|
|
<< Cheers for Edwards | Main | Dean is Optimistic >> December 24, 2003Dean on MalPractice: Then and NowDean no doubt has changed his positions on some issues, but there's a bit of a media/conservative drumbeat to argue that he has somehow betrayed "centrist" positions for leftwing ones now. But the reality is that then and now, he's actually maintained pretty nuanced positions that only selective focus and quoting makes to seem extreme one way or the other. Take medical malpractice: I saw this 1988 Dean letter to the editor back when he was a doctor complaining about medical malpractice: I have long maintained that until the legal profession and the news media are also afflicted with the increasingly severe consequences of a tort system that benefits few people outside the legal profession, there will be no return to a fair and reasonable system of justice.Complaining about stupidities in the court tort system has never been the exclusive preserve of conservatives. Only their solution of terminating the rights of those injured is exclusive to conservatives dancing to the tune of insurance companies and medical corporations. So what is Dean's position now? From his blog: I understand the concerns doctors have with medical malpractice system. Faced with rapidly increasing insurance premiums, doctors are avoiding certain specialties, and many are leaving the medical profession altogether. This isn’t good for patients or for the American health care system generally.So not much change in his concern about the problem. But where he (and most progressives) differ from conservatives is on the solution: access to the courts is a fundamental civil right for all Americans, and many patients receive compensation for their injuries through the justice system.Look at that example-- the focus is on knocking frivolous lawsuits out of the system while allowing real victims full access to the courts. What's the conservative solution? Capping the compensation for ALL lawsuits, whatever the injury or fault of the doctor or hospital or HMO involved. Such attacks on malpractice lawsuits has nothing to do with reform and everything to do with increasing profits for corporate medicine. Dean will get quoted on all sorts of positions-- complaining about the runaway costs of Medicare in the past, medical malpractice, whatever. And usually in every case, his diagnosis of the problem then was accurate and his position is probably not that different. On Medicare in the past, he argued that given the choice between slashing federal money for the poor and adjusting medical benefits for the well-off elderly, he'd choose the latter. The real question in evaluating his politics is what solution he promoted or promotes to solve the problem. Then and now, whether you agreed with his specific position, Dean usually took and takes a pretty reasonable position, neither the caricature of deviant conservative or wild-eyed liberal. Posted by Nathan at December 24, 2003 01:55 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Commentsnathan, is there any evidence that the problem of soaring medical malpractice insurance fees has ANYTHING to do with frivolous lawsuits? did fees decrease in maine after the reform? don't get me wrong... i like dean's approach much more than the conservative approach. i just don't think it will fix the problem... but at least i can't see it hurting anyone (unlike the award caps). Posted by: selise at December 24, 2003 06:58 PM I'm a layman looking for understanding and solutions, and my analysis leads to an incomprehensible tangle of BENEFITS! A simple example would be that a middle-class family could spend their accumulated capital on their children's education instead of their parent's old-age care facility. Or, in reverse, an elderly parent could retain an inheritance (means tested and taxed at the higher levels) instead of cashing out through a long-term care facility or final (expensive) medical sad story. Wouldn't all these economic freedoms reduce business costs, increase profits and wages and tax revenues? Wouldn't the freedom from ruinous medical insurance or bills enable more entrepreneurial activities? For that matter, it would set artists free, but we don't discuss THAT with Conservatives, or the middle-roaders we want to sway. Posted by: Richard W. Crews at December 25, 2003 04:55 PM richard w. crews, lots of benefits, as you've mentioned. but, the insurance companies, hmos, and pharmaceutical companies hate it. and they have very powerful lobbies. physicians for a national health program has done the best analysis i am aware of. some of your questions are addressed in their proposal which was published in the journal of american medicine this year. democratic presidential candidate and congressional representative dennis kucinich has given support to such a plan Posted by: selise at December 25, 2003 08:23 PM I agree: Dean's positions, placed under a microscope, do meet the tests of fairness and moderation. On Malpractice insurance, Dean has also called for it to be recognized as a state issue, not a federal one. Posted by: Rep. Mark B. Cohen at December 26, 2003 01:02 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|