A definite solution to the current health care problem

patrickmchapman — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:10:03 GMT

Obama's proposed government run (socialist) healthcare programs simply WILL NOT work, this HAS NOT worked in other countries, so why should the people of the United States believe it will work for them?

However, the following will make a major difference in the cost of health care. Please take note how Obama tends to skip over the subject of TORT REFORM when this is mentioned as one of the solutions to the cost of health care! Why? Because besides being our President he's also an attorney, that's why!

Health insurance costs started rising around 1976 when the legal profession here in the United States was allowed to start advertising. Attorneys will only file a CIVIL law suit against parties who have the ability to pay, or against those who have an insurance company that's most likely to settle out of court. Because of this the medical profession is a prime target for lawsuits, primarily because of the money to be gained by the legal profession from the medical facilities malpractice insurance company. After a law suit has been filed against a medical facility, the attorney for the plaintiff will seek an out of court settlement from the medical facilities malpractice insurance company. The malpractice insurance company has two options: (1) Settle out of court or: (2) Go to court and face the cost of a very expensive trial by jury. Why a trial by jury? As per the 7th Amendment of the US Constitution:

“In Suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried to a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the Common Law”.

Due to the 7th Amendment, either party to a CIVIL law suit can request a trial by jury, the other party to the law suit has NO LEGAL right to object to a trial by jury, this is where the Medical profession gets had! Here's a hypothetical example: The dollar amount stated in the law suit could be for any amount of money above twenty dollars, the cost of a trial by jury could be in the area of perhaps $250,000. The plaintiffs attorney would then offer to settle out of court for perhaps $100,000, an amount far less than the cost of a trial by jury, the insurance company would most likely take the offer without the case going to trial because the out of court settlement offer is the least expensive of the two. If the insurance company agrees to a trial by jury and they win the case they're still out $250,000 in legal expenses. This is why as much as 50% of the medical facilities gross income is paid out for malpractice insurance, because of these out of court settlements! This added cost is then passed on to the public in the form of higher medical insurance premiums. On the other hand, if the case were tried by a judge (no trial by jury) the case would either be thrown out or a REASONABLE judgment entered.

A way to avoid this legalized EXTORSION and reduce the cost of medical coverage is to modify the 7th amendment to the US Constitution. The modification would state that BOTH the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) in a CIVIL law suit must consent to a trial by jury before a jury trial could take place, otherwise the case would tried by a judge. In most cases trial lawyers won't bother filing a law suit if the consent of the defendant and plaintiff was a requirement for a trial by jury because they wouldn't be able to use the threat of a trial by jury to obtain a QUICK out of court settlement. This example applies ONLY to CIVIL law suits and WOULD NOT be applicable in criminal cases. In criminal cases the defendant would still be entitled to a jury trial.

With the modification to the 7th amendment in place lawsuits across the nation would drop off drastically, especially when it comes to the medical profession. After the change to the 7th Amendment the cost of malpractice insurance will drop accordingly, thus GREATLY reducing the cost of health insurance to the public! The only real problem with getting this modification to the 7th amendment passed is a good percentage of our congressional leaders are attorneys (including President Barrack Obama) who will fight this change to the very end, because it would make it far more difficult for them to EXTORT the public once they leave office and resume their primary profession as attorneys. It's time for TORT REFORM by modifying the 7th amendment and chasing the FOX out of the hen house once and for all, and give the American public back affordable health coverage that they once had prior to 1976.

Please forward this message to everyone you know, including your congressional representatives.

Patrick

RE: A definite solution to the current health care problem

Susan — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:43:03 GMT

Patrick was right about Tort Reform. Add to it that if someone files a suit against someone and loses...they pay all the lawyer fees for the people who have incurred costs to defend themselves against these frivilous law suits.

RE: A definite solution to the current health care problem

The Judge Says: — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:54:23 GMT

The Judge Says:

Problems with the American Health Care System

As many people do, I think the health care system in this country has serious problems. There are a number of potential solutions to this problem. We could move either to a free market system or to a single-payer plan, i.e., a government health care system. Our current system is neither of these systems, but rather a restricted market.

I consider our current health care system to be a restricted market. By this I mean that the insurance industry is a group of profit-seeking firms, but consumers do not have free choice to switch between the market alternatives. Many of the people who defend the current system claim that a free market is best. However our current system is not a free market. Many of the problems in our current health care system are a result of the restrictions in this market. Consumers cannot register their discontent with their insurance plans because it is difficult to switch plans. Because of this difficulty, plans can fail to provide quick resolution of claims, good information, or consistent policy because customers are tied in to their current plans through their employers and through the difficulty of switching plans.

Considering our current system of a restricted market, one of the simplest solutions to this problem would be to have a free market for health insurance, so that people could “vote with their feet.” Making our system a free market would require forbidding insurance companies to give discounts to employers, making it easier for the employers to buy insurance than for their employees to do so. Health insurance should thus count as a tax deductible expense, even for people who take the standard deduction. It should also be illegal for insurance companies to discriminate based on a pre-existing condition when a person is switching plans (unless the condition is not covered by the original plan). Employers should not be allowed to force employees to accept “their” plan. They should be able to set price based on age, sex, weight (as compared to height), smoking, and other “controllable” risk factors.

The government should require everyone to have insurance, and should give vouchers for the purchase of health insurance, good for a certain amount of money, which would be phased out with income. The government could also have a default plan into which people would be enrolled if they did not make any other choice. (National health insurance, however, seems to be politically unacceptable in this country, although it would probably be even better than any of the above solutions, although a very good free market system might be better than government health care.)

A remaining question is how to handle people who try to cheat the system by switching plans when they become sick. It would be reasonable to allow plans not to cover preexisting conditions when the previous plan did not cover the condition, at least in a sysem where the state provided vouchers for a basic amount of health insurance and a default plan if the people did nothing. Such a default plan should choose to cover various treatments based on cost-benefit analyses of those treatments. Based on these analyses, it might determine that it would only pay up to a certain amount for a given treatment.