I would be remiss in this blueprint not to mention one surefire way to help reduce medical costs. It is clear if we are going to reign in the cost of health care that we must implement nationwide tort reform. If President Obama is going to credible about reigning in health care costs, then we need to implement comprehensive tort reform and reduction of medical malpractice insurance. It is difficult for the President to argue that health care is inefficient in one breath and then argue that tort reform is not necessary. If the President is going to be credible on reigning in health care costs then he must show the country that he is willing to stand up to the trial lawyers for the greater good of the country. An example of rare government pragmatism on this issue is the GM bankruptcy case, where despite heavy lobbying the government did not carve out personal injury suits from the bankruptcy estate and left all suits to be paid from “Old GM” bankruptcy estate. Thirty states, including California and Texas, currently have some form of tort reform. According to the Wall Street Journal, although economists disagree about the exact burden of legal risk, some argue that it exceeds $100 billion a year.
Doctors are forced to practice defensive medicine and order additional tests in order to insulate themselves from the constant threat of lawsuit jackpots sought by patients. Malpractice lawsuits are exacerbating our health care issues by forcing doctors out of high risk professions and raising the costs for the provision of care. We suffer shortages of obstetricians and gynecologists because some doctors have to pay over $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance. Even though trial lawyers are some of Obama’s biggest supporters, if he is serious about revamping health care, then he needs to implement tort reform. Although arguments have been made that tort reform, including caps on pain and suffering awards, severely impact the ability of poor and moderate income people to obtain counsel in malpractice cases, this is just not accurate. As the laws in California and Texas illustrate, it is possible to have a cap on pain and suffering and still have a mechanism for plaintiffs to have redress in the event of an injury. If the administration is asking all Americans to make sacrifices in order to provide universal health care, then individuals will need to live with a cap on pain and suffering awards to allow us as a country to reduce our health care costs.
I feel strongly that it is un-American to stifle the free market and impose government-run health insurance for its citizens. While I do believe that dealing with uninsured Americans is an important issue, it should not be addressed at the cost of rationing care, long waits to see a doctor and government bureaucrats deciding what treatments are appropriate. The problems of socialized medicine in Canada are well documented. Ironically, one of the fastest growing business in Canada is the establishment of private medical clinics. It is well known that in certain areas of Canada, local governments expect that its citizens will come to the United States to have procedures done. While our American health care system may not be perfect, it is certainly far better than the other options out there and one that has served the American public well.
Brill's Discontent 