Tort reform might save me money, but will it save you any?

As a doctor I am all for limits on personal injury or tort reform. Limits may ultimately lead to reductions in my malpractice insurance. Good for me, but I don't think it is going to be as big a cost saver to the system as people think.

I agree tests and treatments are sometimes ordered frivolously, but that is not all because the doctor is scared of being sued. Well, maybe it is. But that fear comes from the general public's expectations and it's influence on standard of care.

For an example of this is look, what happened last year when a body looked at mammogram recommendations. When the group looked at the recommendations for how often screening should be done the whole country got in arms about possibly changing the recommendations. Because even if studies shows you have to screen 1000 extra people to catch one extra cancer (being facetious) society wants those screens. Nobody wants to be that one in a thousand who isn't caught.

Now in order for tort reform to be effective for the public, and not just for me, there would have to be reform in the practices of medicine. This would involve looking at standards of care to see the cost/benefit/risk ratio of doing certain test in certain situations, or when to or not to treat certain conditions. Sound like the "death panels" the dems were accused of creating, right? But how else are you going to change the culture in medicine?

The funny thing is when dems mention creating bodies to evaluate these risk/benefit ratio's they are called death panels. When repubs call for tort reform which will ultimately lead to the creation of the same panels they aren't death panels anymore.

I think we need to look at the overarching similarities between both sides proposals. Finding the commonalities between the two points of view should make it easier to find compromises--makes sense to me

Not everybody at a Tea Party event is racist, but....

I have read many stories about the Tea Party movement suggesting that their is a hidden tinge of racism beneath the outrage of the movement.

Ok, now I have to say that I don't think that just because you are a member of the "Tea Party Movement" that means you are automatically a racist. But standing next to the guy holding the Obama sign with him a bone in his nose doesn't help. Now I have heard the defense that "just because I am at the rally and some people are racist doesn't make me a racist". I actually agree.

But I was thinking about something: Remember during the 2008 elections when everybody kept saying how racist Obama must be because he attended Jeremiah Wright's church?And remember how anti -American Obama was at that time because he "palled around" with terrorist Bill Ayers?

Now I only mention this to point out how silly we let the partisan spin, spin us. You are guilty by association as long as they aren't people you associate with? Doesn't make sense to me