September 14, 2009

Kim Strassel: The President’s Tort Two-Step - WSJ.com

Given this state of affairs, is it any wonder that people do not trust this Administration to do the right thing in reforming health care? It’s a travesty that Congress should remedy, but too many are on the take from the trial lawyers, it would appear. We should not let this stand. When there’s obvious big money to be saved and the Democrats stand by and do nothing speaks volumes about their trustworthiness and, frankly, their ethics.

My guess is there are stories to be told about the other side of the aisle on other issues. Congress and politicians deserve their low approval ratings and Tea Party Patriots are right to rebel against this sordid state of American politics. Humbug!

Kim Strassel: The President’s Tort Two-Step - WSJ.com

3 comments:

Germain said...

Tort reform is needed but it too is complicated and not as simple to reduce to influence of the trial lawyers as this suggests. Our legal system is predicated on access - that means that anyone who feels they have a legitimate legal claim can have access to a lawyer through the practice of contingency billing where the lawyer (in theory) will only take on a case with merit since he or she is not paid if the claim is not sustained. In addition, this practice (again in theory) (much the way the criminal justice system does) scares potential tortfeasers (i.e. corporations as well as individuals) from behaving unreasonably. Of course excessive damages awards in tort cases undermines the system providing too much incentive to lawyers that distorts the underlying assesment of the merits by putting too much weight on the long shot. That should be the subject of real discussion. That said, I do not understand how any one can support or why people would carry signs that say "bury health care with Kennedy". That is a sad, porovcative, irrational (not to mention rude, boorish and off putting) articulation of a position that alienates open minded people. The concern that the deficit is too high and that taxes will soon follow is a valid one but also a complicated one. Their are arguments that deficit spending is good for an economy that cannot be so summarily dismissed. These are the same people who did not march in protest over the deficit build up of the last administration and its spending on a misguided war - why are they so "take to the streets" now?

David Usher said...

You make valid points, Germain. We are seeing the blowback from the excesses of Congress and Administrations for the past decade, maybe longer.

An increasing number of people, including me, are simply fed up with the excesses of professional politicians and the undue influence of lobbyists on the political process. The result is massive debt, higher taxes, declining personal freedoms, et al.

Consider that recently the growth areas of employment in the U.S. are government [including teachers] (all levels of government) and health care. Taken together, both these 'industries' are substantially paid for by taxpayers. That is a prescription for the long term decline of the nation because we simply cannot afford to pay the bills.

Thanks for your explanation of how the legal system (theoretically) is intended to operate.I have great respect for the legal system that undergirds our country and commensurate disdain for those who abuse it for personal gain, whether plaintiffs, lawyers or ideologues, hence the reason for my posting the WSJ opinion piece. My frustration grows daily.

germain said...

I think all encompassing tort reform is a ways off but one thing that could be done is to limit awards against individual doctors. I can make an argument that drug companies (for example) are motivated by profits - if "pain and suffering" awards available to plaintiffs against them were limited or eliminated there might be less incentive for drug companies to fully disclose possible side effects (for example). However, individual doctors are motivated by a host of factors and, in my opinion, do not later their behavior in a positive way due to fear of law suits). Thus I would eliminate pain and suffering awards against individual doctors (I would continue to permit claims for economic damages against individuals). While I understand the frustrations of individuals with the state of things (par for the course during a severe recession) I would offer 2 thoughts: 1) In the history of the U.S. the number of recessions that we have had form which there was no recovery is zero. 2) Holding up signs or promulgating slogans such as those used by the Tea Party and Rush L. depicting Obama as a witch doctor or calling him racist in chief or suggesting that he is not a US citizen because he he is an illegal indonesian islamo fascist is counter productive, and stupid (not to mention racist (despite David Brooks' claim this is not racism but populism) and dilutes their credibility to zero.