Tort Reform v. Health Care Reform

[johnlal]

Republicans are not consistent in their view of the role of the government:

TORT REFORM: The uncertainty of litigation is vexing to businesses because it's often too costly to plan for liability from lawsuits. Therefore, government should step in and limit the liability of businesses or doctors, by tort reform. That way, businesses and Doctors will be able to afford insurance, and unforseen liability won't cause the destruction of their businesses.

HEALTHCARE REFORM: It is everybody's responsibility to protect himself and his family from the threat of grave injury or illness. If your current coverage isn't sufficient to pay the costs of unforseen injury or illness, you need to plan to pay those unforseen costs yourself. If your business does not make enough to pay your insurance, your business needs to close, and you need to work for a big corporation that offers insurance. The government has no role in keeping these unpredictable catastrophes from destroying your business.

ROLE OF CHARITY: By the way, if you are working to your full capacity and you still can't afford health insurance for your kids, then the government still should not help you. That's what charity is for. You should rely on Charity to help you. I personally don't give to charity, because I don't believe in giving handouts.

[Captain Hilts]

1. I worked in Rep polling, and this is why...

Tort Reform, for years, was a big cash cow that laundered the money of tobacco, PhRMA and automotive money. The primary funding for tort reform came from the tobacco industry, the Tobacco Institute, etc. Karl Rove's firm was big into tort reform and what do you know, the was getting 3K a month as Philip Morris's rep in Austin through most of the the 2000 election.

Anyway, to take attention off tobacco/PhRMA issues, they are the ones peddling the woman receiving millions for the hot coffee at McDonald's. McD's had already received hundreds of complaints about the coffee temperature AND she did not receive millions.

The R's are hesitant to turn on their cash cows.

That said, Anne Northup former R-KY - Louisville - deserves some credit for actually being anti-tobacco.

[PADEMJES12]

2. Tort reform a farce

I think in the 1980s Indiana was one of the most aggressive states with tort reform and what did that do to rates; etc for insurance. They still went up. The fact is that litigation is not the overwelming burden it is misportrayed as (for MOST companies). The Republicans start off with a flawed premise: that most, if not all lawsuits are frivolous. Try as they may... that simply isn't reality.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Excellent point

Big multi-nationals - poor widdle babies that they are - need to be hand held and protected. The individual? Not so much.


Can I share with you my vision of health care? The physicians have a two-strikes then out. We WOULD limit the 'punishment' fine . . . We would need to do this because the Big Whine from the AMA is that they have to carrier insurance. Oh yeah - and it's also why they claim their 'prices' are so high . . . and I tend to agree with them.

When we flat out take insurance companies (Medical Malpractice AND Health) out of the the Health Care paradigm - then the costs decrease, and physicians can practice without interference from corporations - or lawsuits.

I'd only support limiting liability against doctors - because in this 'perfect little world of mine' LOL when we 'America' have one of our Physicians screw up - we'll all pay to take care of the victim of that screw up. Taking away the Malpractice Insurance and protecting physicians might actually get them all onboard with their patients who like the idea of National Health Care.