World Politics

[mr. tibbs]

From what I'm hearing this is what at least 30 States are preparing to sue the Fed Govt over.

It's all political posturing. The GOP has backed itself into a corner with its terrifying dogma--and now it's become enslaved by it. They've built there party's platform--and staked it's future--on so many lies and dis-information, but they can't back away from it now b/c it's all they have. Hence the lawsuits. This is all to help their eleciton chances; they don't actually believe it.

Remember that Nixon proposed health legislation that was way more "radical" than this, and, in the 90s, the GOP was all about a bill that looked very similar to what just passed the House. Bob Bennet, R Utah, even championed a public option as late as two years ago, before this new socialist mania had swept the party. But now imagine if a GOP Rep pulled out one of those ideas. They'd be toast. They wouldn't even win their primary for cries of "socialist."

And finally: imagine a health insurance pool that included the entire US, which is to say that it's the largest pool possible for our country, and that had no middleman syphoning off 20% of all money spent before anything even went to health care. Wouldn't that be the best bang for your buck?

No, though; let's protect the insurance industry. Today's "radical, socialist" Democrats were yesterday's centrist Republicans.

 

[BroDeal]

For the 30th time, we can start with tort reform, allow (by reducing regulations)

That is a winning combination right there. We'll reduce regulations and at the same time reduce the means people have of recouping losses when they are harmed by companies taking advantage of the reduce regulation to harm their customers. You never worked for the Bush administration, did you?

insurance to sell across state lies,

And that is going to reduce costs how? California is already in effect a country unto itself it is so large. I don't see that it has reduced health care costs compared to small states.

allow insurance to design policies that can be customizable (not unlike auto insurance),

Since most Americans don't purchase their own health care insurance, this is meaningless. Large companies already negotiate the scope of their policies with insurance companies.

allow individuals to pool together for group rates similar to employers,

Maybe we could even call them health care exchanges. That would be socialism, though.

reduce red tape from FDA (it takes decades in most cases to bring new pharma to market).

Just what we need. More Thalidomide--and tort reform to go along with it so people cannot sue when they encounter adverse results from new and insufficiently tested drugs.

 

[Anonymous]

The entire idea of "tort reform" is smoke and mirrors. The fact is that jury pools have been so influenced by insurance companies, that awards have exponentially declined in the past 10-15 years. It is merely a vendetta against a group that never votes Republican and nothing more...and it is always a good idea until it is your kid they screwed up for life, then biggest Kool Aid drinking Republicans make a bee-line to the meanest, most ruthless litigator at their country club..."hey, let me buy you a drink. Have you heard about my son?"

 

[Anonymous]

It's all political posturing. The GOP has backed itself into a corner with its terrifying dogma--and now it's become enslaved by it. They've built there party's platform--and staked it's future--on so many lies and dis-information, but they can't back away from it now b/c it's all they have. Hence the lawsuits. This is all to help their eleciton chances; they don't actually believe it.

Remember that Nixon proposed health legislation that was way more "radical" than this, and, in the 90s, the GOP was all about a bill that looked very similar to what just passed the House. Bob Bennet, R Utah, even championed a public option as late as two years ago, before this new socialist mania had swept the party. But now imagine if a GOP Rep pulled out one of those ideas. They'd be toast. They wouldn't even win their primary for cries of "socialist."

And finally: imagine a health insurance pool that included the entire US, which is to say that it's the largest pool possible for our country, and that had no middleman syphoning off 20% of all money spent before anything even went to health care. Wouldn't that be the best bang for your buck?

No, though; let's protect the insurance industry. Today's "radical, socialist" Democrats were yesterday's centrist Republicans.

Hmm. Many of the Attorney's General of the suing States are in fact Democrats. So much for your theory.

 

[Anonymous]

The entire idea of "tort reform" is smoke and mirrors. The fact is that jury pools have been so influenced by insurance companies, that awards have exponentially declined in the past 10-15 years. It is merely a vendetta against a group that never votes Republican and nothing more...and it is always a good idea until it is your kid they screwed up for life, then biggest Kool Aid drinking Republicans make a bee-line to the meanest, most ruthless litigator at their country club..."hey, let me buy you a drink. Have you heard about my son?"

