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

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more