Since most politicians are lawyers what are the chances of them passing limits on malpractice lawsuits?

Starred.

The trial lawyers that control the senate and that paid for our President's campaign don't want reform - that is certain. Tort reform is the most meaningful way to put a dent in the cost of health coverage, but Obama has promised to veto any tort reform legislation. All we need is a loser pays system and the so called health care crisis would end - but - that wouldn't gain anyone more power now would it?

Defensive medicine, caused by our current tort system, is a HUGE cost. Defensive medicine is defined as practices designed to avert the future possibility of malpractice suits. In defensive medicine, responses are undertaken primarily to avoid liability rather than to benefit the patient. Doctors may order tests, procedures, or visits, or avoid high-risk patients or procedures primarily to reduce their exposure to malpractice liability.

The push for national health care is not spurred by our politician's concern for our health. It's a power grab plain and simple. They want you reliant on government in as many ways as possible. Lowering the cost of coverage doesn't accomplish their goal. Taking control of the some-odd 20% of private sector business that health care represents certainly would gain them the power they want.

A recent study by the FBI shows that the class of citizens that have the most personality traits in common with psychopathic serial killers are politicians. They're all slime. I can live my life just fine without 99% of their interventions. Build my roads, fund my police, and get the hell out of my life - thank you very much.

Pres. Obama addressed that issue yesterday in his speech to the AMA. He does not want to make such a recommendation because he feels it is unfair to the patient. I personal think that what is even more unfair is having to pay a hundred bucks for an office call that I could have probably gotten for twenty five if my doc was not forced to pay out a couple hundred thousand a year in malpractice insurance rates. Same thing goes for hospitals.

Lawyers do play a big role in this because their fees are based on a percentage of what can be gotten...therefore, they will ask for amounts that go well beyond what would be fair in most cases. If anything, I would like to see a situation where the attorney could only collect his normal hourly fee based on documented time that he works on the case. That should cut out a lot of the money thing...and also stop the fraudulent claims that only a lawyer could win for someone.

This is part of the big finger pointing game. Yes, there are a few outlandish jury awards for personal injury cases, but you would not believe the money that is spent by insurance companies defending paying claims they should pay.

It's easy to say the malpractice premiums are the fault of the lawyers, but isn't it the insurance companies raising those premiums?

Added: Poohcat, the problem with your solution is that lawyers who practice tort law must front end litigation costs out of pocket--no motivation to take these kinds of cases if they cannot do them on a percentage. PLUS, for every McDonald's coffee case, there are a million dogs that net nothing to the attorney. I am in an organization with these people, and they're not all rich. They're not all liberals, either.

This is how our 6th amendment right to counsel basically works for poor people in the US:

1. If you're facing jail, you can get a court-appointed (free) attorney

2. There's no entitlement to a divorce, you pay your attorney up front

3. Should you be denied an action against a doctor or employer because you cannot afford the attorney's fee? The contingency fee arrangement is really important to answering this question. It shouldn't suprise you that lawyers don't work for free.

When the Republicans took control of the House, and a working control of the Senate their "Contract with America" had as one of their goals to get torte reform. They couldn't pull it off then, and I can't see it now. Newt push for just the elimination of frivolous lawsuit, and limiting the lawsuits to a certain dollar level. Do some of you remember the lady who burned her leg with coffee, and won Multi-millions?

Bulls Eye.

Finally somebody gets it. Star for you.

The insurance companies are devouring each other from either end with the sick in the middle.

We might be able to solve this problem by insisting that academia graduate as many engineers as lawyers but, there is not much chance all the JD's in congress are going to make that happen either.

When the doctors do not kill and maim patients every year needlessly through being overworked or incompetent.

Democrats where always for health insurance reforms since Pres. Clinton.

The republicans still have their propaganda from the hmos and refuse anything that does not support it.

The Republicans continue to be the party of "NO!".

The problem isn't that they're lawyers. The problem is that they're LIBERALS. Liberals never support limits on lawsuits...that's why the American Bar Assn' contributes to the Democrats. That's one reason why California is going broke: tax paying businesses are running to other states to escape the liberal tort laws.

We should all sue Obama in court to get the money he stole from us to give to the same rich people like himself that he dogged out while lying and making false promises to get elected.

Incidentally, I don't think lawyers should be allowed to serve in the legislative branch of government. Those who profit from laws should not be involved in making them. It is a conflict of interest.

You forget the Democrats don't care about the people they only care about obtaining power and wealth for themselves