Newsy Opinions and News
From Today's WSJ, an opinion entitled "Gay Lessons" (subscription required)
So John Kerry lost the election not because most of the nation rejected his approach to Iraq or health care or taxes. Rather, he lost because President Bush succeeded in energizing the Bible-thumping homophobic masses averse to redefining marriage.
Or so goes the story line emerging from Blue America media outlets. It's been extrapolated from exit polling on the primacy of "moral values," and from the fact that referendums to ban gay marriage passed easily in the 11 states where they were on the ballot. But we think these returns tell a different story, and it's one that liberals who are so contemptuous of Red America ignore at the risk of more political peril down the road.
True, weekly churchgoers voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush. But they comprised the same 42% of the electorate as four years ago. It's self-described moderates (some 45% of the electorate), who made the difference this year. Nearly half went for the President, and if opposition to gay marriage was one of the issues that stirred these swing voters, don't blame bigotry or ignorance. It's more accurate to say that proponents have overreached.
The country is engaged in an honest and open debate about gay marriage. On the one hand, 41 states have bans in place, and polls show that the public opposes same-sex marriage by roughly 2 to 1. On the other hand, most Americans also oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages and seem amenable to allowing gay couples something short of the "marriage" designation. Fifty-two percent of Bush voters are in favor of civil unions, as is the President himself.
The 11 gay marriage bans that passed on Election Day represent a public backlash against efforts by liberal courts and others to end this national conversation prematurely. Americans aren't intolerant but they don't want unelected judges and grandstanding public officials imposing their own moral standards by legal diktat. You needn't be a bigot to have a problem with four out of seven judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court taking policy decisions out of the hands of voters and legislatures, or with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defying state law (and invoking Rosa Parks) to issue more than 4,000 marriage licenses to gay couples.
The lesson here for gay rights activists is to trust the democratic process, rather than use the courts to circumvent it. Public attitudes toward homosexuality are much different than they were even 20 years ago, with (for example) many companies already offering benefits to gay partners. Letting voters reach a democratic consensus on their own schedule is also a good way to avoid a repeat of the endless cultural warfare that has stemmed from that monument to judicial activism known as Roe v. Wade.
In the meantime, if liberals really care about discriminatory legal protections and benefits, they might consider agitating for a repeal of the death tax, which puts gay couples at a disadvantage. Married couples are allowed an unlimited transfer of assets to a spouse before death, a tax benefit denied gay couples. And only heterosexual spouses can inherit each other's assets without paying estate taxes.
Every poll we've seen shows tremendous support among gays for eliminating the tax. And it's certainly a more productive use of energies than branding the majority of Americans homophobic for taking time to consider whether the 5,000-year old institution of marriage needs to be upended.
Another story from WSJ, from a couple of weeks ago:
U.S. BUSINESS NEWS
Health
Malpractice Insurer SeesLittle Savings in Award Caps
By JOSEPH T. HALLINAN and RACHEL ZIMMERMAN Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNALOctober 28, 2004; Page A6
One of the nation's largest medical-malpractice insurance companies told regulators that recently enacted caps on noneconomic damages in Texas would save it little money.
In a filing with the Texas Department of Insurance seeking a rate increase, Medical Protective Co., an arm of General Electric Co., said the caps would lower payouts by just 1%.
Last year, after a pitched political battle, Texans voted to amend their state constitution to allow caps on awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, in medical-malpractice cases. In most cases, that cap is $250,000.
Medical Protective's filing was made public by the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica, Calif., consumer group that has opposed such caps. The foundation has also opposed rate increases by Medical Protective and others in the state of California.
"When the largest malpractice insurer in the nation tells a regulator that caps on damages don't work, every legislator, regulator and voter in the nation should listen," said the foundation's executive director, Douglas Heller.
Jay Thompson, an attorney representing Medical Protective, said the statements referred to by Mr. Heller's group were "one small part of the filing," and had been taken out of context. "It completely ignores the realities of the litigation arena," Mr. Thompson said.
He said Medical Protective favors caps on noneconomic damages and was a member of a group, the Texas Alliance for Patient Access, that was a primary supporter of the legislation.
The question of capping awards for noneconomic damages has triggered debates at state and national levels, with President Bush a strong proponent of such restrictions.
The filing in question was made to the Texas Department of Insurance last year as part of Medical Protective's request for a 19% rate increase. The state agency rejected that request and the case is before an administrative judge in Texas, said Mike Geeslin, deputy commissioner for policy at the Department of Insurance.
Mr. Geeslin cautioned that the information in the filing should not be applied to the rest of the industry. "You're looking at information submitted in a rate filing that is obviously slanted toward trying to justify some sort of rate action," Mr. Geeslin said.
