I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but doctors in at least three states -- West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey (Nathan's backyard) -- have either struck, or have threatened to strike, over the issue of malpractice insurance. The doctors refuse to perform any non-emergency medical service, essentially. And the explicit issue in PA and NJ is tort reform -- putting caps on malpractice suits, let's stick it to the trial lawyers, etc.

If I were paranoid, I'd point out that both PA and NJ have Democratic governors (Rendell and McGreevey, respectively). However one might interpret that, though, it does seem interesting to me that the doctors are mouthing insurance company rhetoric re tort reform and trial lawyers -- when not all that long ago doctors were (rightly) pissed off at insurance companies regarding their reimbursement procedures. Maybe you don't have to be paranoid to smell something fishy here, or are doctors just really dumb?

I think doctors are facing a real problem with skyrocketing malpractice insurance. And they want it solved. And they don't really care if it's taken out of the hide of trial lawyers and their patients or taken out of insurance company profits.

But with Bush in office, they know it's unlikely to be the latter, so they are piling onto "tort reform" as the only political solution likely to pass right now.

Forget whether they believe it-- it makes sense strategically for them to go where they think they get immediate results. Sad but probably true. If Gore was in office, they'd probably happily be mouthing off at the obscene profits of the insurance industry.

When you put it that way, Nathan, it makes more sense. It will be interesting to see how Rendell and McGreevey handle it -- the article that you linked to mentioned that Rendell opposes Bush's proposal. FWIW, PA's kinda ripe now for some sort of "tort reform" -- among other things, they reformed their state court venue rules to make it more difficult to "venue shop" for plaintiff-friendly courts in med-mal suits (i.e., you can't sue a doctor whose main office is on the Main Line in Philadelphia [a more "plaintiff-friendly" venue than, say, Montgomery County] when he has only a small satellite office in Philadelphia). That may make sense, but it and other reforms may open the door to other, more extensive reforms (and the PA doctors explicitly stated that they didn't think the reforms went far enough). They've had a pretty interesting series of articles in the Philadelphia Metro paper on this issue over the past week, FWIW.

Agreed, though, that something should be done about doctors' malpractice insurance, and of course med-mal judgments are a part of it. Though by no means the entirety. Also interesting how these ardent Bushie states-righters are trying to bypass state tort law with federal legislation, hey? (sarcasm)

Universal healthcare delivers less for more. More bureaucracy, more micromanagement, and indeed more money pay for a standard of care arguably worse than our standard of indigent care. Pathetically, this all but ensures the two-tier system for anyone with money comes to the US or elsewhere. Waiting lines are a mile long for most non-emergency surgeries, prescription costs are lower, but research and development suffer. Any time there is a discernable problem with healthcare the answer is to throw more money at it, at great expense to the taxpayer. If it fails it is irrevocable, and represents a massive expansion of state power that could easily extend to other areas (when you pay 45-55% of your GDP to the government, how can it NOT assume a greater role in life). The market has its problems, but they pale in comparison to those of universal healthcare...intern in government overseas or work in the pharmaceutical industry and you'll understand why.

A couple of questions:

1.) MD's seem very upset, but no income statistics are provided. Are MD incomes going down? Up, but slowly? Keeping pace with the CPI? Why is this information not part of their case? If they are really being hurt financially, it would seem an obvious part of their argument.

2.) Even under government universal care schemes, the higher income levels will always get the care they demand (i.e., pay for it). Is there no such thing as adequate, but inexpensive medical care? Why hasn't our free market economy provided such an alternative. Why is there no price competition?

Just asking.

curious bob

I have a couple of questions on this subject of medical malpractice lawsuits:
1) if insurance companies are making such huge profits, why are so many leaving states without 'caps' on medical liability, and why are there no replacement companies flocking to fill the gap?
2) what is the average amount paid in medical insurance premiums by such doctors as obstetricians and neurologists and oncologists and bone surgeons, for example, and what is their average net income before tax after paying their overhead expenses of office staff salaries, rent, insurance etc. AND what is the percentage of liability insurance cost to this net income?
3) what is the average income of trial lawyers who pursue medical malpractice lawsuits? When they win, how much do they earn in fees? In awards? When they settle, what is their take?
4) why are there so many rules regulating lawsuits? These rules have been added little by little over the years, and some are even in violation of the constitution itself. These rules make it almost impossible for the average person caught up in a lawsuit to understand or to protect himself against clever, skilled lawyers. The fees charged by lawyers will bankrupt the average citizen, and maybe even the average doctor. On top of this are "settlement" costs, and/or jury awards. At $200/hour, a lawsuit which uses only 100 hours, or 2-1/2 weeks of a lawyer's time costs $20,000!!! Even if the defendant wins! And if he loses, he has to pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fees as well.
Most lawsuits drag on for months or even years. The up front costs are staggering.
5) Finally, does anyone really believe that the lawyers who pursue medical malpractice lawsuits are on the side of the "victim"? Is it not much more likely that they are interested in self enrichment?

Fran W.