Exposed: A trial lawyers’ pay-off in Obamacare
Walter Olson has the scoop on how Dems tried to stuff goodies for trial lawyers in the House Democrats’ health care takeover bill.
Republicans apparently stymied those efforts last week, but like the Terminator, they’ll be back.
Just before the House leadership’s 794-page health care reform bill went to a Ways & Means markup last Thursday, a remarkable provision was slipped in that amounts to one of the more audacious and far-reaching trial lawyer power grabs seen on Capitol Hill in a while. Republicans managed to fend it off for the moment–but don’t be surprised if it shows up again down the road in some form.
The provision would have drastically widened the scope of lawsuits against what are known as Medicare third-party defendants…
…The language slipped into the health bill would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new, namely allow freelance lawyers to file them on behalf of the government–without asking permission–and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a “qui tam” procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government.
It gets worse…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Quest For Quality Health Care « NEOAVATARA
- Nanny State Nancy Pelosi and Math: 53% Is Bigger Than 70% | The Substratum
- Now at Forbes.com: “Inside the Health Care Bill”
- Transparency? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Transparency… White House Won’t Disclose Health Industry Executives’ Visits for ObamaCare Overhaul « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Exposed: A trial lawyers’ pay-off in Obamacare | Citizen Right
- He is not God: Obama trips through a doorway « Jim Blazsik
- COACHEP » Blog Archive » Posts about Obama Health Care Failure as of July 22, 2009
- PointOfLaw Forum
- “Black Sphere” Anti-ObamaCare Site Hacked and Attacked by Statist Thugs « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Stop That Chart! The Republican Single-Payer Health Care Flow Chart That Has Democrats in an Uproar « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- NYT: Senate Won’t Vote on Health Care “Obama’s Waterloo” Before Summer Break… Woo hoo! « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Many of 44 people Arrested in New Jersey Corruption Probe « Goodtimepolitics
- “War on Senior Citizens”: Mark Levin Interviews Dr. Betsy McCaughey on ObamaCare Details « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Is Obama incapable of telling the truth on government healthcare? : Stop The ACLU
- Obama Health-Care Plan Destroys Cheap Health-Care Options, Raises Taxes, Breaks Promises | OpenMarket.org
- Michigan Democrat Leader John Conyers: “Why Bother Reading the Health Care Bill?” « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Dr. Obama’s in the House: I’m Not a Doctor, but I Play One on TV (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Freedom for the Org Chart… Chalk One Up for the GOP: ObamaCare Organizational Flow Chart Now Freed for Mailing « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- ObamaCare is NOT Reform | Orange Juice! Politics For The Rest Of Us.
- Poster Boys For Health Insurance Reform: The Standup Guys For Trial Lawyers « Pronk Palisades
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Health care
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Democrats shocked -- SHOCKED -- that Republicans won't eat the juicy, tender crap sandwich they cooked up all on their own
Green Room
» Miss Me Yet? Bush Billboard Mystery SolvedMudville Gazette
» New Standards in JournalismRedstate
» Michael Steele Plays the Race CardJustOneMinute
» He Played It Left Hand, But Took It Too FarHot Air
» Quotes of the dayEd Driscoll
» The Night Chicago Died
Well of course. THE BILL IS BEING WRITTEN BY LAWYERS!!!
Why would anyone be suprised that it helps lawyers???
It often does these days.
Trial lawyers are as bad as unions, acorn, la raza, bho, and most of the dc bunch. I can not believe the ama supports the health bill, they pay thousand upon thousands for insurance against lawyer suits a year.
L
Whatever happened to hope and change? Looks like the same old corruption to me. Or rather a new, more expensive style of corruption.
Another reason why not to vote for lawyers in Congress.
As I heard on Fox News last night.
You read this kind of bilge and you feel a need for a long hot shower to clean off the slime.
No doubt this was called the “TORT Reform Act of 2009″
Ummm… so how will this cut costs as Obama keeps claiming he wants to do?
