Comments on: LEMON LAWSUITS II http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/lemon_lawsuits_ii/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:12:43 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: John Lemon http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/lemon_lawsuits_ii/comment-page-1/#comment-3028 John Lemon Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2407#comment-3028 No, but insurance policies are written as binding legal contracts and are less ambiguous than claiming your doctor hurt you. With my suggestion to rely upon an insurance market, wherein the person receiving treatment is the insured, there will be less of an incentive for doctors/hospitals to avoid risky procedures. You fail to see that point. Moreover, go back to the ambiguity problem. The system is now set up that a disgruntled or injured patient sues the doctor and if the doctor loses the insurance company pays up. The ambiguity arises in proving if the doctor did engage in malpractice or if it was just a normal risk that didn't go well for the patient. This is what juries must decide and since most jurists don't have deep medical knowledge or a good background in probability theory, end up making decisions that Kinsley sees as completely random and unjust. In my insurance scheme, you remove that ambiguity. If I go in for angioplasty, I take out a policy that is priced according to the actuarial risk of something going wrong. If something goes wrong, I get paid (or my family gets paid if it is really bad). The conctract can be specified a priori so as to remove ambiguity. If you think there will simply be a substitution effect on lawsuits from doctors to insurance companies, tell me why we don't see a rash of people suing insurance companies over car accidents? The reason is because insurance policies represent very specific legal contracts. Also, it sounds like you really don't like "Big Business," or at least the insurance industry. No, but insurance policies are written as binding legal contracts and are less ambiguous than claiming your doctor hurt you. With my suggestion to rely upon an insurance market, wherein the person receiving treatment is the insured, there will be less of an incentive for doctors/hospitals to avoid risky procedures. You fail to see that point. Moreover, go back to the ambiguity problem. The system is now set up that a disgruntled or injured patient sues the doctor and if the doctor loses the insurance company pays up. The ambiguity arises in proving if the doctor did engage in malpractice or if it was just a normal risk that didn't go well for the patient. This is what juries must decide and since most jurists don't have deep medical knowledge or a good background in probability theory, end up making decisions that Kinsley sees as completely random and unjust. In my insurance scheme, you remove that ambiguity. If I go in for angioplasty, I take out a policy that is priced according to the actuarial risk of something going wrong. If something goes wrong, I get paid (or my family gets paid if it is really bad). The conctract can be specified a priori so as to remove ambiguity.

If you think there will simply be a substitution effect on lawsuits from doctors to insurance companies, tell me why we don't see a rash of people suing insurance companies over car accidents? The reason is because insurance policies represent very specific legal contracts.

Also, it sounds like you really don't like "Big Business," or at least the insurance industry.

]]> By: James Joyner http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/lemon_lawsuits_ii/comment-page-1/#comment-3029 James Joyner Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2407#comment-3029 Ah....okay, I finally see your point. I thought you meant you'd collect from the DOCTOR/HOSPITAL's insurance rather than your own. This is interesting. And, no, I'm not a huge fan of the insurance industry. They perform a very valuable, indeed, necessary service. But they have every incentive to minimize their costs by being stingy in meeting their obligations. I've never had trouble collecting in auto accidents from my own insurance company, but have when I've had to collect from the other party. And, of course, when I have to collect from my company--even in the case of a hit-and-run that was the other driver's fault--my rates go up. --- Ah....okay, I finally see your point. I thought you meant you'd collect from the DOCTOR/HOSPITAL's insurance rather than your own. This is interesting.

And, no, I'm not a huge fan of the insurance industry. They perform a very valuable, indeed, necessary service. But they have every incentive to minimize their costs by being stingy in meeting their obligations. I've never had trouble collecting in auto accidents from my own insurance company, but have when I've had to collect from the other party. And, of course, when I have to collect from my company--even in the case of a hit-and-run that was the other driver's fault--my rates go up.

---

]]>