Obama's HORRIBLE State of the Union

Nice to see Obama distancing himself from his party of idiots (and don't think they other side aren't idiots, too).

But some independence is nice.

And socialist, is there really something wrong with tort reform? Or are you really into this people getting paid for doing nothingihng?

What is wrong with tort reform and decreasing frivolous law suits? A lot of healthcare costs are from physicians ordering tests to prevent being sued for something stupid. How many of the pre-op tests that are ordered are actually necessary? Perhaps the government should 'self' insure physicians to decrease premiums and payouts. And by the way stopping the automatic 1/3 that goes to lawyers not the 'victim'.

One of the better ideas I've heard is a compensation pool. Take malpractive premiums (or a fraction thereof) and pay out standard amounts for certain complications.

There's nothing wrong with Tort reform. Those against it, are hoping to win some macabre lottery. Tort reform is not about compensation but about restricting punitive damages.

There's also nothing wrong with reforming corporate taxes. It's more than reasonable to remove the deductions and lower the gross rate(lowering the rate and broadening the base)

Cutting spending makes sense. We can't keep living beyond our means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But let's keep in mind what's going on. This is all Political. He's attempting to front-run the Republican and Tea-Party members of congress and rob them of their agenda. Obama did not wake up one morning and find religion. He probably had a sit down talk with Bill Clinton who explained life to him.

I always wondered... why should punitive damages go to the plaintiff. If it is simply punishment, why not give it to the government, or a fund for other victims, or whatever?

RS -- Wrong. "Tort reform" is code for barring plaintiffs from the courthouse. Stories of massive punitive damages awards are way overblown. They are quite rare and almost always get reduced to a fraction by appellate courts, which in turn leads to a settlement at a far lower amount. Tort reformers are simply trying to discourage lawsuits, ignoring that the tort system has led to many beneficial reforms (pun intended) and has altered corporate behavior for the good. There are a few, rare abuses but the benefits of the tort system far outweigh the harm. Obama is just throwing a sop to the Republicans and responding to polls like the callous, calculating politician (I know, redundant) that he is.

SWE.
I'm no legal expert, but I assume it's due to tort cases being a civil and not criminal matter, but your point is a good one. If the idea is that the the interst of society is not purely met by compensatory damages then there should be another mechanism to exact that in the case of a harm so eggregious that society's intersts are not met by the compensation.
The compensatory damanges almost border on criminality, perhaps the solution should with that in mind. I see no reason to incentivize the vicitim here, the cost of which is ultimately borne by other's seeking medical treatment via higher insurance costs that get passed on. In other words the Doctor could be "punished" in a way that does not immediately benefit the victim, while still exacting a higher punishment.

> There are a few, rare abuses

You have anything to support that?

I personally know several cases (and not because I'm anywhere involved as a career).

obama has let me, a supporter, down

and he's really throwing people of my ilk under the bus at this point

f'ing tort reform: another ploy by large corps to enable ongoing irresponsible behavior, accompanied by the usual rovian misrepresentation and manipulation

Tort reform will not bar plaintiffs from the courthouse. Are you a lawyer and worried about not being able to sue enough? Maybe the answer would simply be to have the government insure docs so in essence you would be suing the government-certainly deep pockets but maybe not as easy to get payouts for not true mapractice. This could also lower or eliminate premiums and thus lower costs of medical care.

That's a terrible idea. When the gov't assumes unlimited liability it promotes risky behavior. Just look at the Gulf Oil spill. Gov't capping of oil industry liability promoted excessive risk taking.

two words: john edwards

The most interesting idea I heard was a shared pool for victims. That a medical board would determine severity and pay it out.

Or, the other way is, replace juries with medical panels who are specifically versed.

In terms of torts being a rare problem... consider that the entire career of Jonathan Edwards was made on cases that turns out he should have lost.

Remember Obama's platform of change? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH

"I always wondered... why should punitive damages go to the plaintiff. If it is simply punishment, why not give it to the government, or a fund for other victims, or whatever?"

