Talk:Tort reform in the United States

The previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Add new subjects to the bottom of the talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (discussions occuring prior to 16 October 2005):
• Archive 2 (discussions between 20 September 2005 and 16 October 2005):
• Archive 3 (discussions between 16 October 2005 and 22 April 2006):

POV tag

The article is no longer about tort reform, and

1. has been rewritten to be almost entirely about arguments against tort reform;
2. unfairly characterizes pro-reform arguments, including a number false statements claiming there is no evidence when the reform proposals are in fact well supported by empirical evidence while subjecting none of the anti-reform assertions to the same scrutiny (Example: The article states conclusively that studies do not support the contention that caps will reduce the number of medical malpractice suits -- but the CBO study cited in the previous sentence for an ostensibly anti-reform point says precisely that!);
3. oversells anti-reform arguments while failing to note the rebuttals by the supporters of reform (e.g., Gary Schwartz and Ford Pinto);
4. misrepresents other studies (such as using a study saying contingent fee reform doesn't work to rebut a contention about damages caps);
5. makes a number of false statements about the law (e.g., the claim that it is impossible to bring a lawsuit for hypothetical damages: see Michael Greve's lengthy monograph on the subject proving otherwise);
6. the balanced presentation demonstrating that the plaintiffs' bar does just as much lobbying as the pro-reformers has been completely deleted;
7. there has been addition of insulting (and false) POV statements such as saying that objections to comparative negligence and joint and several liability reflect "an ignorance of civil procedure";
8. there is a POV definition of "frivolous lawsuit" replacing the article's acknowledgement that different groups use the term in different ways; and
9. the article itself is incoherent.

I don't know about Greve. It appears he wrote a vanity published poorly argued 42 page (approximately) tract that appears to not understand tolling of statue of limitations and how it might apply to the longterm health affects of smoking, as well as a lack of understanding of fraud and misrepresentation and damages. As for Schwartz, I confess not to have read his Rutgers article, but if the synopsis is correct he appears to be deliberately obtuse about what Ford was up to when they wrote the memo and the uses it was put to. Further an independent body- jurors- made a finding of fact regarding the memo. Again, I haven't read Shwartz's article but it strikes me as historical revisionism. Good thing he isn't in Florida! Gfwesq 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to most of the previous article. It shows (see below) how POV the article was and still is. This article needs to be scrapped, and cooler heads need to prevail. I cannot believe that such an article exists in WIkipedia.MollyBloom 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit history demonstrates that a number of arguments in support of reform have been deleted without explanation, and that just about every edit by Jgwlaw from June 11-12 has been made to add anti-reform arguments or water-down pro-reform arguments. This article is a dreadful violation of WP:NPOV and demonstrates the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia on political subjects. -- TedFrank 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This entire artilce is a dreadful violation of WP:NPOV and I agree that it demonstrates the inherent unreliability of Wikipedia on political subjects. -- MollyBloom 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Add POV tag, but for another reason

I reverted back, so edits can be made piecemeal. I left the corrections to only a very few of the many extremely biased entries.MollyBloom 14:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was never about tort reform. It was extremely POV before. Even the intro was POV. It may have gone a bit far, and I will work on that. And the word 'frivolous lawsuit' is exactly as defined. It can't be anything else. Everything was included here.MollyBloom 14:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

However, I tried to edit too much too fast. Therefore, I reverted back to what was there originally, less a few changes. Hopefully this takes care of the "POV" tag.MollyBloom 14:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Previous Talk Page & Alarm at Previous POV

This was the 'talk' before, by another editor:

The phrase 'tort reform' itself reflects a point of view. But what is troubling about this article is it is presented as a value-laden argument, not an exposition of a concept. Raising arguments from critics of tort reform only to rebut them with long quotations from conservative commentators does nothing to further knowledge. It is an argument better suited to a talk radio programme. This is a deeply flawed article, and its excessive length is a very clear indication that its impartiality must be questioned -- to explain would not take as many words as to raise issues for the purpose of knocking them down.

It is very clear that the principal authors favor "tort reform" and that should not be.

A frivolous lawsuit

The sentence as now in the article encompasses everything of the previous author's acknowledgement that different groups use the term in different ways without going on for a paragraph and being extremely POV. This is a clear, dry recitation of the only thing a frivolous lawsuit can possibly be.

A frivolous lawsuit is one that cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent, facts of the case, or under a good-faith argument for a change in the law.

Any other description is a POV. What else CAN a frivolous lawsuit be? Was it necessary to go on an on for a paragraph? Really? That was very biased. This is short, and there can be nothing else to add to the definition of a 'frivolous' lawsuit, except a POV rant. The previous comment is a political diatribe. I left the definition of frivolous lawsuit, but for peace's sake, I left the comment about what 'tort reform' advocates believe it to be.MollyBloom 14:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, is still a 'tort reform' POV

This article is extremely long, and full of citations to lobbying groups for 'tort reform'. This is extraordinary POV, intending to legitimate groups like ATRA. Perhaps we need to discuss what ATRA is, and who funds it.MollyBloom 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ATRA

ATRA's members are largely Fortune 500 companies with a direct financial stake in restricting lawsuits. Members have included representatives of the tobacco, insurance, chemical, auto and pharmaceutical industries. Corporate giants like Philip Morris, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Electric, Aetna, Geico and Nationwide have all supported ATRA. Gannon, Tort Deform - Lethal Bedfellows, Essential Information, 1995, pp. 23-25. Legal Times also reported that, "most of [ATRA's] funding comes from large corporate donors. Insurance firms … are each good for $50,000 or $75,000, one unnamed lobbyist familiar with the Association told the publication." "Proponents of Reform," Legal Times, April 17, 1995, cited in Silverstein, Smoke & Mirrors, Public Citizen Congress Watch, 1996, p. 11.

