I've heard an awful lot of crap about health reform, most of which is not even meant to be informative. But here's a very informative look at that old canard of tort reform.
I've heard a lot about how health care reform needs to start with tort reform, but we know that'll never happen. Before looking at the actual facts involved here, consider that any tort reform will inevitably end up putting a dollar value on a human life.
It's a brutal necessity. The worst that can happen in medical malpractice is that the patient dies. Ok, the family sues. If you cap what they can win, you've put a price on a human life. I can't imagine that that would ever be politically possible.
Nevertheless, getting back to the article, read it. It's worth the time.
But consider this: malpractice claims, according to this, are only 40% of premiums. So doctors are paying 2-1/2 times as much for the insurance as the insurance companies are paying out. Can you say PROFIT?
This is vastly overpriced insurance. Insurance should operate as arbitrage with the insurance companies employing actuaries to know the odds of bad stuff happening better than those who buy the insurance. So the profit margin on insurance should be pretty small. Most of the profit should come from investing the proceeds of the premiums.
So, is it legal for doctors to do without? If not, that tells us what will happen if the health insurance mandate for which the Blue Dogs are pushing happens without the public option (which they are pushing to remove).
Get those dogs out of the house!