Right...and why do hospitals do it? Because of gov intervention. Why do people abuse it? Because they have no economic morality, which means they are thieves, and they know they will never have any real consequence (or bill) they will have to pay for services rendered...and don't mind stealing.

No, the bills remain outstanding in collections. We just had a client ask us why the amount of money we collected for them was less than the national average of 6%. Six percent! Hospitals have hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding debt, and they are happy if they can collect six percent of that back! Imagine running a business like that!

But if Gruber is not depending on Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Jefferson et alia, and Rand for his guiding lights, then who? Marx and Alinsky?

Well put, my friend. Herr Gruber seems to be hyped on something. ADHD? I don't believe Gruber would have been able focus long enough to gain anything of value from Plato.

Interesting, I've never considered the possibility of a Capitalist application of the practice of the adjudication of the Laws. Would your anarchistic beliefs extend to the Legislation of the Laws themselves?

I'm asea as to the three possibilities of Regulation viz. None, External, or Internal. I have no way to assess whether the last century of Profession Associations and Government Regulations have improved or hindered better, more competent, and more honest lawyers and doctors.

For the attorney currently, the downside is investing time and effort and professional expertise in a case that may drag out for years but does not lead to any payoff. But perhaps that isn't enough of a disincentive. I completely agree that any laws regulating professions are unnecessary and harmful. Professional associations and oversight should be voluntary, I believe. And consumers can choose their medical provider based on their own judgment of the value of the person's credentials (instead of the judgment of Big Daddy government and its crony bureaucrats). As an anarchist, I even believe that the state should not be in the business of providing courthouses for we attorneys to work in; even this could be done better and cheaper by private businesses.

I'd much prefer voluntary professional regulation to the state mandating it. And I think we should be free to choose a medical provider with whatever credentials we're comfortable with, rather than relying on government to make the decision for us.

As I said above in my answer to khalling, I think the free market could handle the issue of medical malpractice much better than government legislation and adjudication. If we allowed the free market to work, I believe tort reform would be moot.

I agree there are problems. So you are in favor of tort reform? Or do you think there is another solution?

In my opinion, the free market will handle these problems and balance the risks fairly. The problem is that we don't have a free market. We have government attempting to manage every stage of the exchange of dollars for health care. My suspicion is that getting government out of health care would make tort reform unnecessary.

I agree that government is a dangerous animal better caged than in charge of the zoo. As for attorneys, there seems to be no downside cost or risk. We the people pay for the upkeep of their workplace and the absence of competition gives them monopoly control over their incomes.

An opportunity only if the Republicans grow a spine.

I don't believe Plato's Republic is required reading anymore. I wonder if Herr Gruber read it?

A prime example if there ever was one!

I used malpractice lawsuits as an example, but I consider the plethora of regulations and state to state legislation all part of the legal system. It's all a bureaucratic tax on our health care.

Some oversight is necessary whether it is done by a government body (ugh) or an independent "accounting" firm. I'm no expert here, but it would be comforting to know that when I go to a doctor he/she actually got passing grades at a medical school and served a real internship and is not some scammer that hung a fake credential on the wall. The scammers don't get a slap on the wrist. They get beheaded.

The amount of damages paid in med mal lawsuits is off the charts. Med mal insurance is so high for some specialties there is a shortage of practitioners in those areas. Life is risky. And our court system is a laughing stock to other countries who see our litigious ways as a huge expense in our economy.

I don't think the legal system is the only one, or even the biggest player, in bleeding the health care system dry. I think that all the government intervention in the form of licensing, regulations, required paperwork, and taxation has more to do with it. I've been told that it is law that a doctor who once sees a patient cannot later refuse to give health care, even if the patient can't pay.

Further, if there weren't laws forbidding it, we would see more competition in the insurance market, so our premiums would go more for actual health care rather than providing insurance company management with obscene profits.

I don't have any grudge against doctors. I just want more freedom, and passing more laws and regulations called "tort reform" isn't the way to get it. (Neither is a government monopoly on law and the court system.)

I'm not really sure how you propose to "put the false and incompetent practitioners out of business" if the highest amount of damages a doctor (or rather the insurance company) has to pay amounts to a mere slap on the wrist. Besides the tort reform, do you propose to continue the system of mandatory licensing and oversight by professional boards -- in other words, is this an area of society where more government and bureaucracy are truly good and efficient in your opinion?

I kind of like the idea of "loser pays." And maybe the attorney should have to kick in too, so he or she would be less likely to bring frivolous suits. But, then again, sometimes cases are decided wrongly, an it could be a double blow to an innocent plaintiff.

Heath care has huge problems, but I think the best solution is getting government out of it, rather than giving them even more control.

OMG, they just *can't* do that... however is the dotgov going to skim money out of this if the people aren't buying this far more expensive "cheaper" health plan from them? Oh... the people figured out they're being grifted by the O'scammer in chief and his friends? Oops... Well...

And worse, what ever is going to happen to all those state insurance... oh, that's right, most of the states told them to go pound sand. Never mind...

I will be so dam6ed glad when this scam is, um, "privy"canned and my insurance rates go back down to where they were before this hocus-pocus focus on the bogus...

What an opportunity! Get rid of ACA and replace it with nada, zero, nothing, zip. See how quickly insurance companies seize the opportunities to come up with all kinds of plans with all kinds of coverages, at all kinds of premiums for all kinds of people. And horrors, there'll be some folks who won't want insurance, mostly young and healthy folks, or self insured folks.

"... a simple repeal would cause problems because it would take insurance away from 10-15 million people." Indeed. My family and I and a how many millions of others have already had our insurance plans cancelled as a direct result of this Looter Scheme?

Now the latest is that you and I and the rest of the American voting citizens are too stupid to understand how wonderful the benefits are of government-controlled anything. No, Mr. Gruber, we know exactly what you are and what you are aiding this non-legitimate government administration in doing.

Jim Angle is saying there will be big problems with relacing Obamacare? Come again? The greatest Healthcare system in the world, although not the best but with problems that rules of capitalism can correct (as so eloquently expressed by j_IR1776wg), has already been replaced and no one, I mean NO ONE is considering the tragic results of the ruthless imposition of Obamacare on American Citizens, as well as the private business communities. Moreover, I do not see enough individuals taking a serious look at what is going to develop over the next twent-four months.

Yup just like the income tax.

Ronald Reagan said nothing has eternal life on this earth like a government program. The ACA will prove these words to be true. The Republicans may be able to tinker a bit with it, but we are stuck with it. We are screwed.

Kittyhawk, I empathize somewhat on feelings towards loved ones (or ourselves) that may have been wronged by some medical practitioner. However, the legal system has been bleeding the health care system dry for years and that is a cost borne by all of us. The get rich quick legalese lottery is one of the reasons we are in this mess. Emotionally, nobody can really put a dollar value on a life or maiming but logically we have to because all our health care dollars will be stolen away we don't. For example, call to mind John Edwards getting $300 haircuts. It takes our insurance premiums to keep him and his ilk fat and well coiffed and we get zero health care for our buck as a result. We have to put the false and incompetent practitioners out of business, but we also have to come to the realization that doctors and nurses are not Gods and will err from time to time.

Indeed, replace it all with free market capitalism. That would allow the medical industrial complex - the AMA/Big Pharma/Insurance tangled web to start unraveling like a cheap $5 suit. Alternative medicines, concierge medicine, home visits would all become fair game. Imagine all the insurance paperwork becoming subject to efficient competition? Only in the Gulch, I guess. Sigh.

AND LOUDLY!!!