Tort reform wants to limit the amount someone can win in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The real issue is frivolous lawsuits which the person who sued would almost certainly lose the case. So, how is it fair to punish those who suffer from irresponsible doctors who aren't careful and how is this not an example of big government?
What I'm referring to is capping lawsuit payouts.
Frivolous lawsuits need to go.
Alex
tort reform is not one idea, it means a call to reform tort laws and practices. you are addressing two different issues.
edit - i realize that, but saying tort reform is big government isn't exactly true being that there are different standards on how to approach the reform. you are showing an example of that but somehow are trying to attribute ones lack of effectiveness to the other's possible success... and i somewhat agree with you, i just don't see that one is related to the other
DONALD T
Since malpractice lawsuits take place in state courts, tort reform needs to take place at the state level. One thing that would help is to pass a loser pays law. Another is to set up a special court to review all malpractice decisions that is made up of people who clearly understand all aspects of malpractice lawsuits.
Craig W. Dressler
Tort reform is government intrusion, but it limits how much money lawyers and those who bring lawsuits can win from medical institutions and doctors. If tort reform passes, then the cost of insurance for doctors, etc. will go way down and the insurance premiums of individuals will go down as well. Unfortunately, the insurance premiums because of Obamacare are skyrocketing, which the Democrats said would not happen.
Orignal From: How is tort reform not an example of big government?
Post a Comment