Health Care BS

Comments 6

1. sparx wrote:

   IIRC, Ron Paul opposes *federal* legislation concerning these types of torts, on the grounds that, under the US Constitution, the several states retain exclusive authority over state-level tort law. I would imagine that Ron Paul would support reasonable tort reform by *state* legislatures.

   Posted 06 May 2007 at 8:26 pm ¶
2. Catron wrote:

   I would like to think you’re right about that, but this article (which he wrote last year) seems to condemn all “limitations on legal remedies.” He really doesn’t differentiate between state and federal solutions. Do you have some documentation verifying his support for tort reform at the state level?

   Posted 07 May 2007 at 8:22 am ¶
3. Charles Fowler wrote:

   I’m sorry, but you are either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading your readers. Malpractice premiums have increased, but not due to “greedy trial lawyers” (yes, I am a trial lawyer). Premiums have increased because, among other things, the insurors have made very poor investment decisions and continue to line the pockets of the carrier’s upper management with excessive premiums. Claims, on the other hand, have remained constant over the past several decades. In fact, states with caps on recoveries generally sport substantially higher premiums as compared to those without such premiums. Add to this observation the reality that physcians and hospitals are protected from liability already to a degree unheard of in other areas of the law and an informed reader will have quite a hard time taking you seriously.

   A third possibility is that you are nothing remotely close to a Libertarian by nature (which is fine) and you don’t believe juries are capable of reviewing evidence and rendering a fair verdict. Of course this would be an ironic position if one made the likely assumption that you favor the death penalty (most pro-tort reform folks do). The notion that a jury is capable of deciding who lives and who dies, but not capable of deciding whether a doctor made a mistake warranting compensation to the victim is an odd one. To me it implies a self-importance that is at odds with the very foundation of a self-limited governing document like our Constitution. If Ron paul took a pro-tort reform position with regard to any area of the law I would view him as quite the hypocrit, in fact. You either believe in the Constitution or you do not.

   I’m sorry, but the 7th amendment applies to health care providers as well as common folks.

   Posted 07 May 2007 at 3:47 pm ¶
4. Catron wrote:

   Mr. Fowler, thanks for your comments. I have responded to your main point here.

   Posted 07 May 2007 at 10:33 pm ¶
5. Anon wrote:

   No one with libertarian leanings can possibly defend tort reform. How can allowing the legislature to set the value of cases they’ve never heard possibly be squared with the power to the individual premise of libertarianism?

   Posted 31 May 2007 at 4:59 pm ¶
6. FRED HARRISON wrote:

   YOUR POSITION ON TORT REFORM IS STUPID!!!! Lawsuits are the messenger of a broken medical system. Lawsuits are part of our Constitution that is working exactly the way it is suppossed to. Don’t like the rule of law?? Try Saudi Arabia.

   Posted 25 Nov 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶

Post a Comment