Depriving Democrats of voters and money: WH Agenda LATimes

[rumpel]

THE NATION

Dominance on GOP Agenda

Depriving Democrats of voters and money is among White House policies' other aims.

WASHINGTON — As the nation's trial lawyers again funneled tens of millions of dollars to Democrats and their causes in the last election, Republicans were crafting a strategy to choke off that money for future campaigns.

snip
 
One of the clearest examples is an effort to limit jury awards in lawsuits against doctors and businesses. The caps might not only discourage "frivolous" lawsuits, as Bush argues, but also deprive trial lawyers of income from damage awards that they could then give to Democrats.

"If we could succeed in getting some form of tort reform passed — medical malpractice reform or any of part of that — it would go a long ways toward … taking away the muscle, the financial muscle that they have," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who ousted Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle last fall despite a heavy flood of trial lawyer money backing the Democrat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-agenda2feb02,0,3477198.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Hey it worked with unions...bust em up and they no longer

have any buying power

[Liberty Belle]

2. Kick! No wonder the MSM is squelching the trial lawyers' ads

against Bush's proposed tort-reform.

[Ian David]

4. Why not reform medical malpractice insurance, not the settlements?

One a doctor has fucked-up enough for his insurance to become intolerably expensive, why should he still be practicing medicine?

Just put a cap on malpractice insurance and let the companies refuse to insure bad doctors.

[Igel]

7. I agree.

A zero-tolerance policy for all professions.

One mistake, revoke the license to practice medicine, dentistry, education, or law.

(/sarcasm, just in case it's not obvious.)

[Liberty Belle]

8. Why not have the AMA do a better job policing its own?

Also there needs to be a system of mediation or arbitration that is binding on doctors for patients who have modest but legitimate claims.

I had damage from a doctor's malpractice but couldn't afford ten grand in expert witness fees required in CA just to go to court. The doctors wouldn't settle, so I had to drop the case, never mind that I had to pay out of pocket for surgery to correct the bone infection they caused. If I had been able to afford it, I'd have had to ask for much more than my damages were really worth, just to pay off the lawyer and the experts. This sort of thing is what inflates costs.

In the old days, 20 years ago, I had a similar situation where a doctor screwed up. The doc had a conscience, called his malpractice carrier voluntarily, and asked them to write me a $5,000 check to cover my cost for a minor surgical procedure to fix his mistake.

The whole mess has gotten totally out of hand.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. It's called Facism!

:puke:

[rumpel]

5. SS reform. Supposedly the private investment account will be managed

by a government agency.
So that everyone is forced to invest in Halliburton etc?

[tk2kewl]

6. At least Thune is honest. That's saying something for a puke.

I hope he doesn't get hurt by a consumer product. :eyes: