Well, it's done

[elwood127]

To bad they didn't go with the German system. Tomorrow I'm going to get a quote for insurance. Then after 3 or 4 years I'm going to get another. Should be interesting to see the difference.

[Charles]

From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs.

I would recommend consulting the guidelines set forth by the Department of Abilities and Needs as to determine your classification.

Chas

[merrylander]

I really have to laugh, even E.J.Dionne, the Post's token liberal has been brainwashed into believing Canada's Single Payer is socialism. I never met a doctor up there who was not in private practice. They go through internship same as here, is that socialist?

You can buy private insurance if you are stupid enough. Dentists and Opthalologists are not covered, Bell covered me for that. Just look at the stats for Canadians health relative to the rest of the world. But boy oh boy, when Hannity, Rove, Palin et al start yelling everyone believes the bull shit. Oh a spoon ful of sugar makes . . .

[noonereal]

$88,000 a year is the key they claim.

Those who make over $88,000 a year will see healthcare costs go up, those making less than $88,000 a yera will see their health insurance go down. This for people who purchase health insurance independently.

Those who receive health insurance through there job should see no change.

This means people like members of congress and corporate executives who make far in excess of $88,000 will be spared any rate increasing as they have Cadillac health plans through there jobs while modestly successful folks who work for themselves and pay double SS will now experience an increase in heath care costs. So if you currently pay $1,200 a month in premiums for an adult and child catastrophic health insurance policy it will go up if you make $90,000 a year.
Amazing.
So if you cannot afford $1,200 a month the IRS will collect 15% of your income as a penalty ($13,000) a year and you still will have no health insurance.
The good part is that if you have a preexistent condition you can still get health coverage! The bad part is it can cost you $2,400 or more a month. So I hope no one has hypertension or a headache or stubbed toe that was mentioned to their doctor.

[Grumpy]

I am fucked...

[cabinover]

We all are...

[rickr15]

I am fucked...

Not really.

Quit your job. Get welfare and food stamps and all will be provided.

Its the new America.

[noonereal]

Not really.

Quit your job. Get welfare and food stamps and all will be provided.

Its the new America.

I am sorry rick but that is an asinine statement.

Sarah would be proud however.

Why do you/people post such trash?

Honest?

What doe sit do?

[Charles]

Not really.

Quit your job. Get welfare and food stamps and all will be provided.

Its the new America.

My backs been ruined for years.

This week I'll be starting yet another job for a very bright, very well connected, and very conservative attorney.

Would I be wise to inquire about a package deal for SSI disability, a divorce, and a personal bankruptcy?

Come to think of it, I need to be in debt to declare bankruptcy. Time to return to my old bank, the one which stole several hundred dollars out of my account every year. I'm sure those grinning bastards will be more than happy to welcome back into the fold.

Hell, I'll even let them stroke me on the interest, since I won't be paying them back in the first place.

Just kidding, as I'm sure you all are aware of. Besides, if this all works out, I'll be running for political office.

Chas

[rickr15]

I am sorry rick but that is an asinine statement.

Sarah would be proud however.

Why do you/people post such trash?

Honest?

What doe sit do?

Why do you post the crap you do?
More than 50% of Americans did not want this. In a true democracy it would not have happened. BTW, Why do you have such a crush on Sarah Palin anyway? She is nothing to me.

[Charles]

I am sorry rick but that is an asinine statement.

Sarah would be proud however.

Why do you/people post such trash?

Honest?

What doe sit do?

It makes sense to me.

The government does not produce wealth, they redistribute wealth. If everyone has their mouth planted firmly on the public tit, who, pray tell, will pay for it? Who will create the pork and beans?

I'm sure that even the Keynesians realize that you can only create so much fiat currency before there is a day of reckoning.

Chas

[epifanatic]

Why do you post the crap you do?
More than 50% of Americans did not want this. In a true democracy it would not have happened. BTW, Why do you have such a crush on Sarah Palin anyway? She is nothing to me.
We've already proven that this isn't a true democracy, GWB got elected, right?

[noonereal]

It makes sense to me.

The government does not produce wealth, they redistribute wealth. If everyone has their mouth planted firmly on the public tit, who, pray tell, will pay for it? Who will create the pork and beans?

I'm sure that even the Keynesians realize that you can only create so much fiat currency before there is a day of reckoning.

Chas

Chas that is not what his post is about, I quote. "Quit your job. Get welfare and food stamps and all will be provided."

That is bull shit, nonsense and offensive.

His statement just fosters an inaccurate sentiment among many in this country and it needs to be called out for the trash it is. It's nothing more than a dishonest Rush line.

I do apologize for my more dismissive and less tolerant posts last night and today but having watched the folks on the right (and the left as well) blatantly lie and knowing that knuckle heads believe these lies has left to very frustrated.

This country is a nursery for legalized theft that we call capitalism/corporatism and neither side is willing to be honest about this.

[rickr15]

We've already proven that this isn't a true democracy, GWB got elected, right?

Can't dispute that.

[noonereal]

Why do you post the crap you do?

I don't. I do become frustrated at times and then post less than politely but I don't parrot inane rhetoric.

More than 50% of Americans did not want this.

I don't either. What does this havre to do with my post to you?

In a true democracy it would not have happened.

How do you know? We are lied to and mislead so that we have no idea what would have happened in a true democracy. My guess is that folks would band together in a true democracy and do what is good for the society as that would generally be best for the individual (just like in nature). However in this country there is a select group who have no need of societal protections and uses it's power to alter the reality of the masses thereby creating an arena where folks vote against issues in direct contrast to their own welfare.

BTW, Why do you have such a crush on Sarah Palin anyway?

I was always strangely attracted to trashy women, your not?

She is nothing to me.

Then why do appear to parrot her?

Coincidence I guess.

[Charles]

We've already proven that this isn't a true democracy, GWB got elected, right?

Becoming more like a Democracy and less like a Constitutional Republic every day.

Chas

[rickr15]

Then why do appear to parrot her?

Coincidence I guess.


Funny thing about you hardcore leftys on this site. You spout a party line and when someone disagrees with you you point little fingers and call people names. You're like naughty children.

Go ahead mean boy call me a righty corporate pig or whatever stokes your coals.

Point still remains the steaming pile they just dumped off on the American people is just that.

[noonereal]

Funny thing about you hardcore leftys on this site. You spout a party line and when someone disagrees with you you point little fingers and call people names. You're like naughty children.

Go ahead mean boy call me a righty corporate pig or whatever stokes your coals.

Point still remains the steaming pile they just dumped off on the American people is just that.

No substantive reply again?

BTW, this "hard core lefty" voted for way more republicans than Democratics over the years. It was not until the party was hijacked by idiocy (baby Bush) that I first cast a presidential vote for someone from the left. If you are happy with this "fools on parade" party as it has become, god bless.

By the way reread your post. Your post was not about the steaming pile they just dumped off on the American people, on that we agree. Your post as I point out above is about a ridiculous invalid stereotype of social assistance. Why can't you distinguish?

[rickr15]

No substantive reply again?

BTW, this "hard core lefty" voted for way more republicans than Democratics over the years. It was not until the party was hijacked by idiocy (baby Bush) that I first cast a presidential vote for someone from the left. If you are happy with this "fools on parade" party as it has become, god bless.

By the way reread your post. Your post was not about the steaming pile they just dumped off on the American people, on that we agree. Your post as I point out above is about a ridiculous invalid stereotype of social assistance. Why can't you distinguish?

I vote independent as my Sig says. What did you want answered? The crap about trashy women? Pelosi should get you reall hot then as she aint nuthin but trash.

As for the "social assistance" part,Sarcasm is a bad habit I have. Seems its much better tolerated when it comes from the left around here.

[noonereal]

I vote independent as my Sig says. What did you want answered? The crap about trashy women? Pelosi should get you reall hot then as she aint nuthin but trash.

As for the "social assistance" part,Sarcasm is a bad habit I have. Seems its much better tolerated when it comes from the left around here.

My question was simple, why do so many as you did distort the nature of social assistance for the needy in this country? You brought this up in post 7. I impolitely asked you for clarification in post 8.

[finnbow]

Just kidding, as I'm sure you all are aware of. Besides, if this all works out, I'll be running for political office.

Chas

Chas, you better have good health insurance for the lobotomy you'll need to serve in politics.

[noonereal]

I'll be running for political office.



as well you should

i don't know how an honest guy will fit in though

[rickr15]

My question was simple, why do so many as you did distort the nature of social assistance for the needy in this country? You brought this up in post 7. I impolitely asked you for clarification in post 8.

Well you got your answer then. Sarcasm is what it is. Maybe a little bitterness as well.

[piece-itpete]

You can buy private insurance if you are stupid enough. . . .

Lmao it's killing me!


Quit your job. Get welfare and food stamps and all will be provided.


Great dental too. But swing SSI if you can, it's more money and only the stigma of being, um, dumb, disabled or hopelessly drug addicted (the 3 d's of success!) vs unwilling to work. You can even get raises by having kids and teaching them to be dumb too.

PS - I know it's a generalization, but valid.

Chas, you better have good health insurance for the lobotomy you'll need to serve in politics.

Rotf!!

Post of the day! We should send this to every Congressperson we can!!

Pete

[piece-itpete]

BTW New Jersey is about to kick all childless adults off welfare.

Pete

[finnbow]

BTW New Jersey is about to kick all childless adults off welfare.

Pete

I bet there's a lot of procreating going on there now.:cool:

[noonereal]

I bet there's a lot of procreating going on there now.:cool:

I hope they enjoy the crime wave that will follow

[piece-itpete]

NJ is just the tip of the iceberg, budget disasters are about to hit many states including Ohio. I'll start a thread. [/theadjack]

Pete

[Charles]

Chas, you better have good health insurance for the lobotomy you'll need to serve in politics.

Lobotomy???

I don't need no steekin" lobotomy!!! I'm from Missouri!!!

Chas

[Grumpy]

Lobotomy???

I don't need no steekin" lobotomy!!! I'm from Missouri!!!

Chas


You do if you plan on spending any time in Michigan.

[westgate]

mitt romney invented 'obama care'. just heard it (again) on msnbc, must be true.

they say that'll cause romney some problems if he continues in politics. (no shit)

[Charles]

You do if you plan on spending any time in Michigan.

Reckon if we put our heads together that we could come up with three brain cells between us?

Chas

[Bigerik]

The US is finally moving into the 20th Century. An imperfect and cumbersome start to a better healthcare system, but it is certainly better than nothing.

[noonereal]

The US is finally moving into the 20th Century. An imperfect and cumbersome start to a better healthcare system, but it is certainly better than nothing.

Bullshit

[Grumpy]

The US is finally moving into the 20th Century. An imperfect and cumbersome start to a better healthcare system, but it is certainly better than nothing.


Fining me 12 grand for not being able to afford insurance and then forcing me to pony up another several thousand for a gooberment run policy is not what I call imperfect. Its down right mean, stupid and irresponsible not to mention asinine !

