Christian73 saidThe problem with tort reform is that where it's gone through and caps have been put in place, people who are seriously injured and cannot work or take care of themselves, end up on Medicaid and Social Security, so we pay for them anyway.
Hence the words "limited" and "carefully considered."
Tort reform does not have to mean an end to all lawsuits ever. That's just what slick, selfish, sleazebag lawyers like John Edwards would love the real Democrats to believe.
I don't care what lawyers like Edwards want anyone to believe. Tort reform removes one of the few ways in which average citizens can take on and win against huge corporations. In the states where tort reform has gone through, it's been a huge boon to companies and a disaster for Americans.
Check out the documentary "Hot Coffee" to see what's what.
I've seen 'Hot Coffee' and I don't care sleazebag lawyers want us to believe that an extreme example negative actual frivolous lawsuit.
Once again, the words "limited" and "carefully considered" apply. Tort reform does not HAVE to remove corporate responsibility if enacted responsibly, i.e., if it focuses on lawsuits that are actually frivolous.
No, the "Hot Coffee" lawsuit was not frivolous.
McDonald's had been sued again and again and again, over people being scalded by their too hot coffee, yet they refused to do anything about the too hot coffee.
So, at last, a jury handed down an award large enough to get McDonald's attention.