Romney: Cap Medical Malpractice Lawsuits [Romney vs Reagan]

Associated Press ^ | November 21, 2007 | By DAVID PITT

[Jim Robinson]

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Tuesday for capping medical malpractice lawsuits, a point that drew loud applause at an Iowa medical school.

Romney focused on health care in an address to some 500 students and faculty at Des Moines University. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney pushed through a plan aimed at reducing the ranks of uninsured in Massachusetts, a group once estimated at up to 500,000. Massachusetts residents had until last Thursday to sign up for health insurance or face possible penalties — a milestone Romney's rivals gleefully noted.

"I believe we have to enact federal caps on non-economic and punitive damages related to malpractice," Romney said. "These lottery-sized awards and frivolous lawsuits may enrich the trial lawyers but they put a heavy burden on doctors, hospitals and, of course through defensive medicine, they put a burden on the entire health care system."

Romney also would encourage states to create health courts with judges experienced in handling medical liability cases and would ask states to adopt sanctions against lawyers and others who repeatedly file frivolous malpractice claims.

"We've got to reign in the incessant cost of medical liability," he said.

~snip~

At one point, Romney joked about the "teeth" of failing to sign up in Massachusetts.

"If you don't have insurance you get charged $100 on your tax bill," he said. "So people are going to start buying insurance."

~snip~

Later, Romney told reporters the carrot-and-stick approach is necessary to get people to take responsibility for their own health care costs

[curiosity]

So says Fidel.

Wow. What a brilliant argument.

[Jim Robinson]

Not quite up to par with your brilliance, eh. Why are liberals always so smug, arrogant and condescending?

[curiosity]

We also need to eliminate the tax deductibility of employer-sponsored health plan premiums.

Like the Mortgage interest deduction, this aspect of the tax code severely distorts incentives and is a big reason why our healthcare markets are so screwed up right now.

Because employer-based plan premiums can all be paid with pre-tax dollars, but copayments and out-of-pocket paymets to meet the deductible can't, employers have an incentive to offer health plans that have very low out-of-pocket patient expenitures. As a result, health insurance ceases to be insurance, but rather a subsidy, which in turn drives up the price.

Because so many people on plans in which they pay practically nothing out of pocket, they have an incentive to overconsume healthcare, as well as little to no incentive to shop around for the best deals on health services, further driving up prices and health plan costs.

Eliminate the deductibility of health plan premiums (I hesitate to call it insurance), and people will flock to high deductible plans that are true insurance. It would also eliminate the artificial link between employement and healthcare, which in turn would greatly increase labor market flexibility.

[curiosity]

At least I make an attempt to back up my argument with facts and logic. All you seem to do is call the people you disagree with names.

[Jim Robinson]

Hey, pal. We don’t want your socialized health insurance schemes. There’s no amount of “facts and logic” that can make it pass constitutional muster. Save it for your socialist chums.

[Tribune7]

President Reagan:

Earlier this year I endorsed the report of my Domestic Policy Council's Tort Policy Working Group. This report contains a number of recommendations, recommendations that include fixed-dollar limitations for certain kinds of awards and the establishment of assurances that liability judgments go to those actually wronged or injured and not to the lining of their attorney's pockets. Now, one of the report's most important recommendations urged our administration to submit reform legislation to the Congress.

This legislation, carefully drafted, has now been introduced in the Congress by Senator Robert Kasten and Congressman Hamilton Fish. It restores the fault standard, which requires that actual fault or wrongdoing must be established in most cases before liability can be assessed. It limits pain-and-suffering and punitive damage awards, awards the amount contingency-fee lawyers could earn, and restricts the joint and several liability doctrine that can force a single defendant to pay all damages even if he is only partly to blame.

[Tribune7]

We also need to eliminate the tax deductibility of employer-sponsored health plan premiums.

If you mean we should tax employer provided health benefits like any other income, I agree with you.

[Jim Robinson]

You’re missing the point. I was comparing Romney’s “forcing” a socialist health care plan on us and his saying we are incapable of fending for ourselves, even need the carrot and stick treatment. And I contrasted that to Reagan’s government is not the solution, self-rule vs rule by government elite statement.

[sono]

Health Courts would be far preferable to the present dog and pony Queen For A Day show medmal cases have become. Establishing a separate fund for the future care of neurologically-impaired newborns would be another step toward science and away from histrionics.

[curiosity]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

[curiosity]

We don’t want your socialized health insurance schemes.