The tobacco industry has supported ATRA, directly through Philip Morris, and indirectly through Covington & Burling, the law firm for the now-defunct Tobacco Institute and other major tobacco companies. Newly released documents from the Tobacco Archives show that in 1995, the tobacco industry allocated nearly $5.5 million for ATRA, more than half of ATRA's $10.2 million budget according to the Associated Press. The documents also show that Covington & Burling acted as a funnel for much of this tobacco industry money, which was then paid out to other organizations. "Report Says Tobacco Industry Quietly Backed Tort Reform," Associated Press, February 21, 1999; Tort Reform Project Budget, Covington & Burling, October 3, 1995, Document #2041201160 et seq. The budget indicates that by October 3, the project had already given about $3 million to ATRA.

Although sponsored by major industries, ATRA has worked hard to present a dramatically different public image of itself. While John Gannon reported in 1995 that not one of ATRA's 300 organizational members included an organization devoted to representing workers, homeowners or average citizens, ATRA calls its members "the average citizen looking for an end to the threat of being sued." ATRA wrote in an early fundraising letter, "ATRA is not a wealthy special-interest group backed by vast cash resources." Its literature mentions its "large and very diverse membership, consisting of … non-profits, public agencies, professional societies, trade associations, large corporations and small businesses." (For a copy of their 1989 membership list and steering committee, the latest year available, contact CJ&D).

The entire article on "Tort Reform"was a POV piece.MollyBloom 15:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tort Reform still EXTREMELY POV

A fair reader of this article can tell it was written by tort reform 'advocates'. It is still incredibly POV, with long discussion of 'reasons for' and little on reasons against.

JUST FOR EXAMPLE: Nothing in this paragraph even mentions the argument opposing the tort reform 'complaints'

Another common complaint of tort reform supporters is that the number of lawyers has increased at a rate which far exceeds population growth[7], with personal liability specialty practices accounting for about 25% of the legal workload in many states[8]. They believe this massive increase of personal liability practitioners has led to a system of cyclical abuse, in which litigators aggressively recruit clients in mass tort cases using extreme and coercive methods, then reinvest a portion of their profits into political candidates and organizations that further expand liability law. They believe the expansionist nature of personal liability causes many targeted industries to settle potentially frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits out of court at substantial cost to their employees, investors and society at large.[citations needed]

Of particular concern to many tort reform advocates is the present tort system's effect on the healthcare industry. ETC.

THIS is biased! How can anyone not read this and realize it was written by someone sympathetic to the lobbyists for tort reform?MollyBloom 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ANOTHER completely POV paragraph

Where is the balance here, or even the counterpoint?

Of particular concern to many tort reform advocates is the present tort system's effect on the healthcare industry. Linking the rising costs of premiums for physicians' medical malpractice insurance[9] to the rising cost of personal and group policy health insurance coverage, many tort reformists advocate imposing caps on non-ecomonic losses and punitive damages, as well as on "contingent fees", or fees set by the plaintiff's attorney as a percentage of damages awarded to the plaintiff. Tort reform advocates argue that such caps would benefit those plaintiffs with legitimate lawsuits by reducing the number of "nuisance" suits and thereby improving the overall efficiency of the system. This area of tort reform reflects a broader ideological theme of the tort reform movement; that unrestricted litigation - particularly in the realms of personal liability and class-action suits - has a widespread and damaging effect on important social institutions and services beyond the scope of individual claims.

Capping fees or awards is a solution in search of a problem. Not everything needs to be counterpointed, especially when there is not much of a counterpoint. If one takes the time to truly investigate the facts of any so called nuisance suit, one usually finds it apochryphal or in fact a meritorius suit. The fact is frivoulous (outside of the actual legal definition) usually depends on whose ox got gored.Gfwesq 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, what is truly notable is commentary by those who won't sign off on their commentsGfwesq 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHER POV paragraph

There is one sentence here that runs counter to the argument, and that finishes up by a tort reform claim. Tort reform supporters argue that these numbers are misleading. Supporters note that most liability costs come from pre-trial settlements caused by the threat of trial, so the number of trials is irrelevant. Supporters further note that the number of "filings" is a misleading statistic, because modern filings are much more likely to be class actions with many more joined claims than the cases of decades ago. They also note that the choice of the 1992 start date is misleading, because the largest increase in the number of tort cases occurred between 1970 and 1992. They also argue that the use of the median, rather than the mean, is a misleading statistic for measuring the magnitude of the litigation problem. Supporters point to a study by Tillinghast/Towers Perrin, a major consultant to the insurance industry, that claims the cost of liability litigation is outpacing the rate of inflation consistently over the last half century, representing 2.2% of GDP in 2004 vs. just 0.6% in 1950 and 1.3% in 1970.[13] Tort reform opponents dispute these numbers, which have been controversial; tort reform supporters note that the Towers Perrin numbers are underestimates in many ways.[14], [15] [edit]

Tillinghast/Towers Perrin, a major consultant to the insurance industry NOW THERES a point of view that wasn't bought and paid for! Oh Anonynous, thou art naiveGfwesq 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Entire article should be scrapped

I don't even know if there is any way to make this neutral, it was so badly POV. I welcome attempts to do so. MollyBloom 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a way. The article was actually in fine, trim NPOV-shape several months before MollyBloom(A.K.A Jgwlaw) got her meathooks into it. My goldfish Ted and I shrewdly judged that it was far too Herculean a task to pick through her hundreds(!) of back-to-back-to-back edits to find each weasel word, blog pasting and missing source. So we just restored it to the last set of edits before she began savaging the piece for whatever reason. I then gave Ted a fish treat.

I think the best way to rescue this article is to slim it down and let it be about "tort reform" - that is, to allow the reader come away with a better understanding of how the term functions in civic debate. Although it might be bad form to suggest, I'd recommend every contributor to this article sneak a peek at MollyBloom 's profile. Given the details this person reveals about herself, it is really credible that she could be capable of NPOV in her noble quest to redefine "tort reform" to mean "electrocuting small dogs"? That's a bit like having Kim Jong Il pen an article on Orwell.

