Sure, in general we could use some tort reform for the whole legal system - it would be nice if there wasn't so much suing and fear of being sued, but just like with the welfare queen thing - you hear about it all the time, but how many people do you know that have sued doctors or doctors that are being sued for no good reason?

I work with doctors and I never see lawsuits - except in cases where the doctors seriously cause injury - when malpractice is involved.

It's not a real problem, so it won't be fixed, but you'll hear a lot about it because it's a scarry made-up bad guy that distracts you from the real problem.

Plus, some doctors are against it because they don't want to get sued, but... you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. Responsibility and all.

Here's the problem with "Tort reform". If you are severely injured (leaving death of the table for the moment) by a doctor's malpractice, you're going to need a lot of added medical attention, and in some cases other costly measures to deal with a possible resulting handicap, for the rest of your life.

Now, getting several million dollars for a botched surgery may seem excessive, but when you know that the insurance companies are going to do their best to make sure that this "condition" doesn't get covered by your regular insurance, and that the costs may be excessive, the money won't seem so good.

Remember the Terry Schiavo case? There was a million dollar malpractice award in that case, and every cent of that evaporated into her care. (The husband's compensatory share in part going towards him getting a nursing degree to better manage her care.)  And that was just for maintenance of a woman in  Persisitent Vegatative State.

In some cases, such "payouts" don't even cover a fraction of the health care costs that follow. But all they want to talk about are the cases where some guy gets paid a lot and then he's lucky enough to not have to use everything for his follow-up health care.

Now, if health care was truly universal, a person would be guaranteed full health care follow-up anyway. It is because health insurance is privatized that pay-outs need to be so extreme.

If that "Tort Reform" bill had included a provision that said juries and judges had the right to award a person free "cadillac plan" health insurance for life to compensate for the injury, that would remove the impression that this was a "payday" for the patient. It wouldn't take care of the loss of earnings etc, but for this specific part of a suit it would work.

And it seems fair, doesn't it? If you're the victim of malpractice, your health care is covered.

But I sincerely doubt that insurance companies would accept that. For one, I think juries (and possibly judges) would be very quick to award if they see that all that's being asked for is compensatory health care.

But other docs have explained this to me as such: it's not just a fear
of getting sued, it's doing everything you can for the patient. A
psychological factor for both the doctor and the patient.

Many of us, myself included, see doctors as these kind of super
human heroes who save life but they're just people, and all any of
them can do is stave off death and ease pain.

Well - that's a gross-oversimplification, maybe and not intended to
disrespect doctors, but, and I say this as an atheist, they're not god,
you know?

Yet when you're in there sick and in pain and crying and afraid, or
there with a loved one in the same situation... you want them to be
god, and they want very much to do everything in their power to
make you "better" and if ordering a bunch of tests helps... well...

And, in some cases, it works. Look at jodi's example. Or my mrsa
infection - four docs blew it off as acne before one ran a test on me -
at this point I had a 105 fever and my body was shutting down - I
wish that I had gotten more than just a casual glance from the first
four docs.

Which goes to my point about strawmen - I hear a lot about the
things republicans talk about, but I only experience the things
democrats talk about.

Maybe I'm sheltered...

"Many of us, myself included, see doctors as these kind of super
human heroes who save life but they're just people, and all any of
them can do is stave off death and ease pain."

Mike, I and most of the people I know feel that same way. 

Then again, I'm not married to one, like you, so you may have better insight.

Perhaps it's the organizations I've worked at, but I also note that I didn't see 1 in three as c-sections; it was more like 1 in ten. And I noted that because it was a big hassle - a surgery, so they needed more people and equiptment in the room.

But again, that might be a regional difference, or company difference.

Now - having said that - here's another question, totally unrelated to healt-care, (I think...) - why are republicans urging citizens to not fill out the census? What is to be gained from this?

Is there a fear that if the numbers go up, and more congresspeople are needed, that they'll vote D or something?

Or is it something more sinister? Or less? Is it another case of obstruction just to make Obama look bad - so they can say he screwed up the census or something?