[JasonR]

I see and agree to some of your points. I never advocated a complete absence of liability, but think reasonable limits should be set.

It's good that you brought up pharm companies. They seem to be a favorite target of people because they're, generally, making a good profit. People scream about them making money but then demand the latest drugs for free. Pharm companies invest billions in R&D looking for the next wonder drug. There's a reson life expectancy has been rising and drugs are part of the reason. Viagra seems to grab the headlines but there have been a boon of new drugs offering hope for many people afflicted with different conditions.

Would those discoveries have been made by not-for-profit drug companies? Highly doubtful. And for every amazing discovery, how many R&D projects end up as busts? Walmart can make all the money in the world but God forbid a company in the medical industry make a profit.

Also, insurance companies would not be the only people to benefit from tort reform. Our anasteatheoligist friends mal insurance is 400k/year. 400k! It should probably only be 25% of that at most. That's 300k the hospital would save on a single doctor's benefits alone. That means they don't have to charge as much for their services; the insurance companies, the uninsured, and those with out of pocket requirements then don't have to pay as much. This leads to lower health insurance premiums.

The insurance companies will still make their money, the hospital will have an easier time making theirs, and the consumers save as well. In our current system some smaller towns can't even attract a doctor because the mal insurance is so high the doctor couldn't stay in business.

Yes, many uninsured go to the ER for all medical care. However, many ignorant insured people go there as well. And if we bring down the general cost of health care, more people would be able to afford it.

For isntance, take my plan regarding states requiring insurance companies to treat all state citizens as a group. That makes it more accessible as group rates do tend to be lower. Also, with multiple insurance companies competing in the state, prices will be driven lower.

Is it as simple as that? Of course not. But it isn't much more complicated either. Meanwhile, if you go with socialized medicine you are stuck with the one option. What are we to do if we socialize medicine and now you're told that fusion is the standard and that's all that is available to you? Are you willing to trust the government to treat you fairly? Do you trust the government to do what's in your best interest or what's in their best interest? What has the government done to deserve this level of trust?

I truly do understand the frustration with our health system in its current form. Remember that I was denied ADR by my first company. It sucked. But I had options and I exercised them. I do not want to be stuck with the government as my only option. I've heard to many horror stories from coworkers who either are or lived overseas where socialized medicine just isn't getting the job done and they didn't have any other viable option.

Again, if we want to test government health care, beyond the VA anyway, then let a state test it and run with it. Then, keep it on the state level where it's more manageable. The federal government has ruined every benefit program it has been entrusted with no matter which party was in power.