This is going to be another Friday Night Surprise Dump with this little addition added to the bill? They’re going to try and do it, so it has to been killed long before they reach that stage. Ever notice doctors always are the ones getting the short end? I wouldn’t go to med school, I’d go for law.
“You give me the three hundred dollars, and I give you the business!”
- Lynton Brent (COOKOO CAVALIERS, 1940)
Will Shakespeare went a little overboard on his sentiments regarding lawyers, although many would deserve that fate.
I think they should be prohibited from serving in elected office instead. When laws are written for the benefit of lawyers, and not for the benefit of the people, you get today’s Congress.
I’d rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother be a lawyer.
Chapotier, can you explain this?
Please stop this nonsense. It is getting old and contributes nothing. Thank you.
Health care reform will never actually happen unless tort reform precedes it but where would liberalism be but for punitive litigation?
“Dems tried to stuff goodies for trial lawyers in the House Democrats’ health care takeover bill”
In other news, the sun rose today.
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an I.Q. of 50?
A: Senator.
Mohammed Odeh Al-Rehaief, the lawyer in Iraq who gave U.S. Forces the location of Pvt. Jessica Lynch, is a good and decent man.
A good and decent man, despite not having gone to Hah-vard or Columbia or Berkeley.
Not really. As far as I know, qui tam is used in fraud cases. Never heard of it being used in simple negligence cases.
I generally subscribe to the theory of the “private attorney general” but that doesn’t really apply here.
But don’t ask me. I am not a trial lawyer. Ask Ragspierre.
Stop and think.
If lawsuits are widened, what happens?
The number of lawsuits increase, so malpractice insurance premiums go up. And those premium increases get passed on to whom?
Please have your rep or The Dear Leader explain how this provision of the bill LOWERS costs?
Quick point. This doesn’t really have to do with medical malpractice. This involves recovering the cost of medical care for torts.
Doesn’t mean it is a good law.
Thanks Chap. You got my back!
“We’re very lucky in the band in that we have two visionaries, David and Nigel, they’re like poets, like Shelley and Byron. They’re two distinct types of visionaries, it’s like fire and ice, basically. I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water.”–Derek Smalls (This is Spinal Tap)
“What the hell is with the recent rash of movie quotes?”-Chapoutier (Exposed: A trial lawyers’ payoff in Obamacare Post #24)
“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
– Captain Renault
So, let me get this straight… …we will allow lawyers to sue the government over government-run health care.
Sounds like a self-licking ice cream cone!
No. It would presumably allow private attorneys to sue third party tortfeasors to recover the cost of medical bills that Medicare had to pay for. These attorneys would receive some percentage of the recovery, the rest going back to the government.
tip of the iceberg
Nasty little secrets are pervasive in the medical-industrial complex.
- millions of patients are scamming their employers claiming injuries they don’t have and doctors go along with the scams because they get bills paid
- doctors regularly prescribe drugs patients don’t need. antibiotics for a cold, anyone? antibiotics don’t kill viruses…
- patients like that fat kid over on hot air are sucking our systme dry when the medicine to cure them is simple willpower
and on and on
we have become a nation of sissies running to Doctor “MakeUsWellNe” evert time we get a damn sniffle.
and no that 100-year-old lady should nopt get a pacemaker IMHO… maybe not the ice flow, but a compassionite exit rather than a BS surgical fix for a life that is at its apogee
-
Doctor “MakeUsWellNe”
supposed to be my little pun…
Dr. “MakeUsWellBe”
Well, seeing how you said please and thank you, I will acquiesce. Sorry folks, apparently happyscrapper (happy?)has laid down the law, no more 3 Stooges, except for this final farewell. (sniff)
“Our genius ain’t appreciated around here… let’s scram!”
- Moe (MOVIE MANIACS, 1936)
By the way happy, I look forward to your contributions, with bated breath. No pressure.
chap: My comment was tongue in cheek, but if the only game in town is government health-care, who else do the lawyers go for?
Uhhh…the guy that hit you with his car. This bill is not about medical malpractice.
