Posted on 11/21/2007 1:29:05 PM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
This is why the road to health reform lies in tax reform. So long as the federal tax system subsidizes health insurance, it’s more rational to prefer subsidized insurance over paying for the same care out-of-pocket (even though the former creates a tragedy-of-the-commons outcome that everyone is worse off from the consequent moral hazard, excess pricing and excessive technology growth that ensue, from the standpoint of the individual consumer, it is still rational to prefer subsidized insurance coverage).
HSAs are finally creating a more level playing field between insurance and out-of-pocket costs and every year, more and more consumers “get it” by shifting into these. So either with sufficient critical mass of consumers in such plans and/or eradication of the tax exclusion, I can imagine a world in which the mandate is defined in a way that HSA plans qualify and even rats will be forestalled by the prospect of tens of millions of enraged Americans from trying to make the mandated coverage more comprehensive.
The little understood flip side is that the road to tax reform lies in health reform: a $200 billion annual tax expenditure for employer health coverage is ludicrous and indefensible, but if you get rid of it, the number of uninsured would climb by 50%. So this vastly complicates efforts to move towards a substantially more efficient consumption-based or flat-tax system. But the second strike against such efforts is that rats generally oppose them on grounds they are inequitable/regressive. I’m willing to kill 2 birds with one stone by offering “universal coverage” (operationally defined as an individual mandate for catastrophic coverage) in exchange for their agreement to move to a consumption-based or flat tax system. The “rich” will “lose” by elimination of the tax exclusion, but will gain by the shift away from income taxes; the “poor” will do the opposite. Net equity will be largely unchanged, but we’ll have gained vastly more efficient tax and health care systems that together arguably would add $1 trillion to the economy every year [a combination of $500 billion in efficiency losses that CBO attributes to the income tax system and a substantial reduction in the 20-50% of our 2.4 trillion health care system that experts say is now wasted].
Mitt Romney is being advised by Allen Hubbard on health care. Leaving aside any drawbacks he might have on other issues, I believe that of all the candidates in the field, he’s the only one with the potential vision and political skills to cobble together such a grand compromise. If he did nothing else but tax reform and health reform during 4 years in office, he’d still go down in history as one of the greatest presidents.
This thought about property rights has been on my mind all night long.
What exactly is my right to own property?
I know that property rights have suffered serious blows over the last decades as the tax and spend liberals have convinced a vast majority of Americans not to their money as being money as being their property. If it were gold in their pocket, though, I’m sure they see it as their property.
The Kelo decision by the Supreme Court called into question the right of any individual truly to own land. Scotus says that the public realm can take that property from any individual anytime they want for just about any reason. If you think you own that lot at the intersection of 2 highways, think again. A developer, anyone who can make more money on it than you currently are, can claim it through the town council and have it upheld by the courts.
They can take my money, they can take my land, and I’m sure we can find laws that say they can take my house, my car, and the clothes off my back.
Here’s the rule: You really don’t own anything. It all belongs to the state.
That’s what troubles me about John Q Welfare walking into the emergency room and getting health care for which he’ll pay absolutely nothing.
To cover this man’s indigence, the state will come to my house, take my money, and pay this man’s debt. They call it the man’s “right” to emergency health care. What it actually is is testimony that the state can take my property (my money) at whim.
If you don’t own your money, your land, your house, your papers, your car, your dog, your gun, your anything, then who owns it?
The state.
It is far more socialistic for the state to take my property to pay for John Q. Welfare, than it is for the state to require John Q. Welfare to pay his own way.
That is simple logic and it is irrefutable.
Happy Thanksgiving Day to All. Thanks be to God for all His gifts to include our most basic rights: Life, Liberty, and the Right to Own Property.
I’m a Hunter fan, but Romney’s right on this one (but not much else).
IMO, a cap on damages other than actual damages (i.e., a cap on so-called “pain and suffering”) IS a limit on government power. Governments (through courts and juries, which act both as an agent of government and another check on government power) enter and enforce these awards by force. Such power can destroy, whether wielded by a judge or a runaway jury. Such powers SHOULD be limited.
The ability to levy limitless awards is limitless government power.
Duncan Hunter on Health Care
Voted YES on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
Ron Paul on Health Care
Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
I’m still voting for Hunter, even though he agrees with Mitt on this issue (they are both right).
