You don't think poverty and the lack of medical care predicts lower life expectancy?
I don't think poverty is an aspect of our medical care system.
I also would point out that people on the whole have been getting wealthier in the US, not poorer, and that if you look at what the bottom 10% get in various wealthy countries, the US does pretty ok.
---
The people in the 10th percentile in the US earn more than the people in the 10th percentile in Finland, Sweden, Austalia or the UK, and almost as much as the 10th percentile in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark or France. That's including recent immigrants. In Canada the 10th percentile does modestly better, only in Norway and Switzerland is there a large difference, and even in compared to Switzerland (the country that does best on this measure) the difference isn't as large as you seem to think it is (people at the 10% in the US make about 71% as much as people in the 10% in Switzerland).
To put it another way the 10th percentile in the US does better, as good, or almost as good as the then percentile in any large country in the world. (Large by population, maybe 50mil or more)
We are less equal not because our poor are poorer but because our rich are richer. If the poor are about the same, and the rich do better I consider that a good thing not a bad thing.
Message 24034995
--
Turning to malpractice.
1 This is a new problem.
Thats a strawman. Few would say it is new. It is worse than int the past, but that doesn't mean malpractice suits didn't exist in the past, or even that they where not a problem in the past.
2 The current legal system works well.
Works well or doesn't work well, is subjective, except perhaps in the most extreme cases of bad systems, and maybe even then.
3 It's about money.
Any time someone says that its not about the money, chances are its about the money.
Which doesn't mean it isn't just about the money, but people respond to economic incentives. The prospect for huge awards or large settlements causes lawsuits to increase.
5 Lawyers decide the standard of care.
Again a strawman, few would say the decide the standard of care. But they do effect it.
Frivolous suits are the root of the problem.
Well its true they aren't the root of the whole problem. They are only part of the problem. Many other suits aren't outright frivolous, but aren't clear cases of wrong doing by the doctors either. This category is the biggest part of the problem.
There is nothing one doctor can do.
Again a strawman. This isn't a typical part of the argument for malpractice reform.
8 Judges and juries favor plaintiffs.
In fact, judges and juries generally favor doctors. In 2000, defendants won 62 percent of all medical malpractice cases brought before a jury.4
I'm not going to say they do favor plantifs, but your stats are not evidence against the idea. If defendents won 62% of the cases, maybe an unbiased system would cause them to win a larger percentage.
All tort reform is good.
Close to a strawman, although I suppose some people might push that idea. |
