To those who think that it’s just right-wing nuttery to raise concerns about ObamaCare, I submit to you this:
Central to Max Baucus’s plan—assuming the public option stays dead—is an insurance “exchange,” through which individua…

Requiring a large minimum deductible, (say three months income,) will encourage shopping around for the best deals, and limit the number of people clogging emergency rooms with hangnails and such.

–That would be possible if hospitals and doctors had a price sheet that lists prices for various procedures on an all-in basis. I haven’t seen that happen much in the real world.

Requiring a large minimum deductible, (say three months income,) will encourage shopping around for the best deals, and limit the number of people clogging emergency rooms with hangnails and such.

Using an income based system rather than a fixed dollar amount, both adjusts for economic means, and prevents the need of the law being revisited to adjust for inflation, reducing the ability of the legislators to quietly make fundamental changes to the law.

What is the difference between a lawyer and a shark?
The shark kills you first

What is the difference between hitting a deer with your car, and hitting a lawyer with your car?
With a deer, you leave skid marks

What is the difference between a lawyer and a hyena?
The hyena has table manners

The one that makes me laugh

A truck driver had a grudge against lawyers. If he saw one while out on the road, the trucker would run the lawyer over if he could get away with it. One day on the highway the trucker picked up a priest who whose car had broken down. As they headed to town the trucker spotted a lawyer crossing the road and he hit the gas. Remembering the priest in the car, he served hard to avoid the lawyer and had to go off the road with a thump.

Turning to the priest, the trucker said, “sorry Father, I almost hit the lawyer”

“no problem” said the priest, “I got him with the door”.

–Right2bright, I don’t see anything in HR 3400 that requires states to mandate that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions in private insurance policies. There is a provision that gives states $300 million to establish coverage for high risk individuals, and another provision which denies tax credits if they don’t, but there is no provision that requires states establish those pools, just like there is no provision that limits the amounts those individuals can be charged for premiums.

Economic damages also include health care expenses. If someone is severely crippled and needs medical care 24 by 7, that cost can easily run $500,000 or more each year. It’s not simply lost wages that go into the equation for economic losses (as opposed to non-economic losses for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc.).

75% of the states have already adopted a portion of tort reform, BTW, which suggests that much of the benefit to these laws has already been implemented.

Most of them are little mor than merchants of misery who try to scam insurance companies and the business community.

It is a racket (I’m thinking RICO) which needs to be stopped.

The tort bar contributes very little to our country and to our citizenry.

I am in favor strict tort reform.

Conservatives and Republicans who wish to be re-elected need to make this an issue in 2010 and 2012.

Tort law run amock is the reason John Edwards (or at least his wife) lives in a 27,000 square foot house.

This isn’t all – and it’s a bit more complex than it may sound at first, but verdict caps are wrong – it is simply more government regulation that is bound to go wrong, and impose injustices along the way. Verdict caps basically mean that you (as a juror) are not to be trusted when it comes to money. Reform of closing argument rules would correct the problem without resorting to legislating a cure for juror-stupidity.

ManUFan on October 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Sure we can put a cap on punitive awards. Why can’t the formula be simply 3x damages as suggested in ?

To whit, Say a 25 year old, whose annual income at time of injury is $60K is crippled for life and unable to work.

1) If a one time payment is made based on a reasonable lifetime expectancy that he had 40 years of work ahead of him, and @ 4% COLA. The award would be $180K/yr + 4% annual compounding for 40 years is approx $7.9 million. Alternatively, the damages could be for the total life expectancy, instead of just till retirement age. In either case, this is a far cry from 100s of million dollar awards.
2) An alternative would be to put funds in escrow and payout the award annually – however, that could cause the unscrupulous to find a way to terminate the victim prematurely.

On the other hand, if the victim is killed, there could be several approaches:
1) no dependents – $180K to next of kin.
2) Spouse only – $180K compounded for 7 years.
3) Spouse and children – $180K compounded until the last child is of age or 7 years, which ever is greater.

In the case that the victim is the spouse or child, use the highest wage earner’s rates.

For partial disabilities, i.e. 20% loss of functionality, then pro-rate accordingly for the duration of expected life expectancy.

As for damages that are temporary, such as lost time, then it’s 3x the total damages incurred.

That’s a change I can believe in