leave to the states to decide on such matters as gay marriage but also advocate legislation at the federal level for medical malpractice tort reform.
Please explain how you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions.
If I live in Georgia, and a doctor in Georgia injures me, should it not be up to the Georgia legislature to decide what, if any, should be the caps on damages?
Does not make much sense?
I'll try to dumb this down.
You want intrusive federal regulation in on area and not in the other. Explain.
Victory !
38 States already have "Tort Reform" on the books.
Georgia tort reform: both passed and pending
On February 16, at Northridge Hospital, Governor Sonny Perdue signed S.B. 3, an impressive package of tort reforms. (Chuck Williams, "Perdue signs tort reform bill", Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, Feb. 17; Mike Norbut, "Georgia enacts tort reform package", American Medical News, Mar. 7). Key provisions:
•joint and several liability eliminated;
•an offering party may recover its attorneys fees if the final judgment is not at least 25% more favorable than the offer;
•implementation of the Daubert standard (Nordberg comments);
•immunity for emergency rooms and ER providers in absence of "gross negligence" (Jan. 11; Oct. 25);
•non-economic medical malpractice damages capped at $ 350,000 per entity, $ 1,050,000 total; and
•medical providers may apologize without fear that apology will be used against them in court.
One unique provision permits the decision of whether a claim or defense is sufficiently meritless to require the payment of attorneys' fees to be given to the jury for decision (though the statute unfortunately leaves unclear whether this will require jurors to parse questions of law in some instances). There's also an interesting and apparently unique provison for venue transfer when all resident co-defendants are dismissed from the case. Unfortunately, this provision, § 9-10-31(d), appears to have some curious (and perhaps poorly-drafted) attributes that may permit or encourage tactical gamesmanship by both plaintiffs and defendants. I haven't seen any discussion on these two issues, but I'm happy to be corrected or edified.
The Georgia Senate has also passed by an overwhelming margin SB 19, which permits the interlocutory appeal of class certifications, as well as provisions that reduce the expense of pre-class-certification-decision discovery. (When judges let discovery on substantive issues go ahead for a purported class action that has little or no chance of certification, plaintiffs have an incentive to increases the pressure for defendants to settle by delaying the certification decision and conducting expensive discovery. The Georgia law now prohibits this tactic without substantial justification.) The bill now goes to the Georgia House for consideration.
Dixie
Your question makes no sense. Try again.
Bush Tird Thermer
They are against the federal government only when it suits them.
I like the 'your question doesn't make sense' answers; isn't that the point CONS? That you are the confused ones?
CON mantra: " you can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say".
steve g
another J/A who wants answer for things he/she can not handle
why not live your own life and not use the government to do it for you
Are we having fun yet?
National Tort Reform is what is needed, frivolous law suits need to stop feeding the multi billion dollar business of malpractice.
I know you tried to sound really smart but it doesn't make much sense.
agmccall
Lets put it this way.
Suppose GA does not have a cap on these lawsuits, but most other states have a reasonable cap. In what states do you think most of the doctors will practice in. Do you really think they would stay in GA
wooper
Conservatives only want less government and less wasteful spending when it suits their purposes. Anyone who looks at the years the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House would have a hard time concluding that "small government" is the mantra of the Republican party.
They clearly don't mind government intruding on the lives of those who disagree with their platform...and do so by legislating their version of moral values.
Homey Don't Play Dat
That's what we are proposing, keep the federal Government out of our lives and make it a state issue when it comes to tort reform.
The Nonpareil
A better question is why do liberals claim to champion the rights & freedoms of the people at the same time they want to restrict and lessen the rights & freedoms of the people by imposing more government restriction upon them as they grant more power to the government ?
justine
I think you should first read the constitution apparently you never have or you dont comprehend its intent nor meaning. Gay marriage is meaningless to most of America in fact its an issue that benefits only a small vocal minority . Tort reform on the other hand affects every single person in the USA.
Orignal From: Q&A: This is a question for you conservatives who think the federal government "ought to mind its own business" a?
Post a Comment