Kia Franklin

Health care tort “reform” arguments exposed as false, mythical

Barbara O'Brien's third and fourth parts to her series on the health care debate and tort "reform" are up and running and ready for you to read and debate.

In part three, she highlights the lies that are being offered as fact about tort "reform," health care costs, and medical malpractice. She deconstructs the argument that doctors are quitting their profession or moving to escape malpractice lawsuits, based on data from the American Medical Association that reveals that states without damage caps have more physicians per 100,000 than those that do have damage caps.

A sneak peak of her article:

I am not arguing that personal injury law in the U.S. is perfect, or that it is never abused. Further, there are a number of thorny issues that need to be resolved regarding specific types of claims, such as mesothelioma resulting from decades-past asbestos exposure, if the law is going to be fair to both complainants and defendants.

My argument, however, is that before citizens allow state and federal legislatures to reduce their rights to take grievances to court, we all need to clearly understand the arguments being made for tort reform. Some of those arguments have some validity, but many of them are just flat-out false. (Read full article)

Definitely worth the read. And here's the link to part 4. More soon.

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 4:42 PM, May 21, 2009 in Damage Caps | Debates with Tort "Reformers" | Debunking Tort "Reform" | Health Care | Medical Malpractice
Permalink | Email to Friend


The second largest medical malpractice insurance company in New York, Physicians' Reciprocal Insurers is now insolvent according to the state regulations. There are many reasons including the state taking money from the insurance funds and the attempt to keep rates low to prevent physicians from going bare, but the main reason is continued refusal to use evidence based guidelines for both the practice of medicine and in the determination of cases of "possible negligence". Right now, the money that is intended to go to the true victims of medical malpractice must support the plaintiff attorney of at least 30% plus contrived fees as well as all the settlements in which settlement is financial cheaper than the long drug out process. What is left can go to the actual victims. So how much does our present system skim off the top that was intended to care for the injured?

Our system is flawed. The flaws benefit the plaintiff attorneys. Lets fix the system to recognize when there is true malpractice but not reward the contrived and those whose whole economic interest is to contrive them. Until we can fix the medical malpractice system, let us just use the same system that is used for legal malpractice. After all, if the system is so good, why is it different for the two professions?

Posted by: throckmorton | May 24, 2009 9:17 PM

Barbaro O'Brien has really lost all credibility in my opinion.

The blog where she posts her arguments is hosted by a plaintiffs law firm! She is nothing more than a mouthpiece for asbestos litigation.

Posted by: Samuel | June 29, 2009 6:30 PM