So let's change that from 'little incentive' to 'LESS incentive'....
That doesn't really work, since the cap often doesn't apply at all, and it doesn't ever apply to some of the biggest costs.
Maybe change "less incentive" to "potentially slightly less, but likely the same, and either way still massive incentive", and you would have something closer to the truth.
And also, of course, *smaller to middlin' sized spills*, say a spill with a $100 million damage assessment could easily be made much less harmful to the spilling company's bottom line by a statutory damage cap of $35 million.
Except that the cap doesn't apply at all when safety regulations have been violated, and never applies to cleanup costs, so its unlikely to have the effect that you present.
Works exactly the same way as the damage caps that GOP always wants to put on medical liability claims...
Typically those caps are on putative damages. If not they are on hard to quantify "pain and suffering" amounts. And they are in a response to a tort system that has gotten out of control.
Damage caps are not the idea solution. They are still high enough that the torts cause problems, and on the other side they do slightly reduce the incentive to be careful. The ideal solution would be a change in our legal culture and courts, that rejected bogus and fraudulent claims upfront, and made it more difficult for less dishonest, but still not seriously established theories of medical malpractice to be used to win cases.
Assuming John Edwards wasn't dishonest (I know its not an easy assumption) and really believed that not performing cesareans in the circumstances in the lawsuits he was involved in really was dangerous malpractice; at the time the theory that this was malpractice wasn't solidly established, and his clients (and he) shouldn't have gotten millions, probably not anything. Since then the theory has been shown to be false, but its not like Edwards is going to give his money back. The direct cost of the malpractice settlements and awards, and the costs of the insurance going up in response is bad enough, but probably even worse is the "defensive medicine" response. In this case a much larger number of cesareans being performed not only increases costs, it also increases the incidence of medical problems and reduces survival rates. |
