David Friedman <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Are you confusing monetary damages with punitive damages? ... It's
> only punitive damages--damages above that--which may require intent.
Speaking of medical insurance and punitive damages, I just read in the
news that a woman won $9.3 million, including punitive damages, for her
insurance company canceling her policy when she needed cancer treatment.
I have mixed feelings. Apparently it was canceled because it turned
out she lied on the application. This makes me a lot less sympathetic.
She had been stuck with a $200,000 bill for chemotherapy. *Why* does
it cost anywhere remotely close to that much? No wonder medical
insurance costs so much, and why so many tens of millions of people
are opting out. Fixing the "insurance" problem in this country has to
start with bringing medical costs down to something sane, rather than
everyone trying to get everyone else to pay the insane prices.
The latest (March) Reader's Digest had an article on recent medical
advances. All very nice, but there wasn't a single mention of cost.
If only a few millionaires can afford these new advances, fine, good
for them, and no harm to the rest of us. But if, as seems likely,
medical insurance will be required to provide these to all their
customers, that will mean tens of millions more people will have to
opt out and go completely uninsured.
(Also in that issue was an article about five men who were sentenced
to life in prison even though the FBI knew they were innocent. Three
of them died in prison; the other two were exonerated 30 years later.
They've received 100 million dollars in compensation. Needless to
say, this money comes from innocent taxpayers, not from the FBI agents
and managers responsible, none of whom got so much as as a delay in
their next promotion.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html
before emailing me.
|
