Doing the "tort reform" "interstate competition" debate on FB

[Narkos]

and need some help. The guy I'm debating is a wingnut with a JD, and he brings up some points I'm not sure about. I'm going to google monkey the hell out of this thing, but needed some clarification on a couple of points.

1. I concede that my healthcare decisions are currently limited by the insurance I choose to purchase. i want to be able to purchase insurance from a private company for two reasons; 1. If I don't like their actions, I can switch companies (I can't switch governments). 2. If the company violates the terms of the contract or if their decisons cause me undue harm, I can seek relief in the courts (if the government is in charge and screws up you are SOL because you can't sue the government).

Is this true? You can't sue the goverment? I find that to be hard to believe.

2. You mis-characterize the options in the "state lines" issue. There are plenty of industries that are allowed to compete across state lines, but that also have to meet individual state regulations - the two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the most quickly identifiable is all other types of insurance. GEICO sells across state lines, but has to offer plans in Georgia that mett our insurance regulations - they seem to be able to do so with pretty good efficiency. Only HEALTH insurance is FEDERALLY prohibited from selling across state lines

Can someone pick this apart for me...I always that any insurance company could operate in any state as long as they met state regulatory guidelines. Any insight?

3. Tort reform is brought up by conservatives because it should be a PART of any reasonable "reform" package, but the Dems won't allow it to be brought up. Why? Because they are in the pocket of the Plaintiff's Lawyers. As for the states that have passed Tort reform, you need to realize that that is just a political move that has no significant impact. The reason is that when the states pass tort reform, the Plaintiff's attorney's just take thier claims across the street to the Federal Courthouse and file them in Federal Court - where they are no limits on damages. So, when a state passes tort reform, the net impact on the potential liability of doctors in that state is next to nothing. The fact that the left, knowing this, would point to such states as examples of how tort reform doesn't work is extremely disingenuous.

Does this happen all the time? Do plaintiffs in states with caps on noneconomic damages always go straight to the federal courthouse?

4. As for me, I'm not a M.D. - I'm a J.D. I went through law school with an M.D. who was sick of spending so much every time he got sued (which was often due to his speciality - chronic pain), so he went through law school just so he could help his own defense and write his own "go away" letters. It was there that I first realized just how badly the government regulation of healthcare has screwed up the system. It was my Doctor friend's belief, as it is mine, that this was done purposefully so that government could step in with the "ultimate solution" - socialized medicine.

I had to laugh at this one. His buddy was probably an incompetent boob with no bedside manner...no wonder he was getting sued so much!

Any help would be appreciated!

[safeinOhio]

1. This might help on tort reform

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27321...

[safeinOhio]

2. Link bad

so here it is as posted on DU

Public Citizen Health Research Group
Washington DC

Just 5% of American doctors are responsible for half the malpractice in the US, according to a new analysis of federal data by the consumer group Public Citizen.

"The medical community alleges that medical liability litigation constitutes a giant 'lottery,' in which lawsuits bear no relationship to the care given by a physician," says Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook.

"In reality, a small percentage of doctors are responsible for the bulk of malpractice in the US, and only better oversight by state medical boards, not draconian limits on patients' legal rights, can reduce the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries they cause."

Public Citizen analyzed a public use file from the National Practitioner Data Bank, which includes information about malpractice judgments and settlements since Sept. 1990. The analysis found that 4.8% of doctors in the US (40,118) who have paid two or more malpractice awards to patients are responsible for 51.1% of all the reports made to the Data Bank.

Those doctors have paid out nearly $21 bln in damages, over 53% of the total damages paid. The analysis also found that 1.7% of doctors (14,293) are responsible for 27.5% of all malpractice awards; 14, 293 have made three or more payments, totaling $11 bln.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Narkos]

5. Thanks for the link. n/t

[sharesunited]

3. Here's what I think I know.

1. The doctrine of sovereign immunity holds that you can't sue the government except to the extent the government has defined how and for what reason. In the case of the federal government, this is codified by the Federal Tort Claims Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tort_claims_act

2. Most health insurance companies sell their products in multiple states, but those products must comply with the laws of each state. I was covered by Unicare in Illinois, but they have decided to discontinue operations here. They are still in business though! A list of states and who does business where is contained in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States

(In the absence of Medicare for All single payer universal coverage, I advocate preemption of state regulation of health insurance in favor of full federal regulation. I also advocate federal licensing of doctors and other medical professionals in any event. One size fits all from sea to shining sea.)


3. Very few medical malpractice claims qualify to be heard in federal court. You need diversity of citizenship or a question of law at issue over which the United States Code has jurisdiction. The main reason liberals are reluctant to accept tort reform is their concern that injuries will not be adequately compensated and that meritorious cases will not be taken on the basis of contingency fees. However, if standardization of risks and costs is a desirable goal and universal care is the ultimate objective, liberals will need to compromise on the profitability of this practice area of the bar by subjecting such claims to arbitration.

4. This individual does not see the good in government regulation of any sort. It is a view of the world for which adherents cannot be persuaded otherwise. The alternative medicine framework is apparently where your opponent wants us to go, where the consumer is left to their own investigation and gullibility to distinguish between scientist and shaman.

[Narkos]

4. Thank you. You clarified my thoughts and used them in my reply n/t