Asymmetrical Information

The point is that people respond to incentive structures, and that’s what Bush & Schwarzenegger were doing. That’s what all rational actors do, not just the wealthy, not just Republicans. (Check out www.thewelfarestatewerein.com for illustrations)

There’s nothing incoherent or hypocritical about disliking the system in which one finds oneself and the incentive structures it provides – in the same way that people trapped on welfare might not feel good about themselves and the system that holds them there, even as they continue to draw benefits.

Indeed, Bush & Schwarzenegger could perhaps argue they were among the best-placed to identify key reforms, since they’d been working the system themselves.

Bush and Schwarzeneger weren't responding to incentives ... they were responding to actions by others that infringed upon their property rights.

With respect to the Bush case, damage was done to their car by someone else which incentivized them to be compensated for the damage. Suing the rental car company isn't necessarily seeking deep pockets, but smart (actually obligatory) lawyering since all parties that could be sued for the event must be joined in the action, or the plaintiff loses the right to sue an unjoined defendant.

With respect to the Governator, he really has no choice but to sue since protection of intellectual property is prefaced on vigerous protection of those rights by the property holder. If Arnold failed to seek protection of his rights, they would be eroded and he could lose them altogether. Moreover, suing someone who has wronged you in your hometown is never, EVER, a case of "forum shopping."

As to the remainder of the examples, the only one that smacks of Janus is the Delay suit, although even there the total amount received ($250,000) was not significant in terms of tort awards for personal injuries caused by (alleged) negligence. In fact, the same goes for the Santorum award ($350,000) which could easily have been compensatory only, or included no more than nominative damages for pain and suffering (it should be noted that Virginia has strict caps on such damages).

The largest cause of death in US hospitals is physician error. Ca and Texas already have tort reform very similar to what Bush proposes, and there has been no drop in MD malpractice insurance. Everyone, even reps deserve the due process of a jury awarding a settlement they think is fair.

Slate had an article a while ago on Sweden's 'no fault' system. Basically if you suffer from a medical mistake you simply file a claim with the doctor's insurance company. This keeps lawsuits limited to the most egregious errors and actually ends up helping patients more.

The largest cause of death in US hospitals is physician error.

Shouldn't that be (at best) "the largest single cause of death ..."? Surely the other causes added together far outpace deaths caused by physician error. I mean don't cancer patients often die in hospitals? What about car accident victims? Do you really mean to say that physician error causes more deaths than cancer and/or car accidents?

Perhaps that should have been 'preventable deaths'. The hospital can't prevent car accidents but presumably it can prevent things like physician errors, not catching infections and such before they get out of hand and so on.

Boonton: I think that would make more sense.

So Fabulous:Ca and Texas already have tort reform very similar to what Bush proposes, and there has been no drop in MD malpractice insurance.

This isn't exactly correct either. The problem with malpractice insurance is primarily that there are so few carriers anymore (only the "big boys" can afford to play). That being so, physicians in states with low malpractice claims and awards (e.g. TX, VA) subsidize those in states with high malpractice claims and awards. This fact has actually led to some legal innovations in the self-insurance field -- namely, the creation of Risk Retention Groups (RRGs) which are basically a form of captive insurance companies. Texas, in fact, has one of the most successful RRGs for physicians (IIRC it covers more than 3000 drs.) and more are being formed every year.

The point is, once a single state legally lowers the malpractice exposure of its doctors, those doctors need to wall themslves off from insurance groups that cover doctors in other (higher malpractice claim/award) states in order to realize the effects of the change in tle law. While it is technically correct to say that malpractice insurance has not declined in price significantly, if at all, that is not a complete or accurate description of the situation.

BTW, I don't mean to pick on you So Fabulous. Your statements just struck me as incomplete.

Jane, you’re right that neither the Bush nor Schwarzenegger case (nor is Majority Leader Tom Delay’s) are somehow examples of “hypocrisy” however I’m curious why a suit filed by Senator Santorum’s wife is somehow supposed to reflect poorly on him?

Also IIRC the Senator supported capping non-economic damages at $500,000 and while his wife sought $500,000 (I'm fairly certain that part of the award was for economic damages which wouldn't be affected by the cap) for a permanent back injury as well as numbness in her leg, she was awarded $350,000 and had the award reduced to $175,000 before reaching an out-of-court settlement. Which means that the assuming that the Senator supported his wife’s suit (not an unreasonable assumption) and the amount she sought, it and the amount she received was within the range he supported.

The point is, once a single state legally lowers the malpractice exposure of its doctors, those doctors need to wall themslves off from insurance groups that cover doctors in other (higher malpractice claim/award) states in order to realize the effects of the change in tle law.

1. Why wouldn't a local company form to reap profits by offering docs in the low claim/award state lower rates? This company wouldn't have to subsidize clients from higher states.

2. Why wouldn't competition cause a larger company to spin off a company that catered to the low risk states?

3. Why would large companies make the low risk states subsidize the high risk ones? If the companies could not charge premiums higher enough to cover the awards in high risk states why wouldn't they just close shop in those states? It makes no sense for a company to sell a product at a loss to anyone forever.

Boonton & Michael W. - I'm a retired actuary who has done some med mal rate-making. Medical malpractice rates always have varied by state. Each state's malpractice rates are based on data from that state only.

I agree that one problem with malpractice is the shortage of companies providing coverage. That shortage is driven by the high cost of claims and the uncertainty of future costs. Premium collected in a given year is supposed to cover all events that occur in that year, even though many of the claims will take many years to be adjudicated and settled. Many companies have gone bankrupt by underestimating future claims costs.

My bad on leaving out the word(s) preventable or single. As to the insurance rates, what Ive read never mentioned the counterpoints mentioned. I think the rate of physician error is to high and the resulting damage to great to cap malpractice awards at $250,000.

So what does this mean? That we shouldn't enact gay marriage because of some sort of social Precautionary Principle

No. I have no such grand advice.

Jane -- I thought that you were an intelligent discerning person.
How -- after being hit over the head with the same argument THREE times-- an argument you yourself posed-- you still can't draw a conclusion is astounding.

You have been living in NYC and now London for far too long.

Growing up in NYC is definitly an impediment to logical thought.
your clear eviseration of the "reformist" argument is brilliant and yet in the end you cannot bring yourself to agree with yourself.
Your indoctrination seems to be showing.

thedaddy

Comments are Closed.