Skip to main content

Why tort reform is not part of the health care package...

... despite the fact that everyone knows it would dramatically reduce medical costs.

Let's see if you can connect the dots.

Dot A: progressive/liberal-philosopher guru (and occasionaly Obama campaign consultant) George Lakoff:

Another multifaceted conservative strategic initiative is "tort reform," which has been made to sound like it is just about capping large damage awards and lawyers' fees. It is really a destruction of the civil justice system's capacity to deter corporations from acts that harm the public, since it is the lawyers' fees that permit the system to function. Moreover, if successful, it will also dry up one of the major sources of campaign finance for progressive candidates, which comes from trial lawyers.


Dot B: presidential campaign contributions 2008 from Lawyers and Lobbyists:

Lawyers & Lobbyists
Obama, Barack $43,440,058
Clinton, Hillary $16,941,277
McCain, John $11,290,948


Dot C: President Obama does not want tort reform as part of the health care package.

Gee. This has been a tough one.
Labels:

Comments

Miko said…
Killing everyone on the planet would drastically reduce medical costs too. Doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
June 25, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous said…
Steve wrote:

.. despite the fact that everyone knows [tort reform] would dramatically reduce medical costs.

Don't you just love "everyone knows" statements? I know that I do.

So, Professor Newton, can you please cite a credible academic reference or Government study to support this "everyone knows" assertion?

I think it should be easy since ""everyone knows."

anonone
June 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Anonymous said…
About half of the states have enacted "tort reform" legislation over the past several years. Many of these states have enacted strict caps on noneconomic damages and regulated the way lawyers are compensated. In some states the number of malpractice cases have been significantly reduced.

And guess what? In not a single state has "tort reform" lowered medical costs. It doesn't even slow down the rate of increase.

So much for what everybody knows.
June 25, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Nancy Willing said…
PWN'd??
June 26, 2009 at 12:40 PM
G Rex said…
Pwned? Really?

Click here for a study on the increase of Caesarian section deliveries in response to lawsuits against OB/Gyns and subsequent increase in malpractice insurance for that specialty:

http://www.advance.uconn.edu/2008/080902/08090203.htm

Who was it that made ll that money convincing juries that all those medical experts were wrong about the cause of Cystic Fibrosis? Oh yeah, it was John Edwards. And what is it, 95% of Congressmen who are lawyers? Not expecting anything that hurts that lobby any time soon.
June 26, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Anonymous said…
*Crickets Chirping*

Steve, I hope you find your critical thinking hat again.

What "everyone knows" often ain't so.

anonone
June 28, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more