tort reform. An issue for corporations. I find it disgusting.

are “frivolous lawsuits” the real cause of high health care costs? The short answer is no. Malpractice costs represent less than half of 1% (0.46 percent of total health care expenditures) and malpractice settlements have grown modestly with inflation. In fact, in states that have adopted caps on jury awards, doctors are prescribing too many aggressive and intensive treatments that increase costs, but don’t improve outcomes.

When Texas capped non economic medical malpractice damages to $250,000 in 2003, most conservatives argued that the reform would free doctors from having to prescribe unnecessary treatment. It didn’t happen. According to the Dartmouth research on disparities in health care spending, many Texan doctors are still prescribing aggressive treatments that don’t improve outcomes. In fact, as of 2006, Texas was still at the top of the list of high-spending states.

Shorter: Republicans want to reduce accountability and increase innovation. Worked well with financial regulations right? It didn't lead to an increase in dangerous products or conditions for the public did it? Well, at least we're not bailing anyone out...even if they were the victims of wrongful actions. Oh, if they don't recognize the full extent of their injuries before the statue of limitations sucks to be them.

I'm not entirely against caps, just think they are better set through precedent.

$750,000. That should be enough if a doctor takes out the wrong kidney or lung. That should easily get you through your remaining months.

Tort reform is class warfare by the rich against the rest.

If a rich man is injured by a doctor, he would still be able say, "I'd have made millions without that injury, so I'm owed millions."

But the rest of us would be denied justice.

Senator Sen. Orrin Hatch only asked about limiting non-economic damages, and not economic damages.

Because like most Republican Senators, he is a pawn of the rich.

The whole 'tort reform' mantra is a headfake. As illustrated in the comments above, it has already been instituted in numerous states, and has done little to either reduce costs due to 'defensive medicine' (read: doctor income) or medmal judgments (read: justified and necessary costs of caring for those who've been injured through medical error). And let's not forget that the main reason for the huge hikes in med-mal insurance in the past decade had more to do with bad investments by the insurance companies than oversized judgments by plaintiffs.
Still, the repubs keep coming back to this well, not because it reduces costs in any appreciable way, but because it's one variety of shiny object that has not yet been completely debunked. All the more reason to keep smacking down any suggestion that denying injured patients compensation will somehow cause our insurance bills to drop.

Any bill that is produced that does not include real tort reforms can not be taken seriously. At this very moment, on the cover of the Tampa Bay Yellow Pages, there are three different advertisements for three different malpractice firms. JUST ON THE COVER! On my way to work, I see SIX roadside billboards, advertising the services of malpractice attorneys. This along a four mile stretch of northbound 275. If you don't think physicians think about these things, you are wrong. I know I do. I know my colleagues do. What a shame. You can bet I am going to order every test in the book to CMA with little regard to the cost. I am not about to give away what took me over a decade and a half to earn. Not a chance. The arguments against real tort reforms are old, tired, and stopped holding water a long time ago.

Christopher Russo, M.D.
University of Michigan Medical School '94