A political comment
A letter I wrote to our representatives in congress.
Provision of a national health care system would nearly certainly have an effect on the tort system as related to products liability. Currently, our legal system holds manufacturers strictly liable for their defective products, ensuring that manufacturers of goods have an economic incentive to design safe products and inspect them for quality before sale. However, most of the costs for which these manufacturers are held liable relate to medical expenses and lost earnings.
With the government potentially providing medical coverage to the citizens, the incentive for injured victims of defective products to sue manufacturers would be considerably lessened, as the potential recovery would thus be decreased–not just as to the medical expenses, but as to the potential for general damages, enhanced damages, and punitive damages, all of which are generally awarded in some multiple of special damages. As a result, there will be fewer products liability suits and smaller awards and settlements when those suits are won or settled.
While there are certainly those who see the tort system as broken, we must carefully think about that a national health insurance system administered through the government would, to a high degree of certainty, amount to a subsidy to manufacturers of goods. [For evidence of this conclusion, see Dana A. Kerr, Yu-Luen Ma, & Joan T. Schmidt, "A Cross-National Study of Government Social Insurance as an Alternative to Tort Liability Compensation," 76 J. Risk & Ins. 367 (2009).] While as a matter of promoting domestic manufacture, that could be a good thing, the fact is that most of our consumer goods are imported and a national health system would work out to be a subsidy to primarily foreign manufacturers.
I, for one, can’t stomach the idea of reducing the incentive of foreign manufacturers to produce safe goods at the expense of the American taxpayer. I urge you to take this concern into account before voting in favor of or against any health care reform bill.
Thank you for your continued service.
Given my libertarian leanings, one would anticipate that I would be against a national health care system. But, the requirement that hospitals treat all patients regardless of their capability to pay means that those of us with insurance are already paying the costs of the uninsured plus the costs of litigation in pursuing those unpaid funds. Since it would nearly certainly be cheaper to pay through a government insurance program, I find myself in favor of a national public health insurance system. However, I think that the concern I raised above is a real one, and that a real solution has to be worked out. Although I have not thought this through, one idea is that we could grant accident victims to sue for the full amount – including medical payments made by the government on their behalf – and then grant the government some subrogation rights to part of the recovery in much the same way the government gets a share of qui tam lawsuit recoveries.
More Source:
Political criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRealClear Politics
Politics + Comment | Politics | The Guardian
The Great American Disconnect-Political Comments
Related News:
- Back in the Days. The Grandeur of Russian Empire. Parks and Palaces near St. Petersburg Pavlovsk
- Is air travel really all that bad these days?
- 16 days, 5 countries, 4 children and 8 lessons learned
- Last days in France End of the holiday
- The art of packing and last days in Edinburgh
- Days of resting in Tuscan countryside
- Independence days in Spain’s Basque Country
- "And these are the days of our lives…"
- 54 days laterrr
- First couple of days in CairoGiza
Details :
Submited at Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 at 6:00 pm on Middle East by ethan
Comment RSS 2.0 - leave a comment - trackback