Obama's talk of medical malpractice reform surprises both sides

[The Northerner]

His use of the term 'frivolous lawsuits' in his State of the Union address upsets patients' rights advocates.

Reporting from Washington — President Obama took both Republicans and normally supportive patients' rights advocates by surprise this week when he voiced support for a national limit on medical malpractice lawsuits.

"I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs" besides repealing his healthcare overhaul, Obama said in his State of the Union address, including "medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."

The president's words breathed new life into the often discussed but never enacted Republican initiative. Last week, House Republicans held a hearing to decry the cost of medical malpractice lawsuits, which they blame for rising healthcare costs. They introduced a bill to set a $250,000 limit on damages for pain and suffering caused by "any healthcare goods or services or any medical product."

Obama's comment upset supporters who had specifically asked the White House last year to avoid the word "frivolous" when talking about suits by injured patients.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-medical-malpractice-20110129,0,4969299.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fscience+%28L.A.+Times+-+Science%29

[Better Believe It]

1. If a lawsuit is "frivolous" it won't collect a penny and will be thrown out of court.

President Obama understands that.

He's an attorney.

A well educated one.

Harvard I believe.

So he's really directing his so-called "tort reform" proposal toward attacking legitimate lawsuits that have merit.

[Maine_Nurse]

8. Maine's version seems to work fairly well...

it still has some problems, but in order to pursue a med malpractice suit, another MD must agree with you and be willing to sign off on the suit. Frivolous suits have dried up, for the most part. I've heard the complaint that docs would never sign off on another being sued, but that hasn't proven true.

[Maine_Nurse]

12. Many get paid off just to make things easy...

Insurers and facilities realize that a lawsuit can cost lots of money directly to defend, and cost them indirectly because of bad press anyway. Even some cases certain to be dismissed, sometimes get paid off just to make the problem go away.

[customerserviceguy]

13. But it will cost the doctor and hospital being sued a lot of money

probably more than the over-litigious plaintiff has to shell out. And the defensive medicine the doctors have to practice costs all of us.

I'm glad the President has chosen to address this again. He brought it up when HCR was still being crafted, but when the Rethugs decided not to play along, he figured that the Democratic congresscritters were too far in the pockets of the trial attorneys to put it into the bill.

[RegieRocker]

22. Doesn't cost them a dime. It is covered by malpractice

insurance and if you buy the B.S. that their malpractice insurance rates will go down if some kind of reform happens, I have a bridge to sell you. What a crock of shit.

[customerserviceguy]

28. Then what happens to the cost of malpractice insurance

when it comes to dealing with frivolous lawsuits? It just goes up, and gets passed on in the form of fees. Also, there is a cost in time and trouble to practitioners to defend against this sort of nonsense. I'd rather have a doctor spend two hours treating patients than to spend two hours in a deposition for a frivolous lawsuit.

Here's a radical idea for you: Single payer malpractice insurance, run by the government. Cut out the profits of the malpractice insurers, and identify which practitioners are really screwing up, and deny them coverage, then identify covered and non-covered doctors. If single-payer is good for patients (and I truly believe it is) then why is it bad for doctors?

[RegieRocker]

20. That is correct!!!!!!!

[Edweird]

2. How long before someone here claims it isn't RW policy?

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Since Pres. Obama has embraced it, it is now "progressive". eom

[QC]

19. True. Anything that he does is, by definition, progressive.

As well as the wisest and most just thing ever contemplated by the mind of humanity.

[Little Star]

4. Personally, I was not surprised.

Pissed-off but not surprised.

[originalpckelly]

5. You know what the standard should be?

On-going medical care and support for the person if they are now incapable of working. It should never be a lump sum, but a finding that on-going care and financial support are needed. Whatever that costs.

