This question isn't about abolishing trial lawyers rights to advertise, to troll through the ghetto for anyone who can make an argument to get a lottery payoff, by filing a personal injury law suit.
Strange isn't it, those who complain the most about the cost of health care, are the same people who have given trial lawyers "open season" on the health care industry? These people don't seem to understand that the cost for malpractice insurance, the "runaway jury awards" and all the protection from litigation are all passed onto the consumer, causing the cost of health care to exponentially increase.
So, what is wrong with placing reasonable caps on law suits for personal injury and malpractice?
Is the purpose of the trial lawyer, to break the back of the health care industry, to enable socialism and then communism, to take root?
skii_tyme
Let's focus on getting our country back on it's feet, then we can talk about your Right Wing racist agenda.
Jerry O
Yes. Tell that to the lawyers in Washington who control our Gov't, including the President. Bush couldn't get Tort reform with a Republican Congress.
TheBuffalo
I completely agree and have myself presented this question. Tort reform could potentially fix the majority of what is wrong with the healthcare system. Too bad Obama has ruled it out in the name of not "disenfranchising" the greedy.
Effects of Tort Reform on the healthcare system:
Cheaper Insurance. Insurance companies would not have to cover the multi-million dollar malpractice claims that come their way.
Better Doctoring. Doctors will not be afraid of actually doing their job and will thus be free to make better judgements.
Cheaper Overall Healthcare. The risks associated with being a doctor is greatly diminished, so more people will want to become a doctor. More doctors means a surplus of healthcare which leads to lower prices (for all of the economic people out there).
monicatripp
Ouch, hitting liberals where it hurts, their hypocrisy is screaming- look at that retard answer from ski_time, typical liberal who can't see the forrest through the trees.
Trial lawyers are the STD's of liberalism, truly the byproduct of the fallacy of socialism. Getting a liberal to put a cap on jury awards is like asking Michael Jackson to leave kids alone. It is the strategy of liberals to destroy our health care industry and then build it back up with full blown socialism.
So, all this complaining about the cost of health care is not their issue, they want socialized medicine and will support anything that harms our current capitalist economy.
libhaterx10
Liberals can not justify the plague of trial lawyers, their ideology created and inflicted upon us all. So, what do they do, admit the truth? Have you ever seen an honest liberal?
They throw stones- name call, avoid the issue, cite something cons have done (unrelated but a stone is a stone) yet they won't tell us what's wrong with caps and limits on jury awards.
Can faith-based counselors be held to the same standard of legal accountability as secular ones? Or does the broad shield of religious freedom protect them absolutely, no matter how incompetent or negligent their actions might be? After Kenneth Nally put a shotgun to his head and pulled the trigger in early 1979, finding the right answers to those questions became both much more urgent and much more difficult. Mark Weitz shows why. Following his suicide, Nally's parents filed a wrongful death suit against their son's fundamentalist church, alleging that its pastoral counselors had failed to steer him toward the professional help they thought he needed and even dissuaded him from seeking secular help. The resulting legal case lasted nearly a decade, alarmed church leaders of every faith, and transformed judicial thought in this highly sensitive area of American life. Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley was the nation's first case to allege "clergy malpractice," one that
List Price: $ 12.95
Price: $ 7.95
Clergy Malpractice in America (PB) (Landmark Law Cases & American Society)
Orignal From: Tips: Should we have caps and limits for jury awards, why not reasonable tort reform?
Post a Comment