For what it’s worth…
I don’t get it. I also can’t see much money in it. IF that is the case, it would be self-limiting.
Personally, I have no interest in it as a matter of something I would do in my practice.
But it is about health care and lawsuits arising from health care issues.
Anyone wondering why insurance companies are silent on this? A dear friend who works for a huge insurance company tells me they climbed in bed with BO in order to be administrators for handling the gov’t.’s medical claims!
If you’re like me, you’re feeling like we’ve all been abandoned!
And your point is….?
One could say this would be a revenue generator to help pay for all this because private attorneys would be recovering money for the government that it may not have the resources to itself. Just because a nasty ol’ trial lawyer makes some coin, does not automatically make it a bad idea.
But… there would appear to be a lot of problems. I am curious as to why Medicare is not able to recover its costs directly from the actual judgment awarded the plaintiff in a more efficient matter.
A. Sotomayor
DagneyT: FIFY
Rogue:
“He declares it to me, I swear it. He proposes that you withdraw your attack…Peace is made in such ways.”
“Slaves are made in such ways!”
–Princess Isabella & William Wallace Braveheart
chap: The government allowing itself to be sued to recover costs! The lawyer is the only one who benefits and the tax-payer is the one who pays, coming and going!
And nobody in the MSM even mentions the sanctimony of Obama in going to the AMA meeting in Chicago and giving a rhetorical but unspecific throwaway line to the doctors that he was their friend and understood they were weary of lawsuits and paid alot of money to insurance companies to keep themselves from being bankrupted by avaricious trial lawyers. Then Obama goes back to his paymasters at ATLA and does the bidding of this infamous lobby. Everybody knows that the major reason for outlandishly expensive malpractice insurance premiums is the onslaught of frivlous medical malpractice lawsuits. Without these frivolous lawsuits, malpractice premiums would go down by about 50% and doctors would not have to give each patient about ten unnecessary procedures that doctors have to do to defend themselves. I have to wonder why American doctors are not up in arms about this. Do they not realize how they are getting destroyed by these trial lawyer tricks and our new president’s loyalty to ATLA?
Where are getting this idea? You are not grasping what is going on here.
I will try to paraphrase the example from the article.
Rogue Cheddar hits you with his car while drunk. You have $15,000 in medical bills, which are covered by Medicare. You sue Rogue and you either settle or get a judgment for $50,000. The government has the right to take $15,000 of your judgment to cover what it had to pay in medical costs on your behalf. This is very common and almost all private insurers have this right of subrogation as well.
Or, apparently, the government can go directly after the tortfeasor, Rogue, for that $15K. What this bill would allow is for a private attorney to sue Rogue ON BEHALF OF the government for that money. If the attorney wins, they get 30% and the rest goes to Uncle Sam to recoup some of its costs.
Please note that nowhere here is the government being sued or suing itself.
There existed no need on Caladan to build a physical paradise or a paradise of the mind — we could see the actuality all around us. And the price we paid was the price men have always paid for achieving a paradise in this life — we went soft, we lost our edge.
from “Muad’Dib: Conversations” by the Princess Irulan; Dune, p. 251 of 507
This is why there should be a constitutional amendment that prohibits anyone that has passed the bar from holding any office in the executive or legislative branches, except as part of the office of the attorney general.
Lawyers are already part of the judicial branch; only lawyers can represent (i.e., speak for) someone else in court. So, since they are part of the judicial branch, how come they get to servce in two branches at once? I can’t.
Forget separation of church and state. How about separation of powers!
Don’t give me that stank blare, I know my cacapity! (hic)
so, their strategy to bring down the cost of health care was to increase the cost of malpractice insurance??? Yeah, that would work…just not in the real world.
So, some pompus a$$ of a lawyer gets to speak in the name of the people without consent of the same? That’s the entire point of We The People. We’re the government. And our elected officials get to speak in our name. Not some money-hungry freelance flunky that I did not vote for!
