Seems straightforward right. Except, what the hell does the average person polled know about either lawsuits or health care costs? Not to mention you might be suggesting an answer by saying 'frivolous lawsuits'. I'm not taking a position on this particular issue (it's complicated...), it's just that Pols like to trot out poll results in support of saying 'the American people want X' and I happened to see this ad today... The American people will (and have) support a ham sandwich if you frame the issue right. Enough with the polling, more with the governing already.
6 comments:
The American Bar Association will no doubt put out a poll asking, "Should incompetent doctors be allowed to harm your family without jail time and/or punitive financial judgements, YES or NO?"
That'd be about as fair as the AMA sponsored poll.
But less governing, more getting out of the way and letting markets run free.
When I consider the inquisitiveness (or lack thereof) of the average American, I become less sanguine about market forces working. Health care and insurance seem (and probably Law, I'll admit, though not complain about) designed to hide the ball from an end-user.
I prefer market-like substances to margarine, though.
I agree with both comments, so can only add, "I'd rather take up smoking than eat margarine." That sh*t is evil.
I'd love to see a health care plan catered to nonsmokers and would not approve coverage for chiropractics. Bet it would be dirt cheap.
Seth, "sanguine" is my word and you know it. Get your own. I also 'own' irregardless, exigent, and nectareous. JKNR.
That poll just goes to show that (shudder) JMac is right. We need a coalition of philosopher kings running the joint.
Honestly, the best form of tort reform would be internal to the legal system. The tools are there, they just aren't used. For whatever reasons, judges are very reticent to sanction attorneys for making frivolous claims. Even an incremental increase drastically changes the incentives for the less scrupulous plaintiff's attorneys.
Will,
never let Jordan hear you say that outloud.
Bill wrote: I'd love to see a health care plan catered to nonsmokers and would not approve coverage for chiropractics. Bet it would be dirt cheap.
Wrong. It would cost more. Non-smokers cost less long-term. Cancer treatment is expensive, but the extra years that non-smokers live ultimately cost more.
However, it would be great for corporations that self-insured, because they wouldn't ultimately be responsible for post-retiree healthcare costs. (Corps are dumping PRM as fast as they can. Too expensive.) So that WOULD work for the corps. whoever got stuck with footing the bill for the post-retiree crowd would still get screwed.
Post a Comment