|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Wednesday, January 12, 2005Under our federal system, each state decides for itself how to balance the interests of patients injured by medical malpractice against the interests of doctors and patients who suffer when damages are too high and too easy to win. If it gets the balance wrong, the consequences can be seen in escalating insurance premiums, defensive medicine (unnecessary tests and procedures motivated by fear of liability), rising health care costs, and specialist shortages. The state becomes a less attractive place for doctors, for employers, and for residents generally. ...Speaking of which, the other reason Bush offered for giving up on federalism was that overly generous malpractice rules raise the cost of federally funded health care programs. "The number of lawsuits, the defensive practice of medicine is driving up the cost to our taxpayers," he said. "Medical liability reform is a national issue, and it requires a national solution." Leaving aside the fact that Medicare and Medicaid themselves are not authorized by the Constitution, this argument proves too much. It assumes anything that affects health care costs—which would include not only traditionally local matters such as tort law but highly personal matters such as what you eat, how much you exercise, how much sleep you get, and whether you floss regularly—is a fitting subject for federal legislation. At least they're consistent. posted by Sydney on 1/12/2005 08:06:00 PM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
