The sooner the better....

Re: The sooner the better....

PostBy: stockingfull On: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:27 pm

Wassamatter, Mike, can't answer a simple question without your protective fog bank of doublespeak?

Fail.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: The sooner the better....

PostBy: tvb On: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:33 pm

LOL -- Is that the knee jerk bleeding heart liberal in you that has spoken and threatened disaster trying to invoke fear in the hearts of Repubicans?


I learned it by studying the Bush Cheney 2004 campaign. That was the one where they ran on the platform of "Vote for me or you're gonna die because the terrorists will have won if you vote for kerry".
If you would like to back that up a bit and re-start with me on a sane and level footing, I would be happy to engage you. Otherwise, I'll have to dismiss you as just another excitable liberal political hack.


LOL... try looking words like "political hack" up before you use them otherwise you look like a fool.

Jon's arm example was spot on. I don't use my arms much to make my living but someone like Jeff who does would likely place a greater value on his arms. Should his arms and my arms have the same value to a jury? I don't think so.

How much value would you put on your daughter's face if she were to be harmed by a careless doctor or do you think it has no value? It's sad but a reality that our society places great value on being good looking and I have no doubt that you have a beautiful daughter. What is the dollar value of that beauty? It's a valid question and you are refusing to answer it despite trying to argue that tort reform is necessary.

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.

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:
Essentially that article states that medical malpractice has never been "in crisis" because the insurance system has adapted.


So what is it, Mike? Is it in crisis and in need of reform or isn't it? I know it's very republican to try and have your cake and eat it too, but really, make up your mind and form a cogent argument already.
tvb
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska
Stove/Furnace Model: Channing III

Re: The sooner the better....

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:10 pm

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 mind.

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.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M


Re: The sooner the better....

PostBy: samhill On: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:46 pm

Guess who keeps the figures & sets the rates for the doctors malpractice ins., do you really think they care about the doctors or you & I or their profit margin. They just started my jacking the malpratice rates & took them about as high as they could to the point of docs getting out of practice so then they turned to jacking up everybodies health ins. The only real thing I see wrong with ins. awards in law suits is when someone that (for instance) burns themselves with a cup of HOT coffee & then walks away with a Mil. or so. Then its not the lawyers fault, he did his job, its the jury that is made up of tax payers & voters.
samhill
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: keystoker 160
Hand Fed Coal Stove: hitzer 75 in garage
Stove/Furnace Make: keystoker/hitzer
Stove/Furnace Model: koker 160/ hitzer 75

Re: The sooner the better....

PostBy: stockingfull On: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:08 pm

Mike, it's flattering that you think so, but, for the record, I receive no compensation of any kind, in any manner, for knocking down neocon nut-jobs like you around here.

Other than the satisfaction of shining a little light into your caves, that is. 8-)
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: The sooner the better....

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:53 pm

stockingfull wrote:Mike, it's flattering that you think so, but, for the record, I receive no compensation of any kind, in any manner, for knocking down neocon nut-jobs like you around here.

Other than the satisfaction of shining a little light into your caves, that is. 8-)


My goodness, Jon, you are not only modest, you are a philanthropist too! :o

Who knew?
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M