Yesterday’s post on Ron Paul and tort reform got me in hot water with at least one trial lawyer. Charles Fowler posted a none-too-flattering comment whose general theme is captured in the following passage:
I’m sorry, but you are either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading your readers …
One gets the feeling that Mr. Fowler isn’t all that “sorry” to point out my imperfections. Such ad hominem observations aside, however, his main point seems to be that there is no connection between tort reform and reduced malpractice premiums:
States with caps on recoveries generally sport substantially higher premiums as compared to those without such premiums.
He doesn’t provide support for this assertion, however, and that is not a big surprise. The facts aren’t on his side according to this backgrounder from the Heritage Foundation:
States that have damage award caps boast malpractice premiums that are 17.1 percent lower than states without caps.
The authors go on to describe some specific states in which this has been true, including
The [
Texas ] reforms included a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Early results show that the cap has been effective in lowering malpractice insurance rates.
So, lawyerly dudgeon notwithstanding, my attitude on the need for tort reform will remain firm, at least until I receive some credible evidence that I’m wrong. Thus, I’m still queasy about Ron Paul’s apparent indifference to this issue.
Comments 10
Your accusation of Mr. Fowler committing an ad hominem fallacy is clearly erroneous as there is no language in his argument that suggests that your arguments are invalid or weak becuase of any characteristics that you as the arguer possess.
His conclusion was simply that you must be either misinformed or intentionally misleading your audience, and it was supported by premises whose intent was to support rather than to attack you as an arguer.
Perhaps you should rethink your groundless speculation and remember that ad hominem fallacies come in three different forms. The first is a verbal assault against the arguer. The second is that the arguer has a certain characteristic and therefore makes poor arguments. The final is that the arguer is a hypocrite and therefore makes bad arguments.
A good example of an ad hominem fallacy would be an arguer pointing out spelling mistakes in an opponent’s argument and concluding that the argument is poor.
You sir, need to apologize to Charles Fowler at once for this grave, unwarrented accusation and crime against logic. In fact this would be the first time that I have heard of a polite introduction as being ad hominem.
On a final note, I am not trying to say that your argument against Dr. Ron Paul is poor in any way. I do not claim to be a lawyer or a physician. I have not seen a reply from Charles Fowler, and I do not think it is prudent to conclude that your argument is sound given my ignorance of the issue. My only purpose was to prevent attacks on logic. Please have a nice day.
Posted 17 May 2007 at 10:34 pm ¶“So, lawyerly dudgeon notwithstanding, my attitude on the need for tort reform will remain firm, at least until I receive some credible evidence that I’m wrong. ”
What evidence do you have that you’re right? Take for example the Heritage Foundation’s claim about Texas. Insurance rates have declined in both capped and non-capped states, just as they have moved with the economy for the past thirty years. Caps do nothing but make it harder for those who don’t work, such as the elderly and children, to obtain an attorney.
Posted 31 May 2007 at 5:02 pm ¶My evidence includes the Heritage Foundation data. Vague references to the business cycle are not very convincing as a refutation of that evidence.
Posted 31 May 2007 at 5:49 pm ¶The Heritage Foundation provided you no data to support the claim. They simply made the conclusory statement that since Texas adopted tort reform, their rates have gone down. That claim is undercut by the facts that rates declined nationwide, while not coincidentally, the bond market improved.
That is not a vague reference. One need only follow the stock market and compare where it is to when a “crisis” was declared in medical malpractice insurance. It doesn’t track an increase in claims or payouts, but the overall economy. And payouts are what matter.
Posted 31 May 2007 at 9:55 pm ¶You still haven’t explained the 17% difference between cap and non-cap states.
Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 8:16 am ¶Without knowing the states, it’s impossible to. For example, if Pennsylvania is one of those noncapped states included, it has higher premiums than most thanks to its two largest insurers declaring bankruptcy due to what the Insurance Commission termed “financial mismanagement”. The other insurers had to pick up the tab for that in terms of contributions to the state fund, resulting in increased premiums.
The better way to determine if caps have an effect is look at the average payouts among similar injuries.
The even broader question, which you as a professed libertarian should be asking, is why physicians should be guaranteed a set malpractice premium, or that insurers should be guaranteed an amount of loss on the risks they take?
If your justification for caps is lower premiums, why not just set the cap at $1? And why stop at physicians - shouldn’t everyone have that benefit? Or should we go to no-fault?
Posted 01 Jun 2007 at 2:15 pm ¶You are now descending into absurdity. The idea of caps is to bring sanity to a system that is out of control and doing real damage. I don’t think a $1 cap is consistent with that general goal.
Posted 02 Jun 2007 at 6:24 am ¶Let’s see your proof that the system is “out of control” and “doing real damage”. After all, tort claims are down and the average personal injury payout is about $30K. Insurers are extremely profitable, and physicians are the highest paid profession in the world.
So if they are suffering “real damage”, who else is as well? Who else, in your view, should get damage caps, and in what amounts?
$1 isn’t any more absurd than any other number. It has no relation to the facts of the case either.
Posted 02 Jun 2007 at 1:42 pm ¶By the way, do you know who files the vast majority of all lawsuits? Businesses, usually suing other businesses. What’s their damage cap going to be, or is it industry specific? Which lobbyists will get to set those?
Posted 02 Jun 2007 at 1:43 pm ¶I inadvertently stumbled on this blog entry again. I’m sorry I’m so late. In one brief google search I located many objective sources which dispute your claims that caps on damages result in any substantial reduction in medical malpractice premiums. One of them is linked below. If you will email me at the address I provided Monday I can direct you to sources that I think even someone with your agenda will accept. Outside insurance lobby propaganda I have not found this issue to be real point of dispute.
On the other hand, if physcians and their carriers are truly interested in saving money they should consider spending more time listening to patients and less time trying to avoid responsibility for the damage caused by their errors.
http://www.nursingcenter.com/library/JournalArticle.asp?Article_ID=597066
Posted 29 Sep 2007 at 9:28 am ¶Post a Comment