In the filing, Medical Protective said, "Noneconomic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping noneconomic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%." Mr. Thompson said he couldn't say what percentage of total losses paid came from noneconomic damages.
But a white paper dated March 2004 and posted on Medical Protective's Web site states that capping noneconomic damages is a "critical element [of tort reform] because in recent years we have seen noneconomic damages spiraling out of control."
One of the leading advocates for the passage of the caps was the Texas Medical Association. The association, which represents the interests of doctor members, contends that the caps have already resulted in lower insurance rates for doctors. It says that after the legislation passed, the Texas Medical Liability Trust, which provides malpractice insurance, cut premiums 17%. Medical Protective insures about 6,500 doctors in Texas, making it the No. 2 insurer behind the Trust.
There was a response from the American Medical Association President, 11/15/04
LETTERS
The Proven Benefit of Malpractice Award Caps
It is impossible to gauge the short-term effectiveness of the Texas medical liability reforms ("Malpractice Insurer Sees Little Savings in Award Caps," Oct. 28) without considering that weeks before the new reforms went into effect, Texas county courthouses were flooded with opportunistic personal injury attorneys rushing to file new lawsuits.
The county clerk in Bexar County reported that more than 300 medical liability lawsuits were filed in the three months before reforms took effect. That's more than the average number of cases filed in the county in two years. Clearly, it will require time and money to move this onslaught of cases through the Texas legal system, significantly impacting a turnaround in the crisis and an improvement in patient access to care.
We've seen this happen before. In California almost 30 years ago, physicians' insurance premiums didn't immediately decrease following enactment of medical liability reforms because of years of legal stall tactics. But California reforms have proven to stabilize premium growth over time. Since 1975, premiums in the rest of the U.S. have risen more than three times as fast as those in California. Physicians in Texas can also expect to see their premiums stabilize as a result of meaningful reforms. John Nelson, MD, President, AMA, Chicago
What's interesting about these articles? The WSJ claims that the courts shouldn't decide cultural issues, and the American Medical Association seems to be seeking the same claim for medical malpractice. In the latter, Medical Liability Monitor reported earlier this year that malpractice preniums increased 6.8% for OB/GYNs who practice in states with caps. Perhaps common law and constitutional law will become more popular than ever for those of us who aren't lawyers.
So John Kerry lost the election not because most of the nation rejected his approach to Iraq or health care or taxes. Rather, he lost because President Bush succeeded in energizing the Bible-thumping homophobic masses averse to redefining marriage.
Or so goes the story line emerging from Blue America media outlets. It's been extrapolated from exit polling on the primacy of "moral values," and from the fact that referendums to ban gay marriage passed easily in the 11 states where they were on the ballot. But we think these returns tell a different story, and it's one that liberals who are so contemptuous of Red America ignore at the risk of more political peril down the road.
True, weekly churchgoers voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Bush. But they comprised the same 42% of the electorate as four years ago. It's self-described moderates (some 45% of the electorate), who made the difference this year. Nearly half went for the President, and if opposition to gay marriage was one of the issues that stirred these swing voters, don't blame bigotry or ignorance. It's more accurate to say that proponents have overreached.
The country is engaged in an honest and open debate about gay marriage. On the one hand, 41 states have bans in place, and polls show that the public opposes same-sex marriage by roughly 2 to 1. On the other hand, most Americans also oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages and seem amenable to allowing gay couples something short of the "marriage" designation. Fifty-two percent of Bush voters are in favor of civil unions, as is the President himself.
The 11 gay marriage bans that passed on Election Day represent a public backlash against efforts by liberal courts and others to end this national conversation prematurely. Americans aren't intolerant but they don't want unelected judges and grandstanding public officials imposing their own moral standards by legal diktat. You needn't be a bigot to have a problem with four out of seven judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court taking policy decisions out of the hands of voters and legislatures, or with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defying state law (and invoking Rosa Parks) to issue more than 4,000 marriage licenses to gay couples.
The lesson here for gay rights activists is to trust the democratic process, rather than use the courts to circumvent it. Public attitudes toward homosexuality are much different than they were even 20 years ago, with (for example) many companies already offering benefits to gay partners. Letting voters reach a democratic consensus on their own schedule is also a good way to avoid a repeat of the endless cultural warfare that has stemmed from that monument to judicial activism known as Roe v. Wade.
In the meantime, if liberals really care about discriminatory legal protections and benefits, they might consider agitating for a repeal of the death tax, which puts gay couples at a disadvantage. Married couples are allowed an unlimited transfer of assets to a spouse before death, a tax benefit denied gay couples. And only heterosexual spouses can inherit each other's assets without paying estate taxes.
