trial lawyers destroyng healtcare

Ask any doctor he will tell you
Doctors work 9 out of 12 monthes for malpractice insurance..!
If We cut out the trial lawyers.and we pass tort reform we could save the insurance companies from followiing the banks lead...!
Remember Obama's effort to try a "test" for tort reform? (We don't actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosi's bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990 spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try "alternative medical liability laws." But look — you don't get the incentive if you have a law that would "limit attorneys' fees or impose caps on damages." That's what the trial lawyers get for the millions spent in supporting the Democratic party, and that's what tort "reform" in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of health-care legislation amounts to. States will be strong-armed into repealing existing caps in order to get the Fed's money. Sweet, huh? Well, unless you thought the aim was to reduce medical costs. No, this will go a long way toward ensuring that tort lawyers remain rich, malpractice insurance remains high, and unnecessary defensive medicine remains a fixture of the health-care system. Nice going, Nancy!

No, this will go a long way toward ensuring that tort lawyers remain rich, malpractice insurance remains high, and unnecessary defensive medicine remains a fixture of the health-care system.


Bravo. Kudos on that standard conservative approach to national health care. Now let's talk about the facts. First of all, I agree with the assessment depicted in The Godfather, "A lawyer with his brief case can steal more than a hundred men with guns." Americans are lawsuit friendly, and to convey the idea that tort lawyers would be rich because of health care is fallacious and frankly kind of silly. Second, malpractice insurance IS high. You said that with national care it will remain high. Well, it seems to me that it would be high either way, so what's your point? What's your solution to lowering it? And would nationalizing health care really increase it? Finally, I can't believe you're talking about unnecessary defensive medicine when many citizens can't even afford necessary medicinal treatment. You should probably do your homework before going on like that, I think.