Why Obama opposes malpractice caps revealed!

Despite his pretense at maybe being interested in medical malpractice related tort reform, Obama and his buddies on the left have done absolutely nothing to make it a real part of any "reforms" they have proposed, either in the past, or now as part of "Obamacare".

Why?  Well, Mark Tapscott has some thoughts on that in his column today:

What caught my eye...concerns a little known fact about a long-forgotten class-action lawsuit filed in 1994 by three young trial lawyers, one of whom just happens to be sitting in the Oval Office today as president. The case was Selma S. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank.

Obama and his colleagues claimed in the suit that Citibank had had rejected loan applications by the plaintiffs simply because they were black, or because they lived in predominantly black neighborhoods. In short, the suit was one of thousands filed during the 1990s claiming racial bigotry, not poor credit histories, explained high rejection rates among minorities applying for mortgages.

Whatever you think on that issue, here's what struck me: After four years of haggling, Citibank settled with Buyck, a Chicago woman, out of court.  She received $60,000. Obama and the other lawyers on the plaintiff side got $950,000.

There you have it.  Our courtrooms have turned into a legal lottery system.  And Democrats will never support any real reforms because the overwhelming majority of the attorneys that play the system contribute big sums of money to Democrats.

The Democrats protect the legal lottery game...and the lawyers pay the Democrats to keep it that way.  It's as simple as that.