[Sandy G]

This sets up a VERY bad precedent, IMHO, too. If the Gummint can COMPEL us to buy something-or even FORCE us to do something when we're not harming anyone else, why stop w/just this ?

[noonereal]

This sets up a VERY bad precedent, IMHO, too. If the Gummint can COMPEL us to buy something-or even FORCE us to do something when we're not harming anyone else, why stop w/just this ?

aren't you already compelled to buy auto insurance?

Pay taxes?

[noonereal]

Fining me 12 grand for not being able to afford insurance and then forcing me to pony up another several thousand for a gooberment run policy is not what I call imperfect. Its down right mean, stupid and irresponsible not to mention asinine !

My guess is that the healthcare companies have been looking for a handout after their little brother the pharmaceutical companies was handed a giant windfall by Bush.

Now they both are happy, what's the problem?

[JJIII]

aren't you already compelled to buy auto insurance?

Pay taxes?

You have a choice of driving or not. Don't drive = don't buy insurance.

Taxes are a bit harder. Try the FairTax. You can cut way down.

Don't wanna buy the health insurance? Move out of the country or die. Not very attractive choices IMO.

:)

[noonereal]

You have a choice of driving or not. Don't drive = don't buy insurance.



Driving is not a hobby as this statement makes it sound.

[JJIII]

Driving is not a hobby as this statement makes it sound.

No, it's not a hobby, but you can arrange your life so that it isn't necessary. Live in town so walking or even a bicycle will get the job done. (I will say that I chose to live about 20 miles out of town and I do drive... and buy insurance.)

[merrylander]

Will someone please read the f**king manual. The restrictions on the health insurance industry kick in in 6 months. The compulsory bit is in 2014, tax on so called Caddilac plans not until2018. If you are at or below 400% of the poverty line you get some aid in paying.

We will not likely see any change so we will still be paying whatever Medicare B charges, currently $96.40 each per month for our two flu shots. Blue Cross/Blue Shields Care first about $4800 each per year. I forget what the disaster part costs.

And you can blame all this on the American penchant for, as Churchill noted "Ultimately doing the right thing after you have tried every conceivable alternative first." slightly paraphrased and not an exact quote.

[Grumpy]

Just heard this morning that the preexisting condition clause takes effect immediately. Guess that means rate hikes to follow immediately.

[noonereal]

No, it's not a hobby, but you can arrange your life so that it isn't necessary. Live in town so walking or even a bicycle will get the job done. (I will say that I chose to live about 20 miles out of town and I do drive... and buy insurance.)

although your statement is true, it is not practical

[noonereal]

Just heard this morning that the preexisting condition clause takes effect immediately. Guess that means rate hikes to follow immediately.

We need more info on this bill but from what I have heard insurance premiums started rising already in anticipation of this mandate. (along with profits)

[piece-itpete]

Bullshit

Don't bore us to death with your longwindedness noone.

:)

Pete

[Bigerik]

London Times has some interesting articles on it. Had to go outside of the US media to find some perspective on it.

[Charles]

This sets up a VERY bad precedent, IMHO, too. If the Gummint can COMPEL us to buy something-or even FORCE us to do something when we're not harming anyone else, why stop w/just this ?

Well, they certainly didn't START with just this.

Chas

[rickr15]

Just wonder how all this is going to play out in court. Cogress passed this on the premise that they can control interstate commerce. No where does it say they can compel commerce.

I'm betting the SCJ's are getting some serious lobby cash tossed their way about now.

[Bigerik]

I guess we can allow people to opt out of supporting the military also. Local police maybe too.

[Bigerik]

Will someone please read the f**king manual. The restrictions on the heat insurance industry kick in in 6 months. The compulsory bit is in 2014, tax on so called Caddilac plans not until2018. If you are at or below 400% of the poverty line you get some aid in paying.

We will not likely see any change so we will still be paying whatever Medicare B charges, currently $96.40 each per month for our two flu shots. Blue Cross/Blue Shiels Care first about $4800 each per year. I forget what the disaster part costs.

And you can blame all this on the American penchant for, as Churchill noted "Ultimately doing the right thing after you have tried every conceivable alternative first." slightly paraphrased and not an exact quote.

Another excellent post.
You were awfully close on the quote too:

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”

[Zeke]

Reality is this: those of us with insurance -- and I just lost my job, it goes away July 1, 2010 -- have been paying for those who don't, anyway.

That's not the issue. The issue, is that a man who has done nothing but consume bacon, cigarettes and lard for fifty years dies on the operating table while having a bypass and his family sues the hospital. (And wins or settles for $$$.)

That's why healthcare is so expensive, malpractice and other insurance rates are insane, and liability costs for providing care are extensive.

What was that break point? $88k? So, if you make less than $88k, your costs don't increase. As the median household income -- across the board -- in the United States is $40k, I'd say we just positively impacted a lot of people.

I'm cool with that.

But we didn't fix the problem.

[Bigerik]

Reality is this: those of us with insurance -- and I just lost my job, it goes away July 1, 2010 -- have been paying for those who don't, anyway.

That's not the issue. The issue, is that a man who has done nothing but consume bacon, cigarettes and lard for fifty years dies on the operating table while having a bypass and his family sues the hospital. (And wins or settles for $$$.)

That's why healthcare is so expensive, malpractice and other insurance rates are insane, and liability costs for providing care are extensive.

What was that break point? $88k? So, if you make less than $88k, your costs don't increase. As the median household income -- across the board -- in the United States is $40k, I'd say we just positively impacted a lot of people.

I'm cool with that.

But we didn't fix the problem.

Good post!
Nope, the problem is not fixed. But to quote Churchill again:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

It needed to start somewhere. Not the start that I would have liked to see (that being a full Canadian style health system), but certainly MUCH better than what was there before.

[noonereal]

BS this is a disaster and a continuation of mandated corporate profits

[rickr15]

That's not the issue. The issue, is that a man who has done nothing but consume bacon, cigarettes and lard for fifty years dies on the operating table while having a bypass and his family sues the hospital. (And wins or settles for $$$.)

That's why healthcare is so expensive, malpractice and other insurance rates are insane, and liability costs for providing care are extensive.

Well Zeke I think you hit on one of the larger problems with todays society. Suing others for problems you caused. The Mcdonalds coffee lady comes to mind.
Don't even get me started on jurys that are dumb enough to facilitate this scam.

[piece-itpete]

I guess we can allow people to opt out of supporting the military also. Local police maybe too.

Hey Eric :)

The military is clearly the domain of the Federal gov't and police are local, we can cut their budget anytime we want. Which we should :D

Pete

[Bigerik]

Hey Eric :)

The military is clearly the domain of the Federal gov't and police are local, we can cut their budget anytime we want. Which we should :D

Pete

Hey Pete.
Yup, have at it cutting those two budgets. Should be a piece of cake! :)

[piece-itpete]

Lol. But I meant the cops. I'm starting to get a bad attitude about them. :D

Pete

[d-ray657]

Lol. But I meant the cops. I'm starting to get a bad attitude about them. :D

Pete

Rebel! Next thing we know, you'll start calling them pigs.;)

Actually, I'm all for paying the people. It's the providing redundancies upon redundancies of unnecessary weapon systems that needs to be cut. You can be a rebel if I can be a dreamer.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

. You can be a rebel if I can be a dreamer.


Done!

But I'll have to grow my hair out and start yelling 'Anachy for the new millennium'!

Pete

[d-ray657]

Well Zeke I think you hit on one of the larger problems with todays society. Suing others for problems you caused. The Mcdonalds coffee lady comes to mind.
Don't even get me started on jurys that are dumb enough to facilitate this scam.

I obviously carry some professional bias here, but those who oppose government regulation should not support "Tort reform." Jurys are composed of 12 citizens (Often 6 in civil cases). It is the average citizen who determines the ultimate responsibility for an injury, the cost of the injury to the individual, and, if applicable, an amount that would prevent future conduct similar to that which caused the injury. Rather than start a government program, the lawsuits provide an individualized approach to some sorts of dangerous or negligent conduct.

Yes, there are going to be outrageous cases, but those are really a small minority. Quite often juries are able to see through the BS. And yes, damage awards do affect insurance rates, but then so does the greed of the insurers. Insurers are secretly happy when a large award generates publicity, and they get an excuse to jack up their rates. Moreover, they are not above using fear to market their products - sorta like the life insurance salesman driving to a prospect's house in a hearse.

Damage awards have also resulted in safer practices. Lawsuits will often expose unsafe practices, which will result in greater emphasis of creating a safer product, on creating safer methods in surgery, in creating a more vigilant watch over care practices, etc. We don't know what would have been the human cost and cost in productivity if safer methods spurred on by damage awards had not been implemented.

Just another perspective.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Zeke]

BS this is a disaster and a continuation of mandated corporate profits

It's, certainly, not a disaster which -- even if it were -- is an exceedingly shallow critique.

As for corporate protectionism, what, precisely, do you think the role of government, is? :rolleyes:

[noonereal]

It's, certainly, not a disaster which -- even if it were -- is an exceedingly shallow critique.



BS, it's a disaster.

But it's not a shallow critique, it's an obvious observation.

[Zeke]

Damage awards have also resulted in safer practices. Lawsuits will often expose unsafe practices, which will result in greater emphasis of creating a safer product, on creating safer methods in surgery, in creating a more vigilant watch over care practices, etc. We don't know what would have been the human cost and cost in productivity if safer methods spurred on by damage awards had not been implemented.

Just another perspective.

Regards,

D-Ray

In general, I have no issues with that perspective, beyond it begging this, simple, metaphor: "Car crashes are good, they help us build safer cars."

As for damages spurring the industry towards improved medical practices, I am often reminded of "caveat emptor" related to ANY service. Choose wisely, on the front end.

If this spurs one to counter with, "but what about those that get crappy service because it is all they can afford? They don't really have a choice, do they?"

Uh, no. They didn't.

That was the point of passing this bill.

[Zeke]

BS, it's a disaster.

But it's not a shallow critique, it's an obvious observation.

Wow.

Again with the stellar and in-depth analysis. :rolleyes:

Does this board come with an Ignore feature?

Seriously, I'm looking for that, already?

[rickr15]

Damage awards have also resulted in safer practices. Lawsuits will often expose unsafe practices, which will result in greater emphasis of creating a safer product, on creating safer methods in surgery, in creating a more vigilant watch over care practices, etc. We don't know what would have been the human cost and cost in productivity if safer methods spurred on by damage awards had not been implemented.

Just another perspective.

This I have no issues with. Its the lawsuits brought on by lifestyle choices and stupidity that I cannot stomach.

[piece-itpete]

Noone is our resident real Liberal, no corporate Dem he.

Pete

[d-ray657]

This I have no issues with. Its the lawsuits brought on by lifestyle choices and stupidity that I cannot stomach.

I agree with that to the extent that people seek relief for their own poor choices. I just spent eight years defending a set of claims for alleged damages to a group of employees who made all sorts of decisions to make themselves unavailable for work, but sued the union because the employers weren't hiring them. Ultimately, when it got to the jury, it took the jury 40 minutes to tell them to go away.

