From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sick to death
Date: 4 Sep 1992 19:36:25 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep4.170726.4608@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep4.142019.29627@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep3.235658.21773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> >> In article <1992Sep3.210155.5765@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
> >>>Example: A national health care plan will be a failure because of the
> >>>government bureaucracy.
> >>>
> >>>a.) How will it be any worse than the huge, uncoordinated bureacracy we have
> >>>already?  A bureaucracy being run by greed and corruption.
> >> 
> >> Wowsers!  Things can't get worse!  Wrong - they can get worse.
> >
> >So what is your point. They can also get better.
> 
> My point is that LaFave was making a specious "things can't get worse"
> argument.  When I point out that bogosity, he backs off to "so?" and
> repeats his unsupported "Clinton will change things for the better".
> Since LaFave doesn't discuss the relevant details of those changes,
> we know what he thinks is important....

By the way, you are responding to Lafave. I don't know what happened to
my .sig.

Canada's system is already better than ours. I never said things can't get
worse (don't put words in my mouth). However, people have been posting
great speculative doomsday senarios on this net as if they have proof that an
NHC system will DEFINATELY be worse. That is what I call a specious
arguement since there are already NHC systems in existence operating MUCH
better than ours.

> >> If a moral person really believes that said insurance companies are
> >> either wasteful or making too much money, said moral has an OBLIGATION
> >> to start a malpractice insurance company that does things right and
> >> charges less.  Not only will said moral person get rich (allowing
> >> other good deeds), but health care costs will go down AND the evil
> >> insurance companies will be driven out of biz.
> >> 
> >> Either there aren't any moral people who believe that the insurance
> >> companies are "wrong" OR "moral" people aren't willing to risk their
> >> money on their beliefs.
> >
> >OR it is so hard to get certification to start an insurance company (a
> >system built by the large insurance companies to keep out people like
> >you describe), it is not worth it.
> 
> Actually, it isn't.  The major obstacles happen to be those instituted
> by "moral" people trying to rein in those evil insurance companies.

Have you checked out the licensing procedures to become an insurance
company. Go do it before you make such a statement.

> 
> I like the "put up or shut up" because it's fun to watch the "moral"
> people scramble for cover, much like roaches from the light.  They
> always have an excuse....

This is both nasty and irrelevant to the discussion. Having trouble
generating real arguements? I suggest a nice bowl of prunes in the morning.

> 
> >> >while ambulance-chasing lawyers bring ridiculous charges of
> >> >malpractice to our already over-burdened legal system. How much is this
> >> >costing us?
> >> 
> >> Everyone who's willing to give up/limit their right to sue an MD,
> >> raise your hand.  What?  No one wants to?  Oops.
> >
> >Who said anything about giving up one's right to sue? I sure didn't.
> >How about limitations on awards for various types of suits?
> >How about the losing lawyer paying all court fees to keep flimsy cases out
> >of our already-overburdened legal system.
> 
> Is LaFave suggesting that people are more willing to do those things?
> If not, why bring them up?

No, I am proposing government regulation that could be imposed without
taking away a person's right to sue in order to drive malpractice insurance
down to reasonable levels. It is in most of the people's best interest to
do so.

> 
> What sorts of further limits is LaFave willing to accept on potential
> awards for suits he might benefit from?  Will he agree to pay the
> winning side when his case doesn't work out?  No?

My suggestion on court costs was aimed mostly at the lawyers. However, if
I was made responsible I would agree to pay. I stand by my convictions.
Don't you?

> 
> >This issue is not as black-and-white as you suggest. Using some imagination,
> >there are many things we could do to bring down the malpractice premiums to
> >reasonable levels.
> 
> There are many things, but how many of them is LaFave willing to
> agree to when he's a potential party?

See above. This nasty attack on my ethics is a poor excuse for a real
arguement. You claimed that tort reform amounted to taking away someone's
right to sue. You were wrong.

> 
> >> An interesting experiment has been tried - access barriers (like cost)
> >> to pre-natal care were removed.  Surprising result - infant mortality
> >> rates didn't change much.  Explanation - the relevant population
> >> didn't want the care.  What should we try next?  Forcing them to go?
> >> Bribing them?  Both?
> >
> >Reference please. Details please. Time period of the experiment please. This
> >is not at all convincing.
> 
> It's been discussed repeatedly.  The experiments were in inner cities; one
> is currently being run in Oakland.
> 
> LaFave thinks he's the only smart guy, but there are lots of smart
> people.  Things get tried.  Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't
> and diletantes who don't bother to keep up rarely add anything useful
> to the discussion.

I am not even going to respond to this refuse. Again, where are the details
of the experimental design of this study? How many parameters are being
adjusted? How comprehensive is the research plan? I will be waiting.

> 
> >> Go for it - that doesn't require the federal govt (and is being done).
> >> BTW - If it works in a given state, why expand it?  Why not just
> >> DUPLICATE it in other states.  Less overhead that way and further
> >> experiments can be tried.
> >
> >Wow, you just described the Canadian system. It is the provinces which
> >administer the care. All the federal government does is coordinate care and
> >dole out the funds. Billing, records, etc are all handled on the province
> >and county level.
> 
> No, I just described the US system.  The experiment that LaFave wants to
> try is being done, but one would have to keep up to know about it.

Oh, and what are your credentials? Where are your references? No arguements,
just unsubstantiated attacks....the weapon of the ignorant.

> 
> >> Interestingly enough, that's already happened, but there's one
> >> additional factor.  The folks in the rich areas control the police in
> >> the poor ones.  Said police are more interested in keeping the poor
> >> out of the rich areas than in doing much else.  If the people in the
> >> poor areas controlled their police, they wouldn't do that.
> >
> >I agree. So what is your point?
> 
> If LaFave both agreed with and understood what I wrote, he wouldn't
> have proposed his solution.

Solution to what? The solution is obvious (to most of us anyway)....equal police
protection for all is the only reasonable scheme. That is of course unless
you believe we all live in impenetrable "class bubbles".

> 
> >> Lockheed sure has strange policies.
> >
> >This is a computer glitch in my mail system and I have already stated my
> >companies policies on my signature file on more than one occasion.
> 
> And as long as said policies make LaFave wear electronic bunny slippers,
> people are going to point that out.

Oh, how clever. Any more witty reparte? :-/

> 
> -andy
> --
> UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
> ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
> 
> 

I apologize for my .sig ahead of time for the self-proclaimed "title"
police.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush