Daschle: Tort Reform "On The Table"

[BobRossi]

Source: CBS News

"As if taking his case to the most powerful physicians group in the United States to push his controversial health care proposals wasn't a big enough headline, a New York Times report says President Obama has been working behind the scenes to protect doctors from malpractice lawsuits.

"Tort reform is going to be on the table," Mr. Obama's initial nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle told The Early Show Monday.

Daschle, whose nomination was doomed over his failure to pay roughly $140,000 in taxes and interest, said reforming rules surrounding medical liability was an important issue to tackle. "


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5088733.shtml

---

Change we can believe in?

[shraby]

1. First things first in the tort reform debate..first there has

to be an independent organization overseeing the work the doctors do/don't do in order to minimize the mistakes that are rectified by lawsuits. The AMA is not the proper overseer. Incompetent doctors are not taken out of the system like they should be when the doctors are policing themselves. They're just moved from hospital to hospital, or clinic to clinic or allowed to keep their private practice. With the system as it is, who besides lawyers are watching out for the public interest? When thing change on that front, then tort reform may not even be necessary as incompetent doctors are weeded out on a faster timeline.

[RaleighNCDUer]

AMA deals with incompetent doctors the way the Catholic Church

deals with pedophile priests -

They don't exist.

[saigon68]

7. We have seen this before

[closeupready]

14. You know what's funny about that?

I knew a woman who worked for the AMA, and if I recall correctly, she said just that verbatim, what you just posted.

[Sgent]

21. AMA

has nothing to do with physician licenses.

[marshall]

36. That's a state by state thing

I'd like to see it done without having to drag the "state's right" crowd into it.

[No Elephants]

49. Perhaps not openly and directly.

[defendandprotect]

44. Super analogy -- !!!!

[Psephos]

46. Can you name me a union that doesn't cover up its members' mistakes?

After having grown up in a UAW family and worked in a plant when I was younger, I can tell you that you shouldn't suggest the UAW.

That kind of CYA seems like the natural role of unions in an adversarial relationship with owners and managers, whether it's right or wrong. Doesn't seem likely to change.

[Deep13]

8. right. nt

[Zhade]

31. Funny how the AMA works exactly like the Catholic church does with is sexual predators, huh?

Fucking crooks.

[WriteDown]

2. Not surprised...

This had to happen to get anything resembling UHC. I have a personal connection to this though. I had a friend of mine's career decimated by John Edwards in Chapel Hill after problems during the birth of a baby. My friend was an outstanding doctor at one time who swore that nothing could be done, but no more.

[CL455W4R]

4. I am so tired of Tort Reform

Every year the public has less recourse fight those who wronged them than in the year prior... it's a damn shame. Giving special interests these sorts of sweet deals for anything less than single payer is retarded.

[Strong Atheist]

18. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[spotbird]

10. My life was decimated by a physician's

gross malpractice. That physician destroyed lives before mine, and still has a profitable practice.

Tort reform means doctors can do what they want with out any chance of repercussions. Let me assure you that your friend is in the minority of physicians who commit malpractice and suffer consequences. Thank God Edwards was there for the victim in this example, and the laws were on the victims side. It is a rarity, about to become an impossibility.

[WriteDown]

12. Since you were unsuccessful in punishing your dr.

in any substantial way. How does tort reform affect your case?

[depakid]

13. Since Texas' "reforms" were an utter and complere disaster

using anecdotes as a basis for public policy would appear to rather unwise.

[WriteDown]

15. Every country that has UHC limits the amount you can receive

in punitive damages. This is just a reality. I am not sure why Americans can't seem to understand this.

[depakid]

17. Texas limits more than just that

and despite being warned- corrupt Texans went ahead with some of the worst laws in the nation- and low and behold, they still pay exorbitant insurance rates (and not just in the medical area).

I guess Molly said it best when she referred to the state as a "National Laboratory for Bad Government."

Bottom line of course- if there's universal health care, there's MUCH less impetus for lawsuits,, as the injured party's medical expenses (and concomitantly, due to other safety nets- living expenses) are already taken care of.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Countries that have UHC also have severe penalties for incompetent

physicians - something that this country seems to lack.

As it stands now, when forced to sue the plaintiff will, if successful, get recompense for actual costs incurred by mistreatment, and a many-times larger award as punitive damages. The purpose of punitive damages is to not only punish that doctor, but serve as a warning to the medical community, because the medical community (read AMA) does not themselves punish incompetence.

With UHC, and strict accounting including stripping license to practice from incompetents, such punitive damages will be unnecessary.

Give us UHC, and tort reform becomes moot.

[liberalhistorian]

39. It may be a "reality", but such countries also have very strict

penalties and accountabily for negligent, incompetent physicians, much more so than this country. Also, malpractice often causes terrible injuries and death and, in the case of severe injuries where the person requires a lot of care and/or can no longer work, even if they're very young, large monetary awards are necessary, since their care and lost wages can run into millions of dollars. In countries with UHC, that's often something that many people don't have to worry about.

[Hannah Bell]

56. difference = they have universal healthcare, fewer profiteers, physicians and admins get less money.

coincidentally (not) lower error rate, fewer lawsuits.

one of the main reasons for medical suits is to pay for the new care requirement caused by the error.

[spotbird]

20. Not everything is about me

There is a societal interest in punishing quacks. Because I was too sick to take on the battle doesn't mean that every patient who suffers at the hand of an incompetent physician should be prevented from recovery for his injury.

[Iowa]

22. Ah, you again...

... always standing at the ready to defend the strong against the weak. Your comment to the person whose life was decimated by malpractice was shortsighted, insensitive, and cold-blooded. As I said in another thread, your comment(s) reflect the opposite of every value I hold.

I post this not to engage you in a discussion (because we agree on nothing). I post this simply so that others who may trip on this thread will know that at least one person finds your views to be shallow, brutish, ill-considered, and soulless... the views of a bean-counter.

[WriteDown]

26. I also noticed that you did not answer my question from

the other thread. I look for effective solutions from other countries who have UHC. I'm sorry if the concept offends you. Unfortunately, most countries do not allow multi-million dollar settlements for medical patients.

[spotbird]

27. You do understand we have neither

UHC nor accountability for malpractice.

If true UHC were adopted with oversight to prevent quacks, tort reform would be worthy to consider. But nothing close to that is proposed.

You didn't address my point above either, did it cut a little too close to the truth for you?

[Hannah Bell]

57. unfortunately you omit the context of that difference.

[liberalhistorian]

38. And the life of my best friend of thirty years was brutally taken from

her by gross medical negligence that should never have happened; she died several months ago after a year of terrible suffering, including months of hospitalization, caused SOLELY BY A DOCTOR'S NEGLIGENCE and subsequent failure to correct it. PERIOD. Her family is pursuing legal action and I hope to God they not only get every cent possible from those two doctors but that they put them completely out of business. She was the most wonderful person you could imagine and her loss is beyond devastating and unbearable for us, made all the more so by its sheer senselessness and pointlessness. Fuck the careers of those so-called "doctors", if they can't do a simple fucking procedure (and it was a simple procedure, one of the most common) without fucking killing someone after a year of suffering, then they don't deserve, and shouldn't be, doctors. But of course they're currently being protected by the nice thick white line. Disgusting. Fortunately, they live in a state where, while the laws are fairly tough, it's still possible to bring suit against incompetent, negligent doctors who hurt, maim and kill people.

Another good friend lost her husband to the total incompetence of a doctor, his death was also completely unnecessary. Unfortunately, she lives in a state where it's quite difficult to actually bring suit against any medical professional.

And I thank God for attorneys who take such cases, too many no longer do because it can costs tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars upfront to mount a case and, in states with strict "reform" laws, good luck finding one who'll take the risk of helping, even in cases of gross negligence. Because they simply can't afford it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. And there it is -

that is the purpose of punitive damages - to keep those who did the damage from ever doing the same again.

We have three-strike laws for petty criminals, but NO accountability for dangerous doctors. 'Tort reform' without a commensurate system of physician/facility accountability is a formula for total disaster.

Doctors are people, of course. We don't expect them to be gods. But ANYONE who holds life and death in their hands MUST be held to a higher standard. If a mechanic fucks up your car, you get a different car and never use that mechanic again. If a doctor makes an equivalent mistake, there often is NO second choice or even second chance.

[izquierdista]

51. Having lawyers do QA

Is like using a great white shark for a can opener. One of the problems of our adversarial legal system is that there really is no way to correct small mistakes. Correcting lots of small mistakes will improve any product or process, but it is also an admission of :scared: liability :scared: which lawyers use to make the rest of society cower in fear. But they make a nice fee at it, so expect a low, but steady level of errors to continue.

[liberalhistorian]

59. What a load of horsehit. I'm in the legal field and I'm so goddamned

tired of those RW talking points. Most private attorneys don't make nearly the money people think they do; in fact, the vast majority don't. The ones I've worked for, including my husband, have worked very hard to help people for quite often peanuts, or nothing at all, at great financial detriment to themselves. And a helluva lot of work goes into even the "simplest" legal matters, people have no fucking idea or clue and I'm sick to death of it.

And I'm damned glad for the attorney who's taking on the doctors and hospital who, quite literally, murdered my best friend after causing her great suffering.

[izquierdista]

61. Horsehit??

Hit so close to home, you tripped over your silver tongue. :rofl: :rofl:

Attorneys ensure that doctors practice "safe" medicine, not good medicine. They interfere in the same way that insurance companies interfere so that doctors practice "cost effective" medicine. Maybe if the medical profession was allowed to develop effective QA methods like most manufacturing and service industries (err, better make that Japanese manufacturing, since Americans don't manufacture anything any more), then the error rate and the malpractice rate could go down.

Attorneys get on their high horse about helping people, yet they don't do bullshit without a fat retainer. All they can do is bitch, gripe, and moan after the fact and if successful, then they only give half of the winnings to the one who suffered.

[liberalhistorian]

62. BULLSHIT! ALL of the attorneys I've worked for, including my

husband, have, quite often, done a lot of work for people WITHOUT A RETAINER. I've known plenty of attorneys who have done a lot of work without retainers, while still needing to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. And personal injury/malpractice attorneys do NOT take retainers. They advance the costs of preparing the case, often to the tune of tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of dollars. And you obviously have NO fucking clue about just how much fucking work it takes to prepare ANY case at all. Often, whatever an attorney is paid is nowhere near the amount of work that's actually been done. You have no fucking clue what the hell you're talking about.

And it's gotten MUCH harder in most states for any kind of malpractice cases to be brought at all. Doctors are, frankly, getting off easy when it comes to being held accountable. And in my experience, it's doctors, not attorneys, who are the money-grubbers. Too many won't do shit, no matter how bad off you are, without a ton of insurance or money upfront (been there, done that, believe me). And they send you to collections in a nanosecond if you haven't paid the entire bill within approximately five minutes after receiving it, thereby damaging your credit.

And I thank God for the attorney who's handling the case against the doctors and hospital who flat-out murdered my best friend and caused her months of suffering before she finally died. I hope their careers are ruined because no doctor who did what they did should be practicing. PERIOD.

[depakid]

3. Well, I guess we can see what Daschle's been up to

still whoring away.

[defendandprotect]

45. And remember how long he was in the Senate doing that job for . . .

whomever he was doing it --

and screwing the American public!

[Captain Hilts]

5. The Tort 'reform' campaign was funded by pharmaceutical, tobacco and automobile firms. nt

[n2doc]

6. Of course we can't possibly deal with the real problem- Insane Insurance Co's

Perhaps a nationwide universal insurance for docs, with no profits allowed. It would be very interesting to see how much money these companys make....

[marshall]

55. Yeah, it all depends on WHOSE table we are talking about

And how far we're willing to go.