Tancredo agrees with Mitt on this one.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Tom_Tancredo_Health_Care.htm
Voted YES on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages.
Vote to pass a bill that would limit the awards that plaintiffs and their attorneys could be given in medical malpractice cases. The bill would limit non-economic damages, including physical and emotional pain to $250,000. The bill would also limit punitive damages to $250,000 or double economic damages, whichever amount is greater. Punitive damages would be banned against makers and distributors of medical products if the Food and Drug Administration approved those products. The bill would call for all states to set damage caps but would not block existing state statutory limits. The bill would cap attorneys’ contingency fees to 40% of the first $50,000 in damages; 33.3% of the next $50,000; 25% of the next $500,000; and 15% of any amount in excess of $600,000.
Reference: Medical Malpractice Liability Limitation bill; Bill HR 4280 ; vote number 2004-166 on May 12, 2004
I know that property rights have suffered serious blows over the last decades as the tax and spend liberals have convinced a vast majority of Americans not to their money as being money VIEW THEIR MONEY as being their property. If it were gold in their pocket, though, I’m sure they see it as their property.
Sorry for the error.
Remarks to Members of the American Tort Reform Association
Ronald Reagan
May 30, 1986
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/53086b.htm
“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. To be sure, much tort law would remain to be reformed by the 50 States, not the Federal Government. And in our Federal system of government this is only right. Many of the Tort Policy Working Group recommendations, for example, would have to be implemented at the State level to be fully effective. This administration’s bill represents a much-needed overhaul of Federal laws governing interstate commerce — one of the fields of authority the Federal Government is specifically granted by the Constitution — and sets an example of common sense for the rest of the Nation to follow.”
I’m not a fan of limiting actual loss liability in lawsuits. This actual loss should reflect the cost of lawyer fees, which is itself part of the actual loss.
Punitive and pain and suffering liability is a different issue.
Pain and suffering damages, if awarded, should go to the one who suffered the pain. Is there a logical formula that encompasses one’s pain and suffering? (Number of hours X degree of pain X individual’s hourly wage squared)
Punitive damages leaves me in a quandry as to whom should receive the money, and again, what the formula should be for determining the award. (Number of potential cases X cost of care for the problem X actual damages per average case??) This should be put in escrow to go to any others injured by the same problem so as to avoid their being forced to go to trial for the same problem already decided.
Guess we killed this thread, xzins! :-)
Oh, well. Happy Thanksgiving to you!
“Anyone lacking insurance coverage on Dec. 31 will lose the personal exemption on their state income tax filing next spring, equal to $219. If they remain uninsured into 2008, they will be taxed up to 50 percent of the cost of the least expensive private insurance plan — an estimated hit of at least $150 a month.”[It sounds like everyone has to buy a health plan. If they don’t, then they have to pay more taxes. I see no problem with everyone having a health plan, the same as I see no problem with requiring car insurance, but I’d like to see “self-insured” as one of the options for those who can demonstrate the financial resources.]
That’s $1800 a year, but there are already huge cost overruns and nowhere near all the eligible have signed up. If mandated bankruptcy of not just Massachusetts but the entire US is your goal, then have at it. So much for Liberty, calling socialism capitalism is one nasty assed trick.
“Later, Romney told reporters the carrot-and-stick approach is necessary to get people to take responsibility for their own health care costs.”[Again, we require car insurance. But we don’t tell everyone which company to buy from. We do have minimum legal coverage limits.]
And why don’t you check what mandated car insurance has brought us. First, an awful lot of illegals have abused the system, as have crooks. Mandated insurance also has perverse side effects causing people to be LESS cautious about their driving (no problem if I don’t pay attention and hit someone, insurance will pay for it). How can you not see mandated car insurance is corporate welfare, it does not protect safe drivers, it is for the protection of BAD drivers!
“It’s a recognition that people have a responsibility if they can afford insurance to either buy insurance or pay their own way,” he said. “It’s the ultimate conservative view that people have the responsibility to care for themselves and not to look to government to care for them.”[I see no problem with people paying their own way. I don’t think they should get to have the state (ME) pay their health costs just because they walk in an emergency room and claim lack of insurance.]