So I recommend we all take a breather and re-read both articles before we start some silly clicking war, and ask oursleves which is really more reflective of the term's usage in the current national debate. After all, whether one buys into them or not - some the numbers and studies originally cited then removed are the actual numbers and studies that tort reform advocates discuss and quote from inside their shadowy lair at the center of the moon. In fact - when they aren't busy making kitten milkshakes or planning to punch a nun in the face - reform advocates often can be found quoting heavily from the CBO health insurance study and the Tillinghast report, which somehow evaded Jgwlaw's mighty edit axe, if not her obligatory gotcha-last editorializing wherever they are mentioned. Maybe she simply hasn't gotten around to reading them yet...

That said, one thing that this article always could have used more of is history/etymology of the term itself, and how the movement evolved into its current form. Anyone up for the challenge? --65.145.40.70 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... anyone who talks to a goldfish probably should seek professional help. Especially when the fish talks back. In any event, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a liberal, notwithstanding yours and Ted's (wink wink) juvenile attempt to demonize. Can't speak for Molly, but I edited this article because it was total propaganda BS. NPOV- NOT! I suspect Molly felt the same way. It still needs editing to be an accurate discussion. One problem is the lack of accurate facts or unbiased studies by the so called tort reformers. They usually rely on apochryphal tall tales. I am just not impressed with insurance paid for studies. Somehow the findings are predictible. Nor am I impressed with juvenile debating tactics and macho talk of punching nuns in the face. Yeah I know, I just don't have a sense of humor... or maybe it just wasn't funny. I'll take you seriously when you can put forth a rational argument with brevity and without the juvenile sarcasm. Otherwise, you will find, I can give better than I get.Gfwesq 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I understand your dilemna (well this one, anyway). You, like a hugely frightening majority of people on this island Earth have fallen under the spell that makes people believe anything they see that they don't immediately agree with IS ACTIVELY TRYING TO DESTROY THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN'S THEM.

Making up a point of view and attributing it to your opponet is a strawman argument. Its neither logical nor a fair debating tactic. Gfwesq 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this article is inherently political and should be scrapped - as other articles like 'medical malpractice' and the others the Manhattan Institute fans are distorting.MollyBloom

The fact is, this used to be a pretty good article because it was informative. Not great (again, neeeded way more etymeology and less raw numbers), but it did the trick of explaining to a few people what it meant when they saw this term being slung around on TV or (gasp) newspapers. It's an important (and divisive) enough topic to warrant a fair, straightforward reckoning of what it proposes. Perhaps it would be better to compose an "anti-tort reform" article to compartmentalize some of this clap-trap - but the moment that happens, wiki fails.

It was informative the same way propaganda is informative, which is to say extremely slanted. Gfwesq 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

An explanation of a set of views doesn't make something bias. I don't troll around on the Communism page, dropping in stuff like "Critics in Democratic societies say..." and posting pictures of the Berlin wall falling. The worst part is, I think that, deep down, part of you knows that 97% your edits were a deliberate defacement. And to that part of you I say "Pbbbbbbtt!" Love, Jarod-- 65.142.146.174 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added specific examples with citations and pointed out what the actual definition of frivolous lawsuit was (again with an actual citation). For some reason, you didn't like that and thought it was defacement. I can't help it, if there isn't much underlying the "tort reform" argument. There are still members of the flat earth society who think the earth is flat. I am not going to take their views seriously and I don't think we need to give much space to their specious arguments. There are some fools who still think Saddam had WMD, and I am not going to take them seriously either and nor do I think we need to give much space to their specious arguments. Gfwesq 02:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Slanderous and vulgar comments by anonymous above

I don't think there is any way I can make it any clearer than this title. First of all, many of the changes that anon above made are not my changes. Secondly, where claims are made that are NOT substantiated, they are 'alleged'. You cannot make wild claims without backing them up.

I reverted back to the legitimate edits that I and several others had made. I am not going to resort to the vulgarities of anon above, but suffice to say that anon has shown himself for who he really is.

Wikipedia is not a political forum. THe article as it was written made it just that. If it continues, I will recommend deletion.MollyBloom 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ted and I just had a sober, rational talk about this posting. After a long debate - and several more fishie treats - we decided that despite MollyBloom's threats to utterly destroy everyone and everything who stand in her way , we will continue to defend and restore the May 25th piece as long as there is blood in us. It was a stronger,. slimmer piece and one that many smart people contibuted to, debated about and agonized over before she decided to lard the lead paragraph with the following beaut:

"Critics argue that what is needed is 'corporate reform', and not 'tort reform'."

Get it (wink-nudge)!

We also decided that there's nothing vulgar about punching a nun in the face (unless of course the nun is a Democrat and a dastardly Republican is doing the punching) but that our theory about the tort reform movement's space bunker on the moon was way out of line. Everyone one know that tort reformers can only be found on the 4th circle of Hell, where the avaricious are doomed to roll weights back and forth against one another for all eternity. For this, I am sorry (and also perhaps for not properly citing Dante), but I stand by my wild claims.--63.235.84.85 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(AKA JarodKitchen)

I will allow the words above to speak for themselves. My edits are legitimate and with citations. If you have a problem with them, then you need to discuss them here.MollyBloom 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No facts, but a lot of pounding the table and a lot of screaming. What's a matter boys, not used to having your political world view challenged by facts? This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda organ like the Hudson Institute. This means you are supposed to back up your claims with real (read non- bought and paid for studies) facts. Now I know facts have a known liberal bias, but you will just have to deal with it.Gfwesq 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that really blew my monacle off!

OK, so you've obviously exposed my fiendish plot to re-write the encyclopedia so that Ronald Reagan was the first astronaut to conquer Mars (I also planned to replace all photographs of Democrats and women with small, eyeless lizards, so double-drat!)

Anyway It sure looks bad for lil' old me. Besides proving that girls are better than boys, Stephen Colbert is a liberal comedian, and that I hate kittens and the moon, you've shown that you have way more time on your hands than i do.

