Larry Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma My statistics professor brought up a good point. In legal issues regarding staticians you can not sue them if the numbers are wrong unless they did something in their procedures that waswrong, that is the only way you can sue. Hospitals and other healthcare organizations need to so something similar to protect their doctors. Actually, when Florida was looking at "tort reform", I'd heard an interview with a rep from the Trial Lawyers Assn, who said that under Florida law, a plaintiff can't even file a malpractice suit unless he has sworn testimony from another doctor who's examined the patient's medical records, and concluded that the first doctor (the defendant) acted incorrectly, based on the information available. One of the reforms that were being proposed (don't know if it passed) was to ammend that law, to say that the "witness for the plaintiff" doctor had to be licenced in Florida, and in the same specialty, as the defendant. His point was that, while lots of folks want to conjure up the image of the frivilous lawsuit boogyman, that in 100% of the cases filed in Florida, another doctor has said under oath that the first doctor screwed up. (You can't even file the paperwork untill you have that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma First off we don't elect our leaders because of religion, remember Or at least we shouldn't :doh: Aww...but we should vote some based upon character. Personal beliefs whether they be religious or personal conviction are important in identifying the character of a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I'm still trying to figure out how 11th out of 100 is middle of the road............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 "(tort reform has been shown to be irrelevant to medical costs)" Can you give us an example of where Tort reform has failed? Kerry says he will save us 1000.00 dollars in premiums. I want to know HOW he plans on doing that. Bush has offered a comprehensive plan including health savings accts, tort reform, etc. Here it is in it's entirety. http://georgebush.com/agenda/chapter.aspx?ID=2 It's long and involved so I wont cut and paste. But read it. At the very least you'll change you mind about him having an idea. Umm, he did just that. Locally, Virginia has had a medical malpractice cap since the late 1980's (I think it was 1987, but do not quote me on that). Their cap applies to all damages, not just non-economic damages. Nevertheless, the premiums skyrocketed like other insurance lines have when other investment vehicles went south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 "Dear God, why do people always bring up tort reform when discussing health costs?" Because it's the single biggest reason for the skyrocketing costs. facts and proof, not rhetoric please? please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer Well of course I must be a bleeding heart liberal if I vote democratic...how typical. No I was just posted this because I am pretty pissed I am forced to vote Kerry. The Ad truly was the final straw. It was more of a rant and then you guys asked the questions and I felt I should respond. I don't need to convince anyone else to vote for Kerry, hell I can't come up with anything better than "anyone but Bush". Because in reality, that is how I am finally voting and that saddens me. I had a similar moment over the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I actually wrote a long e-mail to the chairman of the RNC ... that was never responded to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Gichin13 Umm, he did just that. Locally, Virginia has had a medical malpractice cap since the late 1980's (I think it was 1987, but do not quote me on that). Their cap applies to all damages, not just non-economic damages. Nevertheless, the premiums skyrocketed like other insurance lines have when other investment vehicles went south. Kilmer17 should have asked for an example where tort reform has SUCCEEDED. I can't think of one. Where rates have gone up, it seems to have been tied to the stock market more than any tort reform. It's easier for the insurance companies to blame the lawyers instead of their own bad business judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by DieselPwr44 I'm still trying to figure out how 11th out of 100 is middle of the road............... No, its 11th out of Kerry's last 20 years in the Senate. Not 11th out of 100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow Bye,Bye. If you were that shallow you must not have as a conservative a background as you lead us to believe. Remember as you make your vote, Kerry is the most Liberal senator this country has. Actually, that is yet another slanted statement that is not really accurate from Bush. He was the 11th most liberal senator according to the publication based on his entire 20 year record. The quote Bush pulled was based on the last year in which the results were skewed due to numbers of votes on specific measures (i.e. a major legislative chunk was left out of the analysis). Maybe that move does not matter to you, but that does move him closer to the middle of the Democratic pack ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Gichin13 I had a similar moment over the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I actually wrote a long e-mail to the chairman of the RNC ... that was never responded to. That had to be the most embarrassing moment as a conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by DjTj Where rates have gone up, it seems to have been tied to the stock market more than any tort reform. It's easier for the insurance companies to blame the lawyers instead of their own bad business judgment. Actually, those studies cited by factcheck do indicate something similar to that, but not quite identical. What the studies seem to conclude is not that the insurance companies are jacking rates to cover their losses, but rather that, for many years, they've been using stock market profits to cover the fact that they were loosing money on the insurance, and now they can't do that anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Gichin13 Actually, that is yet another slanted statement that is not really accurate from Bush. He was the 11th most liberal senator according to the publication based on his entire 20 year record. The quote Bush pulled was based on the last year in which the results were skewed due to numbers of votes on specific measures (i.e. a major legislative chunk was left out of the analysis). Maybe that move does not matter to you, but that does move him closer to the middle of the Democratic pack ... Dude go back a couple of pages. That is 11th over the last 20 years of all Senators. For crying out loud!!!! People!!!!! That is damn liberal, damn liberal!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow His lifetime. BWAHAHAHAHAHA...... snicker,snicker...... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... thanks for the correction, now that I think of it. THE 11TH MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN ALMOST A QUARTER CENTURY!!!!!!!!! :notworthy Can you not understand the rating system? He is the 11th most liberal currently sitting senator based on his lifetime record. It really is not that complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer (I can't imagine a Christian Conservative thinking that it is a good idea to let John "Litmus Test" Kerry into the white house.) Explain this please...if you will. I'm not trying to be insulting...but are you being straight with us...? I shouldn't have to explain these things to you. Kerry has said that he will make sure that any judges that he appoints fit the litmus test of not being against abortion or Roe V Wade. He says that he will only support judges who support a "woman's right to choose" meaning judges who will try to undermine any laws that attempt to limit abortions. Kerry has also said that he believes that faith needs actions to make it work and that without action/deeds faith/words are just meaningless. Well Kerry says that he himself believes that abortion is wrong...he just does not thing that anything should be done to stop it. In other words, he thinks that killing unborn humans who pose absolutely no threat is wrong, but just not wrong enough to actually do anything about it. So once again in other words he means that while his faith (and moral decency and law) tell him that it abortion is pretty much murder by his own definintions, he does not want to do the deeds to stop that murder of innocent human beings who are being needlessly killed. Additionally Kerry has said that is is against gay marriage but wants to leave it up to the states, which is not entirely true...in truth he unlike most Senators voted against the Defense of Marriage Act that Clinton and the congress passed into law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. They passed it so that states could individually decide whether or not to put it into law locally (in their state). Kerry voted against it and has never shown a willingness to allow the states to decide these things in their legislatures. What Kerry more likely means, is that he will not interfere with Gay Marriage if it is allowed in any states or courts and forced on others or if the courts overule the legislatures on it, as they did in overturning a ban on gay marriage by the Louisiana state Congress. Kerry really doesn't care one way or the other, he is completely fine with activest judges defining marriage for the peopel of their states and any others that they have jurisdiction over. Also Kerry said at one time recently I believe that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was one of moral darkness... now this may be not too important, but I think it shows what he thinks of Christian Conservatives. These are just a few of the reasons that most Christian Conservatives disagree with Kerry and would give anything not to have him in the white house. Also I would think that a Christian conservative would like having Bush in the white house since he is also Chrisitan and Conservative. Not that I'm saying that all Christian Conservatives have to agree on everything or vote the same way... but it seems to me a lot like a dog running away from a kind but not too bright master and taking up with the guy across the street who used to beat him whenever he got loose and came into his yard. And who also promises to beat any puppies of his as well if he has any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow I was in Finland a year ago. They have this real nice government healthcare system. When we went on a bus trip through Helsinki, I learned all I needed to know about government run healthcare. They pay a yearly flat fee for healthcare. I does not matter if you need a heart transplant or a hangnail removed. Of course this comes at a significant cost as their tax rates a extremely high. Well over 50% of what they earn. But most importantly........ I asked "What happens if you need emergency surgury?" Her answer...... "That is why we have the private hospital down the street." Kilmer, never believe anyone who says that the grass is greener on the other side. Be assured that at least on the healthcare front it is not. The best point to consider when looking at government run healthcare..... Is anyone denied emergency healthcare, ON DEMAND, in our country? And my reply to you is this: what's the population of Finland? It's about 5.4 million according to this: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fi.html My point is this, to try to have the same type of health care system run by the government in this country like you see in Finland isn't gonna work in a nation of 280+ million people. And what if the goverment decides to impliment a system like tnhey have in Canada, where you can't opt out for private insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Larry Actually, those studies cited by factcheck do indicate something similar to that, but not quite identical. What the studies seem to conclude is not that the insurance companies are jacking rates to cover their losses, but rather that, for many years, they've been using stock market profits to cover the fact that they were loosing money on the insurance, and now they can't do that anymore. Does it seem kind of counter-intuitive to anyone else that when we need insurance the most, the rates will go up? I thought the whole point of insurance was that when other bad things were happenning we would have the insurance to fall back on. However, if this business model is strongly tied to the stock market, it seems like people will lose their job, their retirement savings, and their insurance at the same time ...doesn't seem to insure very much... I don't have much of a solution for this (except socialized medicine, and nobody wants that ) but it really does seem to go against what I always thought insurance was there for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Errr TC I think you are both on the same side of the issue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer Aww...but we should vote some based upon character. Personal beliefs whether they be religious or personal conviction are important in identifying the character of a leader. I disagree. Yes we would all love a president that we can be best friends with, but i want someone that can get the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow Dude go back a couple of pages. That is 11th over the last 20 years of all Senators. For crying out loud!!!! People!!!!! That is damn liberal, damn liberal!!!!! 11th out of the current 100 Senators, not out of all senators over the last 20 years. Maybe that should downgrade him to damn liberal with 3 exclamation points... In any case, so Kerry's a liberal and Bush is a conservative. What else is new? Just for reference: 1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn. (90.3) 2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md. (89.4) 3. Jack Reed, D-R.I. (89.3) 4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J. (88.8) 5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. (88.6) 6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. (88.5) 7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (87.6) 8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. (87.3) 9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. (86.2) 10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. (86.0) 11. John Kerry, D-Mass. (85.7) 12. Carl Levin, D-Mich. (85.5) 13. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (83.9) 14. Patty Murray, D-Wash. (83.8) 15. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. (83.8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 visionary - Thanks for responding to that...I know understand what you meant by your litmus test comment. I am not sure how to respond, because I really do not want to turn this into a debate about abortion and gay marriage. Suffice to say that I believe that I can be a conversative christian in my views and faith, but also not believe that my views should be imposed by law on others. So Kerry's views are not directly opposed to mine. These two particular issues are not what I will base my vote for the leader of my country upon. Although Kerry's personal convictions do play a part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma I disagree. Yes we would all love a president that we can be best friends with, but i want someone that can get the job done. Well I believe character has a lot to do with whether a person can get the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer Well I believe character has a lot to do with whether a person can get the job done. So you must think then that what Bill did with Monica had a negative effect on his ability to lead?? Which is completely BS and I am a republican. The guy made a mistake but it did not change how he made decisions. We can all get on the left or right side but the botton line is Clinton did a lot of good for this country. It shows today. I think where we have problems is people see the role as president as someone they like. Yes you should like the person but remember there is more then just you and the people that agree with you that live in this country. You need someone to be able to make the decisions that have no bearing on you. Which is the one thing I don't like about Kerry is because he is swayed by public oppinion, if that were the case then why need a president, just have US vote for everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by DjTj 11th out of the current 100 Senators, not out of all senators over the last 20 years. Maybe that should downgrade him to damn liberal with 3 exclamation points... In any case, so Kerry's a liberal and Bush is a conservative. What else is new? Just for reference: 1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn. (90.3) 2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md. (89.4) 3. Jack Reed, D-R.I. (89.3) 4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J. (88.8) 5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. (88.6) 6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. (88.5) 7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (87.6) 8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. (87.3) 9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. (86.2) 10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. (86.0) 11. John Kerry, D-Mass. (85.7) 12. Carl Levin, D-Mich. (85.5) 13. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (83.9) 14. Patty Murray, D-Wash. (83.8) 15. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. (83.8) Would you have a problem with a new soundbite: "More liberal than Hillary"? Sorry, I had to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Larry Actually, those studies cited by factcheck do indicate something similar to that, but not quite identical. What the studies seem to conclude is not that the insurance companies are jacking rates to cover their losses, but rather that, for many years, they've been using stock market profits to cover the fact that they were loosing money on the insurance, and now they can't do that anymore. My experience with carriers has slightly different view. Carriers generally make, or lose, a little bit of money on premiums. They calculate risk actuarially, including anticipated defense costs. What they count on is using your money, time value of money, and investment return to make profits. Many malpractice carriers actually got in some trouble with insureds because their claims experience in the 80's and 90's was far better than anticipated. CNA, for example, issued premium rebates on architectural and engineering malpractice premiums to insureds. They also agreed to a max profit level on premiums (I think it was 2-3%, but this was a while ago and that is on memory). Insurance carriers nationally have been extremely aggressive on defense cost reduction. They had shifted more and more work in house with employees for lawyers. For example, St. Paul shifted all their local med mal work in house in northern Virginia. They had 4 lawyers and a couple staff ... defending every No. Va. med mal case. And St. Paul was one of, if not the, biggest med mal insurers in Va. I will not deny there are a large number of weak cases filed across the legal spectrum. I think this tends to be less of a factor in med mal cases in Virginia -- they are just too damn expensive to file and try if they do not have merit. Plaintiffs have to obtain experts and they are extremely expensive. The lawyers often advance portions or all of the expenses, and lawyers potentially on the hook for expenses do not want to go in the hole on contingency fee cases with big expenses. The premium hikes really came at the end of the 90's when investment returns elsewhere went down the tubes. There was no spike whatsoever in Virginia judgments or settlements -- I keep up with verdict and settlement reports. The expense end was being driven way down by shifting in house as well. Another factor is ripples in the reinsurance market. Primary carriers often pass their risk on through reinsurance. Some of the reinsurance carriers suffered major problems with extended overinvestments that lost money and a couple went under. These losses, and failing reinsurance, has caused some market shock waves as well. Ultimately, I am not greatly opposed to some levels of caps on punitives and non-economic damages. Many states already have them and I believe this is far better suited to state than federal law. I also strongly believe those tort reforms are not going to save that much even in med mal insurance, let along health care expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer visionary - Thanks for responding to that...I know understand what you meant by your litmus test comment. I am not sure how to respond, because I really do not want to turn this into a debate about abortion and gay marriage. Suffice to say that I believe that I can be a conversative christian in my views and faith, but also not believe that my views should be imposed by law on others. So Kerry's views are not directly opposed to mine. These two particular issues are not what I will base my vote for the leader of my country upon. Although Kerry's personal convictions do play a part. ------------------------------------------------------- Ok, hope I didn't upset you...why do you think Kerry is better for America...what is his foriegn policy plan for the future... what is his plan for social security...what is his plan for Tort Reform...do you trust Kerry when he says that Bush is going to reinstate a draft? (he implied it today.) If you don't even think that his plan on healthcare will work, why vote for him...Bush and co. have given us the first plan in 15 years. With Kerry it will probably be another 15 years before we get anything even as good as it is going to be from the Bush plan (which has not completely gone into effect yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.