6/29/2005 06:55:00 AM|||Nathan Moore|||

The chairman of the ATLA Republican Caucus, Wil Colom, testifies before Congress regarding the real reasons for higher premiums for health insurance

Caps on non-economic damages discriminate against children and senior citizens. "Caps on non-economic damages-which are designed to compensate people for their injuries-hurt people who are not in the workforce, such as children and senior citizens, and those who do not have high lost wages or salary (economic loss).

An important principle, to be sure, and I find it hard to argue against. Under non-economic damages caps, the elderly and disabled are shafted since they typically do not have great earning potential or any significant work life left. To say that one's suffering is worth less because of their age is, to say the least, not very becoming. Economic damages are certainly a component of damages, but ought not be the only component. From my experience dealing with insurance companies, they typically do not cooperate when you have proven economic damages, anyhow. It's natural for the line of business to not want to pay out any more on a claim than you must. Damages caps are just another line of this thought, and are being spun expertly to take the blame for higher insurance premiums.

Additionally, it seems that the stats used by advocates of caps are cooked. They focus only on judgments, which as an lawyer knows, are a part of the battle, not the end result of it. Actual settlement numbers are much lower than judgment numbers - an estimated 1.7-2.4 times smaller (from the May issue of Health Affairs), analyzing data from the National Practitioners Data Bank.

Further bolstering the case against caps are statements by the insurance industry itself, "We have not promised price reductions with tort reform," American Insurance Association spokesperson Dennis Kelly has said. This is just one statement against interest of many. So, what's the point? The insurance industry is making money hand over fist, and the finger is collectively pointed at trial lawyers (i.e. me). Someone must take on the guise of scapegoat, and we are it. Of course insurance companies don't like paying on claims - it affects their profitability.

So, to say the least, I'm against damages caps. I'm also against term limits, and against seatbelt laws, and against quotas...I guess I am consistently against anything that reduces freedom.

|||112005010874816546|||Worth a Look