The Republicans have made rubes out of their partisans. Would conservatives be willing to waive their 2nd Amendment rights so easily as their right to sue for civil damages?

I suspect if gross medical negligence resulted in the death or maiming of one of their children, even the most radical right-wing town hall screamer would be searching the Yellow Pages for one of those dreaded "trial lawyers" seeking justice.

Yet they mindlessly call for the abolition of that right.

Abolition? Is Obama advocating the complete abolition of malpractice lawsuits? Link, please.

If "reasonable restrictions and regulations" of the 2nd are constitutional, then why not reasonable restrictions and regulations on malpractice lawsuits?

Really, a $750k cap on damages? How much is your life worth to your family, or your baby's health, or your own leg? If they remove the wrong leg is $750k enough for the rest of your life in a wheelchair?

chiefdeputy:

Really, a $750k cap on damages? How much is your life worth to your family, or your baby's health, or your own leg? If they remove the wrong leg is $750k enough for the rest of your life in a wheelchair?

That's exactly my fear when I hear about caps on non-economic damages. The numbers I always hear thrown around are also significantly lower than $750k.

chiefdeputy:

Really, a $750k cap on damages? How much is your life worth to your family, or your baby's health, or your own leg? If they remove the wrong leg is $750k enough for the rest of your life in a wheelchair?

I agree with you emotional appeal but logically you make the case FOR tort reform. There is no amount of money that can compensate for a life or limb. How much is enough? $1 million? $1 billion?

On this thread - With the exception of "alath", are you all lawyers? Tort reform. I'll say it again, tort reform. I have never seen any of you on the Slate before, and yet, wham! Once again a politician says something, and the "attackers" come out of the woodwork. As a fundamental right, I agree, no one can abridge the right to sue. I think these lawmaker's know they would NEVER get it past the SCOTUS. However, there is already hundreds of legal precedents that speak to government regulation and the trial lawyers and the civil law system are not above or beyond it's reach or jurisprudence. While a general cap limit for all suits WOULD PROBABLY be illegal, to quantify the most common and easily "legal slam-dunks" of medical mistakes, just, once again, makes for a less costly system overall. Have you ever looked at any insurance policy that pays disabling losses? They tell you right up front - $5000.00 for a finger, etc. I would personally think that the loss of a leg WOULD be more like a couple of million in damages, BUT then that coverage should be the sole worry of the specialists in those fields, and the precedents by which loss of a limb is constituted as an outright malpractice. We have both, the medical expertise and the technology, to begin to streamline the process for efficiencies' sake. Who will lose? The lawyers much more so than the patients. What a wonderful juxtaposition in this whole health care debate. The liberals are now forced to use the scare tactics of the conservatives, and the conservatives find out how it feels! Ya gotta love politics!!!!!!!!

JackHughes:

The Republicans have made rubes out of their partisans. Would conservatives be willing to waive their 2nd Amendment rights so easily as their right to sue for civil damages?

I suspect if gross medical negligence resulted in the death or maiming of one of their children, even the most radical right-wing town hall screamer would be searching the Yellow Pages for one of those dreaded "trial lawyers" seeking justice.

Yet they mindlessly call for the abolition of that right.

Here is the irony. Many on the left favor universal single payer healthcare like Canada or Britian but government run healthcare effectively eliminates the right to sue anyway. The government can only be sued where it chooses to be. Currently the military health system is immune from suit so why would a wider implementation not be?

To clarify, most of these caps are on non-economic damages. So the cost of special medical care, lost income, wheelchair ramps in your home, etc., generally don't count against the cap. Caps are generally only for punitive or "pain and suffering" payouts.

When bazillionaire lawyers get on their moral high horse, proclaiming their right to 33% of a jillion-dollar settlement in the name of protecting patients, they tend to gloss over this fact.

In America, many malpractice suits are to cover the lifelong medical expenses that arise from genetic/gestational mishaps in newborns. A robust universal health care system would eliminate most malpractice lawsuit abuse in these instances.

Huh? How can any doctor or hospital be held malpractiable for a "genetic" defect? If you are referring to something like thalidamide babies, I don't see where tort reform has to include any deregualtion of drug companies as to thier liabilties in creating, testing, and selling drugs. I would like to see some links as to what you are getting at.

Minnmule wrote the following post at 09/10/2009 1:31 PM: Huh? How can any doctor or hospital be held malpractiable for a "genetic" defect?

Maybe you haven't been paying attention. It's why obstetricians have the highest malpractice insurance rates.

Our perverse health care system is why we have such punitive liability laws. When somebody is injured in a "slip and fall" on somebody's property, those medical expenses must be paid by someone. Traditionally, our legal system says it's the property owner.

These are all part of the overall savings that must be factored into health care reform. A national health care system would eliminate most, if not all, personal injury liability abuse.

How will universal health care decrease the life long costs of genetic abnormalities? Unless you are talking about the required wholesale abortion of all fetuses with any genetic abnormality, I fail to see how universal health care would decrease this cost.

JackHughes:

In America, many malpractice suits are to cover the lifelong medical expenses that arise from genetic/gestational mishaps in newborns. A robust universal health care system would eliminate most malpractice lawsuit abuse in these instances.

I really don't understand a doctor being liable for genetic issues; however...

I wonder if part of the reason why lawsuits are so common in the US vs. Europe, is that (in general) Europe does have universal health care, as well as a more robust safety net/social welfare system. A debilitating injury in the US could result in hundreds of thousands in medical bills and lost wages. I've known several people with major health issues and from what I can tell, SSI Disability is a nightmare.

OBGYNs are already held responsible for some genetic illnesses. If you fail to adequately counsel pregnant patients and order tests screening for Down syndrome, Edwards Syndrome, and Patau syndrome, you can and OBGYNs have been held responsible for babies born with these diseases. Not that the OBGYN caused this disease, but that they failed to diagnose the disease and therefore robbed the parents of the right to abort that fetus. There are various levels of screening for these diseases, from a triple blood screen, to a quad blood screening, to an integrated test involving multiple blood screens and ultrasounds. The more screening, the more costs. The less screening, the more risk you will miss the diagnosis and expose yourself to risk.

Another recent addition to the genetic diagnosis OBGYNs are now responsible for is cystic fibroisis. About 1/31 people in the US carries the gene. If your partner also happens to be a 1/31 carrier, then your baby has a 1/4 risk. So we are screening for a 1/31 x 1/31 x 1/4 risk. So we are screening for a roughly overall 1/3800 risk disease (these numbers are much higher in some genetic population and lower in others). But again, if I fail to counsel the patient adequately and order the right tests and give them access to abortion I am liable for babies born with CF.

As more genetic testing becomes available, I can only see the genetic diseases for which OBGYNs are responsible for diagnosing as increasing. This isnt even addressing any defects in the fetus which your ultrasonographer failed to diagnose at the 18 week routine ultrasound.

So yes, doctors can be and are held accountable for genetic diseases in babies.

OBGYNs are already held responsible for some genetic illnesses.

Wrong. Their malpractice insurance companies are held responsible -- which in turn pass along the expenses to everyone else..

We can all agree it's insane to blame the doctors for these unfortunate tragedies. But our society has made the choice to defer making a rational policy regarding health care. So sueing doctors is what people facing a lifetime of crushing medical expenses must do to ensure their medical care is paid for.

It would be much cheaper in the long run just to do as every other industrialized country on Earth has done: socialize medicine.