AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

His point that because I thought tort was an acronym that it stands to reason that maybe I don't understand what tort is at all?

I should accept that illogical conclusion? Talk about a leap.

maporsche wrote:

His point that because I thought tort was an acronym that it stands to reason that maybe I don't understand what tort is at all?

I should accept that illogical conclusion? Talk about a leap.

That wasn't an illogical conclusion. As you yourself admitted, it was the correct conclusion.

His point that because I thought tort was an acronym that it stands to reason that maybe I don't understand what tort reform is at all?

I should accept that illogical conclusion? Talk about a leap.

maporsche wrote:

Gosh, you're so much smarter than stupid 'ole me.

You're right of course. I don't have a clue what tort means. Nor do I even know what is a grammatical error vs a capitalization error is. I'm shocked that I can even figure out how to turn this crazy computer on.

I knew all of that before you posted it...I just didn't know what the WORD tort specifically meant or what it's root was.

I understood what people meant when they spoke of tort reform. I don't think I'm too ignorant.

I don't think you're ignorant at all. Just wanted to head off ten pages of posts accusing you of ignorance over the definition of one word.

Tort is adapted from the Latin word tortus which means wrong.

Fair enough.

Also from your article though.

Quote:

But not one of the hospitals or doctors interviewed for this article said they are cutting the prices they charge to patients or health insurers. Instead, they're reinvesting the savings in more and better health care.

For example, Denison-based Texoma Healthcare System, a 263-bed, five-facility system near the Oklahoma border, gave nurses a 17 percent raise, to $21 an hour from $18, chief executive Mackey Watkins said. This was to attract nurses during an ongoing national shortage.

I don't necessarily think that re-investing the profits that doctors and hospitals are making back into improving health care is a bad idea.

As it is, I see a lot of discussion about whether tort "reform" would lead to lower health care costs without any discussion whatsoever about whether tort "reform" has any intrinsic merits. In other words, is there any good reason to limit malpractice awards apart from the possible affects on health care costs. After all, if all we wanted to do was lower health care costs, there are much better and more direct ways of doing it than putting a cap on malpractice awards. Yet I don't see anyone here arguing that putting a cap on malpractice damage awards is something worthwhile in itself.

As with many other Republican "reform" measures, tort "reform" focuses on a remote cause in the hopes that the benefits will "trickle down" to those who the "reform" is ostensibly intended to help. As David Bonior once said: "Republicans think that the best way to feed the birds is to give oats to the horse." I remain unconvinced that malpractice liability caps do much to cut the costs of health care to the consumer: the facts simply aren't there. I am, however, persuaded that liability caps are a boon to insurance companies and doctors, while they are an additional burden to the already injured victims of medical malpractice.

Here, I cut out the part that hurts feelings so we can look at what Joe said. I think it worthy of attention.

joefromchicago wrote:

As it is, I see a lot of discussion about whether tort "reform" would lead to lower health care costs without any discussion whatsoever about whether tort "reform" has any intrinsic merits. In other words, is there any good reason to limit malpractice awards apart from the possible affects on health care costs. After all, if all we wanted to do was lower health care costs, there are much better and more direct ways of doing it than putting a cap on malpractice awards. Yet I don't see anyone here arguing that putting a cap on malpractice damage awards is something worthwhile in itself.

As with many other Republican "reform" measures, tort "reform" focuses on a remote cause in the hopes that the benefits will "trickle down" to those who the "reform" is ostensibly intended to help. As David Bonior once said: "Republicans think that the best way to feed the birds is to give oats to the horse." I remain unconvinced that malpractice liability caps do much to cut the costs of health care to the consumer: the facts simply aren't there. I am, however, persuaded that liability caps are a boon to insurance companies and doctors, while they are an additional burden to the already injured victims of medical malpractice.

As part of the health care reform agenda, tort reform would seem to be a logical inclusion. By itself, it is certainly no magic bullet, but as a part of the whole, it would seem to make sense that it would lower costs.

So, if we had national tort reform, Dr's would pay less for liability/malpractice insurance. As a part of the whole, that will bring down the cost of health care. By itself, it will do so very little, but combine that with lower drug costs, less expensive medical equipment, government provide training, etc, health care costs will drop more dramatically.

As part of the health care reform agenda, tort reform would seem to be a logical inclusion. By itself, it is certainly no magic bullet, but as a part of the whole, it would seem to make sense that it would lower costs.