This is all jibberish. Tort reform saves healthcare dollars.<quoted text>
so you can't make a correlation between the two different insurance products, health insurance and medical liability coverage for practioners thus, there is nothing to suggest that limiting victim compensation awards reduces the health care insurers premiums charged to subscribers?
Compensation Lawyers aren't paid out of any portion of Health Care Insurers revenues. One is not a factor of the other there's no relationship what so ever between the two.
Does you auto mechanic charge you according to the automobile insurance coverage you have?
I'm trying to understand the relationship....
i.e Mitt Romney owns a health care insurance company, why would he lower his subscribers premiums if there's a limit on damages for victims suing a physician in his network's liability insurance company?
Really why would he go into his pocket for something that has no standing on his finances?
This argument is a classic reason of how lawyers destroy our country, and how they are parasites who will debate the meaning of the word is, in order to create a BS argument that everyone knows is wrong.
The bottom line is that once your company has enough employees the insurance companies use and experience rating to determine your health insurance costs.
All the extra tests that your employees had due to defensive medicine increase the costs your insurance company had to cover you, as a result the experience rating changes resulting in higher premiums.
And that is the definition of the word "is".
Save the legalese BS for your lawyer friends.