Bob wrote on January 09, 2009 05:51 AM: re: "But unlimited and unpredictable damage awards in medical malpractice litigation played a role in rising health care costs and even led doctors to flee many states without damage limits. Imposing similar conditions on small businesses would likewise drive up costs and discourage entrepreneurship." Data shows that this is largely a myth and is part of a campaign by malpractice insurance companies to limit their payouts and justify high rates. States supposedly losing doctors because of high malpractice insurance premiums actually have more licensed physicians now than they did before. Other studies have shown that malpractice costs are an extremely small part of overall health care costs and do not materially affect increasing costs.

Beyond all that, what this editorial is really saying is that it is ok for a business to discriminate as long as it got away with it for a long time. That doesn't seem fair to the harmed employees.

John F wrote on January 09, 2009 04:51 AM: Douglas,

Not quite. First of all, this is not a "communist" solution; you're the one who wants to inject government into the problem, but this time on the side of business. There's a word for that.

Also, the notion that a business will simply pass the cost of a judgment on to consumers is flawed. Remember, businesses have competition, and the competitors won't be raising their prices because they wil not have injured anyone. Therefore, if a company has a judgment against it and raises its prices, it will lose business to its competition.

And anyway, that's a pretty lousy reason for letting someone get away with illegal conduct. What other laws can we stop enforcing because the cost of punishing the guilty might be passed on to consumers?

douglas wrote on January 09, 2009 12:38 AM: conveniently ignored by the neo-com[munists] is that the national debt size "settlements" against businesses or against any level of gubmit are passed on to consumers.

those who think that there should be no caps on "awards", like the lost pants, the hot coffee in the lap, may no longer complain about the cost of pharmaceuticals or health care.

Fair and Balanced Fred wrote on January 08, 2009 08:47 PM: Steve sez: "Now it makes sense...Patrick is a lawyer. He thinks tort reform shouldn't happen so that he can take an exorbitant amount of any "settlement" and leave the injured party [just] enough for a Big Mac WITHOUT the Coke."

Fair and Balanced Fred is not a lawyer but is smarter than most of them, and ten times smarter than Steve. Fair and Balanced Fred sez:

"Now it makes sense...Steve is a fly-by-night business owner. Steve believes tort reform should be carried out to an even more extreme degree than it already has been so that Steve can bone anyone he wants and then fly-by-night.

Steve doesn't want lawyers to make as much as his doctor or plumber.

Steve wants (not-rich) working-class and middle-class plaintiffs without any extra money to be unable to hire competent legal representation, at all, so that Steve may continue to bone them and fly-by-night.

fup wrote on January 08, 2009 08:37 PM: Most people like Patrick will end up with intelligent DNA in them. Unfortunally most of them will spit it out.

patrick wrote on January 08, 2009 07:31 PM: Au contraire Steve, tort reform MUST happen.

THEN the people that have been injured, some of them crippled or killed, will get the justice they deserve, instead of what is left trickling down the republicans legs.

Steve wrote on January 08, 2009 06:17 PM: Now it makes sense...Patrick is a lawyer. He thinks tort reform shouldn't happen so that he can take an exhorbitant amount of any "settlement" and leave the injured party enough to buy a Big Mac without the coke.

patrick wrote on January 08, 2009 05:46 PM: Get what you are entitled to according to the law; the amount that would compensate you for the damages you sustained?

Since when isn't the "free market" the best way to resolve this issue. Why is it that the republicans felt the need, to make it their TOP priority, after changing the bankruptcy laws (guess how that will affect Americans during this crisis) when they returned in 2004?

Thats right, they did it all to make SURE that YOU would never be compensated for the injuries YOU sustained. They changed the law! Does that sound like good free marketers to you? Cause it don't to me.

Sure, let the company that CAUSES MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DAMAGES to an individual instead KEEP the money that they WOULD OTHERWISE have had to pay because their product or their service was dangerous. Let the physician, who acted recklessly and without regard to your HEALTH keep the money that you WILL need to keep you in your home in the future because you will be UNABLE to work or feed your family.

You think those "doctors" at the Endoscopy Center aren't busy today handing out bonuses to all their REPUBLICAN legislators who RAMMED that legislation down the throats of the people telling them how good it was for them.

Ask all those people exposed to Hep C because of the stupidity of using needles more than once on YOU AND ME, whether they feel comforted to know that those doctors will be able to continue in practice BECAUSE the law makes it so EASY for them to pay the minimal damages required under law, IF those people can even GET attorneys willing to take the RISK of fighting those HUGE insurance companies and get the little that the law says is

patrick wrote on January 08, 2009 05:39 PM: Its time for the "tort reform" of the century!

For the last 8 years, the republicans and their big corporate buddies have schemed and plotted against American citizens to deny them just compensation for the injuries caused by incidence like that at the Endoscopic Care Center.

Sure, limit a human beings recovery for damages at $250,000.00, that sounds fair right, I mean, who needs more money than that when all that happened was that a few thousand people are not potential victims of Hep C. I'm sure this will compensate them, right?

Well enough is enough!

Its time for those that cause the damage to ACTUALLY pay for the damage they caused! Hmm, sounds suspiciously like a "republican" style "personal responsibility" thing to me, wonder why that party isn't rallying this time? Could it be that they are so far in the pockets of ever business in the country that they would be willing "sacrifice" their integrity?

When was the last time you heard a republican say that anything other than the free market should control wages? Well then why is it that republicans believe that the people who represent others against big insurance companies should be limited in how much, and as a consequence, who, represents them? Are insurance companies limited in how many, or how much THEY get to pay their representatives?

Why is it ONLY when it comes to the salaries that will be paid to a person representing people who are injured at the hands of big business that suddenly the republican party feels the need to become so communistic and prevent the free market from working? Why is it that they worked night and day with the buddies at the insurance companies (like the ones bush bailed out) so that YOU could NEVER

helenweils wrote on January 08, 2009 04:51 PM: Who, in their right mind would hire a single employee under these conditions?
Look for more unemployment and more jobs being out sourced or sent overseas. Idiots!

Read All Comments