Quote:
Originally Posted by
buttcheeks
I did not say that I was in favor of caps. I just said that some money was better than no money. Which is a realistic possibility where your lawsuit can be flat out denied existence.
Most lawsuits are in fact "flat out denied existence" under our present legal system. Only a small minority survive summary judgment, let alone prevail at trial.
Quote:
I don't see how I misunderstood anything. You admit that the approval group will have trial lawyers on it, and you admit that a person has to have the approval of this group to proceed with their lawsuit.
I'm not "admitting" anything, I just summarized my understanding of Edwards's proposal.
Quote:
Neither of those facts discredits my assertion that this would add time and money to an already long and expensive process.
Neither you nor I know the full details of this proposal, but speaking from personal knowledge and experience, it doesn't sound like it would make the process more expensive than it already is. In other words, I doubt that this idea would bring the entire malpractice/negligence industry to a screeching halt. Might put more money in the pockets of a few experts, but that's about it.
Quote:
It also does nothing to discredit my assertion that this would put more power in the hands of the rich because they can afford better lawyers to argue their POV to said group. It will essentially add another litigation layer that the rich will have an upper hand against.
If I understand the Edwards proposal correctly, it's a simple certification panel, not an adversarial hearing. In other words, the defendant-to-be would not have the opportunity to preemptively argue against the complaint before it is even filed. The panel would simply review the claim on the merits.
Quote:
It can be argued that this is a dirty practice because often times not all of the people getting sued played any part in hurting anyone. Normally it is only one or two people at fault, or a pharmaceutical company is entirely at fault. BUT the good thing about doing it this way is that the cost of litigation is spread out between all the people who sue as a group.
You're conflating a lot of legal scenarios here into one unwieldy straw-man, but I'll ignore it and say yes, class action lawsuits are one way to reduce costs among multiple plaintiffs (if that was what you were trying to say).
Quote:
I don't see how the "cap" idea (the only republican reform policy brought up so far) would necessarily cause all the problems I said Edwards idea had.
To pick a few examples, damage award caps and limits on class action filings means that fewer plaintiff's attorneys will be able to shoulder the expense of filing and prosecuting lawsuits. Don't forget that the vast majority of malpractice/negligence cases are handled on a contingency basis. Republican proposals, on the whole, generally make it more difficult for plaintiffs to recover any money at all.
Quote:
Caps would not increase litigation time nor would they flat out deny people the right to sue.
Nor would the Edwards plan (at least, no more than the current system).
Quote:
The only problem that it would share with what I accused Edwards’ idea of is that it would limit how much money they were awarded, which could be a very bad thing, depending on how big the cap is.
The problems with tort reform go much deeper than that, as I suggested above.
Quote:
As for what I'm for, I am for a compromise. When people get hurt they need help, however the current situation of lawsuits is hurting everyone. Everyone factors this cost into their end cost, driving up prices for everyone. It also hurts some areas’ access to qualified medical care. Some states our having trouble keeping professionals like baby doctors due to the high cost of malpractice insurance. In places like the south, there are literally a few counties where the average source of income is from people winning lawsuits over diet pills. That is one of the reasons Republicans are so for caps, is because their redneck relatives are the very ones shitty enough to sue over stupid shit.
Malpractice insurance is a complicated problem, one that implicates both the legal system and the medical profession itself. Tort reform without meaningful reform of state medical licensure boards only punishes the victims of legitimate malpractice.
