Lets clear up some things: This statement, “Change the health laws to allow competition from insurance carriers across statelines.” and this statement, “The free market can provide it’s own competition if it’s allowed to operate freely. If a company wants to stay in business, they operate in a way so that their customers are happy.” Contradict one another steve-o. You can’t change health care LAWS to ALLOW (IE REQUIRE) carriers to recognize insurance across statelines, AND advocate for a free market system. When you use the law to enforce a legislative mandate, you have disrupted the free market. Worse off for your diametricly opposed argument, is that the free market is exactly why insurance companies deign to allow coverage across the entire country, (Unless you pay inordinate sums of money to get that privilege, money most can’t afford in the best of circumstances). So pick, which one do you want steve-o free market (ie status quo) or regulation and government programs? Either decision requires you to hedge on one of your two central points. Next time don’t contradict yourself.

Next big item, I refuse to believe that having a bias inherently means that I am wrong or that you are right. Especially when my bias is grounded in knowledge that comes from actually knowing something about the judicial process; unlike your bias in the other direction which stems from a lack of knowledge about judicial process or the tort system. But, even if i grant to the fullest that my tort law bias would naturally lead me to argue against tort reform, it doesn’t matter either way because my chosen field of practice regards constitutional law, election law, campaign finance, and election protection; fields of law that don’t make anywhere near the amount of money as my friends in transaction and securities law (who happen to make 5k+ a week).

Now, steve-o, since you decided to dismiss my argument about tort reform, let me get very specific to show you why your lack of education on the subject further elucidates why you are incorrect about tort reform. As a person who is against government programs and intervention you should like this; the government already has rules that limit frivolous law suits and reduce damage caps. I made this point earlier with remittitur, but you ignored it, so let me draw the point out even clearer. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 11 clearly states that when a lawyer submits paperwork before the court that the lawyer knows to be false (A frivolous lawsuit would qualify) that lawyer will succumb to rule 11C sanctions (such as disbarment, the lawyer paying out of pocket for wasting time, or publication of the lawyer’s misconduct in state newspapers). Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Dimick v. Scheidt and held that remittitur, i.e. limiting damage rewards in a civil trial, was constitutionally acceptable when done by a court (such action must occur after a jury has made a damage reward).

But here is what really pisses me off, this statement, “I mean, you’d be one who could potentially profit from someone bringing a meaningless lawsuit.” First you assume that me, or at least many lawyers, are willing to bring “meaningless lawsuits” before a court. That isn’t something most lawyers do. MORE IMPORTANTLY the adjective, “meaningless” is truly in the eyes of the beholder in a tort case. My guess, steve-o, is that you have never had to avail yourself of the judicial system through tort law. But what you might term a “meaningless case” would be someone else’s definition of the most gravest wrong done to them. For example: Most people that ascribe to the “tort reform” bandwagon love to parade around the infamous McDonalds case where a woman burned her upper thigh and genital region with a cup of McDonalds coffee. The media loves to say that the jury awarded millions of dollars to this woman. What you haven’t heard is the following: 1) The court used remittitur to reduce the damages so that the woman received 100k dollars; this shows my above statements are absolutely right, 2) there was extensive evidence that McDonald’s was negligent with regard to its coffee (The coffee was heated to 180 degrees farenheit which means that to handle the coffee safely, someone should have thick inflammable rubber gloves) 3) McDonalds, to save fractions of a penny on each of its cups, had intentionally worn away the thickness of their cups to a degree that they no longer protected individuals from the scalding hot coffee inside the cups. These things taken together show McDonald’s negligence, how do I know? I talked to the lawyer who headed up the case against McDonalds.

EVEN BEYOND that, tort reform only works to limit the damages a person can receive as a result of negligent behavior. BUT, its tort lawyers who work hard to ensure the products you receive are safe to handle. How do I know? Well, Justice Traynor (California Supreme Court) argued in Escola v. Coca Cola that our products are frequently outside the hands of consumers (this couldn’t be MORE TRUE in healthcare) and as a result consumers, due to complexity and lack of individual knowledge, are more likely to be harmed by products that are improperly given to consumers (again this applies to healthcare via surgeries and medical treatment). Traynor then argues that products must be safe if we expect our consumers to advance in any given industry. Therefore products must be held to a high standard of care when given to consumers. (NOTE the case at hand was one where a woman’s coca cola bottle randomly exploded in her face permannetly disfiguring her, meaningless, i think not). (for those that are tort lawyers, i get that there is a difference between product liability and negligence but the principle stands)

To bolster this argument, think of the ford pinto, you know why its not on the market anymore? Tort lawyers. Why? Because the car exploded when it got into a crash. You know why that happened? Because, Lee Iacocca, in an attempt to make an affordable car, refused to spend 6 cents per car to shave off a piece of metal that, when hit from behind, ruptured the gas tank on the pinto, causing it to explode. If it weren’t for tort lawyers such ill designed products would exist.

When it comes to doctors and healthcare, tort lawyers are at the forefront of ensuring doctors remain honest when they go through procedures. So for example, when a hospital takes blood cells from a patient and then uses them to make millions of dollars of profit, tort lawyers said that was unacceptable (Moore v. Regents of the University of California, i would argue not meaningless). Or when doctors fail to properly diagnose a disease that could readily be diagnosed (Herskovitz v. Group Health Cooperative) resulting in significant loss of a person’s life span. Or finally, in the case of a person, diagnosed with appendicitis who left the hospital with severe muscle atrophy and loss of nerve sensation in his arms. (Ybarra v. spangard).

The ultimate problem with medical tort reform is that negligent acts are not clear until they come up, and its not clear that someone acted negligently until a suit is brought, and that only happens when a lawyer decides to fight for a patient’s right to be free from someone else’s negligent behavior. Its easy, to be someone who hasn’t suffered from negligence to sit by and say “Lawyers, all they do is bring frivolous lawsuits” but god help you if you ever need one of our services because someone injured you, or someone you love, simply due to their inadvertence. That is why I am “biased” against medical tort reform. I’ve seen far too many cases where hospitals attempt to cover up their negligent actions, lie to patients, or where doctors try to take advantage of a patient’s lack of knowledge when it comes to medicine. I’d rather have too much litigation, than to little in such a world where negligence can be so easily covered up.

One final remark, the reason why we have so many lawsuits, is because our judicial system is based on a very simple notion: That those who have been wronged, are allowed to have their day in court. This notion goes all the way back to before the revolution in 1776, and was emblazoned in our jurisprudence in Marbury v. Madison from Chief Justice Marshall. This notion is codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Rule 8a which states that all that is required for a claim to be heard by the court is a short, simple statement stating a harm caused that can be attributed to defendant, a statement of jurisdiction, and relief sought from the court. I’d rather follow this simple principle, any given day, than artificially prevent one person from filing a suit which should have been brought, but was barred because medical tort reform.