Malpractice

Thursday June 2, 2005 - 12:39PM EDT

I was watching the movie The Rainmaker yesterday. Solid movie by the way, as is usually Grisham novels that become movies. It made a comment about malpractice insurance. Today I found an article going over the same topic and there was a comment in it that rang in tune with a comment in the movie. Today there is this notion promoted that malpractice insurance is so high because of juries awarding too much money too many times in malpratice lawsuits. Both the movie and a economist quoted in the article downlplayed that notion. I don't know nearly enough about the situation to take any type of strong educated stance but I would admit that prior to the article and the movie I would have went with the notion of too many jury awards as a reason for high maltpractice insurance. I can't say for sure, but I think some doctors also believe that. Basically they are just looking for ways to pay less insurance and there is some evidence that jury caps on malpractice awards does help so they go to these states that have caps and insurance companies point it out as a valid way to deal with the problem. But really the only one it really helps is the insurance companies, there is no guarantee for the doctors that rates, set by the insurance companies, will be lower. The more I think about it the more I start to smell rotten fish. Insurance is a dastardly business. Whether it be healthcare or auto or something else insurance companies have to somehow make money when the ever present threat looms of massive payments. The intrinsic structure of insurance is not supportive of its concept of assisting people when they are in trouble. In fact it would be in the best benefit of the insurance company to do just the opposite. Screw people at every turn. There is no insurance company in existence that exists for the benefit of its customers. The nature of their business dictates otherwise, even though they like to promote themselves to the contrary. I think there probably has to be change in the way insurance is run for those companies to lower rates. Capping settlements is a one-sided solution. Besides the problem is much larger than just insurance. Problems with insurance companies are a thick web. Manufacturers of medical equipment, pharmaceutical companies and testing labs all play a part. How does healthcare spiral out of control?

In its purest form medicine is supposed to be an altruistic undertaking. But it almost never is. Of all the things attached to profit and personal gain, medicine is one of the most brutal couplings. How can anyone champion the pricelessness of human life when we all subscribe (willingly and unwillingly) to a system in which human life does have a monetary value. When will the day come that a drug company doesn't make medicine for profit but simply to cure. Don't give me that what I just said is idealistic bullshit. It is the distorted sense of reality that has made what we call realism a tradgedy. I want to figure out the numbers eventually. Where does the money go? Where are the resources being sent? Is it really the case that there isn't enough for everyone? Are people hoarding? Is the system so convoluted and inefficient that resources simply go unused? Is the answer simpler than we think? Has anyone really tried to take apart the system and figure out where the money and reasources go? That last question is key. I don't think it has been done. Mainly because it needs to be done on such a large scale, but it is only done in smaller divisions. I would make a analogy to the way large companies departments always lack efficient inter-department communication skills. And so called leaders designed to facillitate such and understand the big picture are pretenders. Their idea of big picture is woefully inadaquate and uncircumpsect. Furthermore this inadaquacy proliferates and is even championed resulting in a vicious cycle. Even those who seek to do "right" or "good" can be guilty of the same narrow focus. This criticism has no prejudices and can be leveled against anyone regardless of alignment to cause.

I am hungry time for lunch.