Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

tort reform in the form of cap limitations is not the answer.

most cases ever see court and intentionally so. the lawyers file and they settle for far less knowing the the malpractice ins companies will nearly always do this simply because its cheaper. so havng caps is kind of useless.

courts or arbitrators wont matter much as they will never get that far either. same reason. just a new class of judge.

now if you look at tort reform in the form of "loser pays" then you have a reaason for the ins cos to participate. if the loser is forced to pick up the court costs then lawyers will be far more selective about the cases they file. people who have legitimate cases will still get compensation, much as they do today (bonafide cases do not get settled because its a real chance for the lawyer to get a big payday) so nobody loses but the lawyers.

then the caps are gone and the real threat of big time claims remain to encourage the AMA to police itself (like it does not have to do now) and perhaps everyone wins for a change.

<blockquote data-quote="dogtowner" data-source="post: 123579" data-attributes="member: 2483">tort reform in the form of cap limitations is not the answer.&nbsp;most cases ever see court and intentionally so.&nbsp; the lawyers file and they settle for far less knowing the the malpractice ins companies will nearly always do this simply because its cheaper.&nbsp; so havng caps is kind of useless.&nbsp;courts or arbitrators wont matter much as they will never get that far either.&nbsp; same reason.&nbsp; just a new class of judge.&nbsp;now if you look at tort reform in the form of &quot;loser pays&quot; then you have a reaason for the ins cos to participate.&nbsp; if the loser is forced to pick up the court costs then lawyers will be far more selective about the cases they file.&nbsp; people who have legitimate cases will still get compensation, much as they do today (bonafide cases do not get settled because its a real chance for the lawyer to get a big payday) so nobody loses but the lawyers.&nbsp; &nbsp;then the caps are gone and the real threat of big time claims remain to encourage the AMA to police itself (like it does not have to do now) and perhaps everyone wins for a change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dogtowner, post: 123579, member: 2483"] tort reform in the form of cap limitations is not the answer. most cases ever see court and intentionally so. the lawyers file and they settle for far less knowing the the malpractice ins companies will nearly always do this simply because its cheaper. so havng caps is kind of useless. courts or arbitrators wont matter much as they will never get that far either. same reason. just a new class of judge. now if you look at tort reform in the form of "loser pays" then you have a reaason for the ins cos to participate. if the loser is forced to pick up the court costs then lawyers will be far more selective about the cases they file. people who have legitimate cases will still get compensation, much as they do today (bonafide cases do not get settled because its a real chance for the lawyer to get a big payday) so nobody loses but the lawyers. then the caps are gone and the real threat of big time claims remain to encourage the AMA to police itself (like it does not have to do now) and perhaps everyone wins for a change. [/QUOTE]

Verification