I think malpractice reform is a crucial component of serious health care reform, because the other goals I mentioned are difficult to achieve as long as predatory lawyers are driving up the price of medical insurance – and, come to think of it, reducing the supply of doctors, since some specialists have moved out of their area, or abandoned their practices entirely, as a result of their activities.
Doctor Zero on July 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM

There is a government report on health care that points to malpractice insurance as being the biggest reason for skyrocketing health care costs. California is the only state with caps on malpractice awards (for pain and suffering only) and, believe it or not, health insurance costs are, on average, lower than most other states. That’s why having lawyers make up the majority of Congress is so detrimental. We will probably never see tort reform because of that.

To All Hotair members: Would any of you let me and others know what response you are getting when you call, fax or email the House members when you contact them?
bluefox on July 15, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I haven’t tried the House, but I can tell you that the Senate staffers are the most arrogant bunch and their flippant responses left me feeling that my message would not get passed on.

Sign the petition at freeourhealthcarenow.com. I hear it’s approaching a half-million signatures and will be presented to all members of Congress. Maybe that will finally get their attention.

Doctor Zero on July 15, 2009 at 7:15 PM
—–
I agree, Doctor.

Then, I’ve been saying the political deck that makes up the parties is due for a re-shuffling…

Mew

Regarding trial lawyers, they’re not the whole of the Democrat party – just a particularly well-heeled and well-versed part of the chorus.

They can be split off from the Democrat party; they’re not terribly popular (scoring right around used-car dealers in most trust surveys, iirc) and have to spend some of their time working against other Dem chorus members. (unions, teachers, african-americans…)

What’s needed is the right wedge, and a big-ass sledge.

Mew

acat on July 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Their influence is a lot more subtle than most of the other interest groups in the Democratic coalition. They have a fairly acute sense of their unpopularity, and they’re smart enough to communicate with whispers and large campaign contributions. I don’t think you could find any evidence of the Democrats doing anything against their interests, at least going back to the Reagan years.

In the specific matter of health care and malpractice insurance reform, I think the “wedge” can be nothing other than a significant thinning of the Democrat herd, at least for now. If anyone sees evidence of specific Democrats suggesting they might be prepared to support reforms that would cost the trial lawyers countless millions of dollars, I’d be very interested to hear it. I suspect such approachable Democrats will remain silent, or hopelessly marginalized, until the overall voting strength of the party has been so dramatically reduced that they’re forced to make hard choices between their two wealthiest and most focused interest groups – trial lawyers and unions – and the rest of their electorate.

Regarding trial lawyers, they’re not the whole of the Democrat party – just a particularly well-heeled and well-versed part of the chorus.

They can be split off from the Democrat party; they’re not terribly popular (scoring right around used-car dealers in most trust surveys, iirc) and have to spend some of their time working against other Dem chorus members. (unions, teachers, african-americans…)

What’s needed is the right wedge, and a big-ass sledge.

Mew

Doc, may I suggest that Idea #1 read, “Get rid of the trial lawyers lobby?”

I believe some Democrats are persuadable on this issue – not the politicians, but their constituents. Plus, Democrats are people too and I think if our solution is persuasive enough we can win some of them over.

TheUnrepentantGeek on July 15, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I see your point, and thought about writing it exactly that way. The problem is, this is a more directly partisan issue than almost any other, except perhaps school choice. The trial lawyers’ lobby is the Democrat Party. I can’t see any practical method at present for separating them. The number of national Democratic politicians who would be willing to go against the trial lawyers’ lobby is vanishingly small, and any Democrat who did sign on to a serious malpractice reform bill would most likely be signing his political death warrant.

I chose candor over tact in this instance, because I think it’s somewhat disingenuous to name the trial lawyers as the major obstacle to reform, without also making it clear to average voters that they have no practical alternative to reducing their influence, other than voting against the party they control. It does little good to persuade someone that tort reform is necessary, if they’re going to vote for the representatives of a party that will fight it to the death. That could change in the future, especially if the Democrats suffer a bloodbath in the next election, and feel an unstoppable wave of public support behind tort reform.

I hate putting anything in nakedly partisan terms, because there are individual Democrats who support some of the ideas I believe in – although the increasing polarization of the parties has reduced their number. I also find the Republicans, as a group, to only vaguely resemble what I think the leadership of the nation should be like… and that’s on a good day. On this particular issue, the situation does seem starkly partisan to me.

I think malpractice reform is a crucial component of serious health care reform, because the other goals I mentioned are difficult to achieve as long as predatory lawyers are driving up the price of medical insurance – and, come to think of it, reducing the supply of doctors, since some specialists have moved out of their area, or abandoned their practices entirely, as a result of their activities.

Of course, the “get rid of Democrats” point would have to be finessed by Republican politicians, as opposed to voters contemplating the issue. It would be highly amusing to hear a GOP politician explain to his distinguished colleagues across the aisle that holding up their end of his health care reform plan will be easy, because all they have to do is resign… but it probably wouldn’t earn a lot of bipartisan support.

Would any of you let me and others know what response you are getting when you call, fax or email the House members when you contact them?

bluefox on July 15, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I believe some Democrats are persuadable on this issue – not the politicians, but their constituents. Plus, Democrats are people too and I think if our solution is persuasive enough we can win some of them over.

http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/House-Democrats-Health-Plan.pdf

1. Greater availability: People want easy and convenient access to medical resources, ranging from primary care to emergency services.

If anyone in congress would notice the freemarket is answering this problem. Freestanding ER’s are filling the need in many markets for emergency care in situations where the patient can be driven in by a family member/friend/themselves. These facilities operate either under agreements with insurance plans or under state statues that dictate ER care will be billed/paid at PPO rates.

In non-emergencies there are various “doc in the box” walk-in clinics everywhere – even in grocery stores and pharmacies – a lot of those are open on weekends.

Another point (or two) I would add is a provision to allow individuals to buy insurance over state lines and to allow small businesses to pool together their resources in association health plans. I think the first, would obviously create the competition in the system between statess and the second extents group care to small businesses and non-profits.

I agree with your 4 points to reform healthcare. If I had a tax break, free market competition, the ability to purchase catastrophic care and a maintenance plan (w/drug coverage), establish a savings account for out of pocket costs. My health care would be awesome.

I would love to see medical groups have 7 day / 12 hour office hours. (my kids pediatrician does this) This would significantly reduce a lot of ER visits. A large medical group could schedule staff for these hours which would make the staff’s working lives way more flexible. A win/win that would also help reduce health care costs.

I also like the idea of paying a doctor a monthly fee to keep me well. I.E. for 60-70 per month I can see the doctor as often as I like (or not) office visits would include drugs if needed.

Thanks for the great article.