I think one improvement would be to make it so an insurance co can't cherry pick. Its easier to get car ins in this country and NO ONE can be denied, no matter how bad their record. Ins co's should have to take the good with bad, that's why ins works in the first place. Imagine a co that would only ins houses that couldn't burn down? I think if insurance were truly universal, EVERYONE was covered, AND you introduce some free market forces, the system would work without the government getting involved as much as some want. PS. Z, you were kidding about Michael Moore being non-partisan, right?
I don't know the situation around the entire U.S. but I do know that both Chicago and Los Angeles offer FREE health services to the poor. Both Stroger (Cook County Hospital) and Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center serve hundreds of thousands of patients each year. This inane liberal/socialist debate has NEVER been about access to medical services by the poor or uninsured. Rather it's all about equal access. IOW's if your PRIVATE insurer will send you to Dr. Christian Bernard then socialists like doodoo belive EVERYONE should be under Dr. Bernard's care. Bullshit. That's like saying that subway riders should have a choice as to ride in Donald Trump's limousine each day. Or that those living in section 8 subsidized housing should now have an equal chance at living in Trump Tower. Illogical. You get what you pay for. Further the service and expertise of those who donate their time at the nation's free medical facilities is often outstanding. I don't want Pedro, Maria, Tyrone and LaQuesha on my insurance "plan" and they don't need me on their's..........
FYI, there are more poor whites than poor blacks. Of course in percentage terms, the opposite is true. So really, you don't want Bubba, Sue-Ellen, Maggie-poo, Pedro, Maria, Tyrone, and Laquesha on your insurnace plan. In any event, the cost of your insurnace increases at a rate greater than inflation for a number of reasons but a large portion of that increase is a result of insessant malpractice litigation. And it's not Pedro, Maria, Tyrone and Laquesha who are suing Hospitals and doctors. I doubt it's Bubba and Sue-Ellen too. On the other hand Maggie-poo...
Actually I was thinking of Eva-Marie Saint and Tyrone Power. The litigants are most likely Irving, Sid and Nathan........ If the liberal Socialists are so concerned with the variable of malpractice costs then they should wholeheartedly embrace tort reform. Kind of tough though when you're in the pocket of the Trial Lawyers association. Not to mention when your most recent VP nominee grossed tens of millions as an ambulance chasing personal injury attorney........
What are you saying? From botched nose jobs? Ha ha. OK enough of that. Actually, it's just about anyone considering that lawyers litigate these types of cases via contingency. So it costs the plaintiff nothing to get it started. But you have to know that beforehand and many poor whites/blacks/hispanics don't. Just because it's advertized in the yellowpages doesn't mean they would think to look up "lawyer." And then you have a jury of your peers* who awards these astronomical sums. *Ain't gonna be a jury comprised of Jews. Then again, Jews don't make it a habit of suing Jews. And since many of the nations best doctors are Jews...
That's actually not true: From 2000 to 2004, the increase in premiums collected by the leading 15 medical malpractice insurance companies was 21 times the increase in the claims they paid, according to the study. ... According to the association's data, collected on a voluntary basis by its membership, 70 percent of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed, 24 percent were settled, 5 percent were tried and found in favor of the defendant and 0.8 percent were settled in favor of the plaintiff. http://www.ohsu.edu/oregonruralhealth/newsitem70705.htm Of course a malpractice lawsuit is only frivolous until it's you or your family member who suffered health damages.
Actually, it works like this: Doctors increasingly pay higher premiums for malpractice insurance. They therefore raise their fees charged to patients. HMOs, who pay this fee on behalf of plan members, charge increasingly higher premiums. Whether a case is dismissed, settled, goes to trial is all the same because each of those instances requires a lawyer which in term charges the insurance company for billable hours. So what you would want to see is a decrease in malpractice claims. BTW, you sampled OSHA Oregon. Surely Oregon is not representative of the US as a whole.
It amazes me that the "private sector does it best" crowd won't look at the great and much less costly system France has. It is based on personal experience, vastly better than the USA and costs far, far, less. IN the USA, the private sector has IMO failed miserably to deliver effective and reasonable priced health care. Even the rich are getting screwed. Another fact is that the USA has in effect publicly financed health care. Consider: FOr 2003, governments contributed 45% of health care financing, not including what they spent for public employees health insurance. And in addition, a little known regulation, EMTALA, that in effect requires hospitals treat anyone who enters the emergency room and most of these costs are passed on to people with insurance, making it a hidden tax. Seneca
The point was that skyrocketing premiums for malpractice insurance have absolutely nothing to do with the actual number/dollar amount of malpractice lawsuits. Malpractice insurance companies increase their premiums because they CAN, not because their payouts or expenses increase. Frivolous lawsuits, lawyers, tort reforms etc are convenient scapegoats to divert attention from the actual rip-off artists - insurance companies. PS That's not to say that I am defending lawyers or approve their methods but in the grand scheme of things they have very little to do with the rising cost of healthcare.
Bullshit. We have a little check and balance in capitalism called free markets. In a world where liquidity is pushing 30 year Treasuries below 5%, hedge funds, venture capitalists, insurers who AREN'T writing malpractice/liability would be JUMPING at the chance to achieve "junk" bond returns of 9%. In any given YEAR perhaps insurance companies are RAKING it in. That is until some dim-witted jury awards a plaintiff 40mil or so. without caps no one is going to write premiums on the cheap without having a fair idea of their worse case risk. It's the same crap I read here in Florida about hurricane insurance. Some pinko group will release a "report" mentioning that since 1993 insurance companies have collected BILLIONS without having to settle a single claim. Sounds great until a Cat5 rolls down Collins Avenue taking down most every insurance company stupid/greedy enough to be in this market.......