Health Care

Paul A. Keating PKEATING at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU
Sat Sep 9 15:56:25 MDT 1995


|Date: Thu, 07 Sep 1995 23:54:26 -0400
|From: Willaim Thurber - PhD Student <thurber at FMGMT.MGMT.UTORONTO.CA>
|Subject: Re: Health Care
|
|>         The USA is nearly alone in the world when it comes to one facet of
|>         life in the courts.
|
|Yeah, you are right but how do we effect societal change, I'm still out of
|ideas.  Of course Plaintiffs are not the only ones to take advantage of
|the process but pointing out that the system is even more broken down is
|not helping to find a solution.
 
        Don't think you are being fair in spanking me for identifying a problem
        and "not helping to find a solution" between the problem ID paragraph
        and the proposed solution paragraph.
 
|>         Now, if the USA joined the rest of the civilized world and incorporated
|>         a statute that required plaintiffs to pay the defendent's legal fees,
|>         court costs, and other expenses incurred when the court finds for the
|>         defense, more innocent defendents would opt for court and not the
|>         settlement option.  As the loosing plaintiff would pay costs, and
|>         not the malpractice insurance, the doc's premiums wouldn't go up,
|>         and he wouldn't have any expense to pass to consumers.
|
|That's a good start, wonder how our resident shark feels about it?  Steve...
 
        No, twenty lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean is
        "a good start"--old lawyer joke punchline. ;-D
 
        Other suggestions focus on changes to state laws.  Capping punitive
        damage awards helps out, too.  A jury awarding millions in punitive
        damages to a clutsy driver/McDonald's coffee drinker over and beyond
        the damages awarded to pay medical bills is but one example where a
        punitive damages cap would thwart the "screw the well-to-do" attitude
        fired up in juries by lawyers on 30-40% contingency fees.
 
        Another would be to drop the jointly and severally aspect of suits
        that are out to tap "deep pockets," and adjudge liability for paying
        damages commensurate with degree of fault.  If a party is "1% at
        fault," then that party should be responsible for "1% of the damages."
 
        You shouldn't be out of ideas on this--they should flow easily.  Just
        place yourself in the shoes of a guilt-free professional who is tied-
        in jointly and severally to a lawsuit for millions of dollars, with
        the plaintiff and his/her counsel salivating while eyeing your coverage
        via malpractice insurance policy.  When personally faced with a shark
        attack, ideas for "saving your skin" are the only ones you have!
 
|>         Still, the amount of tax that I would end up paying is still going to
|>         be much more than you do.  What I pay now only supports those eligible
|>         for benefits.  Add the rest of the USA's population, and like it or
|>         not, taxes needed to pay even for minimal health care will be excessive.
|
|But you now pay tax plus premiums, Did the GAO address the total cost
|to the consumer or just pass judgement on the current tax burden.
 
        ????? My personal income tax does not support health care in any
        shape or form.  The Medicaid portion of my SSIC taxes pay for that
        program serving others (the other portion being Social Security).
 
        Not understanding your question, I'd direct you to "gopher" the
        GAO report from the 'net and read it.  Maybe it will answer that
        question.
 
|>         Hospitals are already full of those who suffer maladies caused
|>         by their own excesses.  Luckily, many are paying for their care.
|>         To them, those alternatives were comfortable and/or fashionable.
|>         Fashionable smokers with lung cancer, comfortable couch potatoes
|>         suffering from heart ailments and other cancers, &c.--all there,
|>         being treated now.
|
|Well we have come full circle since my late father-in-law was a smoker
|who died of lung cancer
 
        Now imagine those currently paying for their care being on the
        government dole.  You can appreciate the cost incurred within
        your in-law's family.  Consider the cost of going nationwide.
 
        Once health care is an entitlement, who's to say that "taking
        a free ride" without responsible regard for one's lifestyle and
        excesses wouldn't become the norm?  It could easily become the
        norm, just as deficit spending has--you pass the responsibility
        for your acts onto future generations of taxpayers.  Hey, it's
        a free ride!
 
|>         No anger at all.  I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.
|
|Does this mean I can't send my kids over to sing with you for a few days?
 
        Have kids of my own, and they take up my spare time.  No need to
        chant or sing while there is a beautiful world outside to enjoy
        and explore!  I'm afraid that if you sent your kids here, they'd
        find no one at home, and would return with long faces after a
        disheartening adventure!  (I don't know, can you "chant" the blues?)
        ;-D.



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list