I agree with this. It removes some of the incentives for plaintiffs and their attorneys to try and cash in on a big payday, but still discourages negligence.

Tort has been around at least since the time of Roman law, and is very simple: cause physical damage to someone, and you pay for it, regardless of intent.

One way to limit the cost and time of litigation, and thus the large amount of money accruing to trial lawyers, would be to limit the rights of hospitals, doctors, big pharma, etc., to defend themselves against such suits.

What are you getting so worked up about? You want to cut costs, right?

"Tort has been around at least since the time of Roman law, and is very simple: cause physical damage to someone, and you pay for it, regardless of intent"

Sort of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDEbTudkjhc

How 'bout this - you cut the amount granted for medical care when you go to a universal single-payer system :)

"Tort has been around at least since the time of Roman law"

so has unemployment insurance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2RYhNhBdw

swe: "...why should punitive damages go to the plaintiff. If it is simply punishment, why not give it to the government, or a fund for other victims, or whatever?"

How about going toward the plaintiff's choice of charities?

"Tort has been around at least since the time of Roman law, and is very simple: cause physical damage to someone, and you pay for it, regardless of intent."

Of course, that's not what we have anymore. You pay if you didn't cause it. You pay more than the actual damage. People who weren't actually hurt get paid.

Great system.

To start with , I would prevent juries from deciding on punitive damages and have their role end at thte decision for compensation. Punitive damages if there are any should be awarded by the judge, and it's not at all clear to me that the lawyer for the "victim" should be so incentivized to collect monies in excess of the harm they incurred. There must be better remedies to address societies needs.

Single payer system would be great. Nobody has the guts to fight the insurance lobby to enact this though. Would cut down on costs though-no billing fees off the top-usu 8%+, less office staff to submit bills and track down payment. If you add government malpractice (not an unheard of entitiy btw-the military docs are insured by the military and the nyc hospital docs are insured by the city of ny).I am estimating-30% less costs at least without taking into account possibly one computer system to avoid duplication of tests and procedures.

SWE -- Pretty much every study that looks at tort awards systematically shows that they are reduced. You can't extrapolate from the several cases you personally know, even if they were egregious. The point, however, is that the tort system has a "public attorney general" function in that the fear of damages has led corporations to alter their behavior. You remove that and you are back to the Ford Pinto days where corporations will simply choose to act badly because they don't fear the monetary consequences.

So, RS & SWE, your only objection is with punitive damages in medical tort cases, and you agree that direct damages for injuries in medical cases should be allowed? And that, because nobody else is more highly qualified so to do, juries can assign value to lives & life functions and the reduced value of one's life thereby, after hearing arguments from both sides?

Good.

jordyn, I don't see what a bunch of Danes has to do with this.

LucilleIsSorry, I don't see what Maude has to do with this.

My first car was a Ford Pinto, replete with bucket back seats. For safety, I guess.

nothing. just thought you might enjoy it.

Alan, no, no, and no. Try again.

> You can't extrapolate from the several cases you personally know, even if they were egregious.

I agree. That's why I asked for your data.

The only datapoint I am aware of is that malpractice rates are through the roof, and actually affecting medical care in certain areas.

What do you have?

> fear of damages has led corporations to alter their behavior.

In the medical case, not in a good way...

Alan, you are completely leaving out finding of fault. Without that, your arguments pretty much go out the window.

People with true injuries done b/c standard of care wasn't followed is fine but what I think is that tort for suits for things such as someone having a illness not diagnosed b/c they never followed up with medical advice and blaming the doctor or because they had a bad outcome from a procedure (not related to the skill of the md). Those 'frivolous' suits are the ones that really need to be limited.

"The only datapoint I am aware of is that malpractice rates are through the roof" ... just like insurance company profits.

"Alan, you are completely leaving out finding of fault." Fine, juries decide fault after hearing both sides. If instead you mean intent, that of course is not relevant to negligence cases, and I hope you too expect a higher standard than "negligent".

Whatever standard you choose, juries are the least able to get it right, so there goes that point.

> just like insurance company profits.

