Your opinions on tort reform.

[JamesButabi]

Many people use tort rreform in discussing a health care. I can see how tort reform could be viewed negatively in a free market aspect in it limiting of compensation. What are your opinions on tort reform and do you think it would help or hurt the health care system?

 

[TCE]

Many people use tort rreform in discussing a health care. I can see how tort reform could be viewed negatively in a free market aspect in it limiting of compensation. What are your opinions on tort reform and do you think it would help or hurt the health care system?

It would likely lower costs. However, it should be completely unconstitutional at the federal level because nothing crosses a state when dealing with a health care lawsuit.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Well..... yes and no TCE.

Cases can be appealed to Federal Court for whatever reason, injury from a drug sold across State lines, for instance.

So I would say that both the States and the Fed could enact a kind of tort reform, not to describe limits on damages, but rather to set gudelines for how damages are calculated, so as not to create the situation where someone goes through $5,000 in damage, and $50,000 in suffering, but receives $1,000,000 in awards.

The caveat being that the Federal reform guidelines only apply to Federal courts, and not to State courts, and then State reform guidelines apply to State courts.

But yes, I think we could affect tort reform without violating the free market. So long as we take the route of establishing guidelines for how to calculate awarded damages instead of just 'capping' damages as XYZ for ABC, then it may not only be possible, but necessary.

That, and keeping an eye on jurisdiction is crucial. If the Fed could dictate guidelines to State courts, that would be dead dead dead wrong.

 

[tmosley]

They are addressing the wrong problem. Rather than limiting the rights of the people to file lawsuits, they need only remove government intervention in the healthcare market.

Sure, it drives the price up, but there are lots of things that drive up prices. It shouldn't be illegal to drive up prices. If that were the case, then buying things would become illegal.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

They are addressing the wrong problem. Rather than limiting the rights of the people to file lawsuits, they need only remove government intervention in the healthcare market.

Sure, it drives the price up, but there are lots of things that drive up prices. It shouldn't be illegal to drive up prices. If that were the case, then buying things would become illegal.

What about the rights of the defendant ordered to pay out $10,000,000 on a $500 injury?

 

[fisharmor]

Federal courts are only supposed to decide federal matters, aren't they?
If a state law is not in violation of the constitution, then the federal government is supposed to remain silent on it.
This is AFAIK why SCOTUS turns away most of the appeals it gets: there is no reason for them to get involved.

If they stuck to what the constitution allows them to do, then tort reform wouldn't be an issue... we'd have 50 laboratories to figure out what works best.
As already stated, the problem with health care is government involvement. We can't solve the problem with more government involvement.

 

[Printo]

Yes. Allow for private contracts between patients and doctors.

So in the event of X, patient Y, will be reward a monetary amount of Z.

There are currently illegal. If you do it this way, you get the lawyers out of the equation. This will lower non-economic costs significantly and will lead to lower liability insurance costs for doctors, meaning lower costs for patients.