I am sure that lawyers bear some fault, but they are the big bugaboo of conservatives and Congress in general. Insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals just LOVE to see lawyers blamed.

But when has Congress conducted a SINGLE audit of a doctor’s bills, or an insurance company’s profits, or a “not-for-profit” or “for-profit” hospital’s actual expenses?

LBJ created MediCare and MedicAide … from the time Government took over paying for medicine, costs have skyrocketed, and those plans are a bigger threat to the national budget than even Social Security.

WAKE UP! In the last twenty years, the “health” industries have contributed almost a Billion Dollars to our politicians. “Insurance” has contributed about a third of that.

Combined, Health and Insurance exceed contributions by Lawyers.

Congress doesn’t give a hoot about The People … “health,”
insurance, and lawyers buy all the legislation they want.

On the other hand, another litigator friend says that “it’s just not profitable [from a lawyer's viewpoint] to sue doctors anymore.” So malpractice insurance rates should have decreased.

On the doctors’ side of things, every doctor I have asked the question of says that his/her rates are set by “consultants” … when one raised his rates 30% in a year, I asked him if he’d raised office salaries by that much: the answer was “no.”

On the insurance side of things … MY medical insurance … I have reviewed annual reports, and my insurance company now pays out only 60% of premiums collected in medical claims … not three years ago, the number was near 70%.

So … the doctors are increasing their profits; the insurance companies are increasing their profits; and the citizen pays.

OH … and a hospital charged me $50,000 for two hours in a surgery room to fix a broken leg … fortunately, the insurance company discovered the fraud and cancelled the charge.

As to OB-Gyns … the one that birthed my children left the business because of lawsuits (although none ever prevailed); at least two from Texas are sitting in Congress: CREATING new citizens is apparently less profitable than saddling them with impossible amounts of debt.

I hate to see conservatives run to Washington in order to have the federal government intervene all because conservatives were too inept to accomplish the reforms on the state level where they need to be taken care of.

I know there are plenty of states where tort-reform could never happen in the near-term. Let the market work its magic and before long doctors will move to other states and the shortages of doctors will force reform.

Bottom line is this is a state issue that is affected by so much more than just non-economic damages. Every state will need specific and different reforms based on current law. We need complete tort-reform, not limited just to caps on non-economic damages.

Most of the extra and unnecessary medical care is ordered because doctors feel a duty to advocate for their patients and give them the highest level of care available (i.e. covered by their insurance). A $5/month drug might be 95% as effective as a $200/month drug or maybe they are equally effective but the $5 drug is more likely to give you a mild side effect. Either way the vast majority of doctors will prescribe the better drug as long as the insurance will pay for it. The same goes for testing and other treatments.

Without motivation from patients, doctors aren’t going to be the ones to say can we innovate and be even more effective for less money. Government would do the opposite and be less effective for more money. The only way to fix the system is to make patients face more of the costs so through market competition they demand better services for less money.

Insurance is about risk and certainly tort reform lessens risk.

To fully analyze the impact of state tort reform on ins rates, one would have to factor out other factors and compare changes in states visa vis other states. Moreover, one must also consider the inter- and intra- state effects on particular companies that spread the risk nationwide.

I think that for tort reform to have its full effect we would need to de-regulate the ins industry and have federal tort reform.

But clearly, tort reform is not a panacea for ins rates and medical costs overall.

Nice comment fellow member of the bar

Texas went through tort reform several years ago now, capping certain damages in med mal cases. It was passed under the auspices of lowering med mal insurance rates. My understanding is that med mal filings have dropped significantly. However, my doctor friends have not seen a drop in their insurance rates. This is unsurprising since (1) insurance companies are for-profit corporations, and (2) the doctors have already shown a willingness to pay the old rates of insurance, so why lower the rates? I’m not against insurance companies making money, by the way. Charge what the market will bear.

So now we are in a situation where verdicts are lower, fewer suits are filed, but the whole reason behind passing the legislation has not occurred.

Now, I’d also like to raise the point that we, as conservatives, are against government bureaucrats from telling us how much we should be charged for medical care or what medical care we can or cannot receive. What, then, is the argument for having politicians set caps on med mal verdicts? Which politicians are to do this? Should it be delegated to a “blue ribbon committee”? Should it simply be a reasonableness standard, and left up to courts to reduce outrageous verdicts? (And believe me, outrageous verdicts do occur.)

The loser pay idea is good in theory, but bad in practice. How could a poor working stiff who believes he was wrongfully injured by a doctor ever afford to pay the doctor if he couldn’t prove that the doctor caused his injuries? The doctor, of course, has insurance, but the Plaintiff generally has no substantial assets.

One additional issue in Texas, which I’m not sure how I feel about, is this: In order to run a med mal suit in Texas, you have to get a doctor, within a certain number of days of filing suit, to prepare a report detailing how the defendant committed malpractice. I think this is generally a good thing. But in small towns like mine it would be virtually impossible to find a doctor who will testify against another doctor. Plus, it must be quite expensive to find such an expert. And when damages are capped, it means that less-damaging malpractice by doctors are never pursued because Plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot risk spending 100K on expenses to run a lawsuit with small, or capped damages. While under the old system too many people were sued, under the current system it is probably the case that more doctors can commit malpractice unpunished than would otherwise be the case. (No stats on that, it’s pure deductive reasoning… or impure deductive reasoning if you disagree.)

Lastly, the runaway verdict issue is often a canard. If a doctor has a one million dollar policy, then the carrier will only be liable for that amount. So insurance companies always have a capped amount they can lose, which is the only way insurance companies can exist.

I’ve written way too much, and haven’t posted here in forever. Be kind in your disapproval of this post.

I’ve not seen anyone propose another idea that would be effective. “Punitive damages” are a court-imposed punishment for misbehavior. By what logic are the plaintiffs (and their lawyers) entitled to what amounts to a fine imposed by government. Why not have punitive damages go to the government and be regulated to some multiple of monetary compensation. Trial lawyers would be fishing for a much smaller catch and settlements would be more attractive.

Tort law should make victims whole, not necessarily make them rich.

Moe Lane

PS: How does it feel, knowing that Dick Cheney can advocate gay marriage and not be condemned for it by his own side, while your own guy doesn’t have the guts? Rhetorical question.

Uh, no, doctors and hospitals provide treatment, not insurance companies. In fact, insurance industry profits represent services NOT rendered, which is the very problem with a for-profit health care system.

But hey, if you WANT half of your insurance premiums going to put some guy’s kids through the best schools in the country, that’s your right. Why not just mail him a donation since you like profits so much?

And for the record, looking up people’s profiles because they post differing views is a bit silly, why not just address the substance of my post instead.