Doing the "tort reform" "interstate competition" debate on FB

[Narkos]

and need some help. The guy I'm debating is a wingnut with a JD, and he brings up some points I'm not sure about. I'm going to google monkey the hell out of this thing, but needed some clarification on a couple of points.

1. I concede that my healthcare decisions are currently limited by the insurance I choose to purchase. i want to be able to purchase insurance from a private company for two reasons; 1. If I don't like their actions, I can switch companies (I can't switch governments). 2. If the company violates the terms of the contract or if their decisons cause me undue harm, I can seek relief in the courts (if the government is in charge and screws up you are SOL because you can't sue the government).

Is this true? You can't sue the goverment? I find that to be hard to believe.

2. You mis-characterize the options in the "state lines" issue. There are plenty of industries that are allowed to compete across state lines, but that also have to meet individual state regulations - the two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps the most quickly identifiable is all other types of insurance. GEICO sells across state lines, but has to offer plans in Georgia that mett our insurance regulations - they seem to be able to do so with pretty good efficiency. Only HEALTH insurance is FEDERALLY prohibited from selling across state lines

Can someone pick this apart for me...I always that any insurance company could operate in any state as long as they met state regulatory guidelines. Any insight?

3. Tort reform is brought up by conservatives because it should be a PART of any reasonable "reform" package, but the Dems won't allow it to be brought up. Why? Because they are in the pocket of the Plaintiff's Lawyers. As for the states that have passed Tort reform, you need to realize that that is just a political move that has no significant impact. The reason is that when the states pass tort reform, the Plaintiff's attorney's just take thier claims across the street to the Federal Courthouse and file them in Federal Court - where they are no limits on damages. So, when a state passes tort reform, the net impact on the potential liability of doctors in that state is next to nothing. The fact that the left, knowing this, would point to such states as examples of how tort reform doesn't work is extremely disingenuous.

Does this happen all the time? Do plaintiffs in states with caps on noneconomic damages always go straight to the federal courthouse?

4. As for me, I'm not a M.D. - I'm a J.D. I went through law school with an M.D. who was sick of spending so much every time he got sued (which was often due to his speciality - chronic pain), so he went through law school just so he could help his own defense and write his own "go away" letters. It was there that I first realized just how badly the government regulation of healthcare has screwed up the system. It was my Doctor friend's belief, as it is mine, that this was done purposefully so that government could step in with the "ultimate solution" - socialized medicine.

I had to laugh at this one. His buddy was probably an incompetent boob with no bedside manner...no wonder he was getting sued so much!

Any help would be appreciated!