Dinosaur Egg Pluots, Part I

Walking through the produce aisle a couple weeks ago, we found "Dinosaur Egg Pluots." These were not ordinary plum-apricot hybrids mind you, these were "special." They were so rare (but hopefully not so old!) they were called dinosaur eggs.

I had to explain to my daughter a couple times they were the same pluots we saw in California but sometimes, when you give something a really snappy name, people think it's "special."

Today's example of this effect is from a WSJ article describing the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over cuts in California's "Medi-Cal" which is typically described as "free medical coverage for poor children."

Doesn't that sound special? What heartless bastard would publicly vote against, "free medical coverage for poor children?" With a description like that, it must be good, right?

There is no sense using the more accurate description of "free medical coverage for children of illegal aliens." Otherwise, ordinary people might question if California can really afford to cover all children of all illegal aliens. Without limits. For free. Forever.

The WSJ article concludes by describing a family with two kids earning $23,000 but no insurance and a son who was bitten by a dog and required $26,000 dollars in plastic surgery. The $26,000 bill was apparently 100% paid by California taxpayers. The family was presumably extra grateful since this $26,000 of free money was on top of the $170 per month in medications they already received from the state for only $10. (Admittedly, not quite free.)

As reported by WSJ, the debate in Sacramento revolved only around how much to fund the program. The choices seem to be "heartless" or "continued funding" (aka, "eventual bankruptcy").

At risk of provoking an argument (or proving myself stupid!), one "alternative" inundates Florida billboards and TV ads where Florida lawyers aggressively solicit personal injury complaints. Because of the cumulative case volume, liability rates are higher than California but, over time, settlements can be almost cookbook. Injury type "xx" is typically awarded "$yy" by a jury. Except in extreme cases, lawyers prefer to settle quickly, which limits costs and liability while putting money into the hands of victims fairly quickly.

Whatever you think of this system, the owner of a Florida dog causing $26,000 in medical bills generally ends up on the hook for the $26,000 --instead of Florida taxpayers. In addition to having one less dog running loose in Florida, the settlement takes victims off the indigent roles, at least for awhile, thus taking medical expenses off the backs of Florida taxpayers (at least momentarily).

Admittedly, Florida's auto and liability insurance rates are higher than California's. However, it at least points risk at the responsible party instead of leaving the state to bail out everyone.

Is there some solution for California in Florida's tort and liability system? Hmmm...