tvb wrote: It's a valid question and you are refusing to answer it despite trying to argue that tort reform is necessary.
It's not a valid question. If the left views people
as having variable value, then the Constitution is lost and it is your viewpoint that will have sunk it. It's interesting to note the "cake and eat it too" mentality of the left in concurrently thinking that everyone should have the same high quality health care is somehow held as valid. Still think those death panels aren't possible? It seems your a little short of cogent arguments yourself today. Perhaps you should make up your
tvb wrote:Then you are going to try and claim it's the fault of the attorneys? Try getting corporate America or anyone else for that matter to acknowledge your rights in a legal dispute without one. Corporate america and the insurance companies don't give a damn about you Mike and it's polly annish to think otherwise.
Who else could you blame? The data doesn't support insurance companies as the driver. The paper clearly states that liability claims are the driver. Since it is the role of the attorney to be an advocate for claimants and it is primarily attorneys who make the laws and decide the issues in the courts, they have established precedents that have enabled a growth rate in claims that exceeds the economy. There is a decided conflict of interest between the profit motives of the attorneys and the trust the people have in them as legislators. We merely need a check and a balance.
tvb wrote:And you go to post an article that seems to support the liberal assertion that there is no need for tort reform and even summarize it by writing...
"Seems" would be the operative word here. A lot can be gleaned from an older paper that is dispassionate about current affairs. The article was written in 1996 before the health care cost debate came to a head at the federal level. The issue at the time was whether or not there should be reform of the medical malpractice insurance laws. States were considering statutes to contain rising health care costs based on the assumption
that medical costs were out of control as a result of recent rampant increases medical malpractice premiums. What they discovered is that there indeed was a rampant increase in the number of claims and awards in the sixties and seventies (but it could not be characterized as "runaway") and that there was always a long term growth rate well beyond that of inflation
. Though they don't say what caused the increased costs but certainly do say that claims and award sizes increased dramatically. Note that they didn't blame doctors or the insurance companies either.
I believe the paper describes growth rates for malpractice at about 3% adjusted for inflation over the long term. That represents real growth, i.e. incomes would compare as flat. This suggests that with compounding sooner or later we will have a train wreck. Fast forward to today.
I assert, as does the article imply, that today's train wreck was not caused by insurance companies but rather by legal advocacy. The facts in the paper disprove Jon's statement that "[I] was making *censored* up" about historical events.
TVB, you are a sharp person but you are just another "drive-by" party hack like jon. You are both masters of the "pot shot" and have a lot of time on your hands. I have suspected for some time that you and Jon are paid indirectly for your commentary which is why I called you a political hack. Operatives are pack animals and you fit the bill.
I don't have time for two argument threads. Forgive me for not responding to you in the future.