Uh, not medical malpractice companies. Try again.
They're shutting down offerings.

Try again.

So, RS & SWE, your only objection is with punitive damages in medical tort cases, and you agree that direct damages for injuries in medical cases should be allowed? And that, because nobody else is more highly qualified so to do, juries can assign value to lives & life functions and the reduced value of one's life thereby, after hearing arguments from both sides?

---------------
Don't put words in my mouth and don't lead the witness.
My big issue with punitive damages is that it raises medical insurance which effectively raises health care costs for everyone in the process. Law of Unintended consequenes here, with greedy lawyers who have every incentive to go for the maximum award , regardless of consequence or original harm or damage.

And we all know that jurys can be swayed by emotional appeals.

The only reason that Obama & the Democrats did not champion tort reform was that the Tort lawyers were against it and they fund Democrat coffers.

http://www.saynotocaps.org/reports/InsolvencySummary.pdf

http://www.saynotocaps.org/factsandfigures/Do%20Caps%20Reduce%20Malpractice%20Premiums.pdf

http://www.saynotocaps.org/travestyofcaps/capsdontwork.htm

http://www.aei.org/outlook/24273

SWE -- Alan beat me to the bunch. In the med-mal area, you can't forget the intervening cause, which is the rapaciousness of the insurance companies. They capitalized on the fears of doctors and hospitals to jack up rates without any reason. It shouldn't be "tort" reform; it should be "health insurance company" reform.

Single-payer system would get rid of some of the suits. Seems to me that tort reform people should be all over that because since nobody would be compensated for medical fees. Kinda elegant, no?

Should be covered under compensatory damages 10023 , no?

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AEIMedMalReport.pdf

nyc10023, you'd also have though America's large and medium employers would have been the primary drivers of National Health, so as to get that item off their budgets. But no elegance there, either.

But you wouldn't get any in a single-payer UHC model because your care would be taken care by the state and that would be deemed sufficient. Kinda gets rid of the motive to sue in most cases.

Yep, but hey, there aren't many big employers left since most jobs have been shipped overseas.

Maybe someone can explain it to me. One of the motivating factors for people to sue (besides there being no backup state-sponsored medical care) is that they know there is a pot of $ behind from the insurance co.

Say doctors just decide not to get malpractice insurance, and make that fact upfront and known to patients (yes, I know, impracticable sometimes) - what would happen? If there was a way to shield the doctor's personal assets from a lawsuit, I bet that litigation would quickly dry up.

If I were the best friggin' I dunno, neurosurgeon in the world, or fertility specialist or whatever and assuming I could get hospital facilities, I dunno that I would bother with getting malpractice insurance. Wouldn't patients want to come to me, anyway?

No.

And everyone knows cases where people exagerate their claims in hopes of collecting an oodle of cash.

RS -- You can't keep citing a few examples and then claim it is a widespread problem. People faking or exaggerating injuries is not what caused insurance rates to spike; insurance companies are what caused insurance rates to spike.

rs, for someone who truly loves to cut and paste your arguments are remarkably lacking in any support here.

"everyone knows cases.."

really? and what percentage might that be? oh king of "i don't like anecdotes"

"And socialist, is there really something wrong with tort reform? Or are you really into this people getting paid for doing nothingihng?"

Tort reform only reduces healthcare costs by 0.5%, according to CBO.

Tort reform protects bad doctors

Tort reform gives the bulk of the savings to malpractice insurance companies and doctors, not patients

Tort reform does not give more peopel access to insurance. Texas enacted significant tort reform several years ago and has the HIGHEST percentage of uninsured patients than any other state.

"A lot of healthcare costs are from physicians ordering tests to prevent being sued for something stupid."

I've said this 100 times and I will say it 101 times:

Doctors do not order unecessary tests because they fear lawsuits. They order them because the more tests they do, the MORE money they make.

How many Republicans would support tort reform if a doctor accidentally left a scalpel inside them or ampitated the wrong leg?

or their nuts?

"They order them because the more tests they do, the MORE money they make."

