Letter to the Editor 11/17
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
Congressman Carney doesn't get it
EDITOR: A few weeks ago, I called Congressman Carney's Scranton office and asked if Congressman Carney could find out why Democrats were so opposed to limiting lawsuits, known as tort reform, in any health care reform legislation. I explained this might be one way to reduce the cost of health care and that most people favored some limits. A couple of days later, I received a three page e-mail from Congressman Carney explaining the need for health care reform, etc. There was not one word about tort reform legislation.
I then called his Washington Office and asked why the congressman could not answer one simple question with one simple answer. There was a rather long pause and finally the young man I spoke with stated he knew tort reform was not in the House bill and he thought the answer would be that it would not reduce the cost of health care. I told the young man to inform Congressman Carney that if he voted for the health plan in the House and it did not include something relating to limiting lawsuits, I could not in good faith in the future vote for him.
A week ago, on one of the Sunday morning shows, the health care bill was mentioned and the statement was made that nothing was included about tort legislation except to punish individual states if states attempted to limit lawsuits on their own. I immediately e-mailed Congressman Carney and told him that if he voted for this legislation, I would never vote for him again.
If you believe there should be limits as to what people can sue for and if you believe these limits might reduce the cost of health care, your beliefs are not the same as Congressman Carney's.
Fred Hunt
Standing Stone












8 posted comments
It is rare that a bad doctor gets canned. Part of the problem is that supposedly about 60% OF THE DOCTORS GET OFF ON DRUGS.
iF YOU MADE THEM TAKE A DRUG TEST ONCE A WEEK YOU WOULD SOON FIND OUT
WHO IS WHO.. BUT THAT WOULD BE TOO EASY..the main function of too many doctors is to see how many people they can get on high blood pressure medicine and Cholesteral lowering drugs.
Just follow the money.. Yes we are about to get health care by gun point..
Approximately, 100,000 people suffer from medical errors each year.
Of that number, less than 4% sue the physicians. Of that 4%, only about 1 in 5 cases results in awards being given. Altho, physicians claim they have to practice defensive medicine as a means to avoid lawsuits, in actuality, they may be driven by the profit motive. The more tests done, the more income that results.
Medical malpractice lawsuits represent about 2% of the 2.5 trillion dollars spent on health care annually. Tort reform will have little impact on that.
Physicians do pay outrageous premiums for malpractice, especially those in high risk specialties, such as neurology, ob-gyn etc. However, again, it appears the premiums are exorbitant in light of the risk. Which suggests that the insurance industry has, once again, found a means to line their pockets without justification.
Perhaps, physicians should ban together to force reform within the insurance industry.
Large, often merit based awards, against physicians come when a child is harmed or when the injury is beyond the pale. Such as amputating the wrong limb, removing the wrong lung, etc.
Tort reform will not benefit attorneys, who often take half or more of the final award. It won't benefit litigants because of the fees they pay lawyers, often based on a percentage of the final award, plus fees. I am not sure it will really help physicians.
The statistics on law suits is really not that staggering. Despite reports to the contrary Americans are not eager to sue
doctors. Again, the reports are overblown compared to the reality of the lawsuits.
Law suit settlements do two things. Not only do they give some sort of compensation for loss, they also give a very strong incentive to the members of the industry to be more careful in their behavior.I don't see "tort reform" as a positive solution to anything.