And what's wrong with being a liberal comedian? Would you prefer an oxycontin addled viagra fueled conservative comedian?Gfwesq 00:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What's going on? Are you hitting on me? For your information, I happen to like funny people, drugs and politics. Turnoffs include bad writing, terminal illnesses and North Korea. And I'm a virgo. If you don't know what any of that has to do with tort reform; welcome to my world, sister.--65.142.146.174 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I am not. I could tell you liked drugsGfwesq 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(Wow, you're really insistent on this whole Tracy/Hepburn cadence of our broohaha here, so I'll leave the order in place this time - I thought it was a mistake. I am a format freak, though, so I've fixed the tabs a bit - sorry.)--65.142.146.174 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the reason I did not name the specific edits because I was fearful of the underlying truth of them. Or maybe it was because there were roughly 70,000 of them in a row, most of which contained no summaries. Or maybe it's because the edits mainly consisted of adding the words "This is clearly false" to the end of of any section detailing a stance of the tort reform movement.

Whatever the case,Ted and I obviously would have better understood these edits had I read the aforementioned "'corporate-reform'" article that was left uncited in the opening paragraph of this version. Unfortunately, there isn't one. Maybe you should write it, that way it would be legal to use such a phrase. If you do, I hereby promise I won't do anything sly, like add:

"Critics argue that what is needed is 'tort reform', and not 'corporate reform'."

...and then link it back to this article. For some reason, I don't think I'll have to worry about it too much. It sounds like you intend to wander around here for a while, clicking various things and making the world safe for Americans, American puppies, rich lawyers and totally rockin' income redistribution.

Regardless of this, I come from a long line of dogged trudgers, and so will I trudge doggedly forth. I will restore the original article forever, and you unrestore it, and thusly we will be locked in an eternal conflict for trendy web real estate. At least until the time when you and Ms Bloom gain the legal right to sue me for gross not-agreeing-with-you-ness, or witchcraft, or whatever your lawyer can come up with that rhymes with "one hundred million dollars."

Love, Jarod --65.142.146.174 00:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Its quite obvious you don't address the arguments because you can't.Yelling liberal liberal liberal is not an argument. Nor is your juvenile rantings If that's the best you can do, I think I will just ignore you until you can muster a rational argument that addresses the facts. Pounding the table and screaming doesn't impress anyone. Now you run along, I hear your mother calling. Someone's flushed poor Ted down the loo! Gfwesq 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, weird; I just scanned my post and I didn't see the word "liberal" typed into it. If I misunderstood, and you really are hearing voices screaming "LIBERAL!LIBERAL!" inside your head, I'm actually sorry for your handicap, for everything I just wrote and for not heeding the call of my mother. She passed away in June 2003, after a long and really horrific battle with ovarian cancer. So, thanks for bringing her into this, Gfwesq - you're obviously a class act, gifted with a hilariously subtle wit.

actually you mentioned liberal in re: Stpehen Colbert. Then there were the remarks about (unless of course the nun is a Democrat and a dastardly Republican is doing the punching) hitting a nun . Oh I almost forgot, thank you for the compliment. It still not an argument addressing any of the points.Gfwesq 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, poor Jarod and his imaginary friend have a memory problem, Gfwesq. I thought I would add his quote: Stephen Colbert is a liberal comedian, and that I hate kittens and the moon...

That's enough quoting from Jarod, since all of it is in the same vein of drivel. It seems that he is the one who has the handicap, and it is indeed severe -- he talks to imaginary characters and has cognitive dysfunction. He also knows nothing about WIkipedia, or any responsible encyclopedia, since they are not intended to be political forums. Oh, yes, and I am a proud liberal, as entitled to edit WIkipedia as your average rightwingnut fruitcake.MollyBloom 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning: Major Rewrite/Plot Spoilers Ahead

It would require a mammoth effort to catalog all the bits of vandalism that have been inflicted on this article over the past two month.

This is an inappropriate use of the word vandalism. Vandalism is not defined as edits you don't like.MollyBloom 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The usage was rhetorical, I admit. But the more I read this, the more research I find deleted without explanation, just the word "bias" typed over and over in the summaries? I would tend to call that vandalism. --HelloDali 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think most of what I wrote I explained. Unsubstantiated claims that were opinions were deleted. We really need to make this a balanced and properly referenced document. Another problem was that there were repeated 'follow up' contradicting the anti-tort reform, without a similar treatment of the pro-tort reform. This is not legitimate. There are many many other examples of this. Most I discussed in the talk pages. ONe of the problems I see with this and other political articles (even ones I agree with) is that there are entirely too many "some people argue" or "proponents argue" or "critics argue". etc. This is simply bs. What this really means is that the author thinks this. If I were grading a paper, for example, I would fail the student. It is atrocious writing, and is anything but NPOV.MollyBloom 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Luckily I know several mammoths, and am feeling fit to the task. I aplogize in advance for the space this is going to consume, but it seems as though threats of deletion, censorship and lots of clicking and talking about people's mothers are going resume if it goes down any other way.

Why don't you post wth one name? We know you are the same person. And why don't you try to simply state what you don't like here, and discuss the proposed changes, instead of editorializing and perpetuating ill feelings?MollyBloom 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's "we"? How am I perpetuating ill feelings? I don't understand this comment?--HelloDali 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to annotate as I go. For the sake of everyone's sanity, here's how I'd like this to happen. I'll post each problem I have with each section of the article, then I will make that change. Please respond here appropriately (and nicely) to my change, calling out the protions of the rewrite you think fail NPOV

WW - Weasel words B - Bias OR - Original Research UW - Undue Weight

"Tort reform" is the phrase used by its advocates who claim it is a change in the legal system to reduce litigation's alleged adverse effects on the economy[1]. Both the advocates' intention and the need are a matter of controversy[2].

While the phrase "tort reform" might imply any change in tort law or procedure, the commonly understood use in political and academic arenas describes a movement to limit tort litigation and monetary remedies (damages). It does not include reforms that would expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action or that increase damage awards. Critics argue that what is needed is 'corporate reform', and not 'tort reform'[4].

1 - (WW, B) In the lead sentence, scare quotes and the words "alleged" and "claim" are all used. Beside this being a really bloated sentence - I smell incredible, weasely bias.

