The USA is the only country in the entire world who does not hold the plaintiff, fully responsible for compensating the defendant, in a frivolous law suit.
No other country but the USA allows a party to make false accusations and not be responsible for paying the injured party's costs, defending the false charges. In the rest of the world, the loser pays THUS there is no such thing as excessive litigation anywhere in the world, than the USA.
The USA is the most litigious society in the world, our courts are backed up with frivolous law suits because one of our political parties will not allow tort reform, so we can be like other countries.
In the medical community, every facet from nursing homes, hospitals,, doctors, nurses, drug companies have HUGE expenses (all passed onto the consumer); patients have many needless procedures and costs, for fear of a trial lawyer exploiting a situation to get rich. The malpractice costs are enormous for all facets to the medical community, ALL passed onto the consumer.
The trial lawyers are in partnership with the democratic party; the trial lawyers pay HUGE donations to dem candidates & the democrats manipulate the law to allow these cretins to plague our society.
Liberals will rationalize their support of trial lawyers because attacking drug and insurance companies is consistent with the socialist uprising (all corporations are evil because capitalism is the real target).
How can liberals cry about health care costs while they support trial lawyers?
fdm215
I don't know that Liberals are particularly supportive of trial lawyers. This is yet another off the wall charge from the Right.
Forget War Buy More
Honey, lawyers aren't solely to blame for this mess.
monicatripp
Part of John Edwards legacy is one of his lawsuits (enriching himself), caused widespread changes in procedures, for women to deliver babies through Cesarean birth process- in fear of being sued by a trial lawyer.
Any women in the last few years who has had a needless Cesarean delivery- thank John Edwards.
To fix health care, we need to reduce all costs and fix as many as problems as possible. We can not afford to allow trial lawyers to practice "liberal insurgency" against the health care costs, anymore!
Tort reform is the change we need but not the change advocated by Obama.
L1t1g8r
Your dad must be a lobbyist or an insurance company exec. Lobbyists and insurance companies have convinced people like you that Doctors should be the only members of our society who are not responsible for their own negligent acts. Take a look at States like Ohio that have capped med mal damages and yet insurance premiums and health care costs are still high.
Former Republican
I do agree that Democrats provide a lot of suppor to trial lawyers, so I do think the question is properly directed. One possilibty would be to require the lawyer filing the claim to evaluate it's merits and agree to pay costs in the event of a loss. This would result in plaintiff's lawyers evaluating the merit of a claim and, knowing the risk, only file claims that had signficant merit.
I do think that there are other ways of restricting frivolous law suits. Possibly have a cap on damages that is predefined in the law: damages should not exceed say 5 times the cost of treating an injury. The idea that someone would be awarded millions for spilled coffee is obscene and we all pay for the result. The system is broken, but I don't think we should restrict people's ability to obtain reasonable damage awards.
namsaev
Most European countries have limits on what the lawyer can make on any particular case. In fact they have limits on what lawyers can charge for routine stuff like wills and settling estates.
Much of the present cost of health care is due to malpractice insurance. I have a cousin in California who is a GP. He has 6 staff. Two nurses and 4 admin personnel to handle the records. His malpractice insurance accounts for 40% of his overhead and he's never been sued is 43 years of practice. He'd like to retire but government regulations say he is liable for five years after he quits practicing, and he can't afford to keep the liability insurance.
justagrandma
Frivolous lawsuits don't go to trial, that's what makes a lawsuit frivolous.
If its valid it goes ahead, if its not its stopped early on in the process.
I fail to see a reason why, if a plumber doesn't do a decent job, a client shouldn't get his money back, if a car is a lemon, most states have lemon laws, surely we can do as much as that for a woman who has had the wrong leg cut off, or protect people from surgeons who turn up drunk, or doctors who practice without credentials in their specialty.
But you can't find out if your doctor has been disciplined. Or if hes been dropped, and for that matter why he was dropped, Until this information is as freely available as the license number for a contractor, there is a need for people to be protected by suits.
You also overlook the fact that many of those extra tests aren't necessary, but ordered to increase the size of the bill so the hospital or doctor makes more profit. Some of the tests are painful and debilitating, no one would take them without a doctors persuasion.
I'm not even going to get into the games health insurers play with sick and elderly people.
Portions of your question seem to come directly from the same book most of those who think malpractice is a joke write from. It gets repetitive, change a few words now and then.
The McDonald spilled coffee lawsuit is often cited, but that spilled coffee resulted in third degree burns and two skin grafts and weeks in the hospital. The store had been previously notified of problem with the coffee machine.
jesswzmn
ok.......with you right wingers..its always an extreme.
either you are a hard core corporatist or you are a socialist
either you are a free trader or you are an isolationist.
either you are for the iraq war or you hate america.
Health care cost is a problem and it does need major overhaul. conusmers who are harmed deserve to be compensated....its justice.
if a doctor misdiagnoses you and you wind up losing your eyesight as a result...how much is that worth to you? Would you be happy with a limit of $ 25,000 per eye as dictated by law?
Enough with the false choices and extremism. If there are abuses from the lawyer side, they must be corrected, but to suggest that its all the fault of lawyers is very simplistic thinking.
fluffyllama101
No one is saying that a person cannot sue someone for damages for compensation for a loss. What tort reform would do:
1) make frivolous law suits be scrutinized for integrity
2) provide upper limits for jury awards
3) cause plaintiffs to compensate the defendant if they can't prove their case
4) diminish the number of claims, shakedowns, false claims, frivolous claims from seeing the light of day.
5) provide relief to excessive malpractice insurance
6) reduce the obscene compensations to lawyers
Make no mistake liberals oppose Tort Reform because they are in a partnership with trial lawyers.
Orignal From: By supporting trial lawyers, are liberals hypocrites when they complain about health care costs? ?
Post a Comment