Many people say that the skyrocketing cost of health care in America is due to America having a “free market” in health care– we certainly don’t– or that there is not enough regulation of the system.
I disagree, and here is one direct way to lower healthcare costs.
Why don’t we make all those who lose malpractice lawsuits (or, better yet, all lawsuits) pay the court costs of the plaintiff? We often see people hold up European countries’ healthcare systems as models we should be aping, but what about their court systems, too? Europe doesn’t have any problems with wasteful or frivolous lawsuits because if the plaintiff loses, he or she pays all court costs of the defendant.
Therefore, if someone doesn’t have a rock solid case in which they definitely experienced malpractice, they won’t initiate a case in the first place, and this will save doctors and insurance companies– and the American consumer– millions of dollars.
Every time you go to the doctor and can’t believe the bill you get, it’s because you’re also contributing to that doctor’s insurance costs, which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Of course, John Edwards and his trial-lawyer brethren will fight against it, but if we really wanted to make a difference and get healthcare for the “two Americas,” this would be an excellent way to do it.
I think that’s a common sense approach. Sometimes people confuse disapointing results with real malpractice. It’s not only Europe, but in South America people don’t understand why one would sue if they don’t like how something turned out.
On a related matter, what do you think about McCain’s proposal to tax employer-provided healtcare while only providing a personal tax credit? For many of us, getting health insurance from our employers is something that works. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it? I can see the personal tax credit for those who can’t get healthcare coverage at work, but why change the system for the rest of us?
Rachy
October 10th, 2008
My mother has worked in the healthcare industry for many years and has noticed a distinct difference between even 30 years ago and today in regards to people’s attitudes toward doctors. These days, people expect their relatives to live forever and if they don’t, they blame the doctor. Most of the time, the doctor was doing what any doctor could do under the circumstances.
(Although I also know of a few cases of actual horrendous malpractice where the victims didn’t sue the doctor; but in the end, I would say there are many more cases of frivolous malpractice than true malpractice since insurance companies are so willing to settle for a few hundred thousand.)
I’ll probably be writing a post in the future about McCain’s health care plan. There are many reasons employer-provided health insurance isn’t the best way to go, including those people who are between jobs or want to leave their jobs or start a small business. It probably does keep our economy down on some level.
I’ve read an analysis where most people would be better off under McCain’s plan, because salaries would rise once health insurance isn’t provided as a benefit. I don’t think either Obama or McCain’s plan really gets to the bottom of what our problems with healthcare are, so I don’t think either will lower prices in any meaningful way.
libertariangirl
October 10th, 2008
I’d like to see the math on how the McCain plan might be better. While it doesn’t make sense to me now (I blaim McCain and his people for not communicating this better), it the numbers do show it is better, I’d change my mind.
However, if there were a switchover, there should be opportunities to carry over your existing coverage. For example, like many, I have a “pre-existing condition” (a little bit of skin cancer) and was turned down for an additional life insurance policy, so it might be difficult to join a new plan.
I think whether the McCain plan is good or bad is in the details, and I find McCain, like GW Bush, to be a poor communicator when it comes to telling people at least a summary of the details so we can tell if this is or isn’t a good idea!
Rachy
October 11th, 2008
Yes, McCain is a terrible representative for conservatives because he doesn’t seem to understand the underlying economic issues himself, let alone be able to explain them to others.
I’ve heard many people competently explain the problems with our nation’s health care, and it’s not beyond the scope of the American people to learn it if someone was willing to teach them.
libertariangirl
October 11th, 2008
Excellent, thanks!
Tammera
January 8th, 2009