Entrepreneurship ... that's always good.

Wbottom, they have no nuts, except for Sarah Palin. And a cast of thousands.

Appellate courts are very good at reducing excessive awards. WHenever you hear of someone in the news getting a huge award for something minor, they never collect that award 99% of the time since it is reduced or thrown out by the appellate court. In the trial court, sympthetic juries often award huge awards, but there are no juries in appellate courts, hence the court is much less sympathetic to the plaintiff.

Appellate courts are very good at reducing excessive awards
---
And not including the costs associated with defending the excessive awards and taking it to yet another court.

For all those who think that tort reform is the magic cure all, one single sentence disproves you:

"The combination of direct savings in malpractice costs and indirect savings in health care services would reduce national health spending in response to the proposed reforms by roughly 0.5 percent, CBO projects."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10802/12-10-Medical_Malpractice.pdf

That's right: one half of one percent... a small fracticn of the savings that would come from drug importation and single payer.

Appellate courts are very good at reducing appropriate awards.

"or their nuts?"

W, hilarious. ar is right though - not much in the way of nuts there.

New York State Takes Control of Nassau’s Finances

Tort reform may also be unconstitutional:

Louisiana’s Medical Malpractice Cap Ruled Unconstitutional

http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2006/09/louisianas_medical_malpractice.html

Court Declares Portion of Florida’s 2003 Medical Malpractice Tort Reform Act Unconstitutional

http://malpractice.devdd.com/2010/03/court-declares-portion-of-floridas-2003-medical-malpractice-tort-reform-act-unconstitutional/

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Medical Awards Cap Unconstitutional

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2010/03/22/108346.htm

Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Another Blow Against Tort Reform-Medical Malpractice Caps On Non-Economic Damages Are Held Unconstitutional

http://www.clausen.com/index.cfm/fa/firm_pub.article/article/635f8430-3797-4ebd-8398-4d2909e032d3/Illinois_Supreme_Court_Strikes_Another_Blow_Against_Tort_ReformMedical_Malpractice_Caps_On_NonEconomic_Damages_Are_Held_Unconstitutional.cfm

Socialist and alanhart what planet are you on???
Most docs don't make a cent from ordering tests. Also
Most try to do the right thing for all those cynics. There are
Some who might deserve the criticism but it is a minority.

Is the weird capitalization in the first word on every line of UES's post some sort of samizdat or code? Or maybe it is just S & M forwards and backwards; I suspect Alan.

Auto text on iPhone

A whole other topic

Of course.

Midtownereast etal has never met a conspiracy he couldnt make up.

Nor a disruption that he couldn't try to create.

CC -- Missed the point, dude. I was jokingly referring to Alan's S & M riff on another post.

Trust me.

I m not missing the point.

Deep breaths; let the anger dissolve away.

You're just confirming my point.

Which is what, again? Yes, that's right. I am an alter ego of some other poster; you've said that over and over. It's not true, but I guess you are hoping that, in spirit of McCarthy, merely repeating the accusation will make it true. As I said, I have no beef with you, but you persist like a bull in a china shop. I am not Huntersburg, Riversider or whomever else. In fact, I get highly insulted about that suggestion because I generally (well, invariably) disagree with them. Let the paranoid fantasy die.

Over 200 posters in fact.

At least your delusions are those of grandeur.

Youre trying too hard...way too hard. Time for your other friends to appear.

Find one other poster -- not an alter ego you create, of course -- who thinks I am the alter ego for Huntersburg, Riversider or anyone else and I will gladly disappear from the board. You have confected this idea and, having (wrongly) invested so much in it, noe you can't back away from it so you persist. Or you are just a bored bully. I have no disagreements with you substantively, yet you continue to attack me. That's classic troll behavior and it is no surprise your posts are in grey.

calling you on your idiotic behavior makes me a bully? as noted, you're trying too hard again.

Crickets ... Thought so.

