Key to health care is tort reform

This is in response to Dan Bailey (Sept. 1 Fence Post). The health coverage provided by the American free market economy has been compared to government-run programs all over the world.

I don't claim to know all there is to know about socialized health care. What I do know is that citizens in these countries are taxed at an obscene rate for a program that rations care on a risk- and cost-benefit analysis. My conclusion is that human life at various stages has a dollar value and corresponding priority levels of care in this scenario.

Health insurance in the U.S. is a tool for mitigating risk. When a consumer purchases a policy, it is not to provide all of their health care needs and wants. It is to provide financial assistance to the policy holder, not to cover any and all costs.

These are two different systems that are difficult to judge by one standard set of criteria. However, the proof is in the number of people from abroad who come here for critical and specialized health care. They come here because the care is tops, without question. I know that several countries with socialized medicine have a rather loud voice proclaiming that they wish they could get out from under the government-run care. This could be the time for reform, but not the 1,000-page bill that now sits before us.

The key issue here is tort reform. An AMA report in 2003 estimates that emergency physicians pay $100,000 annually for malpractice insurance while specialists such as neurologists and OBGYNs pay anywhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 to $300,000. As long as there is incentive for a litigious society to file frivolous lawsuits, these massive costs will be passed down to the consumer. It's simple economics, folks.

Dan Milinko

West Chicago