Forget Tort Reform?

I haven't actually been all that interested in the tort reform angle to the ObamaCare debate. That's because, frankly, I haven't had enough information. Calling for "tort reform" has been a good one-liner for some conservatives, and I'm seeing "Tort Reform" signs at my anti-ObamaCare protests. But what do I know?

So, here comes Private Pigg with a great post on the topic, "Tort Reform: Bad Idea":

Well, some people still think tort reform is a good idea. And some people even think it is a good idea in order to fix our health care system (talk about a red herring). And some people even feel the need to shoot off their mouth about it without being willing to defend it, other than to link to other people who agree with them without bothering to produce any supporting data themselves.

That’s what happened over at Cao’s blog. In drafting a post with which I generally agree, Cao threw out the following with regard to health care reform: “My point was that tort reform should be included, that the free market should be allowed to work, and government should get out of the way.”

So I took umbrage with that sentence (specifically, the first thought), asked for some empirical data to support it, received a link to a website that “generally” agrees with tort reform (not necessarily specific to health care reform), demanded actual and specific data from the blogger and not just random, general links, received a link to a lawsuit filed against Best Buy, cried foul, and was subsequently informed that my comments would no longer be posted.

Okay, I just went over to Cao’s Blog to check the debate, and Private Pigg just eviscerates her - I mean, it's just merciless. Read the whole thing. You know you've won when the other side attacks you as a "liberal":

Here's a few key passages:

Private Pigg:

"Tort reform is a loser. That a liberal’s argument. If you are for the market, then tort reform is not necessary. Juries decide damages. They are not professionals. They are average citizens. I have yet to hear even a coherent argument in favor of tort reform and to what it supposedly will cure."

Cao:

From the American Tort Reform Association:

“Lawsuit abuse continues to have a negative impact on the nation’s economy, as well as many state economies,” explained ATRF president Tiger Joyce in a news release. “Every dollar spent defending against a speculative lawsuit is a dollar that won’t be spent on research and development, capital investment, worker training or job creation. Unfortunately for those living in Hellholes jurisdictions during this economic downturn, it can be that much harder to find or keep a job and get critical health care services as employers and doctors are driven away by the threat of costly litigation.”

LOL…that doesn’t sound like a liberal argument to me, and I doubt that it sounds like a liberal argument to capitalists who understand that new medicine and technologies cost money. Yeah, how dare those evil companies who seek profit a) pay their employees b) reinvest profit into R&D, new products and technologies and c) want to improve what they’re doing at all!

Of course, with all the lawyers in government who’ve never had a day job, government helps the Hellhole jurisdictions thrive.

Private Pigg:

Any empirical data to back that up? It is absurd to suggest that health care services have their costs increased because of lawsuits. Where are all the lawsuits? Remember, a lawyer who takes a frivolous case and gets blanked gets zero for his time and effort, too, so the idea that there are just this multitude of frivolous lawsuits out there is ridiculous ....

The market, and our ability to redress our grievances in court before a jury of our peers, demands the governments stay out of the peoples’ right to litigate.

Cao:

Ask the American Tort Reform Association which I not only quoted but linked to. Unless, that is, you’re not really interested in finding the information you claim you’re seeking and instead are in the business of kill the messenger/Alinsky tactics…as evidenced from your ignorant comment and your unwillingness to follow the link to what I already provided ....

Because you demanded that I provide you with empirical data and I don’t think thats my job - YOU FIGURE IT OUT, lefty! Not only do you want others to bear the burden of oppressive taxation, you want others to do the work and the thinking for you.

Private Pigg:

You clearly have no personal knowledge of the legal system. You just cite random websites for a proposition someone has told you is good. That’s why you cite a suit against Best Buy as some justification for tort reform to bring down health care costs. Brilliant.

And, yes, I will ask you to prove it, because you made the claim that tort reform was necessary. So cite me something that actually shows that health care costs across the country are up because of frivolous lawsuits. Good luck with that.

Cao:

As I said, go to the websites I referenced.

There are numerous white papers available; but you’re too dumb or lazy or both–to acknowledge it. The examples I cited were numerous, and again, you’re either too dumb or lazy or both-to acknowledge it.

But you know what? Your stupidity is neither my responsibility or my problem.

Idiot.

You have now officially broken two of my rules; no more comments from you will be published.

Now that's an entertaining debate!

Cao's logical fallacy is argumentum ad verecundiam. And she clearly doesn't know what she's talking about, so she just keeps referring back to her websites. When pressed by Private Pigg, Cao first calls him a "liberal." Then she calls him an "idiot" and tells him he doesn't know how to think. Then she imports the "rules" to the debate, and alleges that Private Pigg's "violated" them. That gets him banned from the comments.

As is obvious, the real reason he's banned is he makes Cao look like a mountebank.

Good stuff all around.

Check Private Pigg's blog for more good stuff!

Related: Denver Post, "Health Care Fact Check: Tort Reform."