Why do Republicans favor increased government control through "tort reform"? Do they dislike free markets?

Hey....is this my lawyer Tony?

Personally, I think tort reform is the wrong direction to take, and I'm certainly not a Republican, but I'd like to know how a dozen people, who are distinctly not peers of the defendant, equate to the free market. There is strong evidence that a jury is generally incapable of understanding the basics of medical liability to begin with, and that judgments are more or less random events rather than findings of truth, so it seems that removing medical liability from the tort system altogether would be more sensible.

Tort reform does not deal solely with the amount of damages. It has to do with litigation overall. For example, the tort reform Republicans were promoting in 2003 placed additional responsibility on health insurance providers in cases where those companies got involved in patients' medical testing and treatment.

Basically in cases where health insurance providers wanted a patient to undergo additional tests or claimed that treatment is optional and not mandatory, should a patient become ill as a result, the health insurance provider was held liable. Unfortunately it was a tort reform voted down by the congressional Democrats who were lobbied by the lawyer groups at that time.

Your understanding is the same as mine, but I've never heard of anyone thinking 10 million is too much, rather 250 million seems a little overboard. That's where my opinion is, the difference between 10 and 250, that's what I think TORT reform should be about.... Besides, there isn't a politician on either side who has really tried to get traction with TORT reform (McCain speaks out on it), because most of them are Lawyers!

The "cap"... if it comes... will almost certainly be on the so-called "pain and suffering" which is an award above and beyond the damages award. That's where the courts are out of control. And ANY health care reform that does not include tort reform is not worth the paper it is written on.

Tort reform is a ruse...FEDERAL laws would only impact cases in FEDERAL courts...which the CBO estimates are around 5% of all malpractice cases.

FEDERAL laws would have a minimal effect if any, as 95% of all cases (with the exception of class action suits which generally do not involve individual physicians) are tried at the State Level.

If you want Tort Reform, work on it at a state level, but don't claim that a federal law will make any difference in the vast majority of cases.

The Republican Agenda is for corporations to control everything, to run everything. Laws that make corporations accountable for their actions are seen as a roadblock to total corporate control.

We all think we could tell a 'frivolous' lawsuit if we saw one. But the idea is almost impossible to put in exact legal language. If you look at the tort reform laws proposed by Republicans, all they really do is to make it harder for an individual to sue a corporation, no matter how valid or frivolous their claim is. The idea is simply to make corporations more powerful, less accountable, less responsible for their actions. And what's especially interesting is that these laws don't put any restrictions on corporations suing each other, only on individuals suing corporations!

Judges already have the ability to summarily dismiss cases they see as frivolous. And who would know better what constitutes a 'frivolous' case than a judge? The Republicans want to take this judgment out of the judge's hands, to have it decided by corrupt corporate-owned politicians.

Because medical malpractice is out of control. In response, Doctors order every concievable test to rule out the most remote chance of cause, in an effort to insulate themselves from a lawsuit.

There are more attorneys in the US than the rest of the entire world. We have 8% of the population, and 56% of the attorneys. The cost of having a baby has risen 20X faster than general inflation in the past 25 years, precisely because of the tort problem. Any child born with a malady today not known before delivery, is suing the OB/GYN.

seems to me that if Democrats insist on lauding the wonders of socialized medicine in Europe and Canada, they need to explain why limiting malpractice payouts (which every socialized program in the world does) shouldnt be included as well.

Law suits are not free enterprise. They are allowed by law, controlled by law. The purpose of laws in civil cases is to attempt to insure justice.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have corrupted the system. Take a look at John Edwards. He became a multimillionaire by deceiving juries.

In England, their law states that loser pays in a civil case. We should have the same in the US, a level playing field. Plaintiffs' attorneys should get paid for the actual work they do, rather than earn windfall profits by manufacturing cases.

You need to sober up and re-read the facts.

Obama and the Democrats favor increased government control through "tort reform"?

Obama and the Democrats do dislike free markets and enbrace Socialism and Communism.

Semper Fi

The judicial branch is not free market, Einstein. It's government. Tort reform means reining in that branch of government.