While we don't agree 100% on the reasons why... it's close enough that's it's not worth getting into.
I've been told (I don't know how accurate that information is) that the UK has a particularly interesting solution to tort reform.
They have a three judge panel that reviews lawsuits before they go to trial. If a lawsuit is determined frivolous, then it is dismissed before it ever goes to trial. Bring three lawsuits that are frivolous and you are disbarred.
It puts the onus on lawyers to pick cases that are honest and valid cases. It also allows lawsuits of people who have 60 more years left and are seriously handicapped by medical malpractice to get a sum that would support them for the remainder of their life.
Some people need large payouts. We just need to weed out the lawsuits that are frivolous and never need to see the inside of a courtroom.
Awesome idea. We are going to be horribly short of General Practitioners if we implement any kind of universal health care.
If we don't do something to increase the number of GP's we have, then we will go from great health care for some, to horrible health care for everyone.
I would also argue that having the government do independent trials would give us a much more honest assessment of the drugs abilities and detriments. There are too many drugs that have been on the market for years being recalled for bad side effects. We cannot allow drug companies to hide these from us.
I think the drug companies should be required to fund the government study if they want their drugs on the market. The government will run the study, and the drug companies will pay for it, but will have no control over how the money is spent, or who does the actual testing.
I absolutely disagree. If people want to die earlier, then they will save the health care system money. Healthy people who live to a ripe old age cost much more to the health care system than people who die early from cigarettes and obesity.
Having the government attempt to control behavior is a dangerous dangerous thing. It should not be done. Sin taxes should not exist.
Now that they exist and are acceptable... everything deemed bad for us will eventually be taxed to the hilt. About 5 years ago, I started realizing this, and used the example of soda's being taxed in the future. People scoffed at the idea, but now New York is painfully close to implementing Sin taxes on Soda.
I don't want government's or insurance companies deciding whether or not I'm allowed to have steak, or whether I'm required to eat tofu.
I don't think the government should impose sin taxes. That's not what I'm saying. I was just pointing out that some things should cost more than they do because they're risky. I expect someone who rock climbs, skydives, or choses to climb Mt. Everest to pay more for life insurance than I do when I avoid those things despite any claims of how safe they are.
Ironically, there are discounts for "good behavior" built into the insurance pricing models. Those same discounts get altered, eliminated, or severely reduced when too many risky behaviors are built into the system.
Years ago, I worked at an insurance company that I could not afford to get my own auto insurance from. I was a bit miffed on a personal level. But having worked there and seen the profit/loss statements, I realize that covering me as a single male with a performance car simply hurt the pool. Even if I drove safely, others in my age group really didn't enough that it impacted the cost of the entire pool. It wasn't the fender-benders that caused issues, it's the less common accident with fatalities resulting in long-term injury/disability or loss of life that hurt the pool a lot. It simply takes fewer of them than people think.
Fundamentally, it's the same for healthcare. The entire risk pool is affected by behavior down to the individual level. I don't think it's risk-pool sound to ignore obesity, smoking, and other reasonably avoidable self-induced health problems. Though you might be correct about people with those habits not living as long, they still live at a higher cost. Often, older people who've lived fairly healthy lives do not add significant cost to the system during the additional healthy years. Again, it's the beginning and end of life that tend to cost most. One of the most underreported conclusions by almost every significant medical panel and study is the fact that many of the issues being treated by drugs or procedures today are, in fact, avoidable or significantly easier to address in other ways.
People cannot change their genetics or accidents that are the primary causes or significant contributors to poor health. But we can eat, exercise, and do many things that make things better.
You'll find no bigger fan of bacon on earth than me. However, I limit myself to eating it on special occasions and no more than once a month. My life is fine without it. I don't obsess about if it's used in food prepared by someone other than me. But I know it's not healthy for me personally to consume on a regular basis.
I'm not a tax fan of anything, but I'm even more dissatisfied with knowing that "sin" taxes are used to raise general funds. I know it's probably too complex to come up with exact behavior-to-tax formulae, but something different has to be done. Heck, put the extra funds into the legal pool for alcohol-related case payouts.
My issue with frivolous lawsuits is simple. I expect people should be compensated or expenses accounted for that pass the smell test. Millions for care of someone who's been wrongfully disabled makes sense. Millions for someone who's been humiliated or suffered temporary pain - not sensible. People should not be using lawsuits to improve their lifestyles at the expense of the rest of us.
I think we agree on many points though. Just wanted to clarify ones because it's as important to know the why as to know the what and how. Also had 10 extra free minutes this morning. Oops, times up.
)
