I do not tend to put a lot of credence in polling data. Even if we assume that the poll is a valid measure of public opinion, just because 57% of people believe something is true does not mean it is necessarily true. If that were that case than “Family Guy” would be a funnier show than “Arrested Development” because it had better ratings. This of course is just silly, so we should not judge something based solely on its popularity. Tort reform, however, is not only popular it also makes logical sense.

 

People are concerned with the high costs of health care, and with good reason, no one disputes that it is expensive. The debate is how to lower the costs while maintaining high quality. Should we put more government restrictions and increased costs on doctors and hospitals or should we lower these burdens and allow the free market to work? Tort reform is by no means the magic bullet that will solve all of the problems. It is one piece of the puzzle that will help bring down operating costs for doctors and as a result lower costs for patients.

 

The same principle applies to tort reform that applies to tax reform. High taxes and complicated compliance regulations increase costs for businesses. The businesses then pass these costs on to customers increasing prices for everyone. If the taxes and regulations become too burdensome, the business will simply close its doors, firing its employees and removing its product or service from the market. Everyone loses. The same principle applies to doctors when it comes to malpractice costs. If a doctor pays increased costs due to unreasonable malpractice settlements and in turn buys more and more malpractice insurance, he will pass those increased costs on to his patients. If the costs or fear of lawsuits becomes too great, the doctor will leave the profession, or some may choose to never become doctors. Fewer doctors also lead to higher costs and lower quality because of less competition.

 

Any talk of health care reform that does not include tort reform lacks a major component for lowering costs and increasing quality. The current health care proposals do not include tort reform. In addition, health care reform should include greater free market competition for health insurance by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines (which two-thirds of the country supports, according to Rasmussen). A great explanation on free market solutions to lower the costs and increase the quality of health care is available in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of The Objective Standard. It is a long article, but worth the time for anyone who is serious about fixing health care.

Tort reform is unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment specifically empowering the government to implement it. Citizens in the USA have a constitutional right to sue in court and there is nothing in the constitution giving any legislative body the power to abridge, limit, or infringe that right. If a majority of the population really supports tort reform there should be little need for it in the first place, since, presumably, that same majority will be reflected on civil juries which can simply limit awards themselves. If jurors aren't willing to do that they must not really support tort reform.
>> Steve Friday, December 4, 2009 9:22 PM

Tort reform infringes on Constitutional rights and wouldn't save a single life or even save any money since it shifts the costs to the victims who aren't compensated. The fact that it is popular shows Lincoln was right about fooling people. We need true malpractice reform to reduce malpractice itself. About 2% of physicians are responsible for over half of all payments for malpractice. Often these 2% have multiple payments but no licensing board or peer review action to revoke or restrict their practices. So the "repeat offenders" continue commit more malpractice. Licensing boards and peer reviewers need to get serious about protecting the public from physicians with a pattern of malpractice.
>> Bob Saturday, December 5, 2009 7:04 AM

Steve and Bob: you both seem to know a lot about what is and is not constitutional. I don't suppose either of you are lawyers, are you?
>> Jeffrey Hosten Saturday, December 5, 2009 6:52 PM

Hey Steve, this issue is about the trial lawyers enjoying their cushy treatment, not about people being unable to sue. Tort reform advocates aren’t pushing for people to not be able to sue, they’re pushing for people to only sue when real negligence is happening. Loser-pays rules would solve a lot of this problem. Heart of the issue: you could leave caps where they are, and just cap trial lawyers' profits in med mal at $100,000 a year, and the costs would drop. I'm sure that some are good people, but on the whole, I don't think trial lawyers are doing med mal because it is the noble thing to do. They're doing it because it pays. And Bob--I like your point a lot, but what about caveat emptor?
>> Jacky Borunsdale Saturday, December 5, 2009 7:36 PM

Hmmm... There was a time when lynching was popular but we all know that it was not right. There was a time when it was popular that women should not vote and we all know that was not right. There was a time when it was popular for whites not to be allowed to marry blacks (and vice versa) and we know that was not right. Tort reform may be popular not because it is right--but (assuming that the polls results are based on correct methods an data) because it i sbased on faulty and wrong information being disseminated by the US Chamber of Commerce and other entities working on behalf of the insurance companies who are the ONLY entities who will benefit from tort reform.
>> NBT Sunday, December 6, 2009 11:26 AM