"Tort Reform Made Simple"

I have written many IB posts and other blogs and articles about the ridiculous notion that "tort reform" is good for the citizens of this country. Of course, it is not; it is probably the first and certainly the largest "corporate bailout" in our country’s history (except for, maybe, the first Chrysler bailout in the Lee Iococca/Jimmy Carter era). It amazes me how uninformed the public is on this issue and how willing the public is to accept rhetoric from corporate interest representatives that is contrary to the public interest.

An attorney named Jim Marcincowski has written a very thoughtful commentary in the Detroit Free Press called "Tort Reform Made Simple". In it, Jim attempts to educate and explain what the author calls "misconceptions about our legal system". There are all kinds of "citizen groups" (really, they are "fronts" for corporate interests, financed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, big insurance, big pharma and big tobacco) who claim that our tort system is out of control and costing taxpayers big bucks. These allegations are, absolutely, false. But, the campaign has had some success in pulling the wool over the eyes of the public.

Please read this thoughtful commentary. Read it with an understanding that Jim Marcincowski is not a planitiff personal injury attorney; he is not a "trial lawyer". He is someone who knows how the system works and who knows when corporate types/lobbyists are lying to him. He is a criminal prosecutor, you know, the guy who puts criminals in jail. He has no skin in the personal injury/insurance company game. He does not gain or lose anything at all from the tort system or from tort reform. He is amazed, as I am, how media commentators and others misunderstand and misuse the concept of tort reform.

At its core, the argument for tort reform is that it will save the country’s economic system money (at the expense of injured and disabled people). In fact, the opposite is true. If people are not appropriately compensated, they will become destitute and dependant upon public assistance. Instead of appropriate private compensation, they will be supported by the public. Is that the goal? Read Jim’s thoughtful piece and let me know what you think. Thanks.