So, it’s fine with you if we have a bloated socialistic system that takes away the Liberty of healthy people (and especially the younger generation) to subsidize hypochondriacs - just so you can hype your favorite RINO candidate. Well isn’t that just peachy.
“Not to be overly dramatic about it, but I’ve been hit by an uninsured driver in the past. Fortunately, my insurance company covered it, but WHY should that guy be allowed to get away with not paying for damages that he caused?”
That is exactly the problem. Mandated insurance is corporate welfare for insurance companies. The real way to treat the problem is if you are uninsured AND have an accident, enforce the penalties (especially against illegals who walk).
In 35 years of driving, my insurance has paid $400 for a slight fender bender, I have never been paid by the people who nicked me. In real dollars, that means I’ve been forced to pay $35,000 for a $400 benefit. Does no one see a problem with that???
“response to what is likely to become (given Iraq victory) the ultimate issue in the 2008 Presidential campaign. It is a plan that goes on offense, rather than just plays defense against Democrat proposals.”
If you call the Republican response raising the white flag and learning French, then I guess you could call that offense. But in the real world socialism is socialism no matter how you dress the pig.
“But forcing them to have insurance in order to tag a car is a good start.”
You guys NEVER count the hidden costs of mandated insurance (the free ride to illegals, the scams, the inducement to drive carelessly). Free Lunch for everyone! On the backs of good drivers! Sounds Great!
“Hence the need for laws against narcotics. Hence the need to mandate liability auto insurance. Hence the need for truancy laws. etc, etc, etc.”
Hence the need for laws against, fat people, stupid people, white people, bad thinking people, non-vegetarians, non-global-warming fanatics, etc.
Government already spend about 44 cents of each health care dollar. It’s a huge amount of Government funding and intervention.
The Democrats want to expand that further and are using ‘universal health care’ as their banner.
Romney’s observation, in his Harvard Business school-style thinking, was to observe that the same amount of Government funding was sufficient to get to a private-insurer-based universal health care system. The massachusetts system, by mandating health insurance coverage, enabled full pooling of health insurance.
This observation plus another observation, that it is overregulation of health insurance at the state level that drives up health care costs, is the key to a conservative solution. we can and should allow people to buy health insurance from any state, thus lowering the cost of health insurance.
“Romney’s health plan as presidential candidate focuses on a federalist approach in which states craft their own programs. Federalism is ok.”
Yup.
The Federal solution is to unshackle the states from Federal mandates that drive up costs, encourage Medical Savings Accounts that make more dollars by from the user of the services, reduce medical malpractice lawsuit overhead, and deregulate/reduce state-level mandates.
Looking at NRO’s review of Romney’s Federal plans, they are mostly in that direction. But now far enough IMHO. I’d like to see a candidate embrace the Health Care Choice Act...
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200601200808.asp
Maybe Mitt-supporter Sen Jim DeMint could get Romney to embrace this great idea.
“So Romney’s proposing forcing everyone in the USA to sign up for medical insurance whether they want it or not as an anti-trust measure?”
No, his Federal proposal is to let states have the freedom/flexibility to use health-care allocated dollars more as they see fit.
More on NRO conservative review of Romney’s proposals here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmQwZTIzODQxYWQ3ZDlkNmVlZjVjYzA3MTA3ZTBkNzU=
A lot of good feedback on Romney’s proposals.
Those who push socialist ideas are socialists.
The states already have freedom:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Romney can't give them freedom, he can only try to control it or take it away. And he would. Try, that is.
"to use health-care allocated dollars more as they see fit."
What are health care dollars and how would Romney or the federal government get control over them if there were such a thing?
Few uninsured drivers have cars worth more than a couple thousand dollars.
Damage from an accident, however, can run in the tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands.
Allowing people who are uninsured to drive puts everyone else at risk and drives up the cost of uninsured motorist coverage.
Why should I pay more for my insurance just so Joe Sixpack can have the "freedom" to drive without insurance?
Illegals get a free ride for many reasons, but I don't see what mandated insurance has to do with it. Care to elaborate?
the scams,
Sure there are scams out there, and they always will be, but again, I don't see how mandated insurance is causing them.
the inducement to drive carelessly).
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.