America. You want to talk about greed, you better take a look at the trial layer lobbyist Groups. How much is your leg worth? How much is your arm worth? If you want affordable healthcare without paying increased taxation, TORT LAW REFORM!
Bob Casey's three largest contributors are law firms, and of total contributions in the 2005-2010 cycle, over $3.4 million was contributed by law firms, the largest sector by far, eclipsing the totals of the next 4 groups donating. Do you think this may influence why he is "insulted" by the need for malpractice caps?
Allow actual damages i.e. loss of work and future earnings plus pain and suffering. and resonable attorny fees
Any punitive damages should not go to the plaintive, they should be considered a fine and awarded to the government.
Attorneys should not share in any punitive damages.
Plainly, a cap penalizes those most badly injured by doctor and hospital negligence. Over 60% of malpractice cases are committed by under 10% of practicing doctors. There is absolutely no meaningful oversight by the medical profession to weed out incompetent or substance abusing doctors. States with caps have NOT had any reduction in malpractice premiums paid by doctors. The cuprits are clearly the insurance companies who have bought off the Republican proponents of these draconian limits. And costs attributed to medical negligence comprise less the 5% of all medical expenditures nationally. Limiting recoveries will end up costing the rest of us when these undercompensated victims of doctor negligence are forced to turn to public assistance because they are no longer able to work or provide for their families.
If not for the ambulance chasing attorneys who have driven up premiums for malpractice insurance (and therefore medical bills as well) with frivolous lawsuits argued before hand picked sympathetic judges, this conversation might not be necessary. I would like to know the specifics of the Michigan law on damages caps. Also, considering the overall situation there, should Senator Stabenow hold Michigan up as an example of anything other than a labor union dominated failure?
To all who think this is a good idea: I'm in constant pain from a doctor's mistake and I can't go out and earn my 50K a yr. You really think receiving 250k & going completely broke in 5 yrs should be ok w/me? Really?
Here's the savings: $54 billion over 10 years for 300 million people – $18 each per year.
The Republicans are willing to immunize malpractice for that pittance. Think about that!
I am not against people who have actually suffered getting a higher amount of money for a malpractice suit but for people who sue an unbelieveable amount of money when their case is ridiculious then I am all for this cap, the courts need to weed out those who sue just to make money and those who have geniue cases.
There is an easy solution to this issue: Let the doctors open a malpractice savings account to pay for their own mistakes. After all, isn't that the "Conservative" solution for all health care issues?
Wow the GOP now has a plan ... where the hell have they been with their ideas? ... grumbling about Obama so much has taken all their time ... maybe it's time they refocus their eyes and engage their brains. Duh
This article is very misleading. The 250 cap is for pain and suffering, NOT for economic damages/medical expenses. The ignorance of these posts shows that people are completely unaware as to how the healthcare system works. In the current system, patients sue for any unexpected outcome, even if current guidelines were followed, and the risks were known. In this system, they are ALLOWED to do that, and guess what? The lawyers make money off of that. There should be a penalty on wrongful lawsuits. In this country, about 60 percent of malpractice cases are NOT due to negligence, but because patients and lawyers are sue happy.
Yeah, a cap on damages is ridiculous, let's just fine people for not having insurance, instead...that's a much better idea! stupid dems!
How would a cap provide better medical serivces to the poor. It seems to me that once again the middle class and the poor are not a priority for leaders of our country. I do not see anyone talking about a cap on bonus pay for bankers that make poor decisions. GOP is always talking about the right to life but yet they do not want to defend life once it is here.
If you think $250,000 is to low that start doing your job and talk and come to an agreement on limits.
All one has to do is have a relative injured by a medical mistake or medical neglect to see that the cap is unfair. Try taking care of an invalid for 250,000 for their lifetime, it is impossible. The "let them eat cake" attitude is pervasive on the political right, Christians with a conscious, if you ask me.
If you are someone who has suffered from medical malpractice ... we would like to hear from you.... was the good kidney removed and the cancer filled one left? Did a surgeon remove the wrong leg, or the wrong breast? Were you given the wrong medication?
If so, how do you feel about capping the award limit? Did you sue or did you smile and say "oh well, doctors are only human ... mistakes were made." These are the people we need to hear from.
So what is an acceptable amount, Sen. Casey? It seems to me that this would be a deterrent to those who are only looking for a large windfall. Malpractice suits should be limited to gross negligence only. It shouldn't be about the money, but about making sure that negligent behavior by the occasional doctor doesn't extend to others.
It is high time there was some kind of a reasonable cap imposed on such astronomical and nonsensical amounts being awarded as "damages", which finally falls on the shoulders of the rest of us.
Even a quarter million dollars ($250,000) is too much, in my book, and really should be reduced to a reasonable number like say $50,000 to $100,000.
There should also be a clause attached that states that the lawyers cannot suck up more than 10% in fees and expenses, from any such awards granted as damages and that at least 90% of it should go to the aggreived party.
Did Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey bow down to the trial lawyers on this one!
wow
I think it's a good idea, I don't see what is wrong. Some people are greedy, that's one of the biggest problems today. Big awards vs fair awards on malpratice suits.
What a wonderful topic to debate!
Whao te response is great.!!
Doctors collude to cover the misdeeds of their M.D. collegues, I have insider infromation and believe me IT DOES HAPPEN. I could not believe some of the incompetence presented as evidence and yet residents are not reported or even kicked out of the program, often they are referred to another program (passing off the problem) with letters of recommendation! If anyone tells you this is not true, they are lying.
By and large this would be a good thing. I could see in cases of gross negligence where this would not work, but don't kid yourself that it's not a problem. The CBO says it will save $54 billion – maybe that doesn't mean much to you who don't pay taxes, but to me it means alot.
