Springer for Senate - Healthcare

Okay, so now Jerry Springer is running for the Senate. I saw an interview with him yesterday where he talked about one of his platforms being health insurance (or the lack thereof). The specific point that set me off was his statement that 41 million Americans don't have health insurance.

It annoys the hell out of me when one of these idiots starts talking about things is a categorical sense. Yes, there are people without health insurance that want it and can't afford it. But that is a very small percentage of the total number of people without insurance. There is a larger percentage of households with a total income in excess of $50,000/year that don't have health insurance.

For most people, this is a choice issue. They choose to spend there money elsewhere. It is not a 'national epidemic' as Springer and some of his peers paint it.

The problems with the healthcare industry don't lie primarily with the number of insured. They lie in the need for malpractice reform and tort limitations. They lie in the laws that require our hospitals to treat illegal aliens for free, and an enormous cost to taxpayers. They lie in the choices of the individual, not in some cosmic fault with 'society'.

Again, I open the floor.

Hey, maybe healthcare would be more affordable if the Democrats stopped efforts to limit malpractice award caps.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

I think its ironic that Springer is lobbying for universal heathcare...he''s certainly dealt with the fall-out of medical and genetic insanity on his show.

While this doesn''t directly address the topic, it''s something that really blows my mind. We''re all very aware of the problem of frivolous medial malpractice lawsuits and over-inflated damages. The thing that gets me is that we have juries of our peers deciding on the validity of these claims.

I know this is obvious, but it was only really driven home to me when, a year ago, my roommate had jury duty on a medical malpractice case. He decided it would be an interesting experience, so he didn''t make up any excuse to get out of it. What it ended up being was a group of people who had no clue about anything to do with the word ""medical"" trying to decide if the doctor could have possibly made an honest mistake during a complicated spine surgery or if he was negligent.

Now, I don''t consider myself dumb, but I do know that I am in no way qualified to make that call.

I suppose I''m just railroading this topic into another rant against the jury system, but I think it is a part of the malpractice insurance issue the nation currently faces that does not get enough attention.