I read this from NYT from yesterday, and I don't think it's a good idea. The doctors and hospitals already have so much protection from powerful lobbyists, and their lobbyists are typically richer and better funded than a group of public citizens who access their care that is 5 times larger. I mean, the "buying power" of the medical lobbyists is huge, in comparison with the average voter and their chances.
I am for healthcare for all, definitely, and no one should have their entire savings wiped out because of injury or illness, but protecting doctors from lawsuits and then leveraging for healthcare for all brings one fear to my mind: the idea that a huge system of federal care without protections and controls for the public will backfire. It might cover more people, but it also gives a lot of lenience to medical professionals to go free and without accountability. Having said that, it is sometimes only those who are middle class, at least, or rich, who have the ability to obtain a P.I. attorney. P.I. attorneys may be sometime-ambulance chasers, but they're not really after defense of the poor and their health problems, usually. The pay off is greater if you're taking cases where the earning power of the rich has been affected. But then again, they usually have better care and more careful doctors to BEGIN with...so WHO does this really protect?
The idea to put MORE restraints on the public from suing for reasonable cause and damages, isn't a good idea. Let a JURY decide who should pay for damages and if there are grounds for damages to begin.
What in the world is happening to the right to jury trial?
What's weird is that it's far left Dems who OBJECT but at the same time want the public healthcare for all...Which, hmmm...I think is probably at least somewhat balanced. To have full healthcare for all and more restrictions on the public from suing for damages should they arise is...really, really, a BAD IDEA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment