Tort reform. Little original content.

[jazzfish]

Scare tactics [by way of the incomparable Rivka ages ago] is probably the best of the articles I've found; it's got a decent chunk of linkery going on as well. One of those links goes to the Snopes page on tortuous torts, which itself contains a link to a description of the much-touted McDonalds coffee case.

On the medical side, rain_luong's got a Bob Herbert editorial from June, Sadly, No! pokes holes in Judson Cox, and Jesse "No Relation" Taylor of Pandagon does the same to today's Moonie Times article. And of course lots of doctors who have problems with malpractice insurance aren't the most reliable practitioners of medicine. To quote Kevin Drum again, "maybe ambulance chasing lawyers aren't the biggest cause of malpractice suits after all. Maybe malpractice is. Just sayin." Update: and, in a striking case of finding my own bloody links instead of scraping them from other people's blogs, the Charleston Gazette ran an interesting series of articles on malpractice back in early 2001.

Which isn't to say that there aren't frivolous lawsuits. I seem to recall Fox News launching one against Al Franken last summer. But, like the Fox News lawsuit, or the case of the kid who tried to get a Harrier jet out of Pepsi, most of these cases are dismissed quickly.

The first person to use the words jacuzzi cases will be treated in the same fashion as the first person to say first and fourth most liberal senators or voted against the $87 billion to fund troops in Iraq [follow the link, then do a find-in-page for 87 billion] in my presence. I'll even say "please" and "thank you."

Comments

[jazzfish]

Fear factor: all the more reason for people to get educated about "tort reform." They should know better than to sue for no reason. Damage caps only hurt the people who deserve more in damages. [Now, if you want to talk about having only part of the judgement paid to the plaintiff in cases where the judgement serves as a warning against repeat behavior, and having the rest of it paid to, say, the State, I'm all for that. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.]

If you did the math, then you noticed that not only is the percentage cost of malpractice insurance down, but the actual dollar amount is down as well ($14,458.40 in 1990 versus $14,171.60 in 1997). It's a lot of money, but it's absolutely not a reason for a malpractice insurance crisis to have sprung up in the late nineties, as so many articles seem to be fond of claiming.
Re how the author would "be happy if doctors made the same as a burger flipper": straw men are easy and fun to attack, aren't they? Malpractice insurance is a cost, like office equipment or staff. You pay for it, and you factor it into your fees.

NAACP lawsuit: dismissed. The Nader suit looks legit to me: if he can't get on the ballot by following the rules, he shouldn't be on the ballot. [He should maybe have gotten the Republicans to help him in Arizona, as he did in Michigan.] I view the ease of filing lawsuits as proof that the system works, that injured parties can seek redress and not have to shut up and take it. I view the quick dismissal of such lawsuits as further proof. And the suers still have to pay court costs and legal fees, so that's a deterrent right there. [There will always be unscrupulous lawyers advising clients to sue for unwinnable cases; there will always be people in any profession looking to prey on the stupid.] Most of the groundless threatening lawsuits I can think of offhand [JibJab's "This Land" parody or Fox vs Franken] come from those with large pockets; I welcome evidence [anecdotal or not] to the contrary.

Editorial: hit the comment character limit, will post separately. :)

Kerry the missing: see, that's a valid line of attack.

Vote-smart is indeed way cool. Thanks!