Tort Reform
Yes, it's time to talk about Tort Reform. Being one of those buzzwords now bandied about by politicians of a particular stripe, I thought to myself, "I wonder how many people actually understand what is meant by 'Tort Reform'," and then I thought to myself, "Gee, I wonder if the politicians pushing for Tort Reform--'Tort Reform with Teeth' was what Tihart said in a letter to the papers, today--actually know what it means.
(IRONIC NOTE: Tihart's letter appears in the Kansas City Star opposite some editorial journalism exposing Genentech, a drug company which wrote "talking points" about the current debate, and whose "talking points" have mysteriously appeared in the mouths of over 40 US House members. The name of the editorial is, "Don't let others put words in your mouth".)
Torts were one of the things we covered in Political Science, but it has been a few years, and so I decided to brush up on the Internet before making this post.
Tort reform, according to Forbes reporter Daniel Fisher, is "A catchall phrase for legislative measures designed to make it harder for individuals to sue businesses."
You see, Torts--far from being cakes made with ground nuts instead of flour, those are tortes--are laws which allow remedies for civil (non-criminal) injuries (not including contractual ones), the rewards usually being monetary in nature. Once again, without the parentheticals, torts are laws which allow remedies for civil injuries, the rewards usually being monetary in nature.
So, for example: When the doctor leaves a towel in after surgery, tort allows you to sue for damages. When an anesthesiologist puts you to sleep with a drug clearly marked as "allergy" on your chart (which I've just learned is a very popular source of Lawyer income), tort allows you to sue for damages. When the surgeon cuts off the leg tattooed "NOT THIS LEG", tort allows you to sue for damages. When a pharmaceutical company makes a new drug...well, I think everybody sees where I'm going with this.
So Tort Reform would make it harder to sue someone who injures you, and would limit how much you can seek in damages.
Why would our elected representatives want to do this? to enslave us to mediocrity in our medicine? Well, for one, "Advocates of tort reform complain of unconstitutional regulation caused by litigation, and that litigation is used to circumvent the legislative process by achieving regulation that Congress is unwilling or unable to pass." I mean, seriously, we bribe Congress all that money to stay away from our misuses and negligence, and some judge has the audacity to award damages anyway?
Now: There is this. In 2005, the AMA reported that almost half of physicians step perhaps a bit too cautiously to avoid malpractice suits, which can ruin their careers--doing things like avoiding high-risk or suit-prone patients, ceasing trauma surgeries, and using PET- and CAT-Scans and MRIs for situations that definitely do not need it, 'just to be sure'. The former puts patients at risk, to be sure, and the latter causes expenses for patients to rise. (But hey, if you let the doc give you a PET-scan when you're there for the flu? Well, I think you should pay for that.)
I have yet to hear anybody explain how fewer malpractice suits will cause doctors to turn around and suddenly embrace "problem" patients.
Now, winding up, the argument goes, if Medical Insurance companies have to pay out less in awards, they will charge doctors less for coverage. Doctors will need less to "make ends meet". They will charge patients less, as a result.
But this theory of economic altruism isn't really realistic. In reality, if Medical Insurance companies pay out less in awards, they will pocket the difference, crowing to their board members about a "huge increase in profits". There will be no savings for the poor, only earnings for the already-rich.
(IRONIC NOTE: Tihart's letter appears in the Kansas City Star opposite some editorial journalism exposing Genentech, a drug company which wrote "talking points" about the current debate, and whose "talking points" have mysteriously appeared in the mouths of over 40 US House members. The name of the editorial is, "Don't let others put words in your mouth".)
Torts were one of the things we covered in Political Science, but it has been a few years, and so I decided to brush up on the Internet before making this post.
Tort reform, according to Forbes reporter Daniel Fisher, is "A catchall phrase for legislative measures designed to make it harder for individuals to sue businesses."
You see, Torts--far from being cakes made with ground nuts instead of flour, those are tortes--are laws which allow remedies for civil (non-criminal) injuries (not including contractual ones), the rewards usually being monetary in nature. Once again, without the parentheticals, torts are laws which allow remedies for civil injuries, the rewards usually being monetary in nature.
So, for example: When the doctor leaves a towel in after surgery, tort allows you to sue for damages. When an anesthesiologist puts you to sleep with a drug clearly marked as "allergy" on your chart (which I've just learned is a very popular source of Lawyer income), tort allows you to sue for damages. When the surgeon cuts off the leg tattooed "NOT THIS LEG", tort allows you to sue for damages. When a pharmaceutical company makes a new drug...well, I think everybody sees where I'm going with this.
So Tort Reform would make it harder to sue someone who injures you, and would limit how much you can seek in damages.
Why would our elected representatives want to do this? to enslave us to mediocrity in our medicine? Well, for one, "Advocates of tort reform complain of unconstitutional regulation caused by litigation, and that litigation is used to circumvent the legislative process by achieving regulation that Congress is unwilling or unable to pass." I mean, seriously, we bribe Congress all that money to stay away from our misuses and negligence, and some judge has the audacity to award damages anyway?
Now: There is this. In 2005, the AMA reported that almost half of physicians step perhaps a bit too cautiously to avoid malpractice suits, which can ruin their careers--doing things like avoiding high-risk or suit-prone patients, ceasing trauma surgeries, and using PET- and CAT-Scans and MRIs for situations that definitely do not need it, 'just to be sure'. The former puts patients at risk, to be sure, and the latter causes expenses for patients to rise. (But hey, if you let the doc give you a PET-scan when you're there for the flu? Well, I think you should pay for that.)
I have yet to hear anybody explain how fewer malpractice suits will cause doctors to turn around and suddenly embrace "problem" patients.
Now, winding up, the argument goes, if Medical Insurance companies have to pay out less in awards, they will charge doctors less for coverage. Doctors will need less to "make ends meet". They will charge patients less, as a result.
But this theory of economic altruism isn't really realistic. In reality, if Medical Insurance companies pay out less in awards, they will pocket the difference, crowing to their board members about a "huge increase in profits". There will be no savings for the poor, only earnings for the already-rich.