http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus…

Sorry. I know it's from that bastion of left wing thought, the Dallas Morning News.

The quotes I last sent demonstrate clearly the purpose of the law, to protect the general public from uninsured motorists. If that concept is too difficult to grasp, I can't help.

From your original comment:
”
” I disagree, the purpose of liability insurance is to protect an individual from incurring costs due to a insured person's actions or to state it otherwise purpose of mandating liability insurance is to prevent any one individual from incurring costs due to the actions of another. It is not to protect society but individuals..”

” to protect an individual from incurring costs due to a insured person's actions”

Completely wrong.

From Texas' own web site discussing the reason for mandated liability insurance:

” ” Texas law requires people who drive in Texas to be financially responsible for the accidents they cause.”"

The law protects all people from uninsured, thus, it protects the general public. Period.

You interpret those comments to mean the concern for individual liability is because of the public interest in such but Texas law has a dearth of such things. Nowhere in the financial responsibility law is any language that even vaguely refers to that legal idea.

” there is no reason to believe that Texas passed it's laws based on your beliefs.”

Actually, they did.

http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/news/2008/news200846…

from that Austin link:

” Texas law requires people who drive in Texas to be financially responsible for the accidents they cause.”

And further:
” The 80th Legislature amended the current financial responsibility law in 2007 to increase the auto liability limits amid concerns that the current limits aren’t enough to cover the costs of an accident resulting in severe injury or major vehicle damage.”

The Texas legislature is clearly only concerned with the fiscal safety of the general public. What happens to the guy that doesn't have insurance is in no way part of their thinking.

I see what you are trying to say I just don't think like that and there is no reason to believe that Texas passed it's laws based on your beliefs. Did they say “Lets require insurance so someone won't be be screwed over by some irresponsible person” or “Lets require insurance so society won't be damaged”.

“If liability insurance was designed to protect the individual from loss, it would not be required just like comprehensive insurance is not required. In simplest terms, a millionaire who could afford to pay for damages he caused out of pocket is still required to carry liability insurance. It's a law to protect the general public, not the individual.”

First off in a two party accident the have to be two parties so yes it is to protect a individual, just not the individual who purchased it. Second you don't have to have liability insurance rather it's actually proof of financial responsibility which for us broke suckers = insurance. I again believe that it's to protect an individual, not the “public”, who is damaged. Texas law states that “Financial responsibility” means the ability to respond in damages for liability for an accident. Nowhere is it stated or hinted that the reason is for some “public” good. Show me where any state says that. If it is so obvious then it must be stated somewhere. I know it is not the case in Texas.

“Don't let ideology blind you to facts.”

I don't have time to teach you the entire history of the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution that draws its authority from the Federal Mandate. However, let's start at the beginning. The governmental system you live under is special in that it derives its authority from the people. This is different from say monarchs who like to say they derive their authority from God. That's why the Constitution starts “We the people,” and not “And God said.”

The fact that the government derives its power and authority from the consent of the governed, you are wrong to think the a state exists outside of that consent. All of those people who give that consent are also known as “the general public,” and laws defining and protecting all individuals in this society are laws that are defined to serve and protect the general public.

The person owning liability insurance receives nothing for the money he puts out for that insurance. If he hits someone and smashes himself or his car, he gets nothing. Every person in society he hits, ANY ONE, receives payment covering damage or injury from the accident. Everyone in society is also known as the general public, so the liability insurance one is forced to buy by the State is designed to protect the general public.

If liability insurance was designed to protect the individual from loss, it would not be required just like comprehensive insurance is not required. In simplest terms, a millionaire who could afford to pay for damages he caused out of pocket is still required to carry liability insurance. It's a law to protect the general public, not the individual.

Well the article he clipped it from seems to think its from extra tests, services, and procedures. How in the world GD thinks that effects the point I was making I just don't know. Personally I wonder if that “culture” in the area medical profession may have come about because of the economically depressed nature of the area. Anecdotally many doctors say that they write off a certain percentage of their practice, patients on medicare/medicaid, as only break even, depending on the rest of their practice to make money. What do you do if most of your practice is medicare/medicaid? Extra tests, services, and procedures?

You clipped articles and posted links without really challenging my points just deflecting the discussion as usual. Malpractice insurance went down, the number of doctors went up, it was a good thing. That in one small town in Texas the rates Medicare pays are higher means what? How about the 10 counties that had zero obstetricians before tort reform that now have them?

Your own article seems to indicate the reason for the high Medicare costs is from a tendency of the medical professionals in that area that were “racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.” How would that effect my point? Right it wouldn't.

Unfortunately, for all of the accusations which get tossed about regarding conservatives “being in the pockets of the insurance companies” the real problem is that certain liberals are sadly all too aware of how well their party's bed is feathered by trial lawyers. Howard Dean, in a stunning moment of honesty, came right out and said as much this year, but many of our liberal readers will never admit it openly.

