LAWYERS FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 2001
Much debate coming up this week in the Senate on the so-called "Patient's Bill of Rights" in Washington. The principal arguing point between the Republicans and Democrats is this.
Both Republicans and Democrats want people to be able to sue for their actual damages .. the actual monetary value of any damages they may incur a a result of sub-standard or negligent medical care.
The Republicans and Democrats have reached some tenuous agreement that patients ought to be able to sue an insurance company, a managed care organization or an employer IF one of those entities actually makes a decision regarding the patient's health care and that decision turns out to be negative.
The Republicans want those suits to be brought in federal court where the rules of evidence are more stringent, juries more intelligent and punitive damages ( an award meant to punish the defendant rather than to reimburse the plaintiff ) are tougher to get.
The Democrats want the suits to be brought in state courts where the rules are more lax, the juries less capable and punitive damages easier to get.
Republicans want a $500,000 cap on punitive damages.
Democrats want a $5,000,000 cap on punitive damages.
There is one underlying motivation behind the Democrats position on these issues. Democrats want chaos in medical care. Democrats know that if they get their way on this bill there will be more predatory trial lawyers out there seeking clients for broadsides against doctors, insurance and managed care companies and employers.
Put yourself in the place of an employer for a moment. Suddenly your insurance agent notifies you that you are subject to be sued by your employers if a decision regarding their health care turns out to have negative consequences. Why, you ask, can you be sued? Because YOU are the one providing them with their health insurance coverage. It's part of their benefit package. So, what is the best way to protect yourself against a multi-million dollar lawsuit? Easy. Drop the health coverage. Tell your employees that you are dropping their health coverage and increasing their salary by an amount equal to what you have been paying for their health insurance. Tell them that from this point on they are responsible for their own health care.
The result? Well, you, as the employer, are not immune from multi-million dollar judgments over your employee's health care. That's good. The employee now has to buy his own health insurance. Bad for the employee. Why? Because when you bought your employee's health insurance you were allowed to deduct the premiums. When your employee buys health insurance he has to do it with after-tax dollars. And just why is that? Because government works against the concept of individual responsibility (buying your own insurance policy) and in favor of the concept of dependence (get it from the boss).
Chaos.
What is the result of insurance companies raising premiums to cover increased damages and employers dropping coverage? More uninsured. And what do the uninsured do? They demand help from government. Would government like to help? Sure it would! Government would like to take over the whole mess!
Watch the debate, folks. It's the precursor to full-blown socialized medicine in the United States.
Much debate coming up this week in the Senate on the so-called "Patient's Bill of Rights" in Washington. The principal arguing point between the Republicans and Democrats is this.
Both Republicans and Democrats want people to be able to sue for their actual damages .. the actual monetary value of any damages they may incur a a result of sub-standard or negligent medical care.
The Republicans and Democrats have reached some tenuous agreement that patients ought to be able to sue an insurance company, a managed care organization or an employer IF one of those entities actually makes a decision regarding the patient's health care and that decision turns out to be negative.
The Republicans want those suits to be brought in federal court where the rules of evidence are more stringent, juries more intelligent and punitive damages ( an award meant to punish the defendant rather than to reimburse the plaintiff ) are tougher to get.
The Democrats want the suits to be brought in state courts where the rules are more lax, the juries less capable and punitive damages easier to get.
Republicans want a $500,000 cap on punitive damages.
Democrats want a $5,000,000 cap on punitive damages.
There is one underlying motivation behind the Democrats position on these issues. Democrats want chaos in medical care. Democrats know that if they get their way on this bill there will be more predatory trial lawyers out there seeking clients for broadsides against doctors, insurance and managed care companies and employers.
Put yourself in the place of an employer for a moment. Suddenly your insurance agent notifies you that you are subject to be sued by your employers if a decision regarding their health care turns out to have negative consequences. Why, you ask, can you be sued? Because YOU are the one providing them with their health insurance coverage. It's part of their benefit package. So, what is the best way to protect yourself against a multi-million dollar lawsuit? Easy. Drop the health coverage. Tell your employees that you are dropping their health coverage and increasing their salary by an amount equal to what you have been paying for their health insurance. Tell them that from this point on they are responsible for their own health care.
The result? Well, you, as the employer, are not immune from multi-million dollar judgments over your employee's health care. That's good. The employee now has to buy his own health insurance. Bad for the employee. Why? Because when you bought your employee's health insurance you were allowed to deduct the premiums. When your employee buys health insurance he has to do it with after-tax dollars. And just why is that? Because government works against the concept of individual responsibility (buying your own insurance policy) and in favor of the concept of dependence (get it from the boss).
Chaos.
What is the result of insurance companies raising premiums to cover increased damages and employers dropping coverage? More uninsured. And what do the uninsured do? They demand help from government. Would government like to help? Sure it would! Government would like to take over the whole mess!
Watch the debate, folks. It's the precursor to full-blown socialized medicine in the United States.
