Letters to the Editor

Tort reform

should be included

Any attempt at fairly predicting the impact of tort reform on medical resource utilization would be nothing more than an irresponsible stab in the dark. While the vast majority of physicians favor fair compensation to those patients that have sustained injury from a medically negligent action, what seems misplaced, and surprisingly not mentioned, is the 40-50 percent portion of the monetary judgment awarded to the patient and then immediately diverted to the representing attorney as "fair compensation."

A more creative and equitable approach that would hopefully direct most of the compensation for injury to the deserving party would be specialized medical courts, staffed by medical and legal experts, that would hear the case objectively, and make a thoughtful judgment based on impartial medical data surrounding the incident, without the accompanying vapid theatrics solely aimed at the jury in a medical malpractice trial of the present day.

For those who agree that our health-care system sorely needs a complete overhaul, why not urge Congress to include a fix to this unproductive distortion of our current system in its agenda for repair?

Harvey Guttmann, M.D.

Rydal

Give the customers

what they want

I had to laugh while reading Ed Klunk's commentary Tuesday, "Pa. beer laws are just fine."

Is his argument that grocery and convenience stores would sell the beer at a low cost to spur their business supposed to scare me? Isn't that what most of the beer-buying public wants: cheaper prices and easier access (albeit with safeguards for minors)?

I would be sorry to see the many small businesses that are beer distributors injured, but they are irrevocably tied to antiquated liquor laws. My beef is not with these mom-and-pop operations as much as the system's built-in lack of convenience and competitive pricing.

Chuck Bonfig

Havertown

chuckbonfig@gmail.com

Nothing fraudulent

about Nader

Re: "Bonusgate's coattails," Thursday:

Thank you for saying Attorney General Tom Corbett should not have accepted campaign contributions from the Reed Smith law firm and its attorneys while he was investigating whether state employees unlawfully used taxpayer funds and resources to prepare Reed Smith's challenge of petitions for presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2004.

Corbett should remedy his conflict of interest by returning Reed Smith's money and charging any attorney who knowingly joined or aided the criminal conspiracy that Corbett's office is prosecuting. Corbett pledged not to accept contributions from parties involved in his "Bonusgate" investigation, and Reed Smith has now confirmed that it was involved. Corbett must give Reed Smith's money back.

Finally, the claim that Nader's 2004 nomination petitions were "fraudulent" is patently false. As Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor has demonstrated, despite the bombastic language in trial Judge James Gardner Colins' opinion, only a tiny number of signatures - 1.3 percent of the total - were counted as so-called "forgeries," and these resulted from pranks or sabotage. This can be confirmed by reference to Colins' own opinion. To continue repeating this smear, therefore, is inaccurate.

Oliver B. Hall

Counsel to Ralph Nader

Washington

Should be last ones

to criticize Obama

I've been hearing a lot of talk by Republicans about how President Obama is unable to pass his own agenda. These are the same Republicans who oppose Obama at every step. Now they want to criticize him for not getting things done.

Republicans also blame Obama for the economic bailouts. But the bailouts were a Republican creation. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was enacted in 2008, before Obama took office. It was proposed by Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and signed by President George W. Bush.

Dean Miller

Collegeville

Senate's plan

the best shot left

Health-care reform has been tried many times over the years at the federal and state levels. The inaction of the past has precipitated our current crises.

The Senate legislation now on the table is the best shot we have to rise above vitriolic partisan pettiness and improve the quality of life for the majority of Americans. That legislation may be tweaked further, as indicated by President Obama, to address Republican concerns. Take the time to make your voice known to your legislators.

Kate Friend

Philadelphia

Obama doesn't have

FDR's spine

A recent commentary suggesting President Obama should pack the Supreme Court with three additional justices in order to get his agenda passed was quite provocative ("Obama should expand court," Feb. 28).

While I agree that the current court has tipped dangerously rightward, I doubt that such an idea would even cross Obama's mind. He lacks the spine for it; as we've seen with his kid-glove treatment of the minority party while trying to sell his health-care reform package. In short, he's no FDR.

Gordon Bennett

Coatesville