March 16, 2004
ANOTHER BIG REASON THE ELECTION MATTERS:
The macroscopic evidence for reform is damning -- revealing massive costs and gross inefficiency. The overall costs of the tort system are rising dramatically, and given the expenses of legal representation and contingency fees, the majority of the money is not going to remedy plaintiffs' injuries. While US tort costs have risen a staggering 125% over the last decade, the system returns less than 25 cents on the dollar to compensate plaintiffs' economic loss. At 2.2% of GDP, the US tort system is the most costly of any in the industrialized world.
Anecdotally, this trend in tort law was wonderfully illustrated by well-known legal reform advocate Philip K. Howard at a recent meeting of the Federalist Society. He recalled that during his law school days in the early 1970s, a one million dollar jury verdict was so extraordinary that it made the front page of the Miami Herald. Today, a $100 million verdict barely makes the tenth page. "This is not due to inflation," he said.
Given such trends, it is unsurprising that in a 2003 Gallup Poll, 72% of Americans favored capping non-economic damages in medical liability cases.
So popular opinion-makers are speaking out, beleaguered professional and business groups are organizing, and the public is responding, but such does not necessarily equate to reform. Cynics invoke the political clout of trial lawyers as an impenetrable roadblock to meaningful reform. Trial lawyers are indeed among the most generous contributors to the Democratic Party, and the second leading candidate for the Party's Presidential nomination hails from among their ranks.
The GOP could do worse than run an ad campaign saying "We're the doctors' party--the Democrats are the lawyers' party."
People in this country are yanked around by doctors more often than they are ripped off by lawyers. I don't know that that is such a great slogan.
Posted by: Brandon at March 16, 2004 5:37 PMOne of the things that got Democrats' vitrol up against George W. Bush as much as anything, even before he became a formal candidate for president in 1998 was his success in tort reform in Texas, especially the elimination of "venue shopping" in which a suit filed against a company in an area not favorable to large jury decisions could be moved to another area of the state more likely to dispense lottery-like judgments. Sometimes the incident and trial site could be as much as 750 miles apart, so long as the business operated in both locations.
Molly Ivins' bitterness over Ann Richards' 1994 loss to GWB was the engine behind the written and verbal vitrol about Bush coming out of Texas, but the angry tort lawyers provided the financial fuel. Bush really hasn't done much about it at the national level (since there have been one or two more pressing issues), but it would likely be an early issue to go to Congress in 2005 under second term legislation.
Posted by: John at March 16, 2004 8:58 PMI don't know if we'll end up liking the reformed system more than the current one, but I'd sure like to try it and see.
Brandon:
The damage to the average person is largely secondary and invisible.
Costly medical tests, performed solely to lessen legal liability, and skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance, drive up both doctor's fees, and the cost of health insurance.
In some states, so many specialists have left or retired, due to insurance costs, that patients have to drive for hours to be seen by a doctor.
Further, increased worker's compensation insurance costs directly and adversely affect employment, as California so neatly illustrates.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 16, 2004 11:40 PM