Skip to main content

OK, Maybe It's Time For Medical Malpractice Reform

Like a lot of people, I played the New York Times' "Fix The Deficit" game yesterday. And one of the ways I chose to fix the deficit was to agree to a law limiting medical malpractice suits. Why? Not because it would save a ton of money from the deficit -- it wouldn't -- but because I was trying to build my own particular deficit-reduction program to be somewhat politically feasible. I figured that meant throwing a few bones to the right.

Today, however, I'm starting to think there are more important reasons to enact reform. Take this New York Times story:
"Large banks, hedge funds and private investors hungry for new and lucrative opportunities are bankrolling other people’s lawsuits, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into medical malpractice claims, divorce battles and class actions against corporations — all in the hope of sharing in the potential winnings."
Yikes! The Times' deficit game yesterday warned that enacting malpractice reform would take away an incentive for doctors to avoid critical mistakes. And I can see the benefits of getting investors in on the side of small-time plaintiffs who might otherwise be overwhelmed by the vaster legal resources of the medical establishment.

But this story makes it seem that malpractice suits are really distorting the incentives; if the money people would rather invest in a lawsuit instead of (say) a new business that makes things or serve people, then things are out of wack. Time for a reconsideration.

Comments

KhabaLox said…
I think this might be another reflection of the problems caused by grossly unequal wealth distribution. With so much money concentrated in so few hands, it's hard to find good investments. As a result we had liquidity flood the mortgage resale market, which led to lots of bad loans and a housing crisis. Now it appears that all this extra money has found an investment in law suits. Of course, this is all supposition on my part, as I haven't looked into this for any evidence, but it's an interesting hypothesis at least.

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…