Han wrote:

What worries me is that the very real possibility of ****ing-up
something that works properly for 250 million citizens in the hope
that a few under-served people will be helped.

Yes, that is pssible. The reverse is much more likely.

Not as long as congress-critters hold to "static-scoring," that is, the
belief that addressing one problem won't affect other areas. For example,
suppose our betters say: "Look, there're 40 million uninsured in the
country. Let's simply require doctors to treat those without insurance and
send their bill to Medicaid. We can (barely) pay for that." Then the fools
look surprised when 260 million people suddenly cancel their existing
insurance.

Delaware dramatically upped taxes on millionaires two years ago. This year,
there are one-third fewer millionaires in the state. Delaware officials are
shocked that over 1,000 of their highest income people have pulled an Elvis.

Point is, people are not "static." They respond to government actions, often
in unexpected, but rational, ways.


Another issue - and I don't recall whether you mentioned it - is
physician liability. My state, Texas, instituted a severe tort reform
measure four years ago. Among other things, it capped non-economic
losses (pain & suffering, punitive damages) at $250,000. We've
stopped hemorrhaging physicians and, in fact, had a tremendous
increase in doctors moving here from less-enlightened places.

Congratulations. That example should be followed everywhere. In
addition, physicians who make bad decisions should get more than a
friendly pat - some should be really punished, and it should NOT be
covered by insurance.

I've got an even better fix.

Tort damages consist of several pieces: recovery of economic loss, pain &
suffering, loss of consortium, and so on. My plan is to divert ALL
"punitive" damages to the state. Punitive damages are really "fines" to
discourage future rascally behavior by the defendant, so why should the
plaintiff benefit? In many cases, punitive damages dwarf all other awards
and it is they that make the case worthwhile for the plaintiff bar.

As an aside, Walmart has a policy (I'm told) of NEVER settling a
"slip-and-fall" case - they will always take the case to trial. This costs
more up front, but it does guarantee that meritless claims don't get past
the letter-writing stage.