Bush to blame health care problems on litigation.

[Viking12]

A part of chimpy's speech tonight is contrived to divert attention away from his horrendous record on health insurance and health care costs by blaming trial lawyers, "frivilous lawsuits" and, indirectly, John Edwards. Chimps claims are based on false premises & ignore the real issues related to health care. Bring this to the media's attention.


Here's a bit of a primer on the issue:

The White House has long been laying the groundwork for a campaign against the North Carolina senator, who made his fortune representing people with injury claims against doctors and corporations. Bush and other Republicans have blamed lawsuits for everything from rising health care costs to unemployment; with Edwards on the Democratic ticket, the GOP -- and its allies in the corporate world -- have dramatically turned up the volume. Treasury Secretary John Snow fired the first shot, two days after John Kerry announced his selection: "An abusive lawsuit has never created a single job, except for personal injury lawyers," he told an audience in Maine, "but baseless and excessive suits have killed many." Vice President Dick Cheney struck the same chord at a July 12 fundraiser in Pennsylvania, saying, "For the good of this economy, we need to end lawsuit abuse. Junk and frivolous lawsuits put people out of work." The Bush campaign has also unleashed a new TV ad, attacking Kerry for missing a vote "to lower health care costs by reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors."

Behind those slogans are years of painstaking fine-tuning by Republican consultants, focus groups, and corporate think tanks. The term "lawsuit abuse" was coined in the early 1990s by Jan van Lohuizan, a Washington pollster wholater helped plan Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. More than 100 corporate-funded groups have been working to convince the public that the legal system is out of control; organizations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, using expensive PR firms and funds from companies like Philip Morris, have spent years testing sound bites and spreading stories of a court system out of control.

That multimillion-dollar investment has turned corporate concerns about such esoteric things as "joint and several liability" into a populist crusade to "stop lawsuit abuse" and return the country to the good old days when old ladies who spilled hot coffee on themselves got sympathy, not punitive damages. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent more than $100 million over the past three years on TV ads and lobbying for legislation to restrict citizens' right to sue, a goal known as "tort reform." (In the courts, "tort" means an injury, which can include anything from libel to malpractice.) The issue is such a high priority for the Chamber that its president, Thomas J. Donohue, moved in the wake of Edwards' selection toward abandoning a longstanding policy of neutrality in presidential elections. Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, told the New York Times that businesspeople are "more frightened by than terrorists."

Yet much of the anti-lawsuit campaign is based on dubious numbers, questionable anecdotes, and, in some cases, out-and-out fiction. Consider Bush's claims of a malpractice insurance crisis in Pennsylvania. Soon after his speech, doctors marched on the Pennsylvania Capitol with placards that cried: "Need an appendectomy? Call a trial lawyer!" The Washington Post reported at least 1,100 doctors had left Pennsylvania in recent years because of rising malpractice premiums caused by lawsuits, and a Time cover story declared that nationwide, doctors were retiring because of higher premiums resulting from "multimillion-dollar judgments awarded for tragic but sometimes unavoidable outcomes."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/09/09_400.html


edited to add link

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Although this has been studied endlessly, they have

never established a connection between litigation and health care costs. However, this would never not stop bush from making this patently false claim.

the reason bush is proffering this fiction is in an attempt to paint Edwards as part of the problem. This is of course just another sick and vile trick, courtesy of the grand champion of sick and vile tricks.

[stopbush]

2. Smoke and mirrors. Oh hell, he's LYING again!

"If we were to arbitrarily restrict the compensation which seriously injured patients can receive as the sponsor of this amendment proposes, what benefits would result? Certainly less accountability for health care providers will never improve the quality of health care. It will not even result in less costly care. The cost of medical malpractice premiums constitutes less than two-thirds of 1% (0.66%) of the nation's health care expenditures each year. Malpractice premiums are not the cause of the high rate of medical inflation. Over the decade from 1988 to 1998, the cost of medical care rose 13 times faster than the cost of malpractice insurance." - Sen. Edward Kennedy July 26, 2002

Here:
http://www.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/07/2002730306.html

[KC21304]

6. Can't someone get these numbers out there before

Bush's speech ? Even if they have to stand on top of their car to get attention ?

[mbali]

10. They already have - the press has them.

And the campaign's rapid response operation is in full swing. They'll likely be releasing point by point refutations of Bush's lies to the press within minutes after he utters them.

[bluedog]

3. Martinez Fl..bush backed Senator

whos running against Betty Castor............was a "Trial Lawyer"..........and bush proudly backed him in all the ads running here...........two faces has bush...........

