Oh Mama, Did I Hear Obama Right?
- 4 Comment
I thought it was a bad dream–that I had nodded off while watching the most recent presidential debate and experienced a nightmare in which Barack Obama had proudly announced to the viewing public that he had supported tort reform. But then my wife confirmed that Obama, my candidate, the People’s candidate, the Great Black Hope, had indeed uttered those words in response to John McCain’s challenge to give an example of Obama’s crossing party lines to support something most Democrats did not.
Obama could have chosen more wisely. He could have, and should have spoken of something else on which he veered from the Democratic pack. Surely he realizes that so called “trial lawyers” like me support him across the country, and to us, Obama’s words were a cold slap in the face.
We support him for several reasons. His ideology–his ideas about making sure everyone in this country, no matter how disadvantaged, has an opportunity to better him or herself with some help from the government–resounds with us. The type of law we practice, largely grounded in contingency fees, allows for anyone who has been harmed wrongfully to go after the culprit without having to lay out large retainers up front, or pay big hourly fees along the way.
We support him because his healthcare plan shows a concern for the uninsured and the under insured. We support him because he has repudiated the Bush legacy that favored big corporations at the expense of the “little people,” such as their shareholders. And yet, tort reform favors big corporations– insurance companies– at the expense of plaintiffs in civil lawsuits, who find their opportunities for damages arbitrarily capped at a number that has been legislated, instead of a number chosen by the jury that heard the case.
I’m still voting for Obama come election day. But it is with substantially less enthusiasm, since his presidential agenda may now include tort “reform” that will only hurt the very people who have placed him so close to achieving the presidency.
4 Comments on this post
Trackbacks
-
Robert said:
Just what is meant by “tort reform”? I have often heard the term, but I haven’t heard it explained.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:23 am -
Andrew Barovick said:
Tort reform refers to a movement by politicians, insurance companies, hospitals and other entities, the purpose of which is to limit a plaintiff’s recovery of damages in civil lawsuits. Most efforts at tort reform are aimed at personal injury cases, which include medical malpractice cases. Examples of what the so called tort reformers would like to do include: limiting, or “capping” certain forms of damages plaintiffs seek at trial; and establishing a “no-fault” system of compensating personal injury plaintiffs so as to cut costs for insurance companies, and keep the proceedings out of the courts. Supporters of tort reform, such as the medical liability companies that insure physicians and hospitals, usually claim that the high plaintiff’s verdicts have resulted in financial instability for the medical liability insurers, and that such verdicts drive up the cost of healthcare to the consumer. In fact, the great majority of the financial problems being encountered by the insurance companies is a result of their own poor investments. Moreover, tort reform aims to prevent civil plaintiffs from seeking and obtaining justifiable compensation when such plaintiffs have been injured through the negligence of others.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:43 am -
Kia said:
Thanks for covering this. More people need to understand why tort “reform” actually deforms our civil justice system by making it less accessible to ordinary people, and more of an additional protection for corporations. Funny that Obama, in that same debate, also mentioned Lily Ledbetter’s case as an example of a miscarriage of justice. And that he mentioned the failure to properly regulate financial industry as a cause of the mortgage meltdown. He seems to “get” why we need proper checks against corporate abuse and he seems to sympathize with ordinary people’s need to have strong legal rights. So why support tort “reform”? Anyway, good entry!
October 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
[...] elected, how would it affect plaintiffs in this country? As I noted in an earlier posting, “Oh Mama, Did I Hear Obama Right,” Obama has voted in favor of tort reform, a movement that generally aims to restrict the [...]