On the other hand, even if an individual's poor choices cause him or her to need medical treatment, the medical providers have the duty to follow industry standards for safety in treating the patient. If the medical providers are indeed negligent, and as a result of the negligence, the patient is in a worse condition, there is a basis for recovery by the patient. If, however, even the best practices cannot eliminate all risk of a bad outcome the patient bears the risk, so long as the doctor has advised him or her of the risk.

So yeah, I believe that people should be responsible for their own choices, but I think most individuals who serve on juries will believe that too. The big damage awards make the headlines. You don't hear of all the cases where the jury said gimmie a break, or the lawyer told a potential client that they don't have a viable claim.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Just wonder how all this is going to play out in court. Cogress passed this on the premise that they can control interstate commerce. No where does it say they can compel commerce.

I'm betting the SCJ's are getting some serious lobby cash tossed their way about now.

Why? With their Republican majority I know exactly how they will vote.:rolleyes:

[merrylander]

Wow.

Again with the stellar and in-depth analysis. :rolleyes:

Does this board come with an Ignore feature?

Seriously, I'm looking for that, already?

Go to the User CP, it's there.;)

[d-ray657]

In general, I have no issues with that perspective, beyond it begging this, simple, metaphor: "Car crashes are good, they help us build safer cars."



Actually the logic there is incomplete. It should be:

Car crashes are bad.

Those who are injured in a car crash as a result of the negligence of another should be made whole in damages.

A large judgment for damages should spur greater care in the future by the person causing the injury or by those who are similarly situated.

As a result of the injured person obtaining damages for his or her injury, people are more careful (make safer products, establish safer procedures etc.)

Therefore, the ability to recover damages for injuries in a car crash is good.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Wow.

Again with the stellar and in-depth analysis. :rolleyes:

Does this board come with an Ignore feature?

Seriously, I'm looking for that, already?

I wouldn't jump on the ignore button too quickly. Noone often makes good points. I believe that he is feeling betrayed by the party right now, because it could have done better.

Like Noone, I am extremely disappointed in the goodies that the insurance companies received, and the effect of lobbying on the bill. It did not include repeal of the antitrust exemption, but the House has passed that measure separately. The senate has yet to consider it. It did not involve a government option, or preferably a single payer. I don't think single payer was a viable political option.

Overall, I will say I was glad it passed. If it had not passed, I very well doubt that any president would spend substantial political capital on health care reform for the foreseeable future. That's why I can live without single payer right now. If the President had overreached and sought a stillborn single payer plan, we would be in the situation discussed above - no reform at all. This has established a baseline, and it makes more improvements viable in the future.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Wow.

Again with the stellar and in-depth analysis. :rolleyes:

Does this board come with an Ignore feature?

Seriously, I'm looking for that, already?

Noon's a pretty good guy...for a communist. And don't read too much into what I have to say...my momma dropped me on my head.

Chas

[Zeke]

Actually the logic there is incomplete. It should be:

Car crashes are bad.

Those who are injured in a car crash as a result of the negligence of another should be made whole in damages.

A large judgment for damages should spur greater care in the future by the person causing the injury or by those who are similarly situated.

As a result of the injured person obtaining damages for his or her injury, people are more careful (make safer products, establish safer procedures etc.)

Therefore, the ability to recover damages for injuries in a car crash is good.

Regards,

D-Ray

The key there being, "injured in a car crash as a result of the negligence of another."

Metaphorically, if you smoke three packs a day and get lung cancer? You're at fault, not the tobacco company: even if they wanted (enticed?) you to smoke.

A large judgment for damages should spur greater care in the future by the person causing the injury or by those who are similarly situated.

You mean like, say, drivers? Or, the insurance companies of drivers -- the majority of whom were not in crashes -- who advocate increased premiums due to an ability by operators to recover damages incurred when one willingly takes on the inherent risk of driving? :D

I have a Master's in Public Affairs/Policy. I'm not going to take on an attorney in specific matters of law (losing battle), I'm a policy geek! I just believe we have to jump full nilly into government regulation and tort reform or stay 100% out of the way and let nature take its course.

Personally, I think the USA is better than to be ruled via social Darwinism. Making that so isn't Socialism, as some have claimed.

I wouldn't jump on the ignore button too quickly. Noone often makes good points.

Your point is well founded and I acquiesce.

[finnbow]

I think a possible solution to the tort problem in this country is to have the losing party pay all legal expenses rather than have attorneys take on cases based on contingency fees. That would preclude silly "Hail Mary" lawsuits. This is how it is done in many European countries and I don't think they suffer the same runaway lawsuit problems we do.

[noonereal]

Wow.

Again with the stellar and in-depth analysis. :rolleyes:

Does this board come with an Ignore feature?

Seriously, I'm looking for that, already?

My newbie friend, you may want to read my posts on this subject (there are many) instead of joining the party at the end and demanding that one tired dancer dance again because you arrived.

My guess is that if I had made just as brief a reply but in favor of this fiasco you would have no urge to run to the ignore button.

IMHO this bill is garbage, garbage.

If my frustration on this subject offends you, you will have a difficult time raising your post count here. After 9 posts if you need an ignore button you may want to consider that your problem may not be one long time exasperated poster.

[noonereal]

I think a possible solution to the tort problem in this country is to have the losing party pay all legal expenses rather than have attorneys take on cases based on contingency fees. That would preclude silly "Hail Mary" lawsuits. This is how it is done in many European countries and I don't think they suffer the same runaway lawsuit problems we do.

I completely agree.

[finnbow]

I completely agree.

Very in depth analysis.:D

[noonereal]

Very in depth analysis.:D

ROTFLMAO :D


I love posts like this, but now I have soda to clean off the screen.:rolleyes:

[noonereal]

Noon's a pretty good guy...for a communist. And don't read too much into what I have to say...my momma dropped me on my head.

Chas

Maybe Zeke should ask me about Sarah? That would be fun. :D

[finnbow]

Zeke's the new dog on the block, just doing the requisite fire hydrant waterings. Once his turf is established, he'll throw you a bone.:D

[d-ray657]

Usually my answer to any simple legal question is "It depends."

For example, shouldn't a person who smokes three packs a day be held responsible for his own conduct rather than the tobacco companies.

Do you think the answer might be different if the tobacco companies added ingredients to make smokes more addictive? If they falsified data that would have otherwise identified health risks? If they put out a product that they Knew to be inherently dangerous? A great deal of balancing takes place when considering any legal policy.

Sometimes, it isn't a driver that is responsible for a car crash, but a car designer, or a repairman who negligently installed brakes that failed. Sometimes causation, or more precisely, proximate cause is bound up in policy decisions. For example, is the negligent installation of brakes closely enough related to the accident that responsibility for the accident should be borne by someone who wasn't directly involved? Usually, the conclusion would be that a brake installer knows or should know that an improperly installed set of brakes could cause an accident, so yes that brake installer can be held liable.

The term "tort reform" takes in so many suggestions for changing the law of damages, that it is hard to evaluate any suggestion that tort reform is needed. The courts have considerable control over damages, particularly punitive damages. Many of the huge damage awards that you hear about have subsequently been reduced by the court as excessive. The court can determine that the facts don't support an award of punitive damages in a case, and refuse to permit the jury to consider the issue. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional limit on punitive damages.

Finn, If we went to the English rule regarding attorneys fees, only the rich or the very poor (Or corporations of other such collectives) would have access to the courts. There are already rules in place that can make a plaintiff liable for the defendant's attorneys fees - such as when the plaintiff pursues a frivolous claim. When a statue calls for fee shifting in a particular type of action, the courts take several matters into consideration before issuing an award. So limits do exist to prevent over-exposure to frivolous claims.

You might disagree with me that the courts are an essential part of our democracy. They are certainly an essential part of our Constitutional system of government, in that they are part of the checks and balances that are supposed to occur in governing. If you flatly imposed the English rule on all cases, it would be akin to imposing a poll tax for people seeking access to the courts.

I'm not a big fan of contingency cases, and I've taken very few. But when a lawyer takes a contingency case, he goes into it knowing that he might end up not being paid. However, to require certainty of success before bringing a case would expose most people to a risk they could not afford. That is why I said that the very poor might still be able to afford litigation, because they would have nothing to lose. But a regular Joe, who might have a house and a car would stand to lose everything if he pursued an apparently meritorious case and lost.

My gosh. Am I parochial today, or what?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Maybe Zeke should ask me about Sarah? That would be fun. :D

Oh God no!!!

When you Palinphobes get in line with your hatchets, it's almost more than I can bear.

To tell the truth, I'll be glad once Zeke realizes he's entered the Twilight Zone...then I can smart ass him without worry of offending him.

I've already got a few comments lined up!!!

Chas

[noonereal]

Zeke's the new dog on the block, just doing the requisite fire hydrant waterings. Once his turf is established, he'll throw you a bone.:D

:cool:Let him go piss on someone else, I just got a golden shower from congress.

[noonereal]

Oh God no!!!

When you Palinphobes get in line with your hatchets, it's almost more than I can bear.

To tell the truth, I'll be glad once Zeke realizes he's entered the Twilight Zone...then I can smart ass him without worry of offending him.

I've already got a few comments lined up!!!

Chas

Yep, your gonna make a fine politician. :p

[Charles]

Usually my answer to any simple legal question is "It depends."

For example, shouldn't a person who smokes three packs a day be held responsible for his own conduct rather than the tobacco companies.

Do you think the answer might be different if the tobacco companies added ingredients to make smokes more addictive? If they falsified data that would have otherwise identified health risks? If they put out a product that they Knew to be inherently dangerous? A great deal of balancing takes place when considering any legal policy.

Sometimes, it isn't a driver that is responsible for a car crash, but a car designer, or a repairman who negligently installed brakes that failed. Sometimes causation, or more precisely, proximate cause is bound up in policy decisions. For example, is the negligent installation of brakes closely enough related to the accident that responsibility for the accident should be borne by someone who wasn't directly involved? Usually, the conclusion would be that a brake installer knows or should know that an improperly installed set of brakes could cause an accident, so yes that brake installer can be held liable.

The term "tort reform" takes in so many suggestions for changing the law of damages, that it is hard to evaluate any suggestion that tort reform is needed. The courts have considerable control over damages, particularly punitive damages. Many of the huge damage awards that you hear about have subsequently been reduced by the court as excessive. The court can determine that the facts don't support an award of punitive damages in a case, and refuse to permit the jury to consider the issue. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional limit on punitive damages.

Finn, If we went to the English rule regarding attorneys fees, only the rich or the very poor (Or corporations of other such collectives) would have access to the courts. There are already rules in place that can make a plaintiff liable for the defendant's attorneys fees - such as when the plaintiff pursues a frivolous claim. When a statue calls for fee shifting in a particular type of action, the courts take several matters into consideration before issuing an award. So limits do exist to prevent over-exposure to frivolous claims.

