A bill is being considered in the House of Representative that would once again encroach on our Constitutional rights.
What is it?
The bill itself is innocuous enough. It is the Medicare reimbursement bill, which is being called up on Capitol Hill, the “Doc fix bill.” The part of the bill that is
encroaching on our Constitutional rights is what some in the Congress want to
add to the bill.
Federal Tort Reform.
Tort Reform is being pushed by the American Medical Association and the insurance industry. The AMA has no interest in protecting the
Constitutional rights of Americans.
They want to protect Doctors. The AMA was also a prime supporter of Obamacare, so
their track record of good ideas is not that great.
The insurance industry along with the Doctors have destroyed the free market in the health care sector of the economy.
Why does health care cost so much? It is not the medical malpractice lawsuits as the big insurance companies would have you believe. It is because there is no competition.
Doctors now set their prices based on what the insurance companies will pay. But, we the
public don’t even know what the cost is.
All we know is we pay a $25 co-pay and we have a deductable and that is
it.
Doctors have no incentive to compete because their prices are controlled by the insurance industry.
Now, the same people who managed to destroy the free market for healthcare and drive up costs of healthcare now want to destroy another part of the free market.
As I have mentioned in previous blogs, the free market is wonderful. It encourages good
behavior and punishes bad behavior.
The civil court system is a part of the free market. It is the part that punishes bad
behavior.
Federal Tort reform is a really bad idea. First, this is an issue that belongs to the States under the 10th Amendment. Second, this is a direct challenge to the 7th Amendment right to a civil jury trial.
Conservative scholars like Randy Barnett and other great Americans like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli have not only called it
unconstitutional but threatened litigation if Federal Tort Reform ever becomes
law.
I have this morning sent a letter to John Boehner and Eric Cantor, asking them to make certain that Federal Tort Reform is not included in the “Doc fix bill.”
This is one issue that is not as dramatic or as sexy as some of the other issues we have fought but it is just as important. I encourage you call your Congressman and ask them to oppose Federal Tort Reform.
Here is the letter I have sent to John Boehner and Eric Cantor
Permalink Reply by Andrew Cochran on Actually, over 40 states have enacted some form of tort reform, including Texas, California, and Judson's home state of Tennessee. NONE of those laws have reduced health care costs, have they?
Permalink Reply by Virginia Neill on Explanation: Judson Phillips is a lawyer. End of story.
Permalink Reply by Andrew Cochran on He's a constitutional conservative. Read my new post here on the proof that the Founding Fathers were against federal tort reform. It's not even close. They said, explicitly, that the federal government shouldn't interfere with the right to a civil jury trial or each state's right to run its own justice system. Read. Think. Not hard.
Permalink Reply by Virginia Neill on Did they have punitive damages or "pain and suffering" then? I believe that the civil jury trial to which the founding fathers referred was a trial for restitution, not enrichment.
Is Andrew Cochran a lawyer or have one in the family?
Permalink Reply by Dennis Donner on JUDSON, YOU HAVE IT RIGHT
I SPENT 30 YEARS DEFENDING DOCTORS IN HEALTHCARE LITIGATION
SOME LITIGATION IS FRIVOLOUS
BUT DENYING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS NOT THE ANSWER
MANY TORTIOUS INJURIES ARE NEVER BROUGHT TO SUIT
MERITORIOUS CLAIMS NOT BROUGHT EASILY OFFSET FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS BROUGHT
IT'S A WASH
DOCTORS NEVER MENTION THE MISTAKES THEY MADE
WHERE THE PATIENT OR FAMILY SIMPLY ABSORBED THE LOSS
AND THE DOCTOR WAS NEVER CALLED TO PAY FOR DAMAGES
I HAVE OVERHEARD CONVERSATIONS WHERE DOCTORS
WERE DISCUSSING BILLING ...
HOW TO INCREASE THE TOTAL SUM BY ITEMIZING EVERY LITTLE THING.
IT'S THE SAME THING HOSPITALS DO.
ALL THOSE TESTS DOCTORS DO "TO SAVE THEIR OWN ASS" FROM LAWYERS
BE AWARE THE DOC ORDERING THE TEST OWNS A SHARE OF THE TESTING FACILITY.
GO TRY TO BUY IN ... THERE'S WHERE YOU FIND OUT YOU CAN'T
IT'S OWNED PRIVATELY BY A GROUP OF DOCS.
Sorry, I just have to jump in here. My wife just had to have laparoscopic surgery on her left knee. We went to the surgical clinic on time but the doctor was running a little late. I was heading out to our car to get a book to read just as the doctor is arriving in his Midnight blue Ferrari (I kid you not). Yesterday, I got the bills for my wife's first 2 office visit before the surgery, each office visit cost $1,728.00 and both times she was in the doctors office less than 20 minutes. I can hardly wait for the actual bill for the surgery. I guess someone has to pay for the Ferrari as well as the malpractice insurance.
I know this has nothing to do with the topic of the constitutional rights of tort reform, etc. I just thought it was great that I actually got to see a Ferrari someplace other than on TV or in my dreams.
Permalink Reply by Virginia Neill on You should be very angry, Michael. Not because he has such a nice car, but because his arrival in it proves that he was not running late with another patient, he was just plain arrogant and inconsiderate, believing that your time is not as valuable as his and that being on time for you did not matter. My husband and I have a policy. If the appointment time arrives and we are not seen reasonably on time, we leave and send the doctor a bill for a broken appointment.
Permalink Reply by Kirby L. Vickery on Virginia, not to get off the subject as this conversation has me riveted. But I have made it a practice to give my doctor's a full hour to see me. Then I'm not seen within that time I walk out and seek another doctor. I've not thought about billing them for that and am wondering if you've even had a doctor pay for that invoice.
Permalink Reply by Virginia Neill on They never pay, and I wouldn't really expect them to, as we had no contract or agreement to that effect. It is a response to the signs we see in their waiting rooms saying that a charge will be made for a broken appointment without 24 hours notice. I think that 15 minutes is a reasonable extra wait time, I would never wait an hour. Never. It just sends a wake up call to the doctor that we are not a herd of sheep out here, but people with lives of our own and other appointments to keep, some of which are, believe it or not, just as important as the doctor is. It is merely a psychological exercise.
Permalink Reply by Virginia Neill on addendum: If a member of the staff were to come out to the waiting room, and apologize for the wait, and explain that another patient's problem was more extensive than expected so the doctor is running behind, I would have no problem waiting. It is the self superior and arrogant disregard for others that I do not like.
Permalink Reply by Virginia Neill on Mr. Phillips, It is my opinion that you should have sent this letter on your law firm letterhead, and identified yourself as an attorney. This looks very underhanded.
Permalink Reply by G L Hansen on © 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
