I hate to say Jeff and Mike, I was right that tort reform will reduce insurance premiums. 4 out of 10 claims are baseless. This adds to the cost of premiums. Same debate different article. They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums. Sorry, but those liberals will ruin the system.
Caps on non-economic damages would remove the \’scare\’ factor that so often leads a defendant in any litigation involving bodily injury to settle. Cap that and the down side risk faced in litigating liability is more predictable when the only significant variables are economic damages — loss of future income, future medical costs, &c. And just what \”fair compensation\” is the Plaintiff losing out on? Compensation for an intangible loss that varies wildly depending on the appeal of the Plaintiff, the skills of his or her lawyer, the location of the trial, the mindset of the jurors, &c. Caps won\’t solve all the problems inherent in our civil justice/insurance premium/med-mal/products liability/ \”crises,\” but they would add predictability to the risk/benefit analysis and equalize the compensation of injured parties based on their actual damages.
If you look into the issue, the AMA is only asking for caps on \”pain and suffering\” awards, NOT on lost wages, loss of earning or past and future medical bills. In other words, what they are trying to prevent is someone with 10,000 in medical bills and 15,000 in lost wages from then recieving 50 mil in \”pain and suffering\”.
When we they pass a reform that allows the person who was frivolously sued to recoup their legal fees from the attorney and the person who brought the frivolous suit?
\”They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums.\”
Many human beings prefer that maimed human beings be justly compensated and that the estates of negligently killed patients be justly compensated. Medmal litigation produces
I suggest you read the article more carefully, because the headline is misleading. While 4 out of 10 claims are groundless, 3 out of those 4 never go to court, which is where the big costs lie. While yes, it would be nice to reduce the amount of those claims, in no way does the article suggest or prove that the high cost of premiums is mainly due to tort costs.
Until transparency is achieved in the medical health care system, we\’ll never know why they are so high. However, I believe that claims are not as significant a factor as you claim them to be.
\”They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums.\”
Many human beings prefer that maimed human beings be justly compensated and that the estates of negligently killed patients be justly compensated. Medmal litigation produces less than 1% of expenses and now we find most of that produced accurate verdicts.
The error rate is probably less than that of wrongly convicted and acquitted criminal defendants–not to mention the baleful effect of plea bargaining for people who cannot \”afford justice.\”.
Hey, because all that matters is expense, I\’ve got two ideas. (1) Let\’s work on the other 99%. (2) You volunteer to reduce your medmal commissions or medmal underwriter salary by a few percent. Better you than maimed human beings and their dependents going without. Pony up bro\’.
\”Liberals\” will ruin the system? There would be no American system at all without those liberal revolutionaries fighting conservative Royalists and Tories in (remember this?) the American Revolution. (It is not called the American Conservative Event). Access to justice is at stake here. Capping judgements is a way to bully individuals economically and deprive them of their day in court. And all for 1% of expense.
The person AND the attorney that filed the suit. When an attorney looks at a claim, they know if it\’s frivolous or not. They also know how much $$$$$ is involved.
The companies are against the wall to settle these claims because court will cost more then the settlement. THAT\’S why most of the time a doctor that has done nothing wrong gets stuck with a payout on his record.
Thanks for referring me to the article I have already read which in part states:
\”40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless\” and \”accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.\” No one debates that when a doctor makes a mistake then a price for pain and suffering or for life itself is not warranted. The issue is tort reform is needed to protect outlandish verdicts from liberal jury\’s and courts. Why are there 40% groundless claims made by individuals? This drives up the cost of premiums for all. Not acknowledging that tort reform is a possibility to keeping insurance premiums down for all is part of the problem. Have you offered any other suggestions?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I hate to say Jeff and Mike, I was right that tort reform will reduce insurance premiums. 4 out of 10 claims are baseless. This adds to the cost of premiums. Same debate different article. They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums. Sorry, but those liberals will ruin the system.
Caps on non-economic damages would remove the \’scare\’ factor that so often leads a defendant in any litigation involving bodily injury to settle. Cap that and the down side risk faced in litigating liability is more predictable when the only significant variables are economic damages — loss of future income, future medical costs, &c. And just what \”fair compensation\” is the Plaintiff losing out on? Compensation for an intangible loss that varies wildly depending on the appeal of the Plaintiff, the skills of his or her lawyer, the location of the trial, the mindset of the jurors, &c. Caps won\’t solve all the problems inherent in our civil justice/insurance premium/med-mal/products liability/ \”crises,\” but they would add predictability to the risk/benefit analysis and equalize the compensation of injured parties based on their actual damages.
If you look into the issue, the AMA is only asking for caps on \”pain and suffering\” awards, NOT on lost wages, loss of earning or past and future medical bills. In other words, what they are trying to prevent is someone with 10,000 in medical bills and 15,000 in lost wages from then recieving 50 mil in \”pain and suffering\”.
When we they pass a reform that allows the person who was frivolously sued to recoup their legal fees from the attorney and the person who brought the frivolous suit?
What disgusting selfish immorality.
\”They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums.\”
Many human beings prefer that maimed human beings be justly compensated and that the estates of negligently killed patients be justly compensated. Medmal litigation produces
Mr. Bet:
I suggest you read the article more carefully, because the headline is misleading. While 4 out of 10 claims are groundless, 3 out of those 4 never go to court, which is where the big costs lie. While yes, it would be nice to reduce the amount of those claims, in no way does the article suggest or prove that the high cost of premiums is mainly due to tort costs.
Until transparency is achieved in the medical health care system, we\’ll never know why they are so high. However, I believe that claims are not as significant a factor as you claim them to be.
\”They all add up to tort reform will reduce the payouts and reduce insurance premiums.\”
Many human beings prefer that maimed human beings be justly compensated and that the estates of negligently killed patients be justly compensated. Medmal litigation produces less than 1% of expenses and now we find most of that produced accurate verdicts.
The error rate is probably less than that of wrongly convicted and acquitted criminal defendants–not to mention the baleful effect of plea bargaining for people who cannot \”afford justice.\”.
Hey, because all that matters is expense, I\’ve got two ideas. (1) Let\’s work on the other 99%. (2) You volunteer to reduce your medmal commissions or medmal underwriter salary by a few percent. Better you than maimed human beings and their dependents going without. Pony up bro\’.
\”Liberals\” will ruin the system? There would be no American system at all without those liberal revolutionaries fighting conservative Royalists and Tories in (remember this?) the American Revolution. (It is not called the American Conservative Event). Access to justice is at stake here. Capping judgements is a way to bully individuals economically and deprive them of their day in court. And all for 1% of expense.
Get a conscience.
The person AND the attorney that filed the suit. When an attorney looks at a claim, they know if it\’s frivolous or not. They also know how much $$$$$ is involved.
The companies are against the wall to settle these claims because court will cost more then the settlement. THAT\’S why most of the time a doctor that has done nothing wrong gets stuck with a payout on his record.
Thanks for referring me to the article I have already read which in part states:
\”40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless\” and \”accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.\” No one debates that when a doctor makes a mistake then a price for pain and suffering or for life itself is not warranted. The issue is tort reform is needed to protect outlandish verdicts from liberal jury\’s and courts. Why are there 40% groundless claims made by individuals? This drives up the cost of premiums for all. Not acknowledging that tort reform is a possibility to keeping insurance premiums down for all is part of the problem. Have you offered any other suggestions?
Re. \”accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.\”
This is a small fraction of overall medical costs– far less than