@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote: I believe that if the Federal government got out of [healthcare] entirely except to enact meaningful tort reform--not elminate redress for gross negligence, but protect doctors and medical providers from opportunistic suits or suits when something goes wrong that simply could not be reasonably foreseen or prevented. . . . .
Foxfyre's statement demonstrates 1) that she doesn't know the first thing about civil litigation, or 2) that she is intentionally spreading false information.
A civil plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a civil court unless the plaintiff states a claim upon which relief may be based. The four essential elements necessary to state a claim for negligence are:
1) Duty,
2) Breach of Duty,
3) Causation, and
4) Damages.
A duty arises out of the relationship between parties. A medical provider has a duty to a patient to provide competent care according to generally accepted standards of care. The element of duty does not require a provider to prevent injury, only to use reasonable care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable injury. There is no duty to protect others from UNFORESEEABLE harm.
When Foxfyre paints a picture of an abused medical provider who is being sued by a scum-sucking opportunist for an injury that the poor, poor, poor medical provider could not reasonably foresee or avoid as her argument for tort reform---she is painting a FALSE portrait. Under the circumstances Foxfyre describes, the plaintiff clearly fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the court would dismiss the action as a matter of law.
In other words, our existing law sufficiently weeds out frivolous lawsuits. With respect to medical malpractice lawsuits, most states have already enacted stringent "gatekeeping" procedures that require plaintiffs to jump through additional hoops before the case may proceed. Further government protection of a special class of tortfeasors at the expense of injured plaintiffs will not bring down the costs of healthcare. Despite two solid decades of tort reform that has given special protection to medical providers and their insurers from liability for the harm they cause, the costs of healthcare have increased four times more than the average citizen's earnings.
Foxfyre's claim that tort reform is the pancea for rising healthcare costs is simply false. The paramount agenda of special interest groups (e.g., insurance industry) is to thrust the tort reform stake into the heart of America for the purpose of shielding tortfeasors from being held monetarily liable for the harm they inflict upon their victims. They don't give a damn about the mangled bodies and lives that they leave strewn in the pits of despair so long as they can fill their vaults with gold. Foxfyre and other conservative pit bulls wag their tails, guard the vault doors of their corporate keepers, and sink their demonizing teeth into those who call for social justice.
Quote:It simply relieves if the Federal government got out of it entirely except to enact legislation relaxing unnecessary regulation and enabling more creative and economical ways for insurance companies to insure people. . . .
We've already employed your plan to relax "unnecessary" regulation to the detriment of this country. Deregulation of the insurance industry will simply allow the insurance industry to screw the people the same way deregulation of the banking industry allowed the banking industry to screw the people. In the absence of regulation (which is indeed NECESSARY), industry moguls simply walk away from the disasters they create with their vaults filled with gold while everyone else suffers from the consequences.
Quote:if the Federal government got out of it entirely except maybe administer and offer a catastrophic illness insurance pool similar to Federal flood insurance which would relieve the insurance companies of much risk and allow them to lower premiums significantly. . . . .
Foxfyre wants the insurance industry to skim the cream off the top, reap enormous profits, and leave the rest as a burden on government. The guy with the pre-existing medical condition--let the government insure him. The family wage-earner who suffers a catastrophic illness--let the insurance company drop his coverage and make him rely on welfare and state medicaid.
Foxfyre's plan gets better and better for the insurance industry.
Quote:if the Federal government would allow bigger deductibles before the insurance policies kicked in--we all manage to find the money to have our automobiles serviced and repaired and pay our cell phone fees, etc. Most can surely pay out of pocket the doctors' call for their kid's earache or their annual flu shot and save the insurance for the big expensive stuff they can't afford out of pocket. . . . .
Foxfyre is disingenuous when she equates deductibles and co-pay requirements with the cost of a doctor visit or a monthly phone bill. It is precisely the INABILITY of families to meet the bigger and bigger deductibles and co-pay requirements that forces them into bankruptcy.
Foxfyre wrote:If the Federal government would do just that and then get out of the way and allow the free market to work, we would see our healthcare costs come down significantly and stabilize without losing any of the qualities about it that we like.
Joe Wilson: YOU LIE.
Foxfyre's plan funnels billions of dollars every month into the vaults of insurance companies; relieves insurance companies of liability for paying out any of those dollars in claims; and shifts responsibility for those who are injured or sick onto the government.