You deny so called tort reformers allege their reforms are needed to reduce adverse economic effects? This is going to be intersting. Gfwesq 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

2 - (WW, B) This is followed immediately by a claim that tort reform's intention and stated claims are "a matter of controversy" Mind you, we don't really know what tort reforms are yet or who supports them, but we already know that they both "allege" and "claim" things, have supsicious motives and are controversial.

Actually if you read, what the claim is, is stated. Gfwesq 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They are a matter of controversy and should be stated as such at the beginning. MollyBloom 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But isn't everything in politics "controversial"? Just trying to slim this thing down.--HelloDali 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, everything in politics is not controversial. Going after UBL was not controversial. GWB's low standing with the American public is not contorversial. I could go on. Gfwesq 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go on with this sort of thing. I think I get your political slant... maybe that's the point.--HelloDali 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

3 - (OR, UW, B) In the followup paragraph, there is a link to a Ralph Nader website. According to this author, Nader and his lobby are the key opposition to tort reform (as opposed to, say, ATLA), and are so closely identified with the movement that the deserve a mention and a link in the lead paragraph.

Nader is a single critic. To suggest it is the sole one is a strawman argument and is not logical.

?? I know - that's why I removed it (it was linked to the word "Critics"). Or maybe I'm not sure what you're saying here... please explain.--HelloDali 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be obtuse, I refined the sentence. Ralph Nader is a major critic of so called tort reform. He has also been an important consumer activist for 40 years. He is not the only critc and unless you want me to link to every critic, one should suffice. Why do you assume the ATLA is the only critic? (is your agenda showing?) Gfwesq 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's try to refrain from shouting an interrupt at every line I type - I organized my thoughts in such a way to make them easy for everyone to read, and hoping you'd do the same in an organized response. It's starting to look very messy, through no fault of my own. Thanks--HelloDali 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

4 - (OR, B) The bit about "corporate reform" sounds like original research too me. It has no article or description of what it means, and the weight given to it in this article about "tort reform" at the very least, strange.

Here's the new article lead, and the one I will immediately restore:

The term "tort reform" is used by its advocates to describe a change in the United Statescivil justice system intended to improve its efficiency or reduce litigation's adverse effects on the economy. It may also be used to describe individual ammendments to tort procedures, rather than to describe the movement that supports widespread changes[1].

Actually I'm going to edit my own sentence here, since the followup is a little redundant.--HelloDali 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Newer Lead:

The term "tort reform" is used by its advocates to describe a change in the civil justice system that they believe will improve its efficiency or reduce litigation's adverse effects on the economy.

That's good.

While the phrase "tort reform" might imply any change in tort law or procedure, the commonly understood use in political and academic arenas describes a movement to curb tort litigation and damages. It does not include reforms that would expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action or that increase damage awards.

What I like about this is that it very brisk and direct, and that it includes a link for people to find out more about what a "tort" is.--HelloDali 16:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine.

1 - "Intended" satisfies NPOV without the use of a string of loaded words.

2 - Simple follow. No links to any groups, funds or alliances (pro or con), just summary of the term.

No, a comment that the term (purpose and need) is controversial and the Nader statment, as an example. We need to substantiate claims, even if it is only an example. This is a theme of critics, and has legitimate bases, as evidenced by the many many corporate scandals (not just financial). MollyBloom 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Any Questions?--HelloDali 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I actually annotated my "Agenda" edits throughly, but they got lost in an edit-conflict. I'll retype as soon as I can.

As for the above, I'm really asking for comments on my new version as well as on the previous one. If possible, I'd like some input on why my re-write fails NPOV?--HelloDali 16:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not make massive deletions of properly referenced and written work by other editors, calling it vandalism. No admin or neutral observer would think that is acceptable. The problem with the piece before is that there were many claims made without substantiation, and it looked like a rant. MollyBloom 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That said, some of your intro is very good.MollyBloom 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility

A discussion on civility is in order. Also, this baiting needs to stop. Now.

1. The person using HelloDali and other aliases should try to use one name, to avoid confusion and sockpuppetry.
2. Strawman arguments will be exposed.
3. HelloDali (or whatever other name he is using) is the one making threats to delete and revert - nobody else.

Actually when I scrolled up, I noticed that you wrote a headed section entitled "Entire article should be scrapped". It seems as if that's what touched off this entire debate, does it not?--HelloDali 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

4. THe idea of discussion is to discuss changes and get input. Not to post the change, write a diatribe about other editors, and threaten to revert any change.MollyBloom 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, but I'm not sure what was uncivil about the above? Please explain??--HelloDali 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

Ok, I've re-structured the top of the piece tremendously now, and added a new section for competing reports (which I also re-organized to indicate their pro and con findings) My main goal was slimming it down, trying to tone down the editiorializing at the top, and present the recommended reforms before we explain who is for or against them.

I personally think it flows better with the bullets listing specific changes, and carving off all of the various pro and con statistics that we're originally leaking into Agenda makes a lot more sense (as with hard newswriting, it seems good wiki start with a broad overview, then get into the specific scraps and bits as you scroll down)

I also like having the Studies section, since it seems everyone always has new studies and new numbers, allowing this section to evolve grdually over time.

What do you think?--HelloDali 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro paragraph does need a statement that this is a controversial subject. I included this again. Will look at the rest.MollyBloom 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it again. I think this issue was covered about a year ago, when someone kept tryin to add the term "tort deform" into the opening line. Out of curiosity I did some Google experiments. Not very scientific, but yielded some interesting results - try this for yourself, Molly:

Google "Tort reform" = about 3.5 million results

Google "Corporate Reform" = about 200,000 results

Google "Tort reform" + "Corporate Reform" = about 770 results

Of the "corporate reform" links, the group you cited appears in the #1 slot - so if you clicked "I'm Feeling Lucky" you'd hit it!

Again, 770 is a relatively low number for people who are talking about both. And neither the term or the link seem relevant enough to describing what "tort reform" is. Sorry.--HelloDali 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Where to begin? If you really want to collaborate on this article, I’ll participate, but only if we limit the citations to legitimate academic studies. Studies produced on behalf of the insurance industry or “vanity academics” (The Claremont institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Hudson Institute, with their “Olin Scholars” etc) should be eliminated as inherently biased and unreliable.