Sounds like a good reason to start limiting the number of lawyers and the number of tort cases they can file.
chap: In your scenario, no. But what if my government health provider screws up the surgery to sew my leg back on after the drunken sot, Rogue Cheddar, rolled his car (I know, “Rogue Cheddar is not half the drunk some thinkle peep!”)?
The lawyer then sues for malpractice and the government pays. In reality, the taxpayer pays twice, once for the incompetent surgery, then for the lawsuit that arises.
Don’t tell me the doctor pays, he will be insured by the government!
Hey Rogue, all this dickering with chap has made me thirsty, let’s go get a drink! I would drive, but my leg won’t work right!
Your example makes no sense. How does the taxpayer pay for the lawsuit that arises?
Huh?
There are valid points on both sides of this argument. One reason that these types of suits are allowed to exist is that it takes advantage of the fact that 1) the government may have limited resources to pursue claims it may have and 2) the private sector may be more efficient in pursuing those claims.
The classic example is a contractor that has defrauded the government. The government has a claim against the contractor, but may not have the resources to investigate and pursue the claim. If a private attorney files the suit “qui tam”, it can go after the fraudulent contractor. If the attorney wins, they get a percent and the government recovers money it otherwise would not have with little effort, and the contractor is rightly punished. If the attorney loses, at least the loss is in the private sector. He voluntarily took the risk.
Of course there are real ethical concerns arguing against these types of suits, but really I think people tend to just have a visceral dislike of attorneys profiting like this, even if it does provide tangible benefits to the taxpayers. Cutting one’s nose off to spite one’s face, in othe words.
chap: The taxpayer pays twice:
First, they pay for the health coverage.
Then, when something goes wrong in the government-provided health care system, and a lawsuit results we get the second installment. The government pays the damages.
Yes, some insurance company will actually pay the damages, but who, in their right mind, is going to insure government-sponsored health providers, other than government insurance plans.
In the end, the taxpayer LOSES!
Sure I’ll drive. I hear Chapaquiddick is nice this time of year.
No, it doesn’t. See below. And I am not sure how medicare reimbursement works, but I would be surprised if any doctor could put in a claim to be reimbursed for care where they were negligent.
Um, could you point to me a government run medical malpractice insurer? Or could you point to any plans to provide a government run medical malpractice insurance plan in the future? I think you are confusing health care insurance with med mal insurance.
In the end, the taxpayer actually probably comes out ahead. The government is recovering costs it probably would not otherwise be getting.
But…the bottom line is not the only concern, of course.
Read what I wrote… … “Who, in their right mind, is going to insure government-sponsored health providers, other than government insurance plans.”
They may not exist now, but no insurance company I know about would touch such a thing with a ten-foot pole. That would leave the gubmint to fill the void, just as they are trying to do now on everything they can supposedly do (like stopping global warming, etc,).
You equate “government sponsored” (which is a spurious definition and speculation on your part) with “government insured” (also speculation on your part) why?
Also, even if your convoluted reasoning were accurate, and somehow this bill led to the government suing itself, how much of the average med mal judgment do you think is for the actual medical expenses (which is the ONLY thing this bill addresses)?
Stop trying to make this into something it is not.
Why not speculate on this happening? The government, especially the current Administration seems to think it can run car companies, banks, investment firms, etc, etc, better than private industry. There has also been talk about them getting into the knickers of insurance companies, and that’s not speculation.
Add to that the fact that whenever a government gets involved in most things, they don’t bring efficiency, value, return on investment, or rate well on any other success gauge you want to use.
Do you want the government to run your law practice, oversee your 401k… need I go on?
And get 30% of the payout that he wins, if I read correctly.
This sure looks like the converse – actually, it might be the reverse – of “cut out the middleman”; instead, it’s “insert the middleman”.
The alternative is for the government to hire more of it own attorneys. Which do you think is more cost efficient? Do you really want your government to have MORE attorneys at its disposal?
Reposted with permission from the author (CMON2012 at marketwatch):
Cost efficient?
Does this not assume – BIG time – that the government would not expand its already bloated bureaucracy to administer and keep track of what would likely be a huge number of lawsuits – indeed, a feeding frenzy – that would arise if such a provision were to pass,…in essence dumping blood into the water?