Ah yes.. the poor personal injury lawyer can barely squeak by.

So why then is Med/Mal for physicians and hospitals so monumentally expensive? Even in Cali where there are maximum limits on jury awards have not stopped the rate of increase in filings.

I have a client in the medical field who is a fee for service provider. His Med/Mal is $34,000 per year and he's never had a claim. Are you really going to pretend that something like a loser-pays system won't bring those costs down? And if the doctors performance is so bad then how would a loser-pays system be any different than today? The idea would be for the frivolous suits to never be brought as the risk of losing would be too high.

 

[mr. tibbs]

Hmm. Many of the Attorney's General of the suing States are in fact Democrats. So much for your theory.

Good work. Now address the rest of it.

 

[Anonymous]

That is a winning combination right there. We'll reduce regulations and at the same time reduce the means people have of recouping losses when they are harmed by companies taking advantage of the reduce regulation to harm their customers. You never worked for the Bush administration, did you?



And that is going to reduce costs how? California is already in effect a country unto itself it is so large. I don't see that it has reduced health care costs compared to small states.



Since most Americans don't purchase their own health care insurance, this is meaningless. Large companies already negotiate the scope of their policies with insurance companies.



Maybe we could even call them health care exchanges. That would be socialism, though.



Just what we need. More Thalidomide--and tort reform to go along with it so people cannot sue when they encounter adverse results from new and insufficiently tested drugs.

On second thought, I think you are correct. It's just so much easier to allow some elected official in some far off city do your thinking for you based on what's good for the collective. This is especially true when some nameless, faceless chap is forced to pay for it.



Size and scope will help reduce costs. Streamlined regulations will reduce costs because insurance companies won't have to design state specific policies.

Business's who provide insurance don't have much to choose from because of heavy regulation insurance companies are saddled with. States can't go out and offer customized policies because the State's dept. of insurance won't allow it. For example, why should a 25 year old single male be saddled with paying for a policy that includes coverage for maternity? About the only thing Company's can decide is who the provider ultimately will be, what the deductible offerings will be and weather it's going to be a HMO or PPO.

If the average time-to-market for a new drug is 8 years, would't 10 be even more safe? Hell just round off to an even 20 then the friggin' drug would be super-safe. But then who on eath would the P/I lawyers sue?

 

[Anonymous]

Ah yes.. the poor personal injury lawyer can barely squeak by.

So why then is Med/Mal for physicians and hospitals so monumentally expensive? Even in Cali where there are maximum limits on jury awards have not stopped the rate of increase in filings.

I have a client in the medical field who is a fee for service provider. His Med/Mal is $34,000 per year and he's never had a claim. Are you really going to pretend that something like a loser-pays system won't bring those costs down? And if the doctors performance is so bad then how would a loser-pays system be any different than today? The idea would be for the frivolous suits to never be brought as the risk of losing would be too high.

Loser pays? Your idea of tort reform is for a single individual with limited resources to fight a legal battle with people able to afford a team of lawyers? That is all you have? Yea, sounds like a great way to lead sheep to slaughter. The idea would be for teams of lawyers working for hospitals, insurance companies, and wealthy doctors to force you to take $1000 bucks for your child with permanent injury because the danger of losing is so great. You act like most of this stuff ever makes it to trial. Most of it is settled, and done so on basic assumptions regarding current trends in jury awards, and you don't know what you are talking about if you believe that number isn't dropping like a rock. Now, imagine that with the loser pays scenario. Sorry, but all you have done is spout off talking points with little actual knowledge about the reality of that of which you speak.

If you believe that every lawyer in town has a stable of med cases on which he will win and retire early, you don't know anything about the legal profession. Sorry, but lawyers are easy to beat on, but that doesn't mean any of your arguments are based in reality.

