Sunday, October 21, 2007

Tort Reform Doesn't Work (For What They Say It Does)

From the Texas Observer:
Proposition 12, and the far-reaching changes in Texas civil law that it dragged behind it, was built on a foundation of mistruths and sketchy assumptions. The number of doctors in the state was not falling, it was steadily rising, according to Texas Medical Board data. There was little statistical evidence showing that frivolous lawsuits were a significant force driving increases in malpractice premiums.

Perhaps the most insidious sleight of hand employed by Proposition 12 backers was their repeated insistence that medical malpractice insurance rates were somehow responsible for doctor shortages in rural Texas.

“Women in three out of five Texas counties do not have access to obstetricians. Imagine the hardship this creates for many pregnant women in our state,” Gov. Rick Perry told a New York audience in October 2003 at the pro-tort-reform Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. “The problem has not been a lack of compassion among our medical community, but a lack of protection from abusive lawsuits.”

The campaign’s promise, that tort reform would cause doctors to begin returning to the state’s sparsely populated regions, has now been tested for four years. It has not proven to be true.


Big Business and Big Insurance got together to sell us on throwing away our rights to hold them accountable in court. They took a few of their millions and used them to convince us that a jury of our peers couldn't be trusted and that we should fear attorneys more than the multinational corporations that actually harm us. That's what happened and dammit we let it.

The Texas Observer

2 comments:

  1. I agree the so-called "tort reform" does nothing but to trample on our constitutional rights, but the bigger unseen problem is the current Mississippi Supreme Court. The current court is overwhelmingly tilted towards business and insurance interests and has little interest in upholding the law or constitution. Stay tuned for the supreme court elections next year. Smith and Easley who frequently side against plaintiffs are up for re-election, along with Lamar (who is new but appointed by Barbour and so far can be grouped along with Smith, Easley, Dickinson, Waller, and Carlton), and Diaz.

    The fight for the Court next year could get pretty ugly. Diaz's seat is a must win for the people and hopefully out of Smith, Easley and Lamar at least one will go to a judge who is not necessarily tilted towards plaintiffs but a judge who is fair. When a fair court finally is put together many of these reforms will be found to be unconstitutional as they have been found in the majority of states that have reviewed similar legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow it is almost like waking up in a paralell universe!! Do people realize at all how desperately bad MS needed tort reform?? What happenned to the state I was born and raised?? Right is right and wrong is wrong its really that simple. I am sure your parents at least tried to distill that into your brains. The sheer embaresment our legal atmosphere was in before 2003 was a joke!!

    ReplyDelete