I’ve noticed two or three pundits and letters to the editor this week explaining that malpractice reform MUST be part of the solution to kill all those unfair lawsuits.
Curiously enough, none of these writers suggest that we should you know, cut malpractice. Or encourage doctors, who are notorious for defending their own, to report and oust the bad ones (a majority of malpractice suits target a minority of doctors).
And there’s no suggestion that medical advertising might play just as big a role as “defensive medicine” (ordering lots of tests so you can prove you did the right thing by your patient). Pretty much every issue of Men’s Health touts some amazing new test “that can save your life” because even if all the standard tests say you’re fine, this can check better for heart disease/cancer/whatever. No discussion of percentages, costs, anything—it’s like a medical services advertorial.
But of course, criticizing doctors or the medical industry would imply that they might be (gasp!) doing some things wrong. Much better to stick with the corporate truisms that all those lawsuits are from greedy grasping people and have absolutely no basis.

In the ongoing quest for new fees, T-Mobile has come up with a good one: $1.50 if you want a paper bill (extra if you want details of the calls) according to Mouse Print .
As one commenter says, what if you’re one of the people who still doesn’t have a computer to get an online bill?

Today’s Daily News editorial argues in favor of changing U.S. law to allow payment for organ donations. The rationale is simple: There aren’t enough organs donated, paying would increase the supply and it “could be implemented with appropriate safeguards.”

I have mixed opinions. On the one hand, they have a point. On the other, will this turn into a system where the guy who has lots of money gets to scoot ahead of the guy who needs a transplant more? Right-wing pundit Walter Williams has argued it’s ridiculous to base priority on who needs it rather than who can pay for it most (and if you don’t have the money to compete, he says, just take out a second mortgage or sell your car!), but I don’t agree, any more than someone in the E/R with a lot of money and a sprained wrist should be able to pay to get ahead of someone with no money and pneumonia.

Second, this will basically turn into using poor people as organ banks for rich people, which I find dreadfully creepy (I don’t know that I’d advocate banning on that point alone, though).

Third, if the issue is increasing the supply of donations, there are other ways: Places that use “opt out” forms — e.g., when you take out your driver’s license, you’re automatically a donor unless you request not to be—have a much higher level of participation (this is true of “opt out” generally).