 

[Anonymous]

It's all political posturing. The GOP has backed itself into a corner with its terrifying dogma--and now it's become enslaved by it. They've built there party's platform--and staked it's future--on so many lies and dis-information, but they can't back away from it now b/c it's all they have. Hence the lawsuits. This is all to help their eleciton chances; they don't actually believe it.

Remember that Nixon proposed health legislation that was way more "radical" than this, and, in the 90s, the GOP was all about a bill that looked very similar to what just passed the House. Bob Bennet, R Utah, even championed a public option as late as two years ago, before this new socialist mania had swept the party. But now imagine if a GOP Rep pulled out one of those ideas. They'd be toast. They wouldn't even win their primary for cries of "socialist."

And finally: imagine a health insurance pool that included the entire US, which is to say that it's the largest pool possible for our country, and that had no middleman syphoning off 20% of all money spent before anything even went to health care. Wouldn't that be the best bang for your buck?

No, though; let's protect the insurance industry. Today's "radical, socialist" Democrats were yesterday's centrist Republicans.

BS. If this legislation is so good then the Repubs will commit political suicide by suing to stop it. Plus you premise is bogus..., as I pointed out many of the State's AG's are Democrats.

Nixon also fixed prices. Hardly a Conservative thing to do, no? I don't think you will find many Conservatives who will look to the govt for more entitlements.

I can only imagine you are speaking of a utopia-ish govt entity providing the means to pay for everyone's care. Now, we all are aware of how efficient the Federal Govt is so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[patricknd]

Can you cite for me a precedent set by the Supreme Court that would prohibit such a requirement? No, you can't.

...and again, to not see the parallel between this and compulsory insurance for autos is to miss something very important.

there is a difference. compulsary auto insurance is liability insurance, so there is an arguable difference in the two.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html

no offense to anyone else, but how about we listen a smart person for a change?

 

[Anonymous]

Loser pays? Your idea of tort reform is for a single individual with limited resources to fight a legal battle with people able to afford a team of lawyers? That is all you have? Yea, sounds like a great way to lead sheep to slaughter. The idea would be for teams of lawyers working for hospitals, insurance companies, and wealthy doctors to force you to take $1000 bucks for your child with permanent injury because the danger of losing is so great. You act like most of this stuff ever makes it to trial. Most of it is settled, and done so on basic assumptions regarding current trends in jury awards, and you don't know what you are talking about if you believe that number isn't dropping like a rock. Now, imagine that with the loser pays scenario. Sorry, but all you have done is spout off talking points with little actual knowledge about the reality of that of which you speak.

If you believe that every lawyer in town has a stable of med cases on which he will win and retire early, you don't know anything about the legal profession. Sorry, but lawyers are easy to beat on, but that doesn't mean any of your arguments are based in reality.

Well, it's clear you know little of the medical profession. You have any idea of what the average (wealthy??) doctor makes today as opposed to 25 years ago?

BTW, loser pays means the team of lawyers representing the plaintiff are pretty damned sure there going to prevail or they don't bring the suit.

The United States struggles with a uniquely costly civil justice system. The direct costs of tort litigation, in particular, reached $247 billion in 2006, or $825 per person in the United States.[1] Moreover, tort costs in the U.S. as a percentage of gross domestic product are far higher than those in the rest of the developed world—double the cost in Germany and more than three times the cost in France or the United Kingdom.[2] The amount that is spent on tort litigation every year is greater than what Americans spend every year on new automobiles

Effects of Loser Pays

This paper infers from its examination of the scholarly literature how loser pays would affect the American legal system:

Almost every economist who has studied loser pays predicts that it would, if adopted, reduce the number of low-merit lawsuits.
A loser-pays rule would encourage business owners and other potential defendants to try harder to comply with the law. Doing so should produce fewer injuries.
Loser pays would deter ordinary low-merit suits, but it would not discourage low-merit class actions to the same extent because the risk of enormous losses, rather than the costs of legal defense, is the primary source of pressure on defendants to settle.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjr_11.htm



But, we can't upset the trail lawyer or the campaign contributions will dry up. Corruption? Yup.

