Posted on 08/10/2009 8:42:04 AM PDT by Edisto Joe
I m not a lawyer basher but when it comes to tort reform and health care....
...So far every time tort reform comes up in debate it manages to go away. That's a testament to the powerful and influential lobby of the trial lawyers. There's a huge amount of income potential every time someone steps into the doctors office, hospital emergency room or is scheduled for an operation. The only proof you need is to watch the number of television, radio, and print advertising offers for free legal assistance that pour out daily to the public.
And lets be honest, if I'm an insurance executive it's a win-win situation for me. Whether we settle out of court or go to trial, your premiums are going up to recover our losses, and if we lose at trial we will investigate the possibility of suing someone else to get our money back. The trial lawyers indirectly or directly influence their profits. Health insurance losses and the additional expense is passed on to the consumer...
(Excerpt) Read more at edistojoe.com ...
This right here is where they could take care of increasing costs - if they really wanted to.
Why should they - they’re (congress & judges are) almost all ambulance chasers of one sort or another?
...So far every time tort reform comes up in debate it manages to go away. That's a testament to the powerful and influential lobby of the trial lawyers.
That influence is due to the large amounts of money they contribute, and for which they demand payback. As do all the other lobbies, buying influence with campaign funds.
When/if we regain control of congress, we can cure most of that by simply requiring that the source of all campaign contributions remain anonymous. A congresscritter cannot sell influence if he does not know who is buying!
The individual or organization (like the beloved trial lawyers) will still have the right to support parties and candidates who mirror their thinking, but it won't be a tit for tat any more.
Politicians will have to clearly state their positions, rather than saying one thing in public and another in private to the lobbyists funding them. It will be a federal crime for donor and donee to meet, or for the donee to trace or the donor to reveal the source of the funds.
It won't make lobbying illegal, but the politican won't know if the lobbyist was or was not a donor. And you can bet that if a lobby can get away with NOT donating, they'll not donate!
The remnants of the greatly downsized IRS can be used to administer the program after the FairTax or a flat tax is instituted to replace the current horror.
Consider the problem with home lending that is credited to have caused this big economic crisis. The government “solved” the problem by throwing stimulus money into the economy with the expectation that more money in the system would get it moving again. They did not address the problem with a solution that was viable. Lenders simply used the stimulus to plug the red holes on the balance sheets. Then govmnt urged more aggressive lending to get cash flowing again.
Health care costs are height primarily because of medical malpractice lawsuits and premiums. It is also high because insurance companies (by law) negotiate rates for certain procedures. Procedures not covered are often sold at inflated rates to cover losses on negotiated items. These are normally like 80/20 coverage up to the deductible.
The answers (don't hold your breath)?
1. Tort Reform: Deem any lawsuit seeking damages more than costs as frivolous. No money can be recovered for misdiagnosis or undiagnosed. Only doctors can be sued and only for “mistakes”. They can not be sued for things they should have known or foreseen.
2. No employer is allowed to provide health insurance: Make individuals go and shop for their own policies. Some of us will pay more because we are overweight, smoke, skydive, work in construction, are older, younger, male, female, etc....just like the auto insurance industry. Bring competition back to the insurance industry.
3. Make patients responsible for the doctor bills and let insurance reimburse patients. This puts control over the care with the patient.
4. Make is law that all citizens have health insurance (at least catastrophic)
5. Provide basic health insurance to welfare recipients as part of the program after proving their poverty status.
I fear that many of our problems today stem from the fact that far too many of our legislators are LAWYERS. Further, I believe that we need more DOCTORS in those positions.
While there ARE exceptions (Bill Frist toward the end of his term, Phil Gingrey — who strays from time to time) my rule that physicians make better legislators than most lawyers generally holds true. I attribute that to the fact that most doctors are trained in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and rely more on FACTS and EMPIRICAL DATA for their decisions. Ron Paul, Larry McDonald, Paul Broun, John Linder, Tom Price are (or were) all doctors. I’m sure you can think of other examples/exceptions.
Unfortunately, far too many of these guys are ATTORNEYS.
Our late friend and author, composer, lover of Bach, pianist and all-around Renaissance man, Tupper Saussy, who somehow dodged the family tradition of becoming one, traced the term “attorney” back to the Sanscrit word “torwa.” And what does “torwa” mean? TO TWIST!
While SOME of these attorney-legislators are conservatives, their law school moot court training forced them to argue BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME CASE. I rather suspect that experience allows them to rationalize voting against the Constitution when expediency and/or their political survival/favor with their party leadership dictates. It is textbook moral relativism and we all pay for their perfidy.
Let me tie that attorney-legislator problem into the current health care debate: I might have missed it but I don’t believe there was one mention of TORT REFORM from the lawyers who cobbled together that 1,000+ page monstrosity now dividing the nation.
I’ll give you three guesses as to why — and the last two don’t count!
And here’s something to think about for the primary elections to the 2010 general election: If the attorney-legislator representing your district does not pass muster at www.gradegov.com, if you can, find a NON-LAWYER for whom to vote after grilling him on the first principles near and dear to those who cherish freedom and the Constitution.
Too hard, say you?
No. SLAVERY is hard.
We had a reasonable tort system at one time. It was not perfect, but it was fairly structured, discouraged perjury and produced a reasonable result. It was approaching “The Rule Of Law” ideal. The current Tort system promotes a rule of facts, which must be decided by a jury. The O.J. Simpson jury tells one all they want to know about the jury crap shoot. In addition the courts imagine themselves “Policy” mongers in this field. Greed assisted by sophistry changed the Tort system into a monster. I think it is time to consider eliminating civil suits for damages.
Today, we have the Plaintiff Lottery: "You gotta be in it to win it! Check your local Yellow Pages for details!" And we must all endure the spectacle of endless television commercials trolling for "victims" of diseases for which there are more attorneys in pursuit of a jackpot than there are actual sufferers.
I agree. Contributory negligence had its flaws but at least it imposed some legal controls. Pure comparative turns everything into a jury question with reviewing courts acting as “Policy” mavens. Pure comparative is a stage upon which great actors trod the boards.
Justice was subordinated to performance art; truth was overcome by the mists of emotionalism; and a shallow opportunist like John Edwards became a multi-millionaire.
Very good and very true.
Your tag line says it all ...and I’m with you 100%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.