I have to say I'm with the Republicans on this one. It is impossible to put a dollar figure on "pain and suffering"; so we shouldn't try. A doctor should be responsible only for the costs of treatment, and rehabilitation for any mistakes they made.
If a cap is going to be put on medical malpractice lawsuits, then first put a cap on outrageous salaries of company CEOs at $200,000, and stop the insulting (to the constituency) annual increases to our representatives salaries.
I do not know any doctor who would intentional harm any human being. That said, mistakes and complications do happen, and patients should be compensated.
But what happens in most times, do you know of that settlement how much goes to patient? you would be surprised the cut that goes to ambulance chasers.
My malpractice insurance is in 6 figures, you figure 350K from med school on top of that I have to pay before I even have to think about mortgage or anything else. Heck something is going to have to be done otherwise you will see a lot of doctors looking for different profession, simply by not being able to afford being a doctor any more.
For the end, look who is in congress, lawyer after lawyer, our president and vp are lawyers. Do you think they will ever include any reform on medical malpractice? Probably NOT.
I must say I am disturbed by the percentage of people who seem to have a misconception about what a cap on torts would mean. A tort, as a few have mentioned, is the "pain and suffering" portion of the suits, not the actual losses portion. One person did have it right with mentioning the McDonald's hot coffee suit. That extreme sum ($2.86Mil) was a tort while the $11k was the actual losses to cover medical costs. Since continued care for an egregious act by a doctor would be considered "losses" not "pain and suffering" the tort reform cap would have NO impact recouping costs for continued care after a case of malpractice.
With this being the case, Senator Casey being against limiting the extra on top of the losses is bad judgment.
If in your car you hit a patch of ice, clear accident no malice or negligence, yet your car collides with a surgeon. The Doctor, will take you and your insurance company to the cleaners. The double standard and hubris that doctors want to live under in the real world is insulting.
Over half of the companies offering malpractice for Doctors in the U.S. are physician owned. The only requirement to obtain medical malpractice insurance, is a state license to practice. No matter how many times you been sued and lost. Or that you lost you license to practice in another state. If Doc's, where treated the same as others as it relates to insurance, the bad Doc. would be out of business; like bad drivers, and homeowners.
Dumbocrats,what can one say? They all seem to live in a fantasy world,since they don't seem to know how the real world works. So many of you idiots keep saying make insurance companies and medical practitioners non profit, well here's and idea let's just make all jobs not for profit including yours, that way everything will just be free.Yeah didn't think you idiots would like that idea.
I would like to start tort reform by putting a cap on the amount the winning LAWYER(S) can receive. If I were a juror who wanted to award a malpractice victim adequate compensentation, I would have to consider how much of the award his/her lawyer(s) would receive. I would like more knowledgeable persons than I to determine a reasonable limit for the lawyer(s)' share, but I think that netting (after actual expenses) millions of dollars for a single case, would be exhorbitant.
I also think that a panel (of, for example, two judges and three citizens selected from a list of available jurors) from outside the region where the case would be heard should determine whether a potential malpractice case is frivolous or worthy of being tried. If the panel rules the case "frivolous," the plaintiff would retain the right to a trial, but would automatically be responsible for all court cost if he/she were to lose. I believe that this would reduce subatantially the number of frivolous cases going to trial.
I think $250k is way too low these days for the cost of possible care required in the event of major mistakes.
I think it needs to be a sliding scale cap depending on severity of damages.
We in Texas have capped medical malpractice suits at $250,000. Studies have shown that medical costs for Texas consumers have not gone down one cent.
Why aren't the repubs suggesting capping the amount of the lawyers' fees?
The $259K cap on medical malpractice is like putting a cap of 6 months on thieves and thugs.
Get real republicans.
How about this, if you loose your case than pay the both parties expanses.
Here's a thought maybe if everyone got off welfare the government would have enough money to provide healthcare for all americans and we would need to be having this discussion to begin with-just a thought.
WHATEVER! I for one are just tired of the cpmplaing about this complaining about that when are we just going to move on from complaints and move toward PRAYER thats what changes thing.
What's insulting is that doctors will now face less resources to treat patients, will be the only physicians in an industrialized nation without tort reform or medical malpractice insurance caps, and the only country where physicians pay twenty times the average for medical school education.
What that amounts to is health care reform without tort reform. Factor in malpractice insurance and the most expensive medical school tuition, and the average doctor will now make less than the average truck driver in the United States. Who will want to be a doctor now? There's a reason why Americans have gotten the Nobel prize in Medicine for 12 of the past 15 years. With the changes coming, I don't know if that streak will continue...
The Democrats do not care one bit about reducing the cost of health care. This is why they will never get anything passed and why ultimately it will be the Republicans in 2013 that will get 100% of Americans covered by health insurance. They will enact a plan that does not bankrupt the The US Treasury.
My oh my! Did the right-to-life Bible thumping Republicans just put a dollar value on human life? How shocking! But wait. Sorry. I forgot. Big business trumps their God, either that, or big business IS their God. Never mind me. I'll be over in the corner giggling. Sometiems you just have to step past the outrage and laugh at these people.
This was the same limit Bush and McCain tried to impose on malpractice 5 years ago!
If they put this limit on malpractice, to be perfectly fair......how about an associated ruling that revokes the license of any doctor reaching that limit FOR LIFE.
If SCARRED FOR LIFE, THEN DOCTOR BARRED FOR LIFE.
As long as BOTH doctors AND lawyers are still driving top of the line Mercedes Benzs and owning three houses...there is something TERRIBLY wrong with health care and tort reform in this country. And limiting the patient while not the bad doctor is obscene.