Every poll we've seen shows tremendous support among gays for eliminating the tax. And it's certainly a more productive use of energies than branding the majority of Americans homophobic for taking time to consider whether the 5,000-year old institution of marriage needs to be upended.
Another story from WSJ, from a couple of weeks ago:
U.S. BUSINESS NEWS
Health
Malpractice Insurer SeesLittle Savings in Award Caps
By JOSEPH T. HALLINAN and RACHEL ZIMMERMAN Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNALOctober 28, 2004; Page A6
One of the nation's largest medical-malpractice insurance companies told regulators that recently enacted caps on noneconomic damages in Texas would save it little money.
In a filing with the Texas Department of Insurance seeking a rate increase, Medical Protective Co., an arm of General Electric Co., said the caps would lower payouts by just 1%.
Last year, after a pitched political battle, Texans voted to amend their state constitution to allow caps on awards for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, in medical-malpractice cases. In most cases, that cap is $250,000.
Medical Protective's filing was made public by the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica, Calif., consumer group that has opposed such caps. The foundation has also opposed rate increases by Medical Protective and others in the state of California.
"When the largest malpractice insurer in the nation tells a regulator that caps on damages don't work, every legislator, regulator and voter in the nation should listen," said the foundation's executive director, Douglas Heller.
Jay Thompson, an attorney representing Medical Protective, said the statements referred to by Mr. Heller's group were "one small part of the filing," and had been taken out of context. "It completely ignores the realities of the litigation arena," Mr. Thompson said.
He said Medical Protective favors caps on noneconomic damages and was a member of a group, the Texas Alliance for Patient Access, that was a primary supporter of the legislation.
The question of capping awards for noneconomic damages has triggered debates at state and national levels, with President Bush a strong proponent of such restrictions.
The filing in question was made to the Texas Department of Insurance last year as part of Medical Protective's request for a 19% rate increase. The state agency rejected that request and the case is before an administrative judge in Texas, said Mike Geeslin, deputy commissioner for policy at the Department of Insurance.
Mr. Geeslin cautioned that the information in the filing should not be applied to the rest of the industry. "You're looking at information submitted in a rate filing that is obviously slanted toward trying to justify some sort of rate action," Mr. Geeslin said.
In the filing, Medical Protective said, "Noneconomic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping noneconomic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%." Mr. Thompson said he couldn't say what percentage of total losses paid came from noneconomic damages.
But a white paper dated March 2004 and posted on Medical Protective's Web site states that capping noneconomic damages is a "critical element [of tort reform] because in recent years we have seen noneconomic damages spiraling out of control."
One of the leading advocates for the passage of the caps was the Texas Medical Association. The association, which represents the interests of doctor members, contends that the caps have already resulted in lower insurance rates for doctors. It says that after the legislation passed, the Texas Medical Liability Trust, which provides malpractice insurance, cut premiums 17%. Medical Protective insures about 6,500 doctors in Texas, making it the No. 2 insurer behind the Trust.
There was a response from the American Medical Association President, 11/15/04
LETTERS
The Proven Benefit of Malpractice Award Caps
It is impossible to gauge the short-term effectiveness of the Texas medical liability reforms ("Malpractice Insurer Sees Little Savings in Award Caps," Oct. 28) without considering that weeks before the new reforms went into effect, Texas county courthouses were flooded with opportunistic personal injury attorneys rushing to file new lawsuits.
The county clerk in Bexar County reported that more than 300 medical liability lawsuits were filed in the three months before reforms took effect. That's more than the average number of cases filed in the county in two years. Clearly, it will require time and money to move this onslaught of cases through the Texas legal system, significantly impacting a turnaround in the crisis and an improvement in patient access to care.
We've seen this happen before. In California almost 30 years ago, physicians' insurance premiums didn't immediately decrease following enactment of medical liability reforms because of years of legal stall tactics. But California reforms have proven to stabilize premium growth over time. Since 1975, premiums in the rest of the U.S. have risen more than three times as fast as those in California. Physicians in Texas can also expect to see their premiums stabilize as a result of meaningful reforms. John Nelson, MD, President, AMA, Chicago
What's interesting about these articles? The WSJ claims that the courts shouldn't decide cultural issues, and the American Medical Association seems to be seeking the same claim for medical malpractice. In the latter, Medical Liability Monitor reported earlier this year that malpractice preniums increased 6.8% for OB/GYNs who practice in states with caps. Perhaps common law and constitutional law will become more popular than ever for those of us who aren't lawyers.
posted by benny06 at
Monday, November 15, 2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home