[geeks] just to stir things up, a few predictions

[Matthew Braun]

I find the whole concept of sovereign immunity rather ugly. While I can 
grasp the logic behind it (not just the "cover-your-ass" part), I find 
that in practice, having to explicitly grant the right to seek redress 
is craptacular. But then if all that stands between supporting 
socialized medicine or not is the ability to sue, well, that can be 
granted explicitly. Of course, I'd also like to see some common sense 
in malpractice awards. THAT would be a lot harder to make happen.

--
"I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's;
I will not reason and compare: my business is to create."

On Oct 19, 2004, at 2:18 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:49:32PM -0500, Matthew Braun wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2004, at 12:55 PM, Michael Horton wrote:
>> Just to address what I believe is your statement that adopting
>> socialized medicine would lead to higher taxes, I want to present a 
>> few
>> statistics:
>> 	In 2001, at 13.9% the United States had the highest levels of
>> expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP of all member states
>> (nearly 200) surveyed by the WHO (WHO World Health Report- 2004
>> http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2004/annex/topic/en/annex_5_en.pdf)
>> 	Japan, England, and Germany (who I think are pretty much comparable
>> 	to the US in quality of care) spent, in the same year 8%, 7.6% and 
>> 10.8%.
>> (However, I know that the governmental bureaucracies have can make
>> obtaining care more difficult in those countries)
>
> These other countries do not have HIPAA laws on the books; do not
> allow you to sue the govt in most cases even when there is clear
> medical malpractice; and further do not have the medical technology
> the USA does.
>
> England's health care in particular is NOT comparable to USA; at least
> according to the NHS horror stories written about in the Guardian and
> Telegraph.
>
> For Canada, the govt allowed blood and/or plasma that was contaminated
> with Hep C into the blood supply system.  The many thousands of
> innocent Hep C cases (due mainly to blood transfusions) could not sue
> - in Canada, if you want to sue a department, you have to get
> permission from the Minister (head) of that Department.  Maximum
> payout in any case?  $25,000 .
>
> The main problem with socialized medicine in the USA is that folks
> will not give up their right to sue if things go wrong.  Thus costs
> will continue to shoot through the roof and taxes will have to serve
> both for the original health care cost, plus the inevitable lawsuits.
>
> John Edwards, Kerry's VP pick, is a trial lawyer who is worth between
> 8.7 and 36.5 million USD; and has won much more than that in lawsuits
> and settlements, since the law firm and the IRS gets part of the
> settlement, and 50-60% goes to the person who wins the suit.
>
> It is safe to say that Edwards alone is responsible for upwards of $15
> Billion USD in extra medical expenses over the last 20 years.  Why?
> Because early in his career he won a frivolous lawsuit against a
> doctor that did not perform a C-section.  Now, whenever there is any
> doubt whatsoever, doctors practice preventive legal advice and order
> C-sections.
>
> Current difference between routine birth and C-section is $600-$1000;
> multiply by 20 years X number of unnecessary C-sections per year.
>
> --Patrick
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks
>