From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:03:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep13.064122.16106@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <farenebt.716352807@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In <farenebt.716237519@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> Bri Farenell) writes:

>>>>Clinton's plan
>>>>helps those who can't afford insurance but doesn't affect those who can.

>>>Typical left wing bull crap.  Bri wants us to forget that we will have
>>>to pay for it.

>>All right, let me ask you this, could you propose a better system? 

>Well, first off, let's make sure that we're all clear that Bri has
>conceded my point.  We do have to pay for it and it does affect all of
>us.  Don't let people claim that government paid helath care is free
>because it damned well isn't.

But, on the other hand, it is cheaper (at least in Canada) than here.
However, that's sort of irrelevant, since Clinton hasn't proposed
government paid health care.

>Now, can I propose a better system?  Bet your ass.  The key is to hit
>the things that make it cost.

>I.  Too many lawyers.
>II.  Too few doctors.
>III.  Overuse of the system.
>IV.  Irrational use of the system.
>V.  Unhealthy habits

>I.  Too many lawyers... steps to fix it.

I disagree.  Most lawyers in this country are not trial lawyers, and
most lawsuits are not malpractice claims, but rather companies suing
other companies.  Further, all these ridiculous suits you hear about --
the X-ray caused me to lose my ESP ability -- are a tiny tiny fraction
of lawsuits.

>A.  If one side in a malpractice suit offers to settle for $X and the
>other side refuses and the eventual judgement is for less than $X then
>the side that refused to settle must pay the other side's court costs.
>For example, if you sue me for $1,000,000 and I offer to settle for
>$500,000 but you refuse and the eventual judgment is $400,000 you have
>to pay my court costs.

Often there are other reasons to sue.  For instance, one of the terms of
these settlements, oftentimes, is a nondisclosure agreement (the plaintiff 
isn't allowed to talk about the case.)  Thus, the only way to make sure
that others find out about the doctors incompetance/negligence/whatever
is to take the case to trial.

>B.  Jurors can assess punitive damages against the PLAINTIFF if they
>feel the suit is frivolous.

Judges already can do this.

>C.  Guidelines for the amount of damages for different kinds of cases.
>Judges are expected to alter the jury award if it is out of line
>unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

Judges are already allowed to alter jury awards.

>D.  If a lawyer takes a case on a contingency basis and the eventual
>judgment is that his side must pay then he is responsible for a share
>of the judgement.  For example, if I sue you and my lawyer does it for
>40% of any money received but the jury says I have to pay you $100,000
>for a frivolous suit then my lawyer has to pay $40,000 of it.

>E.  If the judge thinks there is a good chance of a judgment against
>the plaintiff he can require the plaintiff to post bond before suing.

And if the plaintiff is poor...?
Furthermore, how exactly does the judge know which way the judgement is
likely to go when he hasn't heard the witnesses/seen the evidence?

>F.  Elimination of deep-pockets lawsuits - defendants pay a share of
>the eventual judgment based on their percentage responsibility, not
>based on ability to pay.

Sounds fine.  And I'd add:

G.  Punitive awards should not go to the plaintiff.

>II.  Too few doctors... steps to fix it

>A.  Let in foreign doctors and tell the AMA to stick it.

>III.  Overuse of the system...

>A.  Encourage significant deductibles in insurance plans - for example
>50% of the first $1000, 10% of the next $3,000, and 1% of anything
>more each year.  Nothing should be free.

>IV.  Irrational use of the system...

>A.  Prioritize procedures ala Oregon.  Encourage plans not to pay for
>the stuff below the cutoff.

>V.  Unhelathy habits...

>A.  Encourage plans to pay wellness benefits.  Do the same for welfare
>and other federal assistance.

>If you do all this then healthcare will be cheap again and we won't need 
>to have all this whining and screming about national health care plans.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism