mikeandgerry wrote: my young daughter likes them too.
Really? You have a young daughter? How would you feel if a doctor did something that disfigured her? Think you shouldn't have the right to sue simply because *censored* happens?
What if some clerk at the insurance company you pay good money to every month denies a medical treatment that a doctor says will save her life? You just going to roll over and tell her that she is going to die next month because the insurance company would prefer that rather than keeping up their end of the contract and you don't have the hundreds of thousands dollars the treatment would cost?
LOL -- Is that the knee jerk bleeding heart liberal in you that has spoken and threatened disaster trying to invoke fear in the hearts of Repubicans?
It 's lame. It always has been.
If you would like to back that up a bit and re-start with me on a sane and level footing, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I'll have to dismiss you as just another excitable liberal political hack. I don't have time for two.
Do you care to address the issues with truth or do you wish to incite emotion and change the subject based on unlikely scenarios like Jon? It's your choice. For the reasoning woman in you
The problem of rising costs beyond inflation in our health care system is nothing new. It has two drivers. One is advancing technology and its high incremental cost. The other is advocacy without cost recognition.
The problem of technology is inherent to discovery and breakthrough.
The problem of advocacy and cost recognition is a political tool and an emotional one. It pertains to health care delivery and legal advocacy after health care. Jon not-so-eloquently stated that putting a value on life or limb is a hard thing to do yet he and the courts do it everyday and it belies a method. Without a method, there is no equal justice under the law. As for delivery, the cost you cited may be out of reach for many but the existence of a technology that may save a life that is out of reach for someone presents a moral dilemma for you. As liberals like to say so often: "Don't push your morality on me!"
There are other ways to solve the problem besides the knee-jerk emotional ones that only cause more trouble down the road. Society has created insurance. Doctors have created life saving technology. Government has created a legal system to regulate both. The problem is that there is always someone who feels they deserve more and better. There is always someone who feels that the rich are unfairly so. There is always some group that feels the disadvantaged need more and better care. There is always some group that will manipulate the system. As a result, there is a cost-push phenomenon that has been going on for over a century in health care.
Though the following scholarly article published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology doesn't state it explicitly, it does imply lawyers have been as much of the rising health care cost problem as "greedy" doctors and insurance companies.
Jon won't appreciate this but perhaps you will:
Essentially that article states that medical malpractice has never been "in crisis" because the insurance system has adapted. Malpractice insurance premiums have risen along with increasing physician liability, malpractice claims and awards with long term increases in costs well in excess of inflation.
From the article:
Rising malpractice insurance premiums are caused by a number of factors. However, increased physician liability under medical malpractice law is the primary explanation for the higher premiums. Physician liability has increased since the 1960s because patients began filing more malpractice cases, winning a higher percentage of the cases filed, and receiving ever larger awards from juries for successful malpractice cases.