You might disagree with me that the courts are an essential part of our democracy. They are certainly an essential part of our Constitutional system of government, in that they are part of the checks and balances that are supposed to occur in governing. If you flatly imposed the English rule on all cases, it would be akin to imposing a poll tax for people seeking access to the courts.

I'm not a big fan of contingency cases, and I've taken very few. But when a lawyer takes a contingency case, he goes into it knowing that he might end up not being paid. However, to require certainty of success before bringing a case would expose most people to a risk they could not afford. That is why I said that the very poor might still be able to afford litigation, because they would have nothing to lose. But a regular Joe, who might have a house and a car would stand to lose everything if he pursued an apparently meritorious case and lost.

My gosh. Am I parochial today, or what?

Regards,

D-Ray

When you take a case, do you get paid by the word?

Chas

[d-ray657]

Oh God no!!!

When you Palinphobes get in line with your hatchets, it's almost more than I can bear.

To tell the truth, I'll be glad once Zeke realizes he's entered the Twilight Zone...then I can smart ass him without worry of offending him.

I've already got a few comments lined up!!!

Chas

Chas, you sound like a kid saying "Hey, let's take the new kid snipe hunting." :D

BTW, Zeke, welcome to Political chat. I hope that you will find that many here are quite capable of being agreeable in their disagreements. Some of us have posts that are way too long, :o which could help you appreciate some of the more cryptic posts. You will find many here have a great sense of humor, but you will also have to deal with us pun addicts too. Have fun.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Yep, your gonna make a fine politician. :p

I've already got a great campaign slogan.

"Who would you rather vote for, me, or some other sonofabitch?

Chas

[d-ray657]

When you take a case, do you get paid by the word?

Chas

I'm afraid diarrhea of the keyboard is a professional malady. I am sorry I got carried away. Need to remind myself that there is a delete key.:o

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

I've already got a great campaign slogan.

"Who would you rather vote for, me, or some other sonofabitch?

Chas

you'll never make it as a pol, you are to honest, reasonable and sincere

hell, i'd vote for you! that's gotta scare you :eek:

[Charles]

I'm afraid diarrhea of the keyboard is a professional malady. I am sorry I got carried away. Need to remind myself that there is a delete key.:o

Regards,

D-Ray

Nah, you're doing fine. Keep up the good work.

Chas

[finnbow]

Finn, If we went to the English rule regarding attorneys fees, only the rich or the very poor (Or corporations of other such collectives) would have access to the courts. There are already rules in place that can make a plaintiff liable for the defendant's attorneys fees - such as when the plaintiff pursues a frivolous claim. When a statue calls for fee shifting in a particular type of action, the courts take several matters into consideration before issuing an award. So limits do exist to prevent over-exposure to frivolous claims.

By the same token, under the English system if you're sued by a shyster you needn't worry about paying a lawyer to defend yourself. I was sued by an unscrupulous landlord in Germany and went to a German lawyer. She was confident in my case and took it on gratis knowing that she'd by paid by the plaintiff in the end. I guess neither system is perfect, but ours just seems to invite lawsuits by anyone who feels they've been wronged by someone with deep pockets.

[finnbow]

I've already got a great campaign slogan.

"Who would you rather vote for, me, or some other sonofabitch?

Chas

If you really are running, I might consider moving to Buggtussell.

[Boreas]

We've already proven that this isn't a true democracy, GWB got elected, right?

Wrong.

John

[Boreas]

[QUOTE=rickr15;23933]What did you want answered? The crap about trashy women? Pelosi should get you reall hot then as she aint nuthin but trash.QUOTE]

Now, that's some really incisive and erudite commentary!

John

[Zeke]

My newbie friend, you may want to read my posts on this subject (there are many) instead of joining the party at the end and demanding that one tired dancer dance again because you arrived.

I've read.

Not only am I unimpressed, I am ridiculously unimpressed.

Your rhetoric deserves an, ahem, "Golden Shower."

Dance, if you can.

Yes: you have been called out. :mad:

[Edit: I'm leaving the above up because, well, that's just who I am. Sometimes you re-read and think, "I'm an ass." But edits are for cowards and folks who cannot admit that they -- sometimes -- are. Upon reflection, I could have been less of an ass.]

[Fast_Eddie]

Why do you post the crap you do?
More than 50% of Americans did not want this. In a true democracy it would not have happened. BTW, Why do you have such a crush on Sarah Palin anyway? She is nothing to me.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/health_care_gets_positive_gall.html

[Fast_Eddie]

Just wonder how all this is going to play out in court. Cogress passed this on the premise that they can control interstate commerce. No where does it say they can compel commerce.

No where does it say they can regulate immigration. Doesn't say they can have an Air Force in there either. It doesn't say you have the right to a fair trial or a jury of your peers.

The lawsuites are grandstanding. I doubt anything will come of them.

[noonereal]

I've read.

Not only am I unimpressed, I am ridiculously unimpressed.

Your rhetoric deserves an, ahem, "Golden Shower."

Dance, if you can.

Yes: you have been called out. :mad:

I have been called out have I?:confused: Unbelievable.

I have never understood why someone would walk into a room and intermediately pick a fight but your are not the first. There is no accounting for human behavior.

BTW I posted no rhetoric just frustration which I admitted to and apologized for. The sum of all your posts here makes it virtually impossible to understand what you stand for or what you believe.

You claim to have read my posts so tell me what do you disagree with and why? So far all I know about you is that you have a high opinion of yourself, are akin to a bull in a china shop and seem to adopt the democratic party line on this healthcare legislation.


(I have hundreds of posts here on this issue you have one and you tell me I have a shallow critique?)

[merrylander]

So if the government does tort reform does that not infringe upon my rights as defined by the Constitution? I realize that they do call it the "practice" of medicine but one would hope that practice makes perfect.