We need to have a state run malpractice system that doesn't require lawsuits in the first place. Lawsuits take a long time to resolve in some cases and people should not have to wait that long to receive proper medical care. They should not have to live with their pain and suffering. They shouldn't have to face a world of crushing debt, because of the malpractice of another person.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. I've always been a fan of a "loser pays" system.

if you bring suit, and loose, you have to pay the defense fees.
If you are sued, and loose, you pay the plantiffs defense.
Although all legal fees should be reasonable, of course.

I think that's very fair. Isn't that they do it in England?

In THE us, there is a very prevelent tactic of winning a court case by burying the opponent with legal fees. The richest man wins, so to speak. :(

[GreenStormCloud]

7. And the fees are proportioned too.

If I sue for a million dollars and only win 100K, then I am judged to have lost 90% of my case and must pay 90% of the opposition's legal fees. That encourages lawsuits to be for realistic amounts, thereby discouraging "lawsuit lottery". If the lawsuit is for a realistic amont, the probability of a satisfactory settlement increases.

Most of the rest of the world uses the loser pays system.

[Pithlet]

11. A great way to ensure that only those who can afford it get justice.

It's a terrible idea.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. Uh, what planet are you on? In America, the richest person wins. How is that justice?

Unless you're "lucky" enough to have one of those slick injury lawyers rep you for free, you're doomed unless you have limitless pockets. Even those lawyers are out to make a quick buck... often taking 30%+ of money the plantiff is entitled.

The rest of the world uses a loser pays system for a reason. It works.

[underpants]

9. It's 1% of costs- he is tossing them a bone

and trying to end another one their endless issues. Cap and Trade was their idea- a market based solution- they got called on it and don't want it.

[LooseWilly]

10. So what're patients' rights activists gonna do about it? Vote Republican?

If you can be taken for granted, you will be taken for granted. It's the DLC way.

Welcome to the "suck it" train... :hi: ... I'm sure we'll be getting more company soon enough.

[TBF]

15. Surprising from Obama? Hardly. nt

[starroute]

16. This is largely missing the real issues

There are reasonable arguments for and against trying to contain medical malpractice costs. But when you look at how the right has been using the "tort reform" issue (ever since Karl Rove got involved in it back around 1994), two things jump out at you.

One is that the real beneficiaries of tort reform are not doctors or hospitals but large corporations that make faulty goods or push products like tobacco or asbestos that are innately harmful. (See, for example, the whole Halliburton asbestos mess.) Medical malpractice is just a wedge to get legislation that will allow corporations to duck liability in these cases.

Second, the Republicans have been trying to argue that health care reform will be unnecessary if measures are taken to bring medical costs down in general. The figures I've seen suggest that tort reform might at most bring down the cost of health insurance by a few percentage points -- not enough to make it significantly more affordable. But the GOP is able to play on people's personal experience that doctors are performing more unnecessary tests these days to convince them that this is an easy solution to everything.

[jberryhill]

17. It doesn't matter if he is "willing to look at other ideas"

Particularly since this is pretty much an area of state law.

He knows that. The screaming meemie brigade doesn't.

[WinkyDink]

23. Then he should keep his mouth shut.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. He's validating a bullshit RW meme.

He seems to do that a lot.

[QC]

27. Yes, but it's all part of a brilliant strategy.

Or something.

[QC]

18. How is it even slightly surprising now for Obama to validate a right wing talking point?

Hardly a day passes lately without Obama embracing and legitimizing a key piece of reactionary propaganda.

It's what he does. It's his metier. His forte. His raison d'être.

[WinkyDink]

21. Frankly, he's got a lot of what we used to call crust. A JURY can decide what is or is not

"frivolous."

And for a PRESIDENT, let alone a Democratic and Harvard-educated one, to use such slip-shod, superficial language is almost contemptible.

[Marr]

24. He's always anxious to "compromise" a little more-- even for things he's already got.

At some point you have to acknowledge that he's not actually compromising at all.

[Disintermedia8]

26. 2nd Queen's Knight to Level 7 Rook

check!