A friend points out a little nugget of absurdity and political mendacity in the Pelosi health-care bill. 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 [page] 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!
Report: House health bill has anti-reform incentive
- Epstein on providing for the poor
- Copland on magnet courts
- Medical malpractice reform in New Hampshire
- New Podcasts: Reactions to the Obamacare decision
- The implications
- The decision (with apologies to Lebron James)
- Winning the battle, but losing the war (for expansive federal government power)?
- The ACA, Intrade, and other tea leaves
- House Judiciary passes asbestos trust reform
- Post-tort-reform Texas doctor supply
- Making the case for federal tort reform
- New Podcasts: The constitutionality of Obamacare
- Obamacare Debate Complete: The participant with the most compelling argument was...
- Coming next week: featured discussion on PPACA
- Madison County's controversial asbestos litigation system under fire yet again
Center for Legal Policy at the