Also, getting back to the other “old chestnut” the way that Democrats argue against interstate competition is baffling beyond words. GreenDreams' example is preposterous. I moved from New Jersey to upstate New York for my job quite a few years ago and my health coverage premiums (from the SAME COMPANY) dropped dramatically. More and broader competition reduces costs. What the secret reason is for Democrats wanting to defend the status quo on this one is beyond me, but I'm sure there's a lot of money involved.

Simple, cheap ideas that would reduce costs and the influence of special interests.

Texas passed Tort reform and malpractice insurance went down 30%.

Oh really?

The experience of Texas in capping damage awards is a good example. Contrary to Perry’s claims, a recent analysis by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker found that while Texas tort reforms led to a cap on pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which led to a dramatic decline in lawsuits, McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. In 2006, “Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per person enrolled in McAllen, he finds, which is almost twice the national average — although the average town resident earns only $12,000 a year. “Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.”

According to the Institute of Medicine, as much as twice as many people are killed through medical malpractice [as traffic accidents]. Yet medical malpractice is one of the least commonly pursued claims, with fewer than 10% of patients who have suffered an uncompensated injury filing suit. We don’t a have a medical malpractice litigation problem. We have a medical malpractice problem.

It is true that “tort reform” increases insurance company profits. It sometimes (but not always) also reduces doctors’ premiums. But it does so at the expense of the most seriously-injured patients. The right way to cut down on insurance costs is to cut down on malpractice. “Tort reform” that insulates doctors and insurance companies from the financial consequences of medical malpractice is precisely the wrong strategy.

Our study also shows that states that have passed severe medical malpractice tort restrictions on victims of medical error have rate changes similar to those states that haven't adopted these harsh measures. Finally, our research makes clear that medical malpractice claims and premiums have almost no impact on the cost of health care. Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of overall health care costs, and medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs. If Congress completely eliminated every single medical malpractice lawsuit, including all legitimate cases, as part of health care reform, overall health care costs would hardly change, but the costs of medical error and hospital-induced injury would remain and someone else would have to pay.

Here's a good rundown on the research to date, including that done for GW Bush by the CBO, which said

Several studies have found that various types of restrictions on malpractice liability can indeed reduce total awards and thereby lead to lower premiums for malpractice insurance. By themselves, however, such changes do not affect economic efficiency: they modify the distribution of gains and losses to individuals and groups but do not create benefits or costs for society as a whole. The evidence for indirect effects on efficiency–through changes in defensive medicine, the availability of medical care, or the extent of malpractice–is at best ambiguous.

more links:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/0…
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_ar…
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily…
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-l…
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract…
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/…
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/11/to…

They may very well give a better deal because State gov. set different requirements for coverage in their State.

“I really get tired of this chestnut. Malpractice is 0.5% of health care cost. ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT!!! Even if 100% of it was fraud, which it most definitely is NOT, it's TRIVIAL! As for doctors doing tests to avoid lawsuits, oh please. Malpractice insurance pays malpractice claims, not doctors. Tort reform simply doesn't deliver ANY significant savings.”

You are only looking at the direct savings. Texas passed Tort reform and malpractice insurance went down 30%. Not surprising we also had an increase of practicing doctors right after. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40%. I saw a study of doctors in Massachusetts, 83 percent of whom said they ordered tests they thought were unnecessary just to protect themselves from liability.

“97% of doctors take new Medicare patients, EXACTLY the same % that takes new insurance patients. Nearly ALL hospitals do. And we're not driving doctors out of the profession; we don't let them IN.”

I don't know that you are right. That was from a Govt study 10 years ago and it asked very limited questions. Many doctors limit the percentage of medicare patients they carry in their practice and the problem is getting worse not better.

“the vast majority of doctors nationally still participate in Medicare. Yet two recent surveys of doctors were conducted in Colorado: One showed only 15% of doctors accepting new Medicare patients”

From http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-…

The State does have meaning on it's own separate from the general public. Don't let ideology blind you to facts. Besides now you argue some extraneous point instead of your original claim that auto insurance was for some “collective” good. It is not in my state and you have shown nothing to make your case in any other location just your “philosophy” of who knows what.

Let people shop across state lines

No one thinks that will help. Nearly every single insurance company operates in all 50 states. You think Wellpoint of CA will give you a better deal than Wellpoint of NJ? Dream on.

Put these goddam trial lawyers in their place.

I really get tired of this chestnut. Malpractice is 0.5% of health care cost. ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT!!! Even if 100% of it was fraud, which it most definitely is NOT, it's TRIVIAL! As for doctors doing tests to avoid lawsuits, oh please. Malpractice insurance pays malpractice claims, not doctors. Tort reform simply doesn't deliver ANY significant savings.

Does anyoen pay attention out there? We are running out of primary care physicians because the re-imbursement from Medicaid is too low

Oh man. You buy all the talking points don't you? 97% of doctors take new Medicare patients, EXACTLY the same % that takes new insurance patients. Nearly ALL hospitals do. And we're not driving doctors out of the profession; we don't let them IN. It is insanely difficult for bright, talented, dedicated and capable students to get into med school. And insanely expensive. We can have more doctors any time we want. Why make it so freaking elite?

So much anger. Take a breath, man.