Health Care Reform (My Ass)

JW,

I came to a point of resignation about the health care bill some weeks ago. (I'd point you to it, but the hyperlink system can't handle a document that size.) Sadly, the groundswell of conservative and populist opposition that might have toppled it peaked too early and couldn't be sustained. The success of the bill depends upon conservative Democrats, and they seem to feel that they've done enough by shaping it into what it is.

Which is a monstrosity. As MSNBC reported on Friday afternoon (a story-killing maneuver called Taking Out the Trash by political operatives), the bill being considered by both legislative bodies will cause health care spending to "grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing." Their source isn't a Conservative think tank, mind you, but the Department of Health and Human Services. Obama promises to "root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program" to help pay for the new entitlement, but anyone who believes that Congress will allow a cut in services should probably worry about raising the ol' IQ a bit before Obama's death panels get cranking.

Despite all, I might be able to swallow this debacle of a bill as a run-of-the-mill political loss if it weren't for one thing. As Atul Gawande writes in a fascinating article in The New Yorker this week, the bill currently under consideration has a number of pilot programs that very well could provide models for huge savings down the line. The one idea left out? Tort reform.

That's right, America. Go f--k yourselves. Love, Democrats.

-GM

GM,

I once knew a girl, the extent of whose physical beauty was surpassed only by that of her liberal agenda. Tragic really, and she's not even alone in that regard--among women I know! While trying to convince me that we should socialize health care, she told me about a summer in Ireland in which she was given the free care she needed when she got sick. And by "sick," she meant pregnant. And by "care," she meant abortion.

Just kidding.

Let's talk about your last point--tort reform. Former NBA star and New Jersey democratic senator Bill Bradley wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times in late August, suggesting that tort reform should be included in the health care bill as a way to unite Republicans and Democrats on the issue. After all, frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits have terrible effects:

1. Doctors have to pay lawyers to defend them and insurance companies to cover them should they lose. This increases the cost of health care because doctors have to pass the costs along to the customer.

2. The cases themselves are costly to the American taxpayers. Experts must often be brought in and compensated for their time, as must juries and judges, who could probably be presiding over something more important.

3. Rather than pursuing practices for the right reasons (like wanting to fight certain medical conditions or having an interest in a particular field), doctors are now avoiding certain types of practices--even certain states in some instances--because the fear of being sued is so great.

But then there was this response from Tom Baker, a professor at Penn's law school who wrote The Medical Malpractice Myth, a book that claims that medical malpractice claims don't significantly add to the cost of health care. In his Times interview with Anne Underwood, Baker accuses people like you, GM, of trying to obstruct change in the system by using tort reform as a red herring. As a rare request for a two-parter, what is your rebuttal?

-JW