Neither I nor Romney are proposing socialized medicine. The plan in MA is not socialized medicine.

How can a plan that relies on PRIVATE insurance be called "socialist?" That's the very opposite of socialism, which is government ownership over the means of production. The commonwealth of MA owns neither the provision of health services, nor does it own the health insurance companies that offer policies in commonwealth.

There’s no amount of “facts and logic” that can make it pass constitutional muster

So what exactly is unconstitutional about what Romney is proposing at the Federal level?

You seem to be missing the fact that he's not pushing a federal mandate for individuals to buy coverage, which I agree would be unconstitutional if done at the federal level.

Maybe you seem to think his MA plan was unconstituional. If so, please explain why. What's unconstitutional about a STATE government penalizing irresponsible people who fail to buy health insurance?

[Tribune7]

I was comparing Romney’s “forcing” a socialist health care plan on us and his saying we are incapable of fending for ourselves, even need the carrot and stick treatment.

I did miss that point. The Gipper certainly supported tort reform.

And you are right about Romeny's health care plan. It is socialist and makes me want to throw up. Reagan would never consider it for a moment. Actually, he would consider it and actively fight against it.

What's almost as bile-inducing is trying to figure out who to vote for in the primary.

[curiosity]

And you are right about Romeny's health care plan. It is socialist and makes me want to throw up.

Please explain why you think his plan is socialist.

[Tribune7]

Well, I agree with you on that, but mandating the purchase of something will artifically inflate the cost of the service sought. Medical service providers will raise their price to whatever they can get which will be higher with universal insurance coverage.

And of course with a requirement to buy their product, insurance providers will not create any incentive to improve service. And there will still be uninsured -- just as there are uninsured drivers in Pa. -- for whom society will still be obliged to care.

[Jim Robinson]

It’s socialized health insurance. It’s forced on the people and it’s subsidized and controlled by the government. That’s socialism. It’s unconstitutional. And it’s the first step to socialized medicine. Don’t think that the liberals won’t take big advantage of this and expand it all the way once they get their Mitts on it.. They love Romney for pushing this garbage. He’s their newest bestest friend. A useful idiot. No thank you all accounts.

[Theo]

Tort reform is the solution. I don’t understand why we’re ridiculing Romney for seemingly wanting to cap lawsuits.

Whatever. FReepers don’t read or think any more, like they used to last decade.

[Tribune7]

Please explain why you think his plan is socialist.

To further elaborate on post 114, the state is forcing the individual to make market decisions.

[Hunterite]

Yes. Total Tort Reform, not just medical sub-tort reform.

[Hunterite]

“Targeted Tort Reform.”

“Targeted tax cuts.”

Targeting RINO

[FastCoyote]

FC:You guys NEVER count the hidden costs of mandated insurance (the free ride to illegals,

CURIOUSITY:Illegals get a free ride for many reasons, but I don’t see what mandated insurance has to do with it. Care to elaborate?

You are right, illegals don’t directly effect the mandatory liability insurance market, but they certainly inordinately affect the self insurance market. What you do bring up is the other part of the problem, if collection of liability for accidents were pursued more vigorously (through impoundment of cars of illegals), there would be less need on mandatory insurance.

FC:the scams,

CURIOUSITY: Sure there are scams out there, and they always will be, but again, I don’t see how mandated insurance is causing them.

Mandated insurance means ever car is a target for for a false insurance claim. The more money in the system, the more money paid out.

FC:the inducement to drive carelessly).

CURIOUSITY: “Yes, this is what economists call the “moral hazard” problem. If you’re insured, you have an incentive to be less careful.

However, insurance companies have devised ways around this problem. They’re called deductibles, safe driver discounts, enhanced penalties for getting tickets, etc.”
What you can’t argue away is that I’ve put $30,000 into the crapper as a driver without accidents. Those incentives aren’t worth $30,000.

CURIOUSITY: The same thing can be done with health insurance. In MA, thanks to Romney, you can now choose to buy a policy with a high deductible. In addition, some health insurance companies give discounts to people who exercise regularly, don’t smoke, keep their weight down, keep their cholesterol levels down, etc.

What part of ROMNEYCARE IS ALREADY WAY OVERBUDGET don’t you understand? But I’m all for Federalism, watching Massachusetts and California tank under these kinds of plans. Just don’t put Romney anywhere near a national healthcare plan or you will have riots.