A doctor operates on someone and due to ignorance, fatigue (you know those 30 hour shifts interns serve), or simple negligence puts that person in a wheelchair for life, or in a coffin. What is proper recompense, $88,000 as has been mentioned? One must take into account the persons age, current salaray, potential earning (or a potential recession due to stupidity of others). In the case of death the care of his dependents? As D-ray has noted we have a jury system and while juries are not perfect all the time I think they have a pretty good track record. Served on one mysely until they decided that being over 70 I was too senile to serve again.

BTW I hear all of this yada yada about tort reform yet not a single whisper about the system that allows doctors to (allegedly) police themselves.

[Charles]

No where does it say they can regulate immigration. Doesn't say they can have an Air Force in there either. It doesn't say you have the right to a fair trial or a jury of your peers.

The lawsuites are grandstanding. I doubt anything will come of them.

I believe the Constitution does require the Fed Gov to secure the borders. One of the few duties required of them, and one of the few which they apparently have no desire to enforce.

Chas

[Zeke]

I have never understood why someone would walk into a room and intermediately pick a fight but your are not the first.

That should tell you something. What's the common denominator, in the room? You.

There is no accounting for human behavior.

That's the point that I just made.

BTW I posted no rhetoric just frustration which I admitted to and apologized for.

If that's the slanted way that you see it, none of us are in a vacuum. I, too, indicated that I could have been, "less of an ass," in an edit of a previous post.

(I have hundreds of posts here on this issue you have one and you tell me I have a shallow critique?)

In sum, related to what I've read?

Yes.

But that's neither here nor there: verbiage is not analysis and there'll be plenty of time to sort through that.

Grand scheme? Who cares.

[Zeke]

I believe the Constitution does require the Fed Gov to secure the borders. One of the few duties required of them, and one of the few which they apparently have no desire to enforce.

Chas

I grok your meaning, but that is an impossible duty: which means "not trying to" -- regardless of desire -- is, probably, the best measure as a Real World solution.

[noonereal]

That should tell you something. What's the common denominator, in the room? You.



That's the point that I just made.



If that's the slanted way that you see it, none of us are in a vacuum. I, too, indicated that I could have been, "less of an ass," in an edit of a previous post.



In sum, related to what I've read?

Yes.

But that's neither here nor there: verbiage is not analysis and there'll be plenty of time to sort through that.

Grand scheme? Who cares.

I thought we already established that you are a rude bastard?

Do you have anything to discuss?

Why do you feel a bill that never considered a single payer, has no public option, does almost nothing for the Medicare donut problem, compels every American to purchase health insurance without providing for adequate protections for those compelled is a good "start?"

[Zeke]

I thought we already established that you are a rude bastard?

You've asserted, nothing more. Do you own a mirror?

Do you have anything to discuss?

I've been doing so, it seems to annoy you.

Why do you feel a bill that never considered a single payer, has no public option, does almost nothing for the Medicare donut problem, compels every American to purchase health insurance without providing for adequate protections for those compelled is a good "start?"

Because it passed, did not weaken the Party, and is a key component of gradualism.

Basically, it had the potential to be Waterloo.

It was, but the Republicans were the French.

[noonereal]

Because it passed, did not weaken the Party, and is a key component of gradualism.

Basically, it had the potential to be Waterloo.

It was, but the Republicans were the French.



We really do not disagree very much on this. The big difference seems to be that I consider this a failure and you feel it is a success. :D

What about the points I raised?

[Zeke]

We really do not disagree very much on this. The big difference seems to be that I consider this a failure and you feel it is a success. :D

You're right: consider my attitude adjusted.

What about the points I raised?

That it didn't address the actual problem?

Quite valid.

[Charles]

This is kinda like visiting the inlaws.

Chas

[piece-itpete]

This is kinda like visiting the inlaws.

Chas

Where's a coffee-spitting smiley when you need one? :D

Pete

[d-ray657]

This is kinda like visiting the inlaws.

Chas

I just had a lot of fun visiting the in-laws. My father-in-law was a Reagan Democrat and a small-business owner. He went without health care coverage for a long time. He despised Bush and voted for Obama. He is really pissed at the GOP now. It took a little work, but I got him turned around.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

This is kinda like visiting the inlaws.

Chas


:rolleyes:




LOL

[Charles]

:rolleyes:




LOL

Paging Djv8ga, your presence is requested at the forums.

(Yeah baby, things are gonna get hot now!!!!!!!!)

Chas

[finnbow]

I just had a lot of fun visiting the in-laws. My father-in-law was a Reagan Democrat and a small-business owner. He went without health care coverage for a long time. He despised Bush and voted for Obama. He is really pissed at the GOP now. It took a little work, but I got him turned around.:D

Regards,

D-Ray

Can you come work on my mother-in-law for me? She's a dyed-in -the-wool Limbaugh/Beck advocate. She proudly says that she refuses to listen to anyone with whom she doesn't agree completely.

[noonereal]

Paging Djv8ga, your presence is requested at the forums.

(Yeah baby, things are gonna get hot now!!!!!!!!)

Chas

I like your sense of humor, disruptive and mischievous. :cool:

[whoaru99]

If they falsified data that would have otherwise identified health risks?

Huh? And I was naive enough to think that hacking up a lung every morning meant it's bad for you. :)

[merrylander]

What in hell do they teach in schools down here? Or do they teach at all? More letters in the Post today from teabaggers decrying this new 'government run healthcare' just because there will be places to pick plans. And the usual cries of socialism, what a bunch of maroons.