Opinions & Editorials: Entrepreneurs
Trial Bar vs Tort Reform
Rep. Lamar Smith
10.03.09
(Politico.com) A recent op-ed in POLITICO by Anthony Tarricone, president of the American Association of Justice, describes the thousands of participants at hundreds of health care town halls as “angry mobs” scaring seniors with claims of death panels. He rushed to defend trial lawyers, who he claimed were being used as a “scapegoat for all America’s ills and woes.”
But my experience with the health care debate has been quite different from Tarricone’s tall tale. The thousands of people who attended my public forums were not angry mobs; they were concerned citizens exercising their constitutional rights. They did not scream, shout or attempt to burn trial lawyers at the stake. They came to express their views — as Americans in a democracy.
The Plaintiffs vs. The Boards
Steve Hantler
08.30.09
The greatest risk is that just as businesses struggle to bring back jobs, our strength will be sapped by a new wave of lawsuits. The plaintiffs’ bar has spent tens of millions of dollars to win a majority of state houses across America. Now the plaintiffs’ bar is preparing to invest millions more in political campaigns, advertising, and lobbying to deepen their political influence and win dramatically expanded liability laws.
The Trial Lawyers’ Earmark: Using Medicare to Finance the Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous
Edwin Meese, III and Hans A. von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation
08.31.09
In one of the starkest examples of how plaintiffs’ lawyers want to use Congress to get rich at the expense of the American taxpayer, an amendment that would have generated abusive Medicare litigation on a massive scale—along with the usual huge attorneys’ fees—was recently added to the health care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.[1] The current Medicare statute simply ensures that Medicare is reimbursed for the medical benefits it pays when a third party is legally responsible for a Medicare beneficiary’s injuries or medical costs.
A Sickly Medical Device Safety Act
Richard Epstein
08.16.09
(Forbes) Congress should protect both drug and device makers from tort liability
Cost Control: Liability Limits Needed In Reform
Editorial, The Oklahoman
08.16.09
It’s not complicated. Everyone knows much of the expensive medical testing that’s ordered is by doctors trying to protect themselves against malpractice claims. Likewise, the cost of malpractice insurance is part of a physician’s “overhead” charged to patients.
Does rage against federal pre-emption hurt public safety?
Victor Schwartz and Cary Silverman
08.16.09
(Washington Examiner) There are a narrow range of products—the cars we drive, the medicines we take, the equipment workers rely upon—that are subject to rigorous federal oversight.
In these areas, Congress, federal agencies, and the courts have found that random liability lawsuits, claiming that a product could somehow be made “safer” or “stronger” or include even more fine print disclaimers, disrupt the agency’s delicate balancing of risks and benefits. Judges call this “preemption.”
Preemption helps ensure that that lawsuits do not undermine regulators charged with protecting public health and safety. Nevertheless, preemption is under major assault by wealthy personal injury lawyers and some politicians.
