Healthcare “Crisis” Solved!

Since the 80’s I’ve been listening to supposedly educated folks going on and on about this nation’s “Healthcare Crisis.” I have maintained for decades now that we do not have a healthcare crisis in this country. What we have is a “Litigation Crisis.” We shouldn’t be confusing the two. This litigation crisis is the result of unscrupulous people abusing our legal system through questionable lawsuits for personal gain – in ever-increasing numbers! This has created a two-pronged assault on our healthcare insurance costs. On the one hand, our physicians are being faced with out-of-control premiums for the malpractice insurance which they dare not relinquish in this sue-happy climate. On the other hand, they are, in many cases, obliged to practice what has become known as defensive medicine. The first adds significantly to the physician’s operating costs, the second, to your insurance carrier’s payables. Both wind up being passed on to you either in higher healthcare premiums, or out-of-pocket expenses. To elaborate:

MALPRACTICE INSURANCE
As medical malpractice suits began to increase in frequency, and the resulting awards began to balloon, physicians across the nation began to counter with higher levels of medical malpractice insurance (which also began to balloon in cost). Eventually, they began to feel the pinch in their malpractice insurance premiums as the cycle began to spin out of control. Naturally, the associated costs had to be passed along to the patient, or his insurance provider. The insurance provider, in turn, passed these costs along to their customers.
Physicians now tend to flee from States with high insurance rates and liberal tort law, such as Mississippi (where it is increasingly difficult to find OB/GYN’s, for example). Physicians remaining in these unfavorable climates are both more expensive and increasingly rare. By some estimates the cost of delivering a baby in Florida includes as much as $2000.00 just to cover the malpractice insurance!

DEFENSIVE MEDICINE
Besides insurance, another method physicians use to protect themselves from out-of-control litigation is defensive medicine. This can be defined as the avoidance of the suspicion of neglect. It comes in two flavors: assurance behavior, and avoidance behavior.

Ninety-Two percent of doctors, by one study, practice some form of assurance behavior. This means that they order additional (expensive) imaging and diagnostic procedures and/or make referrals for consultation with (expensive) specialists, rather than make the diagnosis themselves. Many of these additional services are only partially covered by the average healthcare package, and may even be redundant. Sooner or later, the costs come out of the patient’s pockets, either directly, or through higher premiums.

Studies further indicate that forty-two percent of physicians practice avoidance behavior. In other words, they simply restrict their practices by eliminating procedures high in litigation risk, such as delivering babies.

A study by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan estimates that in 2005, defensive medicine cost between 100 and 178 billion dollars per year. This translates into approximately $1700.00 for the average American family for that year. This is a significant sum of money, to say the least.

THE SOLUTION
If a well thought-out tort reform can be accomplished, it will make all of the above go away. It would be necessary to make bold strokes, however. Strict but reasonable caps would have to be placed on “pain and suffering,” and a “loser pays” policy would have to be rigorously enforced. The loser pays, or “English rule” is in force in most of the rest of the world. Under this system, the loser of a case pays all the legal expenses of the winner. This system discourages meritless lawsuits, and leaves the legal system to operate as designed, i.e. by giving the honest guy with the legitamate case easier access to the justice he deserves. Imagine it: Simple legislation could unclog court calendars overnight as the consequences of failure drive away hundreds of less-than-honorable plaintiffs and force their ambulance-chasing shysters to look for legitimate legal work!!
As the litigation dies off, so will the need for both the inordinate levels of malpractice insurance and the practice of defensive medicine with all of its baggage. If everyone is honest and passes the savings along, the physician’s bottom line will come down, the health-insurers bottom line will come down, and the patient’s bottom line will come down. Figuring out the solution was easy. We’ve examined and isolated the problem. We have formulated a logical solution. Now, all that remains is the implementation. Only one special interest group stands in the way.

Trial lawyers would be the big losers in any effective tort reform. For years their numbers have been increasing, and they have been trying to enlarge the size of the litigation pie to support their fattened ranks. As I write this, trial lawyers’ associations in every State and in Washington, D.C. are fighting for legislation that will make litigation easier, rather than harder! There isn't enough legitamate work to go around! Unfortunately, the ordinarily honest, yet uninformed American people are being led around by the nose. We have reprehensible legislators on all levels who sell themselves to the highest bidders. Because trial lawyers’ associations and their lobbyists are flourishing in this climate of prostitution, a simple and elegant solution sits in the shadows collecting dust.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Senator John Cornyn of Texas has been a champion of tort reform, and his efforts are to be applauded. See http://www.johncornyn.com/stories/380 for more information.
Ted Frank of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has also been a tireless advocate of tort reform. See http://www.american.com/archive/2009/may-2009/a-stimulus-you-can-believe-in for an illuminating article on the subject.

