Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
This seems more..... something, can't think of the word. It sounds like they're basically saying it doesn't matter, or makes little difference. I sure wish a medical Doctor would chip in.

It is obvious that there hasn't been a definitive, overall study on the matter - they can't even agree among themselves!

I have to admit, I bring prejudice to this argument, based on all things The Little Rascals.

You might have seen the episode, where they sell insurance. The thing that sticks in my mind, and upon research was the way insurance generally worked at the time, that if you cut a finger you got x amount, black eye x amount, etc, all off a published list. The real insurance cos at the time had published payouts too, like lose an arm, x amount, etc.

This makes sense to me as someone who figures costs and does quotes every day. How on earth can I quote a competitive price if I don't know, or am unsure, what my real cost will be?

I'll HAVE to build in some cushion room, and will err on the expensive side 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I will at best lost the order and at worst lose the company, and all employees lose their jobs. Perhaps to China or India.

This isn't 100% applicable to tort reform. Still, a drag on the economy is a drag on the economy, and will cost both jobs and income. I see from the previous articles you've posted there are some issues with the tort bills passed. Particularly what I don't like is the punitive damages examples. Couldn't these be addressed seperately?

Pete
The GBO study did have a doctor on board. My conclusion, supported by many anecdotals, experiences, and some studies such as the studies cited finding no real correlation between the cost of medicine and litigation and even those that are inconclusive, is that the so-called problem is greatly exaggerated. Why limit a constitutional right if you can't back up the limitations? Even if it is drag on the economy because it accounts for less than 1% of the total cost of medicine, why would we target this at the expense of limiting fundamental rights. Admittedly, the 7th Amendment has not been held to apply to the States through the 14th (known as the incorporation doctrine), but many state constitutions grant the right to trial by jury in civil cases. But, Pres. Bush has just formally proposed his caps on med mal liability from the federal level taking that decision away from the states. This, if passed, may bring the 7th Amend. directly into play and would make for an interesting supreme court case.

Most states, after the first wave of tort reform hit in the 1980's for the same stated reasons (premiums too high - but studies from various state insurance regulators show they never went down), provide for caps on punitive damages that take the form of multiples of compensatory damages, i.e., 3 x compensatories or 500K-2million, whichever is greater. Often included is a provision that factors in the net worth of the particular defendant, generally a business, so a judgment does not put the defendant out of business. The net worth is determined after verdict so that the wealth of the defendant does not become an issue before the jury. (You've probably noticed I haven't mentioned insurance. In my state, the jury cannot be told that the defendant has insurance, but it may play a role in the post-verdict determinations.)

The whole premise of instituting caps, like many other political plans, is backward. The cases that make it to a jury in which the jury renders a verdict for the plaintiff obviously have merit. Thus, caps most severely effect the meritorious cases and not the frivolous ones that over 90% of the time get tossed out before making it to trial.

I'm anti-cap, but I can live with caps on punitives because they are intended to punish and deter conduct done with a concsious disregard for the health and safety of others, or, in some instnaces, with the purpose of defrauding, and perhaps there is some unfairness in not knowing ahead of time what your punishment will be. I don't totally agree with this argument but it's often made. I think it's appropriate for criminal cases in which someone's liberty or life is at risk.

What I find extremely harsh is caps on non-economic damages such as those for pain and suffering and mental anguish. When you cap these damages, then the person like the stay-at-home mom, a minor, or a retiree, is unfairly treated. Not only that, the whole concept shows a distrust for citizens. In other words, it says that citizens are too stupid to put a number on these categories of damages. In my experience, when jurors are given this task they take it very seriously (this used to surprise me) and perform their tasks diligently.