[spotbird]

9. Why doesn't the new inclusiveness

include the left?

More fucking bullshit.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. What does the left have that Obama needs?

:shrug:

[spotbird]

25. Nothing.

He can leave it behind without a worry.

[Zhade]

32. Since he got our votes, nothing. Asshole.

Of course, he's not getting MY vote again.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. You'll vote for him again, and you'll like it

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. President Obama already put it on the table with the Repukes

as a possible compromise (re: health care reform) and they up and walked out on him. He might as well take it "off the table" now.

[sasquatch]

16. Will somebody send Pink Tutu Daschle to the cornfield already

[Iowa]

23. Ha! I second that. n/t

[Romulox]

28. Can anyone remind me who Tom Daschle is to be putting anything on the table?

Is he still working as a pharma lobbyist?

[w4rma]

29. Thank goodness Daschle wasn't nominated to HSS. (nt)

[Zhade]

30. CHUMP CHANGE we can believe in, is more like it.

NT!

[Autumn]

33. I thought "no balls" Daschle

was out of the picture?

[newinnm]

35. Help me understand.

Why does looking at Tort refor offend so many people. It seems to me that only trial lawyers have anything to lose on this issue. My personal opinion is that we should take the scandanavian type model where anyone who suffers a major medical injury is compensated by a no-fault system where the compensation has been set based on the type and severity of injury.


-nnnm

[Doremus]

37. Only trial lawyers lose? What about the person who was maimed, crippled or killed

by their doctor?

Restricting a victim's ability to seek proper compensation only unfairly enriches the practitioner, not to mention letting incompetent quacks go free to attack again and again and again.

[newinnm]

42. you obviously didn't read my entire post

Try again

-nnnm

[mbperrin]

48. Because tort reform always means no torts. In Texas, here's what happened:

a physician diagnosed my dad with a kidney infection, gave him antibiotics. Didn't help. Doctor prescribed antibiotics again, and once more. Finally told me my dad was just a weakling and a complainer, and that there was nothing wrong with him.

30 days later, he was in such pain, he checked into the emergency room, where a doctor there spotted his elevated white blood cells, called in another doctor. Long story short, he had kidney cancer, had already spread, was dead 6 months later.

What happened to the first doctor? They put a note in his file saying that he had had a complaint of some sort. Removed it 90 days later. See, he didn't maliciously misdiagnose, he was just incompetent. There's no penalty for that in Texas, due to tort reform.

Hope this helps.

[newinnm]

50. Read my entire post

[mbperrin]

52. Okay, now what compensation is going to be offered to my dead dad?

And will the doctor who killed him through negligence lose his license to practice under this system? I'm asking; I don't know.

[newinnm]

58. I would depend

The system used by Sweden, Norway and New Zealand would have a monetary payout determined by a review board instead of judges and juries.


-nnnm

[mbperrin]

60. Exactly the problem. I would not sell my dad's life for any price.

I want that lousy doctor kicked out of practice before he kills again. Money does not cure anything.

[stlsaxman]

40. Daschle?!? That's like asking Sarah Palin which state funerals Biden will be attending.

:shrug:

[KamaAina]

41. You're off message, Tom. They're calling it "medical malpractice reform" these days.

Or "medical liability reform". because the phrase "tort reform" reminds people of Newt Freakin' Gingrich. :grr:

[defendandprotect]

43. In fact, we need to reverse the "reform" that Bush/GOP has made over years . . .

and we should clarify that "reform" should mean something positive . . .
forthe American people --

not for the pocketbooks of the elite!

[AngryAmish]

47. It is not on the table

We pay good money to keep it off the table.

Have fun getting doctors to finance democrats.

We are the hand that feeds you, Tom.

[Deja Q]

54. $20 aspirin and $300 headgear that MUST be replaced every 6 months despite

being components that don't need to be replaced AT ALL are two, of MANY, examples of problems with health care/insurance costs that need reform too.

All or nothing, no cherrypicking, is the consensus, I think is the prevailing attitude...