I'd disagree. T/Towers Perrin is a very large and influential group, and their '03 Study is heavily quoted by reform advocates. Plus it serves is a good primer the discussion of the effects of medical malpractice litigation on the price of medical insurance. This actually is something tort reformers talk about quite a lot, regardless of whether we think they are right or not.--HelloDali 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree all you like, T/Towers Perrin knows where its bread is buttered. Its harsh world bro; he who has the geld rules and my real world experience with consultants is they never forget that.Gfwesq 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems is context. For example, the English rule is byproduct of Trial by Combat and Trial by ordeal. The idea behind those archaic (dare I say uncivilized) methods of settling disputes is that God protects the innocent. The American rule is a little more modern than that and understands that, at best, God acts in mysterious ways and the “innocent” isn’t always protected. Sometimes justice goes to the ones who can hire the best lawyers and experts- see O.J. Simpson. Hence, the American rule. If we don’t include this explanation, casual readers won’t know where the rule comes from or why the American rule is possibly (dare I say probably) more just.

Well that's all great. But again Wiki is descriptive not proscriptive. So that means we can't put in any judgements about which rule is better, right?--HelloDali 23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out the origins of the Englsih rule and why the American courts disdained to adopt the English rule is not a value judgment. I would be content with that, let the reader decide. I have argued before juries and I have sat on a jury. I believe in democracy and I trust juries to generally get it right, provided the advocates are playing on an even field. Gfwesq 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of context, we will need to explore the history of joint and several liability, Standards for complaints? Are we talking the conservative California or NY rule or the more liberal federal rules (adopted by the majority of the states) or harkening back to the more challenging 19th century civil procedure practice. There are reasons why modern civil procedure scrapped the 19th century civil procedure. BTW, not to be insulting, but if you don’t have a clue as to what I am talking about or if any of this is new to you, you have no business editing this article, because you don’t know what you are talking about.

Changes in other evidentiary rules (e.g. permitting the admission of evidence that a plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt); WTF?!! ITS ALREADY ADMISSIBLE!!!!!

First off , it isn't an evidentary rule. It is a defense to negligence. If you are going to discuss this, KNOW YOUR TERMS! I gather terms like contributory negligence and comparative negligence are new to you and other "tort reformers". Because defendants are allowed to defend, under the rules of evidence, they are allowed to introduce anything that tends to prove their defense and you guessed it, plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt is relevant and admissible

I can only assume this proposed "reform" is a demand to go back to strict contributory negligence, which is an unnecessairly harsh rule. It means, (and I must assume you don't know, since you are using terms incorrectly and without logic) that if the victim was even 1% negligent, s/he is SOL and the guilty party, the tortfeasor, goes scot free regardless of how negligent. This is a classic example of defining deviancy down (as Newt liked to say) to zero!

The modern rule, comparative negligence, is more nuanced and assigns blame proprotionately and reduces awards proportionately. Again without context, the casual reader, would think, that such evidence is inadmissable. WHICH IT IS NOT.

Converesly, if it is not a demand to go back to strict contributory negligence, what purpose does it serve, since under the rules of evidence, its admissible.

We can collaborate and produce a thoughtful article. Or we can just have an edit war. But this is not going to be a propaganda piece like it was before. Gfwesq 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa.. calm down. I actually didn't originally write the bit about "seatbelts" - I think the original author was trying to cite an example of an existing evidentiary rule for people who didn't know what one was. Still I agree its awkwardly done, and could lead people to a weird conclusion. Consider it out.--HelloDali 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The original author was in over his head. Gfwesq 23:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also I think showcasing how the term "frivolous lawsuit" is used by advocates worked perfectly well the way I had writtern it (I even included a link to the legal definition for those who wanted to know more) Of course all of my work was instantly torn down and replaced with a single, terse confusing sentence.

The sentence is not terse, and it is not confusing. The points you raised do not go to any definition of a 'frivolous' lawsuit, but to either the meaning of 'merits' or even worse, the way litigation is handled. Let's discuss here on the talk page, to avoid ridiculous edit wars.MollyBloom 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is defining frivoulous lawsuit. I think the legal definition is the only definition that should be used. Calling a desk a chair, doesn't make a desk a chair and it confuses everybody. I could consider stating the actual legal definition of a frivolous lawsuit and then say tort reformers seek to change that definition (to what? and can it be said in 10 words or less). But I suspect tort reformers would object, because objectively, the actual legal definition works perfectly well and then people might wonder what is their point. Gfwesq 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can collaborate, but lets have a bit of intellectual honesty. So far I have seen a bunch of really clear, undisguised bias. Collaboration means you have to bend a little too, and that means no more sneaky edits, or contrarianism for its own sake. If this is going to be good, polished writing we need to cooperate.

I do not see sneaky edits or cotnrarianism. I agree that we all must cooperate. Gfwesq and I both have a legal background. Therefore, our edits reflect that. It does not sound like you do. Perhaps we need to discuss some of the edits, and help each other understand what we mean. The article should be concise - see below where I discuss your major edit inclusions that will serve only to lengthen the article, or produce an extremely POV.MollyBloom 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is bias on both sides. I don't have a problem admiting I think tort reform's sole aim is to take a playing field that is relatively even and make it favor those with the money to spend on lawyers and experts to wear out and wear down potential plaintiff's who generally have little money, have lost wages and savings and face medical bills. It isn't justice, its OJ in the civil area. It is unequal justice before the law. It is anti-democratic. Those who bankroll the tort reform know perfectly well what they are doing. And they are the only ones who count. What bias do you admit to? 1. Sneaky edit needs to be defined. Is it an edit not agreed upon on the talk page 1st? 2. A framework (an outline) needs to be hammered out of what should be included and why. An article which is merely a wish list of what tort reformers what to see enacted is nothing more than an advertisment. I suggest a short representative list, that discusses the pros and cons. A "kitchen sink" list will be too long. 3. Finally this isn't something I see finishing in a couple of days. I expect to take a month to 6 weeks. Gfwesq 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my first proposition - we need to come to some kind of agreement about the top of this page. I don't want the words "controversial", "alleged" or scare quotes. Its not just that I think their a little weasly, but it's not appropriate AP Style Guide usage. "Allege" is supposed to be in connection an accusation of a midemeanor or crime and "controversial" is a loaded word. Again, if we use it in the first sentence here, it means we'd have to use in pracitically every politcal wiki in existence, which would be boring and a bit 1984-ish??