One of the key outcomes of Government Medical Care will be the reduction in compensation (life time earnings potential) for medical practitioners and staff.
This is unavoidable, particularly in the present insane desire to “Punish and restrict financial success.
While we are nationalizing this huge professional group lets get the job done: We need to Nationalize the Legal Profession. After all what is good for the goose is definitely good for the gander.
Also: Congress and Government employees should have no choice were Medical Care is involved, they go on the Public Option!!!
PC is Thought Control
LEE
These types of suits already do exist in other areas of the law.
The fact that you don’t know that probably says quite a lot about the fact that this is not some out of control program.
In the end, your options are this:
1) Have the government’s lawyers pursue these claims, which means the government expanding the size of the DOJ and number of attorneys on its payroll;
2) Allow these qui tam suits by private attorneys, who will get a percent of the profits and give the rest back to the government;
3) allow defrauders of the government to go unpunished and legitimate claims for money that rightfully belongs to you as a taxpayer, to go unpaid.
That’s it. Choose one.
Interesting.
In what areas do qui tam suits exist?
Fraud against the US. Like a contractor overcharging.
Forgive my ignorance.
I thought fraud was a criminal matter pursued in criminal court, not a tort pursued in civil court.
It is potentially both, but you don’t get money back with a criminal judgment.
Here is the law.
Again, interesting.
Thank you.
By the way, with higher reward amounts, but a lower success rate, do qui tams (not sure of the plural) end up being a net gain, a net loss, or a wash for the government?
I am no expert, but the above source, which was a primer on the law by the Oklahoma Bar, seems to indicate it is a net plus for the Treasury.
If you google “private attorney general” you can pull up a number of articles that discuss this theory.
Caveat: This does not mean I support the provision in the health care bill. I think that there are a number of disturbing issues with it. But in general, I do support the idea of at least limited qui tam suits.
I expected as much.
Trial lawer love the left.
Excuse me.
Trial laywers love the left.
1)
Since the
already exists, why would trial attorneys feel the need to attempt to slip such a provision into the health care “reform” bill?
2)
Could not qui tam lawsuits be considered as government-sanctioned vigilantism…or, perhaps, an activity not too dissimilar from bounty hunting?
vig·i·lan·te
a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate);
broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
— vig·i·lan·tism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilantism
Qui tams have to be expressly authorized by statute. And this is a different type of claim than those covered under the Fraud Act. This is to recover funds expended by Medicare to pay for health care that was necessitated by a defendant. Like, for example, someone on Medicare gets hit by a car and breaks their leg. Medicare pays and then can go after either the plaintiff to recover a portion of whatever money the plainitiff get from the defendant via settlement or judgment, or go after the defendant directly.
Yes. It is essentially the same thing as bounty hunting. Which have good arguments for and against. I’ve no issue with someone having a philosophical argument against these types of suits, but there are some tangible benefits to the taxpayer as well that should be weighed.
a few simple rules about lawyers and lawsuits fix the problem
1) loser pays winners expenses and amount of suit.
2) losing lawyer pays winning lawyers fees and expenses.
3) any suit thrown out by court is deemed a loser, hence must pay.
4) no class action lawsuits. if a person doesn’t have a claim worth pursuing, the court is the wrong venue to modify behavior. the police are the venue to stop inappropriate behavior.
5) no pain and suffering damages over a set amount, no triple damages for intentional torts, seek criminal redress, no damage awards for death greater than the present value of the average american’s wages over their expected lifespan, unless documented that they are presently earning high wages.
these rule changes would bring sanity and efficiency back into the courts. we have some bitty in alaska with a bone up her butt about sarah palin filing suit after suit for ethics violations, because it costs her the price of the paper and filing, while it costs palin and alaska a fortune to defend. this is criminal behavior, and needs to be stopped. making this person pony up the thousands that palin’s lawyers are charging would probably stop this nonsense immediately.
OT, but certainly related…