I agree with the author, if we're going to have tax cuts, let's have insurance cuts too.
Gee, is it extortion when other folks go out on strike..? Interesting use of the language there.
Doctors need to get a collective spine and stand up to this en masse.
This has become the fault of the doctors for not demanding an end to their being kicked to the curb by every ambulance-chasing shyster in America.
I agree with the author, if we're going to have tax cuts, let's have insurance cuts too.
Oh, man! I don't know how much you pay in insurance premiums, and how much you pay in taxes. I guessing that I pay at least triple for taxes, counting my medical insurance which I do not pay directly, but not counting government frauds like FICA as insurance.
It's not as if I were a friend of insurance companies or insurance in general. If I were king, I would outlaw insurance. It eventually ruins the markets for everything it touches. But all insurance companies do is pool all the payouts associated what they are insuring and add some percentage for all their paper pushers and their stockholders. (And of course they lie when they tell you they want to keep costs down, because their income is a percentage of those costs, and if costs were really low no one would insure those costs.)
The author of the article you provide doesn't provide one fact to back up his claim that caps on negligence suits wouldn't stem the flow of ridiculous liability suits. And ridiculous they are. You know I could go on forever about things like being burned by hot coffee. I'll just offer one.
I fly little airplanes, or I used to. Cessna and Piper used to make thousands of these plane every year. But then some woman and her lawyer sued Cessna when her husband flew his plane into a mountain and died. Cessna was found liable because the plane didn't have a little sticker on the instrument panel warning the pilot to wear his shoulder harness. They tried to pass the cost of their increased insurance on to new plane buyers, but the insurance got to be about half of their cost to manufacture. So now they don't make those planes anymore. I suggest that if caps for this sort of suit were in place at the time, that Cessna and Piper's business would have continued on more or less as it always had.
ML/NJ
Can insurers legally flout anti trust laws and conspire to set prices? Years ago, they could. Today, they can if they want to end up in jail.
Do caps on liabiliity reduce premiums? It depends on whether premiums in the marketplace are sufficient pay the cost of loss. If not, caps may not reduce premiums, but they may make insurers more interested in writing the coverage.
Do doctors' mutual insurance companies solve the problem? Sometimes they help, but doctor owned insurers are not exempt from the reality of losses or the liability environment in general. For example, the hospital mutual in Pennsylvania, PHICO, recently failed in Pennsylvania's very difficult medical malpractice environment.
Finally, should insurance companies open their books to see whether they really are losing money on medical malpractice? Actually, insurer's books are more open by law than other corporations. Anyone can visit their state Department of Insurance and pick up more data on insurers' finances than they will ever find time to review.
There are no easy answers to the malpractice insurance crisis. But it would help if the kind of misinformation in this article is recognized for what it is: propaganda.
Perhaps not. The insurance industry is undergoing an unseen crisis at the moment, in that most of the investments they have their money tied up in, have been reduced to practically no yield, or have soured completely and gone south, actually decreasing in net value. They have always counted on the growth in the value of their purchased equities to cover insurance claims, while leaving the principal untouched or maintaining a steady growth, apart from receipt of premium payments, which are used to create new pools of principal for further investment. But the steady sure income has dried up, and now new premium money must be used to subsidize the deficits from payouts on claims. Therefore, premium payments are increased to compensate. Even if no more new claims are being made against the insurance company, they are a static or declining position in relation to the pool of capital available for income generation. This is one of the primary reasons that tax reform as a means of encouraging investment has been pushed so strongly by the Bush Administration. A vigorous and growing investment in the engines of economic development is the key to maintaining low insurance rates.
I had open heart surgery two weeks ago. Some dimbulb from the IV team relocated my IV while I was zonked on drugs. When I woke up, my right hand was burning and the bed felt wet. They were having real problems finding veins to use and Miss Dimbulb plumbed a lot of real estate in my arm and hand to find something viable. In haste, no doubt, she left a needle in a dry hole accidently and went onto greener pastures.
That dry hole turned out to be a gusher and bled for only God knows how long. Under the influence of the drugs, I assumed I had near bled to death. A nurse's aide was in the room and witnessed my rude awakening. The panic took my breath away, literally, and I dragged myself to the bathroom to see if I could yank the needle out as trussed up as I was.
Sure, I was pissed. And annoyed. The staff went into crisis mode to stop the bleeding and see to my safety. This could have been the one. The lawsuit they settled that might have paid off the house. What I asked for, and received, was an explanation of how it happened, what they would to do prevent it happening again, and an apology.
End of incident. No need to sue anyone for anything. I did my part to keep the cost of the next operation I might need down.
We allow jury trials for lawsuits in which EMOTION and WEALTH ENVY play the primary role! It is totally a matter of THEATRE if you have ever observed a trial in which PUNITIVE DAMAGES are sought!!!
"Yes your Honor, I was drunk but "they" never should have let me (fill in the blank)". After the tearful display, the jury (fantasizing how much they would like to receive a "windfall) awarded a gazillion dollars to X! What a sham!
Damages should always be assessed and awarded on a dispassionate basis. As I understand it, the Brits utilize a 3 Judge panel to do so. Why do you think the trial lawyers are the big supporter of the Dems???