Columnist Bruce Bartlett

reported in the March 3 Washington Times that this hidden cost was $721

a year for each citizen. Needless to say, Edwards is against tort reform

that would ease these costs because it would mean smaller judgment awards

to trial lawyers, who can make up to 35 percent to 40 percent of the cash

award from these trials.

Such law suits extend

from the ridiculous (the lady who won a suit against McDonald's because

she spilled a hot cup of coffee on herself while driving) to the outrageous

(West Virginia doctors going on strike because their malpractice insurance

costs about 60 percent of their income). Tort reform mostly means that

lawyers would get a smaller percentage of the judgment. Since trial lawyers

give heavily to the Democratic Party, you might have determined that Edwards,

who made millions in his practice and spent $3 million on his senatorial

campaign, would not likely favor tort reform.

The scheme works like

this: Democrats write vague laws (and regulations when they control the

Executive Branch) which must be "interpreted" in the courts.

Trial lawyers bring cases on behalf of clients who push the envelope of

credibility for these laws and regulations. If they win the case they

give a small percentage to the client, and they pocket the rest, with

a payoff to the Democratic Party. Then the cycle repeats itself.

The consumer is the

ultimate loser as insurance costs and the price of goods and services

are increased to pay the additional demands for ever larger insurance

premiums.

In many states, mostly

those controlled by Democrat legislatures, tort laws make it easy for

individuals, businesses and professionals (such as doctors) to be sued

regardless of their responsibilities. (Doctors and other professional

folks must not be "regular people.")

A surgeon in Florida

can pay $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance. The same insurance

in California is $70,000 where some award limits have been passed.

Plaintiffs should

also have to pay all costs when a suit is found without merit. Currently,

70 percent of malpractice cases are found to be unjustified. Losing plaintiffs

do not have to cover the costs of defendants whom they sue unsuccessfully,

and insurance companies will often settle with plaintiffs, even when their

clients are innocent, so long as the settlement is substantially less

than the costs of a defense.

Reuters news agency

reports that GM paid $4.5 billion for employee health care last year,

more than the giant auto maker paid for steel. Much of that money goes

indirectly to pay doctors' malpractice insurance, when it should be devoted

to health care.

Congress just raised

Medicare payments to doctors by $49 billion over the next 10 years, mostly

to help defray the costs of malpractice insurance. That's $49 billion

out or your pockets, the taxpayers.

Tort reform laws in

some states have lead to lower insurance costs, as well as fewer "pass-along"

expenses, like Medicare taxes, to the "regular people" who are

the consumers of medical services. A bill has been introduced in the House,

H.R. 5, that would cap liabilities awards to $250,000. This is a good

start. Ask your congressman to support this bill.

Meanwhile, Edwards

can neither convince anyone he is for regular people nor sell himself

as a "moderate." Like Bill Clinton, he is running as something

he is not. The leftist Americans for Democratic Action gave him, and Hillary

Clinton, the same 95 percent approval rating for their 2001 voting record.

The regular people remember Slick Willie and don't want a Slick Johnnie.

William Fielder

Peachtree City