(1502 pages)Finance Committee bill has been filed

[Winehole23]

Well the free market idea is that the compe ion will create the better product and the higher supply of doctors will create a lower product. Like I said I think this years and last years rollercoaster ride of a market are distorting the results.

Maybe tort reform just isn't as important as you think, and I would hardly call statutory caps on non-economic damages a "free market" measure.

On the contrary, it's government regulation.

[boutons_deux]

"higher supply of doctors will create a lower product"

not likely to happen, while American College of Physicians poll showed 50% of the docs wouldn't be a doc again.

Who wants to start a career $300K in debt? That's pretty big motivation a)do something else or b) do it but flip through patients and order test and prescriptions and procedures as fast as you can to pay off the debt.

Medicine has become like a medieval guild, with extremely, painfully high barriers to entry and painfully long initiation rites.

restricted supply = unmet demand = higher prices

[spursncowboys]

"higher supply of doctors will create a lower product"

not likely to happen, while American College of Physicians poll showed 50% of the docs wouldn't be a doc again.

Who wants to start a career $300K in debt? That's pretty big motivation a)do something else or b) do it but flip through patients and order test and prescriptions and procedures as fast as you can to pay off the debt.

Medicine has become like a medieval guild, with extremely, painfully high barriers to entry and painfully long initiation rites.

restricted supply = unmet demand = higher prices

You are saying that doctors, as a whole, are going against their Hippocratic oath.

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe tort reform just isn't as important as you think, and I would hardly call statutory caps on non-economic damages a "free market" measure.

On the contrary, it's government regulation.

classic.

[Winehole23]

And the injured patient.

Doesn't any longer get the necessary money.

You got that right.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe tort reform just isn't as important as you think, and I would hardly call statutory caps on non-economic damages a "free market" measure.

On the contrary, it's government regulation.

I agree. Again, my idea if tort reform is to only allow the suits to go forward that pass certain tests. First off, there has to be fault that could have reasonably been avoided. I say reasonable, because otherwise you have endless possible things to protect from. Sometimes just happens, and nobody is at fault. In these cases, I say no suit, no reward. However, when a person is harmed because of an action that was a mistake or carelessness, then I say reward the person what ever it takes.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree. Again, my idea if tort reform is to only allow the suits to go forward that pass certain tests. First off, there has to be fault that could have reasonably been avoided. I say reasonable, because otherwise you have endless possible things to protect from. Sometimes just happens, and nobody is at fault. In these cases, I say no suit, no reward. However, when a person is harmed because of an action that was a mistake or carelessness, then I say reward the person what ever it takes.

Pretty sure your idea of tort reform is already in place. Judges can throw out case which lack merit. Other than that, it seems as though you want to have a trial before a trial. Guess what - if no one is at fault isn't that the verdict that will be handed down?