Lil Red Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 +J.M.J.+ and why does it need reformed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Cholotae tortes are delicious and need no reforming whatsoever. The other kind, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
she_who_is_not Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Go to law school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie-Therese Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 [quote name='Lil Red' post='1929480' date='Jul 23 2009, 12:59 PM']+J.M.J.+ and why does it need reformed? [/quote] Red that is great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 +J.M.J.+ i am really serious. all the news commentators are talking about tort reform. i dunno what that is nor do i know why it needs reformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 +J.M.J.+ [quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1929483' date='Jul 23 2009, 11:04 AM']Chocolate tortes are delicious and need no reforming whatsoever. The other kind, not so much.[/quote] i love dessert. [quote name='she_who_is_not' post='1929486' date='Jul 23 2009, 11:05 AM']Go to law school![/quote] why? i'd much rather go to theology school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I generally think of injury lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Torts are cases that pertain to civil wrongs, accidents and liability type things. I'm sure CatherineM could explain better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
she_who_is_not Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Tort means a wrong so it covers things like personal injury, med mal, products liability, defamation and lots more. In tort, you can recover punitive damages and juries will sometimes return huge verdicts. I've never really paid much attention to tort reform but people seem to be most concerned about lawyers filing frivolous suits and then asking for really high damages because their fees are a percentage of the recovery. I think that the concern about frivolous lawsuits is somewhat overrated but I do think that victims are sometimes overcompensated. Some jurisdictions are just known for giving high jury amounts. Most of the time, the people I hear pushing for tort reform think trial attorneys make too much money. They might be right. Do lawsuits chill business? Maybe. On the whole, I think we could find something better to reform. I'd be interested to see what CatherineM and RKwright have to say, as they are both more knowledgeable and experienced than I. Edited July 23, 2009 by she_who_is_not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 [quote name='she_who_is_not' post='1929529' date='Jul 23 2009, 11:34 AM']Tort means a wrong so it covers things like personal injury, med mal, products liability, defamation and lots more. In tort, you can recover punitive damages and juries will sometimes return huge verdicts. I've never really paid much attention to tort reform but people seem to be most concerned about lawyers filing frivolous suits and then asking for really high damages because their fees are a percentage of the recovery. I think that the concern about frivolous lawsuits is somewhat overrated but I do think that victims are sometimes overcompensated. Some jurisdictions are just known for giving high jury amounts. Most of the time, the people I hear pushing for tort reform think trial attorneys make too much money. They might be right. Do lawsuits chill business? Maybe. On the whole, I think we could find something better to reform. I'd be interested to see what CatherineM and RKwright have to say, as they are both more knowledgeable and experienced than I.[/quote] +J.M.J.+ thank you for your input! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 When they speak of tort reform, they are usually talking about putting limits on awards. For example, a waitress spills hot coffee on you. Out of pocket expenses, lost time from work to go home and change, and cost of dry cleaning, less than $100. Pain and suffering, 3 million. Seems silly, but those kinds of things happen all the time. Here they put a cap on the number of times you could go to the doctor for soft tissue injuries from a car wreck. If you break a bone, rupture a disc, it's completely covered, but if you have whiplash, you are limited to $3000 and a dozen trips to physio (I think). Some places want to put money value limits to everything, especially medical malpractice and car wrecks that resemble what they do for Workman's comp. Something like if you lose a finger $1000, or $5000 for the thumb, a hand is $10,000, etc. It is a way of cutting down on court time because if there is a scale, going to court won't get you more money because of jury sympathies. Insurance companies can better judge risk, and therefore rates across the board should be lower. Needless to say, attorneys and consumer rights groups think it is a bad idea. Hospitals and insurance companies think it is a great idea. Some think we will have to have something like this in place to be able to afford government funded health insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie-Therese Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Also, deferring to other more learned scholars than I... As an RN, I know that one of the primary issues in the medical community regarding tort reform is making sure that 1) patients still have the right to pursue malpractice claims while 2) limiting the types of awards that can be made by juries. So many practitioners have been driven out of practice by the high costs associated with maintaining malpractice coverage (I know that I usually try to carry at least a million in malpractice coverage as an RN...try and have a baby in the state of Louisiana, and you'll see that there is hardly an OB/GYN to be found, because insurance payments got so high that MDs paid more than they made, and most left the state to practice elsewhere). Tort reform is a fine balancing act between maintaining a civil society's right to pursue recourse in case of wrongs while reducing frivolous lawsuits and unnecessarily punitive monetary awards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 +J.M.J.+ [quote name='CatherineM' post='1929557' date='Jul 23 2009, 11:59 AM']When they speak of tort reform, they are usually talking about putting limits on awards. For example, a waitress spills hot coffee on you. Out of pocket expenses, lost time from work to go home and change, and cost of dry cleaning, less than $100. Pain and suffering, 3 million. Seems silly, but those kinds of things happen all the time. Here they put a cap on the number of times you could go to the doctor for soft tissue injuries from a car wreck. If you break a bone, rupture a disc, it's completely covered, but if you have whiplash, you are limited to $3000 and a dozen trips to physio (I think). Some places want to put money value limits to everything, especially medical malpractice and car wrecks that resemble what they do for Workman's comp. Something like if you lose a finger $1000, or $5000 for the thumb, a hand is $10,000, etc. It is a way of cutting down on court time because if there is a scale, going to court won't get you more money because of jury sympathies. Insurance companies can better judge risk, and therefore rates across the board should be lower. Needless to say, attorneys and consumer rights groups think it is a bad idea. Hospitals and insurance companies think it is a great idea. Some think we will have to have something like this in place to be able to afford government funded health insurance.[/quote] [quote name='Marie-Therese' post='1929565' date='Jul 23 2009, 12:01 PM']Also, deferring to other more learned scholars than I... As an RN, I know that one of the primary issues in the medical community regarding tort reform is making sure that 1) patients still have the right to pursue malpractice claims while 2) limiting the types of awards that can be made by juries. So many practitioners have been driven out of practice by the high costs associated with maintaining malpractice coverage (I know that I usually try to carry at least a million in malpractice coverage as an RN...try and have a baby in the state of Louisiana, and you'll see that there is hardly an OB/GYN to be found, because insurance payments got so high that MDs paid more than they made, and most left the state to practice elsewhere). Tort reform is a fine balancing act between maintaining a civil society's right to pursue recourse in case of wrongs while reducing frivolous lawsuits and unnecessarily punitive monetary awards.[/quote] my thanks to both of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoTeckam Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I am always appaled by people who are looking for a lawsuit. I feel like asking for more than is owed to you is a sin (certianly more than expenses and lost wages resulting from an injury is excessive). However, I feel like it is not the governments place to cap such things. If there were not juries or judges willing to reward such greed then there wouldn't be such lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Tort reform will supposedly make health care more affordable because it will lead to fewer unnecessary tests. Right now, some doctors will order a gazillion tests for everything under the sun, even if its a teeny tiny chance that that is what's wrong, because they are terrified of missing somtehing, being sued for malpractice and then having their premiums jacked up so high they have to leave the profession. I am with the doctors on this one. Unless there's evidence of egregious irresponsibility or stupidity ... they shouldn't be sued. They're only human, and there's inherent risk in everything they do. There have been doctors I could have sued. But you know what, it takes guts to be a doctor, and take somebody's life in your hands and accept responsiblity for that. (I'm not talking about legal responsiblity.) I think there's a lot of people who have the brains and the inclination to be doctors, but they choose some other path because they don't want that kind of responsiblity. Which is why we have a critical doctor shortage. The people who do decide to do it should have their courage rewarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now