In God We Trust: God's True Place in America

There has been a disturbing trend over the last 40 years or so towards trying to completely remove religion or any religious (notably Judeo-Christian) references from public view. This has been a gradual process with a plethora of court rulings which, over decades, has taken us a half-step at a time towards an atheistic society. This trend has been aided by the spread of half truths and misconceptions – mostly by liberals, but also by the honestly-ignorant younger generation they helped to create - concerning the Constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers.
As a result of this trend (or movement) many people have been led to believe of late that God should be publicly invisible. This is a relatively new idea. There are movements today to remove God’s name from our money, as well as from our pledge of Allegiance. They are motivated by the misconception that the Constitution somehow forbids any official mention of God, and that the founders themselves intentionally avoided the very mention of God wherever possible.
Many facts concerning the mention of God in our society, as well as the founding fathers' attitudes towards religion and the existence of God, may surprise you. For example, the words "One Nation, Under God," were added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the early 1950’s. The pledge had been originally written by a Baptist Minister (who also happened to be a socialist) named Francis Bellamy. It was intended to be a recitation by school children at the 1892 Columbian Exhibition in Chicago on Columbus Day of that year. From that time, the pledge slowly evolved into what we have today. The Knights of Columbus instigated the Oakman-Furguson resolution during the Eisenhower administration, which officially added “Under God” and Ike himself said:

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.

"In God We Trust" actually began appearing on coins as early as 1864. The Civil War increased religious fervor at this time and made this addition a popular idea. Paper currency didn’t begin displaying "In God We Trust" until 1957 however, a year after it was declared our national motto by the 84th Congress.
As far as the notion of our founding fathers intending to distance themselves and the government from God, nothing could be further from the truth. There are several historic documents which confirm this. Look at Washington's first inaugural address, for example. In it he stated that:

…it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge.”

Washington concluded his address with:

I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

Even Jefferson, who is widely and wrongly considered an atheist by many today, in his first inaugural address, asks:

…enlightened by a benign religion, professed, indeed, and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people?

One may also look at the Declaration of Independence, which begins with:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind…

The Declaration goes on to again reference the "Creator" and closes with the assurance that the document was signed with "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."
Yet Another good example of the official acknowledgement of God’s prominent place in our society is Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. This is, in fact where the notion of the United States being a “nation under God” originated.
The founding fathers never intended for Church and State to be separate, they only intended to avoid a State-sponsored religion. The phrase “wall of separation between Church and State” comes from a political letter that Jefferson wrote to a preacher who accused him of being an atheist. Jefferson considered himself a Unitarian. Others might call him a Deist. Either way, he believed that God or "Providence" was active in human affairs and the Universe, but from a distance .
As far as the Constitution is concerned, it only provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; that’s all it says on the subject. This means that tax dollars can not be used to support a State-sponsored religion, but neither should the government do anything to discourage the free practice of any religion. I doubt that the founding fathers would care about public displays of nativity scenes, crosses, stars of David, menorahs etc. These symbols, in and of themselves, don’t force or coerce people into any particular form of worship, nor do they discourage them from doing so.
During their Presidencies, both Jefferson and Madison regularly attended church services in The House of Representatives, where such services were offered until after the Civil War. Their attendance was a deliberate gesture meant to demonstrate their support for religion as a fundamental component of republican government. This attitude is in keeping with an old Whig tenet, popular in colonial times, which stated that: “Because of its susceptibility to corruption, liberty must closely ally itself with virtue in order to resist the allure of power.”
One may also note that throughout his administration, Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. It was generally believed that since these services were voluntary and not discriminatory, (They were multi-denominational) they were not considered at all objectionable.
People are, of course entitled to their opinions, but they should try not to superimpose them on the founding fathers when trying to make their point seem stronger. These men lived in a time when even enlightened thinkers rarely denied the existence of God. Of course, the history of this subject is muddled and generally meanders back and forth over the “wall of separation” without too much trouble, so you will have to dig deep to find solid support for one side or the other.
So, to sum it all up, if you are not offended by condom or male enhancement commercials, or any of the other near-pornographic sewage pumped into your living room by prime-time television, or if you think it seems reasonable to kill a million babies per year out of convenience, then the National Motto or the occasional “Merry Christmas” should not offend you either.
We are guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. As big boys and girls we should be able to acknowledge that religion exists whether we want it to or not. If people prefer that religion be kept hidden behind closed doors like a dirty little secret, they need to realize that they are the minority and shouldn’t get upset because others won’t conform to their world-view. It would be better for them to just look the other way whenever they cross paths with a religious symbol. It's a free country for religious folks too, no matter what the ACLU would have you believe.
The last poll I saw on the subject indicated that 86% of Americans held some form of religious belief. I guess that means the remaining 14% either work in the “entertainment” or “news” industries. There they can most efficiently spread their distortions of the truth and have us believe that it is the perverts that are in the majority, while those of us that believe in things like God, honor, integrity and virtue are an out-of-touch lunatic fringe.