[wwbarnes]

4. O.K., Now Will Kerry-Edwards Be Smart ...

... enough to see this as the golden opportunity it is for Edwards to retry his most heart-rending malpractice cases in the media? Come on children, roll out those people in wheelchairs. Let no cheek by unstained by the tears of the victims for whom John Edwards procured justice that Bush wants to take away.

Or will Kerry-Edwards give "policy" reponses instead?

[genius]

5. The litigation protects people from malpractice. It's our only defense

Doctors will openly talk about how they give a lower standard of care to people who can't collect that much from a suit. Doctors often recommend that families let them terminate elderly patients who could continue to live healthy full lives if they received proper medical attention. The lower the likely recovery, the more hospitals make clear decisions to provide substandard care. All will suffer if litigation is limited.

[KC21304]

7. What about the insurance companies, who are raking in the

big bucks charging outrageous prices for malpractice insurance ? And of course then they have more money to stuff in Republicans pockets.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

8. It all relies on the kindness of the hearts of insurance companies

After all, they must be willing to lower premiums voluntarily if their own costs are cut by ending litigation...and also be willing not to form cartels with other insurance companies to keep premiums high. The problem is that insurance companies do not make money by taking in premiums and paying out claims. Insurance companies are investment companies. They invest the premium money they take in on Wall Street and THAT is where they make their money...or lose it. When Wall Street investments tank, insurance companies tank and then have to maintain high premiums to keep surviving, whether or not health care costs get lowered. Until you change the very nature of insurance companies in this country, you will not lower healthcare costs by merely preventing people from suing doctors or hospitals.

[Wind Dancer]

9. They have no shame!

These criminals are pathological liars.

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=5671

Department of Justice Study Disproves Tort "Reform" Myths

A report recently released by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics deflates many of the myths that so-called "tort reformers" use to condemn our civil justice system. The August 2000 report, "Tort Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 1996," is the third in a series of reports based on a survey of the 75 largest counties in the United States. Report highlights include the following:

Tort "Reform" Myth: Punitive damages are awarded too often and are too high, resulting in a plaintiff’s lottery tort system.
Study Says: Wrong! Punitive damages are very rare, and when awarded they are small. Punitive damages are only awarded in 3.3% of the tort trials won by plaintiffs. According to the report, the median punitive damage award in 1996 was only $38,000, not the millions awarded in rare but highly publicized cases covered by the media. The likelihood of a punitive damage award varied with the kind of tort alleged. Of the cases studies, only 3 asbestos trials, or 3.2% of asbestos trials, resulted in a punitive damage award, and those plaintiffs received only $1,100 each in punitive damages. Only 3, or 1.1%, of the medical malpractice cases resulted in punitive damage awards. Of the products liability trials (excluding asbestos) studied, only 11, or 12.5%, resulted in punitive damage awards.

Tort "Reform" Myth: Damage awards are escalating out of control.
Study Says: Wrong! The amounts awarded to plaintiffs for economic, non-economic, and punitive damages are decreasing dramatically. Juries are awarding smaller amounts to winning plaintiffs, particularly in automobile tort cases. Between 1992 and 1996, jury awards declined by 47%, from $57,000 to $30,000. This is strong evidence that juries are being polluted by media reports and the tort "reformers’" message that punitive damages are only a "lottery win" for prevailing plaintiffs. This study shows the need to educate the public, and therefore potential jurors, of the valuable deterrent effect of punitive damages on dangerous and harmful products and conduct.

Tort "Reform" Myth: Juries get caught up in the emotion of a trial, ignore the law and find for sympathetic plaintiffs.
Study Says: Wrong! The "Runaway Jury" theory is a myth. Judges are more likely than juries to decide in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs win in tort trial cases 48% of the time. Moreover, they are more likely to win tort trials decided by a judge (57%) than a jury (48%). The likelihood of a plaintiff winning varies among the kinds of torts. Generally, plaintiffs fare best with bench trials in premises liability, product liability (excluding asbestos), and medical malpractice cases. In premises liability trials, verdicts are in favor of the plaintiff 52% of the time when decided by a judge, compared to 38% of the time when decided by a jury. Plaintiffs won 63% of automobile tort trials before judges but only 57% before juries. In medical malpractice trials, plaintiffs won 38% of bench verdicts but only 23% of jury verdicts. An even more profound difference is found in product liability torts (excluding asbestos), where plaintiffs win 70% of trials decided by a judge and 31% decided by juries

[volosong]

11. Litigation Contributes But Little to Increased Health Care

The Major reasons for ballistic health care are the following:

1. Pharmaceutical company Greed

2. HMO greed

3. HMO administrative inefficiency

4. Expensive medical technologies (like MRIs)


A good percentage of litigation is against HMOs for failing to provide adequate health care.

Successful litigations drive up physician malpractice premiums so they charge more, but nothing compared to numbers 1-4