And I will be e-mailing my Congressman as soon as I refine this. Please realize that I am neither in the medical nor insurance professions, so if the holes are gaping, I apologize.
So, if part of the reason costs are so high is this litigation-happy society, what happens if we put in a few safeguards? If a malpractice case is thrown out, proven false, or so on, why not RAISE the suer's insurance premiums and lower the doctor's malpractice premiums? Eventually, the good doctors would be able to bill less, and we could identify the "bad" by their unwillingness to lower prices. As the prices come down, so do the insurance premiums, allowing more and more people (over time) to afford health insurance. And the losing suers pay all legal fees, of course.
This then trickles down to the lawyers, especially the "you don't win, you don't pay" ones, who will have to examine cases a LOT closer and decide if they are in fact viable. Frivolous cases, then, have less chance of making it to
trial, and doctors that know they did no wrong will be less likely to settle out-of-court.
This is not an overnight fix, and I could probably add a few things, but what do y'all think? It could be a slow building thing, or one case could establish precedent, making it seem ALMOST overnight.
Any takers?
Pfo -- your history would have to be taken into consideration, I think, when changing (or attempting -- who says D will take you?) companies.
John -- eventually, I think, it could get low enough to be affordable. Pre-existing conditions aren't a bar, I don't think, to all insurance companies -- it just makes it cost-prohibitive to the purchaser. Correct me if I'm wrong. PE conditions WOULD have to be addressed, though -- thanks.
Thanks sand -- kinda like AllState's advertised "good driver" policy, where 6 months without an accident lowers your rates? Interesting, and I think I like it.
Sway_27
I like it!
StereotypeMeBecauseYouKnow
Good idea, but the Lawyers run this country
booman17
Loser pays law suits would eliminate a lot of frivolous litigation clogging the court system now. It would also be a deterent in the cases you are talking about. It would be a good way to start to address insurance premiums and provider costs. Limiting damages in judgements would also help curtail costs to insurers.
John A
What do you do about people like me who have pre-existing conditions and can't get coverage at any price.
Pfo
That's a good proposal to eliminate one problem with health care. But as far as penalties for frivolous lawsuits is concerned, the insurance companies would have to implement that policy. The government couldn't force them to. Now, since your plan provides a way to increase premiums, they'll love that, however the people that insure the doctors would not, I think, willingly establish a policy that lowered mal-practice insurance for cases that failed.
What happens if I have insurance company A, I sue doctor B, my suit fails, and his insurance company, C lowers his premiums. Can I now change to health insurance provider D, and when I do, how are my rates affected? If D doesn't penalize me, then this system is exploitable, doctors could get people to raise frivolous suits to lower their rates.
Sand
how about making it so the doctor's rates get lowered when there are no lawsuits or lawsuits are proven to be frivolous so you are not penalizing doctors who don't get sued
ideogenetic
Wouldn't having a single-payer system where people are covered and part of the system from birth until death be less subject to malpractice claims and a more efficient way to save money?
One of the main reasons malpractice occurs is because so many Americans are uninsured and wait until they become catastrophically ill before seeking care. When they show up unconscious in the emergency room, the physicians have never seen them and know nothing about their medical history. That's when mistakes are made.
Your solution doesn't solve the problem of the uninsured.
don1joker
I like your plan. The idea is that malpractice insurance costs X much. Doctors cover that by charging Y for a procedure. The patients health care covers a percentage of the procedure. By reducing the malpractice insurance premiums does not guarantee a reduction in procedure costs and the doctor will only get richer. There has to be some oversight on what a doctor can charge for a certain procedure. In our capitalist system, that is hard to do because medical assistance is still a service and it is very dangerous to have the govt. oversee service costs unless they plan on subsidizing the difference; which would probably be cheaper than having the government actually provide the health insurance. Any government involvement in the whole healthcare system will probably result in a tax hike though so will there be any savings for anybody?
oohhbother
The flaw is the politically motivated designation of lawsuits as the cause of high medical costs, which is smoke and mirrors intended to put the Democrat favoring lawyers on the defensive.
The root of the high costs of medical care is price gouging by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. And the excessive and unneeded prescriptions that are written due to advertising directly to the consumers.
scootenat66
Huh? Would the insurance companies be restricted to paying the same for legal representation as the person bringing the suit? Sounds like a re-run of OJ to me.
Orignal From: Where are the flaws? I just fixed our health care system, without Socialism, and it seems too simple.?
Post a Comment