When I get home from work, I like to turn on the TV and watch cable news.
I like to stay informed about what's happening on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue.
And the most fun part for me is listening to the commentary on the latest big stories.
So last week when I sat down to watch the news, they were talking about extending tax cuts.
Now the subject matter isn't as important as what one of the guests said when asked about why tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended.
Now I cannot remember his words verbatim, but I do recall him talking about the importance of limiting the government's power.
I thought it was a fair philosophical point to have.
But when asked about how much the government's power should be limited, he mentioned tort reform and how important it was that, in this case, the government uses its power to protect doctors from being sued by people who abuse their right to do so.
Now this is not the first time I have heard an argument in favor of tort reform.
Like most people, I think both sides make good points about the issue.
The only recent news I had heard about personal injury or medical malpractice lawsuits was a case in Washington where a construction worker didn't have to pay a part of his settlement to the organization that subsidized his worker's compensation (I would assume that was a big win for Washington personal injury attorneys).
I had not heard any news about bogus lawsuits where a plaintiff won a large settlement for a minor injury.
So I began to wonder how prevalent these cases were and if we really need tort reform so badly.
I went online and found a case where a woman won a few million dollars from McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on her lap.
Now I thought that was ridiculous and said to myself, "maybe this guy has a point.
" But then I read on and discovered that the 81-year-old woman who spilled the coffee received third-degree burns and had to have a skin graph operation.
Now that is hot coffee.
Furthermore, she asked McDonald's to reimburse her medical bills and only sued because they refused to do so.
As you might expect, I went back to questioning myself on whether tort reform was really necessary.
There are two sides to each lawsuit and both sides think they're right.
I don't know if there will ever be a clear answer to the issue of tort reform, but I would encourage you to do some digging of your own before you come to the conclusion that a plaintiff is abusing his or her right to sue.
I like to stay informed about what's happening on Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue.
And the most fun part for me is listening to the commentary on the latest big stories.
So last week when I sat down to watch the news, they were talking about extending tax cuts.
Now the subject matter isn't as important as what one of the guests said when asked about why tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be extended.
Now I cannot remember his words verbatim, but I do recall him talking about the importance of limiting the government's power.
I thought it was a fair philosophical point to have.
But when asked about how much the government's power should be limited, he mentioned tort reform and how important it was that, in this case, the government uses its power to protect doctors from being sued by people who abuse their right to do so.
Now this is not the first time I have heard an argument in favor of tort reform.
Like most people, I think both sides make good points about the issue.
The only recent news I had heard about personal injury or medical malpractice lawsuits was a case in Washington where a construction worker didn't have to pay a part of his settlement to the organization that subsidized his worker's compensation (I would assume that was a big win for Washington personal injury attorneys).
I had not heard any news about bogus lawsuits where a plaintiff won a large settlement for a minor injury.
So I began to wonder how prevalent these cases were and if we really need tort reform so badly.
I went online and found a case where a woman won a few million dollars from McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on her lap.
Now I thought that was ridiculous and said to myself, "maybe this guy has a point.
" But then I read on and discovered that the 81-year-old woman who spilled the coffee received third-degree burns and had to have a skin graph operation.
Now that is hot coffee.
Furthermore, she asked McDonald's to reimburse her medical bills and only sued because they refused to do so.
As you might expect, I went back to questioning myself on whether tort reform was really necessary.
There are two sides to each lawsuit and both sides think they're right.
I don't know if there will ever be a clear answer to the issue of tort reform, but I would encourage you to do some digging of your own before you come to the conclusion that a plaintiff is abusing his or her right to sue.