Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating - repost

[xxxTHX1138xxx]

seems someone got pissed off because I posted a fact and deleted it.
Interesting how the liberals are accussing the republicans of being in the
pockets of the big insurance co's when the liberals are in the pockets of the trial lawyer lobby. No wonder why they wont touch tort reform.

read on.

Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Dean says no tort reform because trial lawyers too intimidating

[Juan]

This has been pointed out before, and to me is a glaring illustration that this reform package is not really about getting great, reasonably priced health care to the entire population but rather a huge attempt to control a large number of voters.

People can argue all they want on what may be good or bad about different parts of the proposed reform, but the real issue is control.

Tort reform should definitely be included in any proposal. We, the voters should also demand that congress participate in any public/government sponsored option. If they have the confidence that it will be great for our citizens, step up a guarantee us that they will have the same EXACT coverage for themselves and their families.

[xxxTHX1138xxx]

problem is the elitists like Pelosi, Reid, Frank etc know the public option would be medieval healthcare and wouldn't dare participate in it. The public option to them is for the "little people".

This has been pointed out before, and to me is a glaring illustration that this reform package is not really about getting great, reasonably priced health care to the entire population but rather a huge attempt to control a large number of voters.

People can argue all they want on what may be good or bad about different parts of the proposed reform, but the real issue is control.

Tort reform should definitely be included in any proposal. We, the voters should also demand that congress participate in any public/government sponsored option. If they have the confidence that it will be great for our citizens, step up a guarantee us that they will have the same EXACT coverage for themselves and their families.

[onion-head hat]

problem is the elitists like Pelosi, Reid, Frank etc know the public option would be medieval healthcare and wouldn't dare participate in it. The public option to them is for the "little people".

Interesting. You are saying that people would still have alternatives. The rhetoric that I have been hearing is that the plan will eliminate choice all together.

In terms of the public option being for the "little people", their current option is being without insurance and I am sure most people would be against giving them the best insurance possible when it is coming out of our pockets. The only reason I think that some plan has to be instituted to cover the uninsured would be that they already get medical treatment on our dime. This is possibly a way for that cost to be over all less.

[shannondu11]

Word of advice: I'd have more respect for what you had to say, if you didn't couple it with racist and offensive images.

[Juan]

Interesting. You are saying that people would still have alternatives. The rhetoric that I have been hearing is that the plan will eliminate choice all together.

Congress will definitely have their choice to not be on the peoples plan. (They also do not participate in social security - they have their own deal there too. If they didn't, they may have an incentive to fix it, but that's another story) To gain more control over the voters, what would prevent the public option from operating at a loss to drive some or all for profit insurers out of business? That is what scares people.

In terms of the public option being for the "little people", their current option is being without insurance and I am sure most people would be against giving them the best insurance possible when it is coming out of our pockets. The only reason I think that some plan has to be instituted to cover the uninsured would be that they already get medical treatment on our dime. This is possibly a way for that cost to be over all less.

So, if they are already getting coverage on our dime - how much more would it cost to expand coverage to the same people? Where will that money come from?

To the original post though, if this plan is really for the people, why not do something which would reduce cost in the entire health insurance system and propose tort reform?

[MuscleHead]

Congress will definitely have their choice to not be on the peoples plan. (They also do not participate in social security - they have their own deal there too. If they didn't, they may have an incentive to fix it, but that's another story)

Myth: Members of Congress don’t pay into the Social Security system.

Facts: Members of Congress—and all other federal employees, from the president on down—have been required since Jan. 1, 1984, to pay into Social Security. Before that, they were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System, a separate pension plan that predated Social Security by 15 years and was frequently criticized as being overly generous to beneficiaries.

Nevertheless, the myth that Capitol Hill lawmakers are a privileged class when it comes to Social Security just won’t go away. It’s “an example of how persistently rumors can reappear in the Internet age, when people are endlessly forwarding e-mails on to others,” says Andrew Biggs, a former official of the Social Security Administration who’s now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “The growth of the rumor is almost geometric, so it reappears as quickly as it can be rebutted.”

The Social Security Administration addresses the myth on the “Frequently Asked Questions” page of its website. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also recently dealt with the issue in great depth in a report on retirement benefits for members of Congress.

link

[onion-head hat]

Congress will definitely have their choice to not be on the peoples plan. (They also do not participate in social security - they have their own deal there too. If they didn't, they may have an incentive to fix it, but that's another story) To gain more control over the voters, what would prevent the public option from operating at a loss to drive some or all for profit insurers out of business? That is what scares people.

I get why people are scared. Scared people don't have to participate - they can hide - uninsured - under theirs beds hoping not to get injured or sick

So, if they are already getting coverage on our dime - how much more would it cost to expand coverage to the same people? Where will that money come from?

Where does it come from now. It is the same people as you say. Higher premiums? higher taxes?

To the original post though, if this plan is really for the people, why not do something which would reduce cost in the entire health insurance system and propose tort reform?

That is a good question, but that seems a bit more of a tar-baby to wrestle with and it won't lead directly to health care for all. I suppose you have to chooe your battles and tat one seems not to be a priority. Perhaps when the champions of that cause are in back power they can be prevailed upon do something about it.

[Juan]

I get why people are scared. Scared people don't have to participate .

Cool. Because I am scared. So what do I have to do to not participate - and by particpate - I mean pay.

