After reading this article, do you still think that tort reform is a good way to control health care costs?

washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post... Asked by @Goldie_Bah_Humbug 6 months ago Similar questions: reading article tort reform control health care costs Health > Healthcare.

Similar questions: reading article tort reform control health care costs.

The "tort reform = cost control" argument is the usual magical economic thinking, nearly identical to trickle-down economics or the "mortgage crash is all the fault of those nasty homebuyers" meme. It's supposed to give us big economic improvements for free. You'd think people would be suspicious of any argument that promised something for nothing.It fits in nicely with the regular narrative: business is doing just fine; it's those evil people taking advantage of the system.

Find a way to cut the bad people out of the loop and the Invisible Hand will fix everything. That's not to say we don't need to reconsider torts. They're one of the many balances in the system, trying to ensure that neither businesses nor individuals get taken advantage of.

In fact, BOTH businesses and individuals get taken advantage of already. We should continually question the way it's tuned, but any argument that starts with "It's all against me and for the other guys" is simply out of touch with reality. I honestly can't tell you any good way to fix health care costs.

I consider the problem intractable. Despite the WHO's #37 ranking for the US, it ranks #1 for quick access to health care among those who can afford it.It falls to #37 based on the fact that it has such large numbers with no access at all and the fact that those who do have it spend a lot. But what's your health worth?

Isn't it worth more money to be #1 in responsiveness? Or look at it another way: wouldn't you scream like a banshee if we told you that we were going to reduce the responsiveness even a tiny bit? The worst part is that torts are precisely the way that those with minimal access to health care can level the paying field.

It puts individuals on a par with the corporations: they may have more lawyers, but as long as you have A lawyer, you can have your day in court. But that can't matter to those who treasure the one thing they've invested so much money in, getting quick access to care. It's easy to be smug about your health care when you have it.

I'm much more of a supporter of real cakes and sometimes brownies - I won't agree with anything that promises torte reform.

Let's not forget chocolate chip cookies! @Goldie_Bah_Humbug 6 months ago .

There are advantages to tort reform, but not enough to make it worth it. Imagine if a doc on cocaine operated on a loved one and through preventable error, they died. Do you think you should only be able to sue for 35K or 50K, whatever the ceiling is set in your state.

There has to be a better way to stop dumb lawsuits--maybe a fine imposed by the judge--than across the board rules. Lawyers can already be fined for wasting the time of the court. We have judges for a reason.

They are smart, well-versed in the law, and either elected or appointed by electeds. Plus, you have a right to appeal. We should relay on there expertise to view a whole situation instead of relying on laws that set boundaries.

I think torte reform is one of the things breaking down the separation of powers--the root of our democracy. One more thing, if a judge really ticks you off, you do have a recourse besides appeal. Almost all judges are elected officials.

If they are doing a bad job, help with someone else's campaign and put someone else on the bench. You have this right with all your elected officials.

Yeah, everybody is for "tort reform", until they want to file a tort. Even rabid tort-choppers like Tom Delay, when his father was in a freak accident, he was mighty quick on filing a lawsuit against the makers of some pulley. It's always the "other guys" that are abusing the system.

We're always angels.

The control begins with the fact that each doctor enters the field owing $150,000+ from medical school. OF COURSE the doctor must charge an arm to remove the leg. As it is, that debt might be paid off in twenty years and only then can he start being "successful."

If medical school were free .

No. While the tort system may in fact be a handy device for enriching lawyers, it sadly remains the only viable check on medical incompetence & blundering.

I think that is a very significant check on medical incompetence. It's been proven to improve outcomes and save money on unnecessary and/or duplicate tests and procedures. @Goldie_Bah_Humbug 5 months ago .

Government standards for reimbursement may retard duplication of effort or bureaucratic bungling but are no remedy for the alcoholic surgeon who removes the wrong organ, or the hospital that dumps the critical patient in a taxi for lack of insurance.

I'm familiar with the case it's based on. @Goldie_Bah_Humbug 4 months ago .

Yep, of course I'd heard about the McDonald's coffee case and the "outrageous" jury award. The film's a real eye opener and I'm wondering if you will find it as unsettling in its implications as I did.

I will add it to my queue. Thank you for the recommendation. @Goldie_Bah_Humbug 4 months ago .

The major problems in the medical field are that they don't focus on prevention and less than 20% of what they do has ever been found to be proven effective. Also anytime you get the government involved as they are with medicaid and medicare costs always go up dramatically. Have a great day!

Peace, Health and Prosperity,Barb Doyle, Sc. Org 6 months ago.

Health care reform - not wanting a debate, just info if anyone knows.

Does the American Health Care System need major reform.

There are advantages to tort reform, but not enough to make it worth it. Imagine if a doc on cocaine operated on a loved one and through preventable error, they died. Do you think you should only be able to sue for 35K or 50K, whatever the ceiling is set in your state.

There has to be a better way to stop dumb lawsuits--maybe a fine imposed by the judge--than across the board rules. Lawyers can already be fined for wasting the time of the court. We have judges for a reason.

They are smart, well-versed in the law, and either elected or appointed by electeds. Plus, you have a right to appeal. We should relay on there expertise to view a whole situation instead of relying on laws that set boundaries.

I think torte reform is one of the things breaking down the separation of powers--the root of our democracy. One more thing, if a judge really ticks you off, you do have a recourse besides appeal. Almost all judges are elected officials.

If they are doing a bad job, help with someone else's campaign and put someone else on the bench. You have this right with all your elected officials. Sleeplessness 53 months ago.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.