I know 20+ trial lawyers who maxed out for Obama both in the primary and general

[AngryAmish]

Tort reform is a non-starter. Never. Federalism anyone?

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. At least you can't accuse the President of being beholden to campaign contributors

[Justice]

2. me too, but there is a balance - nothing wrong with talking about a balance

[AngryAmish]

4. Balance my ass.

To be fair I did not hear that part of the speech. So I await the details.

Most states have enacted tort reform (affidavits of merit and the like.) The one thing that can't be done is caps on damages.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. He's not talking about a cap

He's talking about measures to prevent defensive medicine.

[AngryAmish]

5. The standard of care is the standard of care.

Defensive medicine is a myth promulgated by bad doctors and their insurance companies.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. There is no cap being proposed - nt

[merh]

11. The problem with this entire national discussion is what it is called.

Insurance reform is what we are talking about, not health care insurance alone.

Medical malpractice insurance reform, health care insurance reform, home owner insurance reform - those are the reforms needed, a control of the corporations that make their profits on our weaknesses and fears, that profit by offering to protect people when bad things happen but who actually profit by not paying what they promise.

[polpilot]

13. 'Medically indicated' tests. 'standard of care.' Good, educational post. Thanks.

[librechik]

6. besides, under the overwhelmingly conservative judiciary of the last 30 years, tort reform

has been significantly weakened. They're just pretending it's still a huge problem in order to continue the war against trial lawyers, i. e., well to do dems.

[Laelth]

7. Tort "reform" is just a bad idea.

Tort law works on the principle that someone must pay for every injury. If a tort suit is successful, the defendant who was negligent or reckless pays for the injury (usually his or her insurance company does).

If a tort suit is unsuccessful, the innocent plaintiff, who did nothing wrong, theoretically pays for the injury, but if the plaintiff is poor (most of us are too poor to bear the cost of a serious injury), then "We the People" of the United States pay the cost of the injury (through various social services). If plaintiff loses the suit, he or she normally becomes a massive burden on the state.

So, for every injury, we have a choice--either the state pays or the insurance industry pays. People like me (tort attorneys) do our best to make sure that liable defendants pay for the injuries they cause. They usually do so through their own insurance, but I can go after their personal assets if they don't have adequate insurance. Defense attorneys try to make sure that their clients (the insurance companies) don't pay for the injuries their insureds caused. If the defense attorney wins, that means plaintiff bears the cost of the injury (and "We the People" usually pick up the tab).

Republicans favor tort reform as a means of protecting insurance companies. That's it. They want, as always, to privatize profits and socialize risks. They want the government to "bail out their rich clients" when they make mistakes. As usual. Tort reform (like caps on damages and various rules that make it harder for plaintiffs to win) merely shifts the burden for paying for injuries from the insurance companies to the state.

An additional benefit of tort law is that it makes the world safer. Companies that produce dangerous products get "punished" through tort law as a way to teach them to reform their behavior and act more responsibly. When you see a "ridiculous" award, that's usually the jury saying that the defendant acted very recklessly and should be punished for their outrageously unsafe behavior as a means of preventing similar behavior in the future. High jury awards are often effective as a means of making unscrupulous defendants behave like reasonable members of a civilized society. Without the risk of super-high jury awards, defendants will have little or no incentive to reform their dangerous, injury-causing behavior. In this way, tort law makes us all safer.

Why would we want to limit the ability of tort law to do its job of making the world safer? Why would we want to shift the costs of malpractice from the insurance companies onto the State? This makes no sense.

:dem:

-Laelth

[FarCenter]

12. One reform would be to have the 'punitive damages" awarded go to a health fund

to provide health care for those unable to afford it.

The actual damages would go to the injured party, and the punitive damages would go to the government just like any other punitive fine.

[ddeclue]

9. Yeah good luck on Obama getting John Morgan, Esq. to stroke a check for Obama in 2012

he's a huge trial attorney here in Orlando, FL

[Liberal In Texas]

10. Yeah, this is a real bad idea. Throwing that bone to the repukes probably

isn't going get him any more support anyway, so why do it?

[Generic Brad]

14. Do you honestly think the Republicans will participate in reform?

They will do everything they can to obstruct in the hope they can say the president failed. If they don't play ball, they will get left out of the game. Your trial lawyer friends should not be worried.