That is a good question, but that seems a bit more of a tar-baby to wrestle with and it won't lead directly to health care for all. I suppose you have to chooe your battles and tat one seems not to be a priority. Perhaps when the champions of that cause are in back power they can be prevailed upon do something about it.

But it would lead to a reduction in cost - that is also a priority of this reform is it not?

The fact that it is not a priority means that "change" in Washington politics was never anyone real goal was it?

BTW - don't get me wrong I think they all lie.

[Not New]

Obama maid that claim months ago. Would you expect them to turn on their elitist friends.

[xxxTHX1138xxx]

there are options for people w/o insurance.
Illegal aliens should not be covered by our tax dollars.
Also - there are millions who elect not to be covered.
Of course the liberals dont want you to know that.

Interesting. You are saying that people would still have alternatives. The rhetoric that I have been hearing is that the plan will eliminate choice all together.

In terms of the public option being for the "little people", their current option is being without insurance and I am sure most people would be against giving them the best insurance possible when it is coming out of our pockets. The only reason I think that some plan has to be instituted to cover the uninsured would be that they already get medical treatment on our dime. This is possibly a way for that cost to be over all less.

[xxxTHX1138xxx]

Word of advice: I'd have more respect for what you had to say, if you didn't couple it with racist and offensive images.

word of advice: get over it.
There is nothing racist about my pic. Sorry, but I do not worship at the altar
of barrack obama. Shame that people such as yourself have to see things in terms of race.

[shannondu11]

word of advice: get over it.
There is nothing racist about my pic. Sorry, but I do not worship at the altar
of barrack obama. Shame that people such as yourself have to see things in terms of race.

You're right... Kool-Aid isn't (quite often) used in conjunction with racial comments.

[onion-head hat]

there are options for people w/o insurance.

Sure there are. Like don't get too sick or to injured. Maybe you can list a few and you can illustrate how much those options cost and how they might apply to a wide range of treatments. At what point will it break the bank for the average uninsured person.

Illegal aliens should not be covered by our tax dollars.

This statement is flawed. I am pretty sure that this is not part of the bill and whether you realize it or not, illegals are already being treated on the taxpayer's dime. I don't see how this legislation has and bearing on this.

Also - there are millions who elect not to be covered.

Yes, they are called free riders IMHO. They are part of the problem. In some cases they can easily afford insurance OR routine medical expenses. We end up inuring them when things go really bad too.

Of course the liberals dont want you to know that.

Who are these liberals you are talking about - they sound like a charcature of groupp that you've dreamed up.

[onion-head hat]

Cool. Because I am scared. So what do I have to do to not participate - and by particpate - I mean pay.

you already pay.

But it would lead to a reduction in cost - that is also a priority of this reform is it not?

So, you must earn a lot. Seems that you are already benefiting from the stsyem

The fact that it is not a priority means that "change" in Washington politics was never anyone real goal was it?

I guess you heard a different version of the platform that the Dems ran on than I did. I don't remember them mentioning tort reform as a plank. This is just your ad hoc attempt to change the meaning of a platitude to suit your argument.

BTW - don't get me wrong I think they all lie.

Finally, something I won't quibble with.

[MuscleHead]

there are options for people w/o insurance.
.

What exactly are these options?

[Juan]

you already pay..

You said I cound not particapate. How do I pay just what I'm paying now and NO more for anyone elses coverage? Right, you can't make that happen. So I have to particapte. So much for that point.

So, you must earn a lot. Seems that you are already benefiting from the stsyem.

What is this a response to? I see, if you could not think of a logical response, you's just type a string of words that do not apply. Well done.

I guess you heard a different version of the platform that the Dems ran on than I did. I don't remember them mentioning tort reform as a plank. This is just your ad hoc attempt to change the meaning of a platitude to suit your argument.

Quotes from Obama's Change speech in SC:
"needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American."

Would tort reform not be a great reduction in cost?

"overcome all the big money and influence in Washington....change is possible"
See this is the change he was talking about. Maybe you don't remember but it doesn't mean it wasn't said.
BTW, It IS tough to overcome if you don't even try

From his speech in Canton, OH:
"I believed that Democrats and Republicans and Americans of every political stripe were hungry for new ideas, new leadership, and a new kind of politics one that favors common sense over ideology"

Common sense? Where? Common sense says if you reduce what can be awarded in a malprctice suit, that reduces the cost of insurance for medical providers which would reduce the cost of health care for all. That is the goal right? Well not really.

So much for what was SAID.

[onion-head hat]

Sure it might lower costs for the insured, but then again the addition tort reform to the bill will probably make it impossible to pass and it wouldn't directly lead to insuring the uninsured now would it?

Again, that was not their immediate goal. Are you honestly saying that if the bill included tort reform, then you'd support it?

[Young Trone]

Political party won't walk all over big money lobby. Why is this newsworthy?

[Towelie]

You're right... Kool-Aid isn't (quite often) used in conjunction with racial comments.

Nope,

Actually family guy brought the "kool aid guy" back into the mainstream, and some conservatives used the term "drinking the kool aid" to describe those who loyally believes everything Obama said during the campaign. Hence the corralation to the image. I never heard of Kool Aid being a racist thing. Perhaps you were thinking grape soda?

Kind of odd that you automatically saw that as a racist image.