WSJ continues crusade against health care reform
June 16, 2009 9:14 am ET by Jamison Foser
The Wall Street Journal continues its assault on health care reform, warning of "total government control of the health markets." Along the way, the Journal editorial hits the standard conservative media talking points on malpractice "reform."
The Wall Street Journal claims "trial lawyers and their stratospheric jury awards and settlements have led to major increases in the medical malpractice premiums, thus driving up the overall cost of U.S. health care."
But, as Media Matters has previously noted, the claim that lawsuits have driven up malpractice premiums and thus health care costs is overblown:
Malpractice premiums: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has documented the minimal impact that increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums have on overall health care costs. A 2004 CBO report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save only 0.4 percent of the amount that's spent now" on health care. According to the report: "[M]alpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."
The Journal then claims that as a result of lawsuits, doctors "practice defensive medicine, ordering unnecessary tests to immunize themselves if they do end up in court. Economists disagree on the precise burden of this legal fear, but some argue that it exceeds $100 billion a year."
Again, Media Matters has noted that these concerns are overblown:
Defensive medicine: As FactCheck.org has noted, claims that "defensive medicine" drives up medical costs -- a principal Bush administration argument for tort reform -- have been dismissed as inconclusive by the General Accounting Office and the CBO. The CBO went further, declaring that there is "no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending."
Previously:
WSJ publishes op-ed falsely equating "ObamaCare" with Canadian "single-payer" system
WSJ ignores key data supporting "liberal-leaning" criticism of GOP health-care plan
WSJ doesn't disclose Galen Institute's reported industry ties in president's health care op-ed
WSJ op-ed makes wrong turn with claim that Obama is on a "drive to socialize health care"
Rove pushes "extreme" distortion of Obama health care remark
WSJ uncritically quoted former CEO of scandal-plagued hospital firm attacking Obama on health care
Media Matters: On health care reform, the Fox News noise machine is cranked to 11
The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
I have a question for those members of the AMA who are so opposed to a Public Health Insurance option (for the obvious fact that it would compete with the health insurance companies that those AMA members have a stake in)...
Q: If the Federal Government offered you a Public Malpractice Insurance option, would you take it?
Such a thing as that (that I'm obviously just imagining so as to make a point) would make the Federal Government your Malpractice Insurance underwriter, offering you to use them and their non-profit balance sheet as the "middle man" between you and the Malpractice liability coverage you need... in addition to the obvious reduction in costs of such Public coverage (a reduction in costs for having eliminated the private "middle man" and his profit incentive), you would have also the Federal Government on your side, as the heaviest of heavyweights, to fight against frivolous legal actions and exorbitant court judgments (a fight they make due to the Federal Government being the payer of the costs in such Malpractice claims, as a "single payer" of sorts)...
How about that, how about a Public Malpractice Insurance option that eliminates the expense of the for profit "middle man" of the private insurer, and also enlists the help of the Federal Government to reduce the sometimes outrageous costs of losing or even fighting a Malpractice claim?
How about it Doc?