"SWE -- Alan beat me to the bunch. In the med-mal area, you can't forget the intervening cause, which is the rapaciousness of the insurance

companies. They capitalized on the fears of doctors and hospitals to jack up rates without any reason. It shouldn't be "tort" reform; it should be

"health insurance company" reform."

Still sounds like folks are confusing consumer health coverage insurance companies with malpractice insurance companies. They are different entities, and the tort costs hit the one you aren't talking about.

"Find one other poster -- not an alter ego you create, of course -- who thinks I am the alter ego for Huntersburg, Riversider "

he is probably not the alter ego of h'burg and riversider. i say this because i think i know who his actual alter ego is. helloooo!!! the come troll has spawned many copycats, who realized by his example that it's kind of fun to mess with the mayflower society of streeteasy.

so, you will be changing your name to LucilleHasBeenDuped(Again)

Some of my settings seem to have changed, I can now see columbiacounty but not myself.

>he is probably not the alter ego of h'burg and riversider. i say this because i think i know who his actual alter ego is. helloooo!!!

First, I have no alter ego though I seem to be gray.
Second, it has been very obvious to me that MidtownerEast and Wbottom are both the same person.

The biggest winner if tort reform gets passed will be Warren Buffett, who incididentally owns a medical malpractice insurance compnay.

>The biggest winner if tort reform gets passed will be Warren Buffett, who incididentally owns a medical malpractice insurance compnay.

Ok

>rs, for someone who truly loves to cut and paste your arguments are remarkably lacking in any support here.

rs, apparently you aren't a large enough advertiser on aboutready's affiliated site brickunderground.

Hunter S -- Sorry to disappoint, but I am not WBottom, although Wbottom and I seem to agree on a lot. You, on the other hand, must have violated some SE rule because you are greyed out (no doubt for your nonsensical abuse). SE certainly did the right thing.

lucille, do share. who do you think the alter ego of midtownereast is? at first i thought it might be me, but it certainly isn't, despite ph41's assertions to the contrary.

the timing, sudden arrival, etc. seemed kind of awk, but i do have a candidate who may fit the bill and who may be the alter ego without any real negative implications (i won't give further details because i don't want to out this identity, although it would only be an "out" to the people who have met).

SE full-conversational-contact sport.

MidtownerEast is SO obviously ESueChoButterfly.

Ah, wbottom and EsueChobButterfly.

?Who is?

Grey=troll.

MidtownerEast=Wbottom

Says you, the person with no credibility who has been greyed out for violating the rules. You are trying to deflect attention from your own violations by castigating others. Lame, dude.

But that wasn't a denial.

How about this? I'm not Wbottom nor the alter ego for anybody else, as I have said time and time and time again. You, on the other hand, have been accused of being a multiple personality troll and now you are greyed out. Speaks for itself. I'm sure everyone is finding this to be as tiresome as I am, so find something else to be wrong about; shouldn't be hard for you.

And you first joined the Streeteasy community on November 1st, and had no prior history with anyone despite your first contributions in your first discussion being attacks on several people, right?

huntersburg, and your first experience here was when? and you had no prior experience here? like knowing that someone is a litigation partner? do you really think you're so clever that people won't notice your mistakes?

2 days ago you told me your husband was a litigation partner.

Have you been drinking?

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/14968-azure-intelligence-new-construction-on-91st-1st

somebody seems a bit frustrated here. can't respond on the merits? need to just post to another thread where you've been a true and total turd?

you go! such a stellar troll.

Does your affiliated real estate site brickunderground support your extortion of developers, or are you operating without their consent anad outside of the ethical boundaries of your profession?

Hunter S -- It is amazing how you routinely draw the wrong conclusions; you must be a really poor lawyer. I started commenting -- after silently viewing for a short time -- because I wanted to complain to SE about the abuse by one person. (I think it was Hones; I forget exactly.) I searched back in that particular thread and other posting for the same person; that was the basis of my so-called attack. It seems that you have no contribution to make other than attack people. I am guessing that is why you are in grey. Your mania is really bordering on a paranoid disorder.

> I started commenting -- after silently viewing for a short time

Oh, of course, you wanted to wade in carefully.