Savage raises two valid points, but offers two highly flawed solutions. Dr. Savage is on the money by pointing out that medical malpractice suits and the ridiculously high insurance needed to cover potential suits is a direct cause for rising medical costs. I often joke that lawyers are the cause for 25% of the cost of everything. While I joke that lawyers account for a percentage the cost's of everything in the kitchen cubbard, I understand that lawyers provide a valuable societal function. Essentially, we have to live with the good and the bad caused by lawyers. Savage's assessment that we should cap medical malpractice suits seems to be a blanket solution to scenerios that vary from case to case substantially. Blanket solutions typcially cause as many promblems as they fix (see standardized testing). How can I say this though when every year some schmuck collects millions of dollars because the Winobago owners manual did not explicitly state that cruise control does not equate to auto pilot (this seems still to be an uncofirmed example, but hyprocraphal at the least)? Medical malpractice suits often pay too much to the victim. How much is a finger worth? How much should chronic headaches for the rest of your life pay? These are subjective and difficult judgements. Capping at 250,000 dollars, however, punishes some poor person or their family who geniuenly received inadaquate care under the guise of a man under the influence of prescription pain killers in a white coat and with an M.D. on his nametage. To give Savage credit, several weeks ago he criticized the lower quality of doctors that medical students consistently produced. He pointed out that a once reputable and difficult degree has become water downed to a degree. I think his is right to some extent on this point.
I have been guilty of complaining about the enormous payouts awarded to the woman caused every to-go cup of coffee require, CAUTION CONTAINS EXTREMELY HOT COFFEE. Or another case I recently read about in Ohio, where a jury awarded a man's family 3.5 million dollars because the doctor did not help him to lose weight, which resulted in a fatal heart attack (http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc05.html#notes). All of these cases cause us to groan and doctor's to groan louder.
Who smiles when settlements are made to quiet the storm, juries award such high payouts, and judges allow such absurdities? Insurance companies. While they take this immediate monetary hit, it is only the loss of a single engagement or battle that actually helps insurance companies win the greater war. When such cases reach the public ear, they cause such an outcry, which we aimlessly direct at the greedy lawyer and victim. The medical malpractice insurance companies, however, get a high publicity case that misleads the public into believing that medical payouts are consistantly too high. Morevoer, insurance companies use this evidence to falsly justify rising insurance premiums, which equate to higher medical costs.
What is the solution? A cap for all malpractice suits. Surely not. The solution rests with us. We need to become more reasonable. Shame on the jury who awards the payment that is clearly ridiculous. Shame on us for allowing insurance companies to become vehicles solely driven by profits and stock prices. Shame on us for not demanding that insurance companies maintain a degree of moral integrity.
Oh no, I just made a remark that did not undiyingly support unregulated capitalism. Surely, someone one will call me a socialist, Marxist, Nazi, who seeks to destroy republicanism and capitalism. I'm not. I love capitalism. I love republicanism more. I do not love greed demons though. I still call for businesses to operate with a degree of integrity. I'm not asking for insurance companies to stop striving for profits. But when does the desire for maximum profit trump the inititial purpose of the inistitution? Aren't these institutions meant to help people?
We need reform. Nevertheless, simplifying the promblem is just sweeping the complications under the rug.