The intro does need to discuss the political controversy, or it is misleading. The word 'allege' is most certainly not only in connection with a crime etc. I do not know where you got that idea. Controversial is not a loaded word. Why do you say that? It is telling a truth. There is no more controversial subject right now in politics than tort reform. Don't you think the reader should know that this is what is going to be discussed? That is generally the way a good paper would introcuce a subject.MollyBloom 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a controversial subject and avoiding saying it is, is to ignore the elephant in the room. Knowledgeable readers won't take you seriously. Better to state openly in the first paragraph that it is a controversial subject. Both sides are make claims. The critics have an advantage becasue their claims have been tested and proven to work over the last couple of hundred years. We can subsitute claim for allege, but its going to make tedious reading. I suggest we use allege, claim or some other appropriate word but not use one exclsuively. Gfwesq 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am a trained journalist, and I'm referring to the AP Stylebook, which is the generic style book that hard newswriters use. It includes lots of little rules to ensure quality and consistency of meaning across naratives (unfortunately it has a really tiny wiki - I'll have to do something about that eventually :P. In any case, AP always recommends "belief" when referring to an unproven thesis or contention. --HelloDali 00:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree to that?--HelloDali 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that about seat belts did not know what he was talking about, or he was trying to deliberately mislead. Also, I deleted several sections on your TTP and other rants, because to rebut them in the context of the article would take pages. I trust that readers can look up the external links if they want to see every point the TTP made, and every point critics (and the CBO) said in rebuttal. Even the CBO criticized as excessive some of TTPS costs. There also are criticisms that the numbers are not verifiable, they include costs that are not tort costs, etc etc etc. This is not going to be an article to profile TTP or the radical right wing who want to go back to a contributory negligence system, or a feudal system where serfs have no recourse. And to add, as I started to do, every rebuttal from the myriad of sources that rebut these statements would make this into a ridiculously long article. IN other words, your 'summary' was not a summary, but a one-sided argument.MollyBloom 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I will say that I am relieved that the tone is more adult here, and the incendiary comments and political bashing are subdued. Now let's work to make this a consise article, that is truly NPOV.

MollyBloom 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we can just calm Molly down we have a shot at getting this right (;

I'd reccomend not taking cheap shots like that. I'd fire back with withering fire were it aimed at me Gfwesq 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Gfwesq 01:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't turn it into an "anti-tort reform" screed either. The problem with this article has always been that there was no "original author" - from the get-go it became an battleground for pundits on either side. That said, there have always been sections available for debates over the theorectical consequences of the reforms (for instance "The Tort Reform Debate" and "Opponents of Tort Reform".) I actually do remember a set of edits in which these were very well-defined and NPOV, but they got lost in the sands of time, and what's currently up there isn't working very well. So first we need to agree to stop trying to load anything proscriptive into the lede and agenda sections (Webster's defines agenda as meaning "a list of stated purposes"), including links to oppositional pundits, etc. From there I think we could move forward carefully and stop writing all over each other.--HelloDali 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is most of the debates over consequences are not theorectical. What the reformers are attempting to do is undo all of the original reforms in tort law of the 20th century and roll back tort law to the 19th century. There is a reason these reforms came about, namely to address real world problems. Removing the original reform isn't going to make those old issues go away. They will return. Being an ostrich is not a soloution. The critics have the upper hand, because law is often experimental. What becomes the majority rule is what proved to be most successful in addressing the problem. Accordingly, I would object to calling consequences theorectical. We know the consequences because we know why the changes in the law came about. What is theorectical is how the tort reformers would address the old problems as they reappear as they inevitably will do. Context is everything. Gfwesq 01:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean, obviously TTP wasn' a rant.

No, it wasn't obvious. TTP pushes an industry funded POV.

It was a single sentence with a few bullet points.

To which one would have to add another section of rebuttal bullet points. This is not the way to write a consice article.

But I think this highlights an important point... people almost never notice their own bias. I think that's why the removal of loaded words is important. If you go back and read the article now, you'll notice that in the lede paragraph you (the one you erased), I didn't use any words with positive connectations. But when you first read it, all you noticed is that it didn't include any negative ones... I'm pretty sure there's a whole neural science based around why that is, but I think I find it a little despairing that we've been at it so long now without anyone being able to quote anything to me that I wrote that makes it seem as though I feel one way or the other about tort reform. Indeed, how do you even know that I'm not AGAINST it. This has been a very strange day for me.--HelloDali 00:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider these things

I. Including TTP in the intro section to the article and not in the debate, means a rebuttal is in order. This will make the article unduly long.

II. The definition of 'frivolous'.

Rhetoric, by definition, is to persuade someone of the righteousness of a cause. Therefore, a paragraph of your rhetorical understanding of 'all' tort reform critics is not the way to introduce this article.

Now, please take a look at this, before you change back the definition of 'frivolous'. A plaintiff's attorney must make a reasonable investigation into the merits of a case, to avoid an FRCP11 (frivolous lawsuit motion) or the state equivalent. One does not have to prove the case, and not even tort reform advocates suggest one would have to prove the case before they have an opportunity to prove a case.

The trial is the venue to prove a case. The vast majority of tort cases are negligence claims, and require the plaintiff to prove 4 things:

1. Duty of Care - does the defendant owe a duty of some sort to the plaintiff (this includes the general duty to not harm the public)

2. Breach of Duty - was that duty breached

3. Causation - is there a link between the defendants act and the harm done. Case law back to the 1920s states that the link cannot be too tenuous.

4. Damages - There must be some harm to the plaintiff, caused by defendant, that can be defined in monetary terms.

The real point, then, that you seem to be arguing is that the jury has not determined causation or damages. But the whole point of the jury is to determine this. That is, unless you want to throw out jury trials altogether and completely change our three branch structure of government.

