This is just more of the same FAILED REPUBLICAN POLICIES that George and his Neo-con buddies have been promoting for years.

It won't get me health insurance though! So it doesn't solve the problem. End of Debate!

Your solution to the mal practice problem is lame and it's also what is wrong with the Clinton Health care plan. What you are proposing is similar to mandatory arbitration wherein the foxes are the arbitrators and the hens the injured parties. You would have doctors and lawyers deciding who should be permitted to sue and who should not.

The main problem here is that the medical boards who issue licenses to practice medicine refuse to regulate their doctors. Even when a license is suspended for gross negligence it is soon reinstated or the physician is permitted to practice in another state. It's nearly impossible to even locate an agency that regulates hospitals. In Oregon the agency is "The Commission" and they do not even bother to answer complaints. If doctors and hospitals were properly regulated there would not be so many mal practice suits. The reason your plan would never work is because nobody would be permitted to sue a doctor or hospital. Your plan is worse than arbitration. Below is an example of how well arbitration works in Oregon. Since mandatory arbitration is governed to a large extent by the federal arbitration act it is somewhat universal in scope.

My daughter was rear ended while stopped with her turn signal on waiting for opposing traffic to clear. She suffered injuries which resulted in being unable to work for 6 months. The other driver hit her traveling at 40 mph. Both cars were total losses. Both parties were insured by the same company. Liability would have been a no brainer except for mandatory arbitration which the unethical insurance company used to avoid paying a just claim. An independent medical examination was requested by the insurance company. The physician who performed the examination had his license suspended in two states for substance abuse and had no admitting privileges at any Oregon hospital. So, the same doctor who you say should be permitted to be sued for mal practice for operating while drunk was being used to deny my daughter's claim.

The insurance company refused to pay either the personal injury protection benefit on our policy or the liability benefit on the other driver's policy. I couldn't find an attorney who would take the case because they said it would go to arbitration. I was advised to file a small claims suit for the maximum amount which I did. The suit was removed to arbitration by the circuit court and I was ordered to file a formal circuit court complaint and pay court arbitration fees plus the arbitrator's fee of $160. The court arbitration fee was in excess of what it costs to file an appeal in the Oregon Supreme Court, not counting the arbitrators fee. By contrast the small claims court fee is $80. When all was said and done the court costs were more than $600. All arbitration proceedings fall under the local rules of the court and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. Almost all injured parties are denied justice where attorneys generally refuse to take arbitration cases and the injured layperson lacks the knowledge and skill needed to navigate the court system. I am a paralegal and I filed the necessary documents. The insurance company attorney failed to file an answer to the complaint within the required time limit. When I attempted to file a motion for a default judgment the court clerk refused to pick it up off the counter. I served the motion on the court by certified mail. It was not included in the court file until six months after conclusion of the arbitration. The opposing attorney answered the motion and his answer was filed forthwith to a motion that was excluded from the file. There were 12 pleadings filed during the process including motions for discovery, depositions and interrogatories. Supponeas were served on witnesses and testimony taken. Three days before the arbitration I received a conference call from the arbitrator and opposing attorney who were attempting to pressure me into releasing the claims adjuster from appearing as a witness at the arbitration hearing. The attorney had nine complaints filed against him with the state bar and the arbitrator also had complaints. During the hearing my daughter and I were the only ones present who were not attorneys. The arbitrator is chosen from a list of attorneys by the defendant insurance company and the plaintiff. Since it is likely the unethical insurance company will be sued again and again the arbitrator has a biased financial incentive to be chosen by the insurance company. In any case arbitrators are encouraged to compromise. In our case we were awarded the medical costs but only $63 for six months disability and lost wages. The arbitrator in effect agreed that my daughter was entitled to wage lost under the terms of the policy but refused to award it.

If an injured plaintiff disagrees with the arbitration award he/she can request a jury trial in circuit court. Before proceeding, however, there is a second arbitration of the arbitration. If the case ever reaches the jury and is found in favor of the injured plaintiff the amount of the original arbitration award is withheld from the jury. If the jury awards the plaintiff one penny less than the arbitration award then...as the prevailing party the plaintiff is nevertheless liable for the total of the insurance company's attorney fees and court costs. In our case the trial would have been heard by a judge who refused to read a plaintiff motion for default judgment against an insurance company.

The rational for mandatory arbitration is that it streamlines the court calendar. It only does so at th e expense of the plaintiffs who are excluded from filing the formal complaint required to begin arbitration. Our case could have been settled in 20 minutes in small claims court. It dragged on for six months in arbitration and ended up in the Oregon Court of Appeals.

If the Clinton mandatory medical insuranceplan is forced upon the American people every disputed claim less than $50,000 will be subject to federal and state mandatory arbitration mandates.

Footnote: A bipartition bill is being sponsored by Senator Sessions to reform mandatory arbitration. A republican bill is being proposed to defeat it.