The WSJ’s Anonymous Source on Tort Reform
The WSJ’s Anonymous Source on Tort Reform
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has taken time out of its busy Novak-defending schedule to attack the state of Wisconsin:
Texas, Georgia and even Mississippi have all passed tort reform to improve their economies and stop the exodus of doctors. But now bidding to take their place as a favorite trial lawyer destination is the previously sensible state of Wisconsin, led by its Supreme Court.
[snip]
The 4-3 court majority offered the highly creative judgment that caps on [noneconomic] damages are “patently arbitrary” with “no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.” But if discouraging frivolous legal claims to make health care more affordable and available for regular citizens isn’t “a legitimate government interest,” we’d like to know what is.
The WSJ backs up their conservative position with the claim that “recent studies” have shown noneconomic damages, which make up more than 70% of malpractice awards, are the damages that “tend to drive up insurance rates and drive doctors to other states.”
It’s no surprise that the WSJ doesn’t actually cite the study that backs up these dubious claims. On the contrary, the New York University Law Review published a comprehensive study of 22 states found that “the imposition of caps on noneconomic damages has no statistically significant effect on overall compensatory damages in medical malpractice jury verdicts or trial court judgments”.
In fact, the caps are sometimes the cause of the problem. In what has been described as the crossover effect, researchers have found that “[where] noneconomic damages are limited by caps, plaintiffs’ attorneys will more vigorously pursue, and juries will award, larger economic damages, which are often unbounded.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I used to like to read the WSJ just to see what the “movers & shakers” were thinking.
Now it is little more than a parrot squalking the righty schmeal. Funny though, some of the righty blogs thinks it’s news coverage is liberal. Of course, these are the same folks to the right of Atilla who say they are “center”. Go figure.
August 9th, 2005 at 4:27 pmBut if… to make health care more affordable and available for regular citizens isn’t “a legitimate government interest,â€? we’d like to know what is.
So then it would be entirely legitimate for the government to institute single-payer. Glad we’ve got that sorted out.
(As an aside, single-payer would be the best way to limit medical liability claims, as there’d be no need to sue for future medical costs.)
August 9th, 2005 at 4:31 pmJust give them time, they will try to limit economic damages as well.
Where is their evidence that it is “frivolous” law suites that are getting noneconomic damage awards? There is clear evidence that it is not noneconomic damage awards that are pushing up our healthcare costs. The WSJ is willing to stifle any and all justice whenever it interfers with profit.
The Wall Street Journal puts no limit on the injustice that can be carried out without consequence.
August 9th, 2005 at 4:34 pma recent study ( wish I could find it) showed that the uninsured were costing the insured on average an extra $1,000 per year.
why don’t we work on that to reduce insurance, and medical costs?
August 9th, 2005 at 4:39 pmBecause it’s more that just the uninsured.
Physicians like to have the newest shiny toys. Sometime those toys do so much more than last years models. Sometimes they don’t. But the new machine is ALWAYS expensive.
Look at drug costs. Do you have any idea how much it costs to smother the airwaves with ads for pills they want us to take? Go to your Doctor and ask him/her if this is for you!
I’d be OK with some cap on the payouts. Mind you my cap is alot higher than what bushco or the WSJ would push.
August 9th, 2005 at 4:57 pmTake it from someone who knows, the malpractice insurers and the health insurers aren’t suffering or raising premiums because of “frivolous lawsuits.”
August 9th, 2005 at 5:07 pmThey are suffering from their own lax investment standards during the bubble that ended in 2001. They want to make up for these losses by taking money out of the pockets of policyholders and, in the case of that sham medicare bill, taxpayers.
There was a time, up to the mid-nineties when insurers were among the most conservative of investors, buying primarily bonds and sometimes a passively-managed index fund.
As Nasdaq went up and up, they lowered their internal due diligence standards year after year until some were investing in highly speculative internet (AOL-Time Warner) and energy (enron) companies and even OTC derivatives. This is the real scandal that, like so many others, is way overdue for an investigation.
I’d like to see the following system implemented:
When signing the forms with a new doctor, prior to your first consult, you sign and perhaps get notarized an agreement on malpractice caps. So you settle beforehand on how much you can sue them for. Depending on the caps that are agreed on, the doctor charges you differently. If you waive your right to sue completely, they will charge you less than if you have a $100,000 or a $500,000 cap.
If this were done, we could see the true effect malpractice caps have on prices.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:09 pmI don’t see that happening Tony. A good lawyer could wiggle out of any form.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:15 pmwould really be better to put a stop to the scam that the insurance companies run, or bring some sanity to it.
August 9th, 2005 at 5:25 pmMolly Ivins did a great story about they myth of tort reform…
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2005/1066
This is my favorite part where she talks about how corporations file the most lawsuits, and yet tort reform does not address this issue!
“Public Citizen did a study showing that corporations themselves file four times as many lawsuits as do individuals, and they are penalized much more often by judges for pursuing frivolous litigation. ” “Corporations think America is too litigious only when they are on the receiving end of a lawsuit,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “But when they feel aggrieved, businesses are far more likely to take their beef to court than are consumers.”
August 9th, 2005 at 6:18 pmFlorida passed a bill where they said they would pass malpractice caps if the insurers would open their books and prove their losses were due to malpractice awards. The insurance companies declined. That should tell you all you need to know
August 9th, 2005 at 7:12 pmWe don’t need torte reform, the pastries and baked goods are just fine. We could use pork reform, if the posts on this fine site are any indication.
In the famous words of John F. Kennedy
“Ich bin ein berliner.”
(I am a jelly donut.)
At least he wasn’t porky the pig.
August 10th, 2005 at 9:34 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner
August 10th, 2005 at 9:37 amI’d like to see the following system implemented:
No internet for connies. They pollute the bandwidth with bullshit. The only good connie is a dead connie.
August 10th, 2005 at 10:31 amNo internet for connies. They pollute the bandwidth with bullshit. The only good connie is a dead connie.
That is, like, so totally unfair. I mean, I personally can’t stand Connie Francis, but she can certainly use the Internet as long as nobody makes me listen to her music.
Besides, if you ban Connie Francis, you have to ban Whitney Houston too. Be fair.
August 10th, 2005 at 10:42 amI’m very pleased to finally see consistent WSJ OpEd critique in some of best read Reality Based liberal blogs. It’s something I’ve privately wished for many times, even (sadly) had dreams of it.
It’s long, long overdue. There was a time sometime before Clinton’s first election victory they were thoughtfull and worth reading. I vividly recall late ‘92… after Bill won but prior to innaugeration, they went after Hillary for donating legal efforts to children’s causes.
It’s been all downhill from there… straight downhill, like a chute directly to hell.
August 10th, 2005 at 11:10 amTort Reform is a measure to modernize tort laws.It has to be altered to be the right one for the community.I came across this site while searching for details on Tort Reform.You will also like to read it –www.dickweekley.com
July 5th, 2006 at 6:18 amLilly
I am very impressed with your site. The quality of the design and content makes it a real winner! Thanks again for a great site and a great resource on the net.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm