Yi Ding
BUSN201-86N
Ms. Richards
19 June 2016
Tort reform
Nowadays, tort reform is a controversial problem in the United States. By comparing the pros and cons of tort reform from different aspects, I think that tort reform is necessary.
The textbook, “Business law today” (2014), clarifies that tort is a wrongful act that results in harm or injury to another and leads to civil liability. Tort law is designed to compensate those who have suffered a loss or injury due to another person 's wrongful act.
Many people are in favor of tort law because the purpose of the tort law is to “provide remedies for the invasion of various protected interests (Miller & Jentz, 2014)”. In other words, the victim will get compensated in accidents, and they believe
…show more content…
If the plaintiff and the defendant can solve the problem by themselves, the defendant only need to pay the loss of plaintiff. However, if the plaintiff does not agree to solve the problem privately, both plaintiff and defendant will go into a complicated process. Both side will need to pay for the court costs, bar fees, and so on. To win the case, it is necessary for both plaintiff and defendant to hire conscientious and expensive lawyers. After the case closed, the defendant will need to pay all the cost if the plaintiff wins the case, including victim’s lost, the court costs, and bar fees. Nowadays, many victims choose to file a suit on some insignificant cases because they think that they can win the case and gain money from it. However, each lawsuit requires not only money to hire a conscientious lawyer, but also time and efforts. To me, with efforts and high expenses, the money that the plaintiff wins afterwards does not worth …show more content…
Then, the court can deal with more important issues, and the efficiency of the court will be improved greatly. Thus, I think that time saving should be considered as an advantage of the tort reform.
Tort reform has influence not only on the court and victims, but also on clinicians and medical field. Many health providers and clinicians are in favor of the tort reform (Santiago, 2016). The tort reform make clinicians have no full responsibilities to compensate for the malpractice, and they will not need pay for the cost. However, this is not mean that it is unfair to patients. For big medical treatments, such as surgeries, patients’ families usually need to sign a contract for possible medical risks that might happen. This is also a protection to doctors.
With tort reform, the society become a physician-friendly practice environment. The research has found that “physicians who work in tort-reform states pay tens of thousands of dollars less in annual malpractice premiums than physicians in other states” (Santiago,
Candace Newmaker, a bright girl trying to find a home until she met her terrible fate of being murdered. One of the worst things you can inflict upon another human, is to steal their lives. People who take another’s life are sentenced harshly. But when it comes to doctors, they receive a free pass. Why should doctors and medical physicians not be as harshly punished compared to others?
As a consequence, of the legal case between Mrs. Liebeck (plaintiff) and McDonald’s (defendant) many companies and citizens started a campaign against this kind of lawsuits. In fact, they considered the Hot Coffee lawsuit a frivolous one that took economical advantage of the legal system to make some “easy money.” So, the media turned it up side down the “Hot Coffee” legal case and Mrs. Liebeck and the entire situation became a joke. As a consequence, this case became the example and the propaganda of why the Tort reform was “necessary” or that was what the media and the government made us believe. So, a Tort Reform limits the general public’s rights to go to court.
The Affordable Care Act or “Obamacare” has constituted one of the most important topics since its implementation in 2010. Since 2010, the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been uncertain. The ACA was a historic achievement for the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. But it passed Congress without a single Republican vote, and the GOP subsequently mounted legal and legislative challenges to Obamacare, vowing to repeal and replace it. (Oberlander, 2012, p.2165).
Steven Brill’s Bitter Pill: “Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us,” by Angelina Salikhbaeva Summary: Steven Brill in the article “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us” clarifies his opinion about the costs of healthcare services in the United States. The author writes about different stories of how families become bankrupt or unable to pay the total cost of the treatment to the US hospitals and related medical facilities. According to Steven Brill’s article, the US hospitals prescribe too much health care to patients.
Because of reviewing the “Political Irony” and comparing the lesson it made me review and question several factors in the PPACA legislation what and how does this legislation offer Americans? As I view health care where it stands today, where it has mitigated from in the past decade it baffles my mind. It was in the 1960’s, when Lyndon B. Johnson brought about the first change for Americans health care to a system that required help. Medicare was implemented under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance to people age 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history due to its price and its unaffordability by people over the age of 65. In that same year under the Social Security Amendments of 1965 Medicaid
The point in his article is that different treatments cost different amounts, sometimes very significantly different, yet both get the same result. By doing comparative effectiveness research, patients can get the quality care they deserve but at a much cheaper cost. (Health care reform debate in the United States,
This is because taxpayers who try this on their own often put themselves at risk of not qualifying for a settlement, or they end up paying
Before conducting this research I hypothesized that physicians’ experiences could help improve health policy and health law. My hypothesis was based on the fact that physicians have first-hand experience with what is going on in the healthcare system and are the ones that have to carry out health laws and policies. So, by listening to the experiences of physicians, policymakers could gain insight on what is working, not working and what needs to be improved within the healthcare system. The question that this study focused on was what is the hospitalist experience with New York’s Family Health Care Decisions Act (2010) at the University of Rochester Medical Center? In regard to this Act I wanted to see how using hospitalists’ experiences could be used to improve the Act.
The law that was intended to improve the status quo of health care has, in essence, caused a dangerous paradigm shift in health care costs. Fundamentally, the Affordable Care Act is a failed attempt to reduce health care costs in the United States. The Act was designed to increase affordability of health insurance for extremely low-income families; nevertheless, the Act exponentially increased health insurance costs for the majority of Americans. In America, majority rules-- why should health care be an
They must ensure that they are providing adequate services to patients and at the same time ensuring that insurance companies are getting paid (Saint Joseph’s University, 2011, Para 6). Along with that they must secure that they are getting paid. Furthermore, physician moral and ethics are challenged as well; Thus, causing them to rethink how they take on their responsibilities as a medical care provider by trying to keep patients best interest, insurance companies interest and their own interests. This conflict with trying to meet the needs of several different stakeholders causes strain on the physician because they must walk fine line to please each. While trying to please a specific stakeholder another holder could be compromised.
Tort law is that body of law which covers violations where one person's behavior causes injury, suffering, unfair loss, or harm to another person. Advantage of tort law is that people can seek justice through lawsuits and one disadvantage is you are not guaranteed to win the lawsuit Most environmental laws and regulations of recent decades use a command-and-control approach, in which a regulating agency prohibits certain actions, or sets rules, standards, or limits and threatens punishment for those who violate these terms. This approach to policymaking has brought citizens of the United States and many other nations cleaner air, cleaner water, safer workplaces, healthier neighborhoods, and many other advances. The only disadvantage is
The shortcoming of this approach is that it is not appropriate for more serious crimes such as rape and murder, because in cases like those, most of the time there is nothing that offenders can do to restore the loss or make things right The benefit of this approach is that all parties who are involved get the chance to face each other. The victims get an opportunity to be directly involved in the process and get a chance to respond to the crime committed against them. The offender becomes aware of how their offense has impacted the victim, and this in turn allows the offender to take responsibility and to apologize or show remorse to their wrong doings. Through the process healing is promoted to all the parties involved, the offender might be required to pay for the harm caused.
For example, there are costs for making copies, seeking medical records for the injuries that were sustained in the accident and interviewing witnesses. There are also fees for filing a claim and the court reporter. Normally, the attorney will pay all of the fees that are associated with the case and then the money is reimbursed out of any winnings. The fee arrangements will be spelled out specifically in the contingency agreement, so it is crucial that you read it carefully to see what costs you are responsible for, if
Moreover, the interests resolved by the tort law system are always the direct harms to an individual or legally recognized entity. This is the most fundamental requirement for the tort suit. Tort system cannot provide remedy for harm related to environment interest which does not have direct injury and recognition of harm. Due to the failure to satisfy the standing and direct injury requirements, historically courts have viewed claims of environmentalist with great