 

[patricknd]

BS.
I can only imagine you are speaking of a utopia-ish govt entity providing the means to pay for everyone's care. Now, we all are aware of how efficient the Federal Govt is so I'll just leave it at that.

the fear of a great many people. i want no part of health care that is run with the same efficiency as the irs or the dmv.

 

[slowoldman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html

no offense to anyone else, but how about we listen a smart person for a change?

That was liberal fluff. Ideals will always sound better than practicality.....again, someone will have to pay for this. I want everybody to have health insurance, I really do. I just don't want to pay for it. I'll pay for mine, you pay for yours.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html

no offense to anyone else, but how about we listen a smart person for a change?

Had to laugh. Virtually everything he writes in this article is propaganda. Krugman even has to mis-quote Gingrich to make his "point."

Editors' Note:
This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in The Washington Post. After this column was published, The Post reported that Mr. Gingrich said his comment referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Hugh Januss]

That was liberal fluff. Ideals will always sound better than practicality.....again, someone will have to pay for this. I want everybody to have health insurance, I really do. I just don't want to pay for it. I'll pay for mine, you pay for yours.

I think we should have troops stationed all over the globe making the world safe for Democracy, I really do. I just don't want to pay for it.

 

[buckwheat]

That was liberal fluff. Ideals will always sound better than practicality.....again, someone will have to pay for this. I want everybody to have health insurance, I really do. I just don't want to pay for it. I'll pay for mine, you pay for yours.

Your tag should be slowbitteroldman. Anyway, now I won't feel bad when I blow by you on the road and the turbulence of my wake throws you off balance.

 

[slowoldman]

I think we should have troops stationed all over the globe making the world safe for Democracy, I really do. I just don't want to pay for it.

For what it's worth, I don't. I think we should bring them all home. Station them along our borders to keep it from being porous and then give them free health care for their service....

 

[slowoldman]

Your tag should be slowbitteroldman. Anyway, now I won't feel bad when I blow by you on the road and the turbulence of my wake throws you off balance.

You're getting to know me now.... You better pedal faster......

 

[Anonymous]

That was liberal fluff. Ideals will always sound better than practicality.....again, someone will have to pay for this. I want everybody to have health insurance, I really do. I just don't want to pay for it. I'll pay for mine, you pay for yours.

+1

But you can't say that on this forum without the Alinsky wing getting after you.

BTW, I raced with you (I think) in Ontario a few weeks ago in the 30+ and 45+. Your sprinter has a serious turn of speed.

 

[buckwheat]

Had to laugh. Virtually everything he writes in this article is propaganda. Krugman even has to mis-quote Gingrich to make his "point."

Editors' Note:
This column quotes Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation, a quotation that originally appeared in The Washington Post. After this column was published, The Post reported that Mr. Gingrich said his comment referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

No, you're right. The rest of the Republican Party just wishes Strom Thurmond would have been POTUS.

Actually the Civil Rights Act was a part of Johnson's Great Society. Thanks to you and Newt for the meaningless distinction though.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/56e.asp

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was part of Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" reform package — the largest social improvement agenda by a President since FDR's "New Deal." Here, Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act into law before a large audience at the White House.

 

[slowoldman]

+1

But you can't say that on this forum without the Alinsky wing getting after you.

BTW, I raced with you (I think) in Ontario a few weeks ago in the 30+ and 45+. Your sprinter has a serious turn of speed.

Yeah, you probably did. Say hi next time. You have good taste in beer, and I see by previous posts you go to the Abbey. I live in Claremont, might have to buy you a beer and we can laugh at this stuff.....no wait, I am bitter...

 

[Anonymous]

I think we should have troops stationed all over the globe making the world safe for Democracy, I really do. I just don't want to pay for it.

You're just mad the govt isn't compelling citizens to buy bicycles.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, you probably did. Say hi next time. You have good taste in beer, and I see by previous posts you go to the Abbey. I live in Claremont, might have to buy you a beer and we can laugh at this stuff.....no wait, I am bitter...

Ah, you must drink alot of the hoppy stuff to be so bitter.

 

[slowoldman]

Ah, you must drink alot of the hoppy stuff to be so bitter.

so true......