That is the problem with your overly broad definition, that is much more confusing than a concise definition of frivolous.MollyBloom 00:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

You wrote:

Tort reform is a controversial subject, and has been one of the most debated policy issues in recent times.

That's perfect. Better than mine. Thanks.

MollyBloom 00:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of 'frivolous

No. It is not going to read as you wrote it. It is not just a 'strict' interpretation of the law - it is the legal definition. Your statement is factually untrue.

Now we can discuss what lay people or the public understand it to be. And that we should discuss here. Essentially, it all comes down to a lawsuit without merit, as opposed to the legal defintion of frivolous. If you read what I wrote above, you would understand what this means. Perhaps we should couch it in this context. Regardless, we should talk about it here before changing it. I can't speak for Gfwesq, but I imagine he would agree that the statement as you wrote it is simply unacceptable.

Contrary to what some people think, NO lawsuit can be litigated based solely on hypothetical damages. There MUST be actual damages. Therefore, your statement simply is not true. Serious 'tort reformers' would not even make that argument. WHat I included is a statement that says, 'more broadly, a frivolous lawsuit has come to mean a lawsuit that is without merit. Anything more than that, let's discuss here, before changing, to avoid an edit war.MollyBloom 00:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason is because semantics will be important later on in the article. For instance, dictionary def is "Unworthy of serious attention" or "Inappropriately silly". I think it stands to measure that advocates of tort reform (as well as pro-reform editorials, tv news formats, comedians, etc.) often use the term to describe their grievance, and in connection with a category of personal injury and product liability lawsuits or judgments that they deem "silly." (the Mcdonald's coffee suit springs to mind as something that's been frequently labeled "frivolous" by critics, even though it isn't techincally). In addition to being a legal issue, we have to remember that "tort reform" is also a philosophical stance, and thatthis notion is at the core of it. That's the way they use it, and it will be helpful in decribing the term.

(And stop saying I don't understand what it means. You'll note I also linked to the legal textbook definition. I think we need to have both, which is how I had it)--HelloDali 00:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If semantics is so important, than you need to be more careful with the words. What you have is unacceptable.MollyBloom 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But why? After all this time you still haven't told me why? I haven't argued that the courtroom definition doesn't belong, and have included it each time (and will proceed to, since its appropriate and accurate.) Ther is absolutely nothing wrong with neutrally defining a key belief of advocates of tort reform in the lede paragraph about "tort reform".--HelloDali 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have explained it, but I will explain it again.

1. Contrary to what some people think, NO lawsuit can be litigated based solely on hypothetical damages. There MUST be actual damages. Therefore, your statement simply is not true. Serious 'tort reformers' would not even make that argument.

2. McDonald's is an issue of proportionality of damages, right? Or is it causation? Or both? You are lumping too much into one term and that is confusing. It was confusing to me, reading it. Again, tort reformers that I have talked to would separate these issues, and not call it all 'frivolous'. Frivolous is a suit without merit. That is independent of damages.

MollyBloom 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How's this

The legal definition of a frivolous lawsuit is one that cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent or under a good-faith argument for a change in the law. The term has acquired a broader rhetorical definition in political debates about tort reform, where it is sometimes used by reform advocates to describe tort lawsuits that are seemingly without merit, or where the judgements seem inordinately high relative to the damages.--HelloDali 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good! But change 'damages' to 'harm' so as not to confuse (two def'n of damages).MollyBloom 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will stipulate to that definition. Gfwesq 01:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, could you make that change? I gotta get back to work now, lest my employer "reform" my salary. But good work tonight, and nice talking to you. We'll pick this up again later.--HelloDali 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Also, I agree with Gfwesq - you can't have a vague laundry list of items like this. Some don't even make sense. Others are not explained and there is no opportunity to discuss, really, in the article. So pick a few major points, which can be discussed in the article. Otherwise, it is meaningless.MollyBloom 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - I added a citation from DHHS about the link between rising cost of mm premiums and reduced access to health care. Please do not delete it or replace it with "no statistics bear this out" before a proper discussion (or, indeed, before reading it).--HelloDali 13:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Tort reform debate

I think this section needs a bit of a re-write, eventually. I'll try to give it some thought later this week. Hear me out...

For something titled "the tort reform debate", it seems awkward to launch directly into an argument about product liability in the auto industry (as opposed to other kinds of personal injury, medical malpractice, etc which are just as hot-button) Basically, as written I think that only addresses part of the debate without properly framing it first. Not only that, but the first paragraph feels heavy. I think we have to choose one of the two automotive examples provided, cite it more succinctly and maybe remove the quotes (otherwise the article might start to become quote crazy). Also there's sentence in there that reads "The value of human life was not factored into the equation." If it's not a direct quote from the source, I think it should be removed since it sounds so editorial. If it is a quote, well, I think it should have quotes around it.

It may sound editorial, but it is a fact. The entire issue was a cost-benefit analysis. We'll work on this, though - the ugliness of the facts does not change the facts.

And actually I think the entire paragraph and the followup I wrote actually belong down under "Theorectical Issues - How would tort reform affect safety. If this was the case I think we could scrap the heading "Theorectical Issues" and make it just begin with "How would tort reform affect safety"? It just seems better organized this way... here's a potential new chapter structure...

The tort reform debate

How would tort reform affect safety?

Con

(saftey argument)

Pro

(saftey argument)

Controversy over job loss claims

Pro

(job argument)

Con

(job argument)

...etc. Thoughts?--HelloDali 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps...Let's discuss more here, first. I still have a problem with the laundry list of 'tort reform' complaints that a Wiki article cannot address, without becoming unwieldy. I am not sure what to do about this. I personally hope to God that the jury system and election of judges are not thrown out....And, the Daubert hearings already make it difficult to qualify expert witnesses. To have expert witnesses appointed b y an appointed judge would seriously undermine our democracy and entire system of justice. But that seems to be the aim of some 'tort reformers'.MollyBloom 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)