but now that democrats control the house, senate, and presidency, they say it is necessary. The quote in 2004 was as follows:
Democrats accuse Republicans of playing up to their donors in the medical and insurance lobbies and say that limiting damages is unfair to injured patients and their families.
"I've never seen such special-interest legislation," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "Instead of going about doing the people's business, we seem to be going about the political action committees' business, and that's why, of course, nothing is getting done."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-07-malpractice_x.htm
Why the change? Isn't the ability to have some dead beat that spills coffee on their lap and gets a $ 10 million award from McDonald's fair? Why didn't they support this in 2004 when they had a chance?
Steelers Girl
Cause Obama said so.
Thats all they need to hear.
This Was A Triumph.
We learned from that...people abused it. Like the guy who tried to sue a dry cleaner for $ 65 million for a pair of lost pants.
Sunshine
The Democrats still believe in an injured patients right to sue, as is appropriate. The Democrats voted against the Republicans on this issue, again. Most medical lawsuits are not won, even when legitimate, because the insurance companies railroad everyone with their lawyers. You guys only care about companies, never the person who had the wrong kidney removed by a negligent doctor.
Tim
Just politics. The Association of Trial Lawyers is a heavy supporter of the democratic party. Cutting into tort suits and limiting damages would seriously hurt their business, especially if they work on contingency.
Now, they see it as an issue more politically valuable then the lawyer support.
Note: Obama does not support tort reform, so it will not happen (just heard his speech on the news).
oracle2world
A lot of things change in four years. And if the government is paying for medical care, it is sure as heck not going to pay out large settlements to lawyers and increases taxes for THAT. Any questions?
lawgirl
The reform in the article you posted was just for medical malpractice claims, and the dems felt it was wrong to cap it for only one special interest group. Read the article you posted. Tort reform can mean a million things.
Buck Ofama
It is really odd that a CT heart scan without contrast in my area costs only $ 125.00 but a CT heart scan with contrast is over $ 2500.00. Same machine, same technician, the only difference is someone giving you a shot of iodine. That difference alone raises the hospital's liability and thus insurance. If stupid stuff like that could be eliminated, a huge amount of the cost would be cut.
So yes, if we had tort reform, we could cut costs.
Orignal From: Q&A: Why in 2004 did democrats say malpractice tort reform "is unfair to injured patients"?
Post a Comment