"There are basically three formations of the argument by the Republicans: First, they start by making stuff up. You kind of have to wonder if any of them actually read the bill: 137 new agencies - not true; new IRS agents' not true; death panels - not true; Members aren't covered - not true; no tort reform in it - not true.
"You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that now popular drinking game of you take a shot whenever the Republicans say something that's not true, please assign a designated driver. This is going to be a long afternoon."
Weiner was on fairly solid ground with most of his claims. We've debunked death panels (Pants on Fire); 15,000 new agents for the Internal Revenue Service (Barely True); 53 new government bureaucracies (Barely True); and members of Congress aren't covered by the health care bill (False).
But we stopped short at Weiner's claim that the health care law included tort reform. Did it?
Before we get into details of the health care law, we should explain the basics of tort reform in plain language. What tort reform usually means is changing the rules that apply when patients sue their doctors for medical errors or malpractice. The thinking goes that if doctors weren't so afraid of being sued, they would order fewer tests -- they wouldn't practice "defensive" medicine -- and that would drive down health care costs. On the other hand, patients who believe they have been harmed by doctors want to keep their right to sue, or at least get some sort of payment.
Policy wonks have been trying to come up with new ideas to balance those concerns, such as protections for doctors who can show their actions followed evidence-based medical guidelines.
Still, when talking about federal tort reform, the usual ideas are:
- Caps on the amount of money juries can award injured patients.
- To let jurors consider patients' other sources of income when making awards.
- To create "fair share" rules that let jurors assign