Without malpractice limits

The Sept. 23 issue of the Star-Exponent featured an op-ed by Michael Reagan titled "Hillary Clinton's arrogance," sharply criticizing Sen. Clinton's proposed system of subsidized health insurance for all Americans.

Mr. Reagan probably wrote the piece while talking on the phone and watching TV. Don't take this as a critique of his writing, it's just that taking shots at Hillary Clinton's health care plans is about as tough as opening a low-hanging pi"ata with a 5-iron.

Many polls indicate that health insurance is a very important issue for a significant number of Americans. It's hard to quantify exactly how important it is, given the varying statistics. 

The Democratic candidates for president seem to think it's second only to Iraq, and the subject comes up in their speeches accordingly. A glance at the proposals - as reported by the Associated Press on Sept. 15 - from the Democratic slate (Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson) reveals a common thread of raising taxes to provide a subsidized national health insurance, so as to cover anyone who wanted it.

Putting some of the cost burden on employers is a part of many of these plans; so are tax breaks for doing so. Better coverage for children is a popular point. The plans put forth by Sen. Clinton and John Edwards have the word mandatory right up front. Former senator Edwards has said his plan would require everyone to go to the doctor for preventive care.

The GOP candidates don't seem to make as big an issue of it, at least not judging by the press they get.

Seemingly, Republican candidates don't think health care is a big issue, and their plans for improving it are much less complex than those of the Dems. Looking at ideas from the Republican hopefuls (Brownback, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Tancredo, Thompson), putting more responsibility on the states is a common notion, as is using tax-breaks to help individuals pay for health care. Market-oriented solutions are talked about by many GOP candidates.

In my book, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee beats all comers in this arena. He favors a market solution, an increased focus on prevention, and says, "We don't need universal health care mandated by federal edict or funding through ever-higher taxes."

Given all the law degrees held by candidates from both sides, it's no surprise that another potential remedy for the cost of health care doesn't come up at all: limits on malpractice awards. I think tort reform in this category would benefit everyone tremendously -- except, of course, those admitted to the bar. The cost of all things medical, from drugs to labor to hardware, is hugely inflated by the cost of insurance and protection against liability. 

                                          ***

TREE SUITS: Speaking of lawsuits, on or about Sept. 14, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that you are responsible for your trees. That is, if you have a tree that is causing heartache for your neighbor, he or she can sue you over it.

The jurists in this case weren't bound to interpreting a statute. No, in fact, they reversed a precedent established in 1939. Their logic for doing so was that people live much closer to each other than they did back then.

Since they were able to adlib their ruling, why couldn't they think of something outside the box- They should have said that trees are denizens of the natural world and that people are generally not responsible for what trees do. They certainly should have said that trees in disputable circumstances are the joint responsibility of the parties involved.

We sure as heck didn't need another reason to litigate.

                                        ***

VIRTUAL DEBATE: Next week, our candidates for sheriff will be featured in this space in a virtual debate. They've both agreed to answer, in print, a question that I have posed to them in an e-mail.

The readership seems to be anxious to hear from both of these men. Stay tuned!

E-mail