'Health courts' cost, it's just another bureaucracy'
Here's the second part in our piece from resident-provoceteur, Matt. Yesterday he told us why he believes in the American jury system and not health courts. He said he's used to being called a shark, so we obliged with the photo at right.
Back to health courts' cost, it's just another bureaucracy, and we've just added more state employees for a function that no one is able to show our current judges are doing a consistently poor job of handling. Even the claim that they are necessary to establish standards of care is false - there is literally nothing stopping physicians from doing that now. They can go to their insurer.
I've often seen Kevin's claim that 40% of claims are unfounded, according to Studdert. Well of course that's true - they are CLAIMS. The key is how does the system do when sorting out claims, and on that point, the current system does very well.
As to the counter, from reading in the medical blogosphere, I think that many physicians simply don't like adversarial settings. That's true of most of us, even most lawyers, but I think physicians in particular are acutely sensitive to it. Maybe it's the fact that they (like preachers) aren't used to being questioned and very much enjoy being captain of the ship. I know many don't feel that way, but in general polls show the public very much respects and admires them, and juries certainly defer to them. But it's the process of reaching the truth in our justice system that they don't like.