[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My impression from reading quite a large number of med mal cases and from surveying settlements is that the percentage of frivolous cases in medical malpractice is very high. The doctor doesn't have to make a medical error for there to be a suit against him. Very often, all that happens is that there are normal complications, or just a bad result. Given our litigious society and the glitter of a huge potential award or settlement, there will be suits against even very good doctors.

Even if the doctor wins the case, the defense costs still have to be paid for. Those defense costs can run into the thousands, or often into the hundreds of thousands. That's what malpractice insurance is for just as much as defense in cases where there is any actual error.

But very few of them are successful.
Assuming an equal distribution of idiots and careless doctors throughout the world (in my experience, a reasonable one), I think the US has their share of doctors. In Germany, it is quite difficult to win such a case. My mom (as well as my brother, my sister, and my father) have had an issue with two dentists. My parents decided to sue the first one (my father is a lawyer, too), but although this doctor has been known to the courts already, my parents lost the case. And they weren't suing for any damages, they simply refused to pay for the part of the bills that was agreed upon before. (The scope of the treatment had been fixed in writing (!), so there was no way to mistake my mother's wishes. As a result, in the case of my mother alone, we had to pay for the following: the bills (four times of what was agreed upon), both lawyers (in German civil law, the person that looses a case, has to cover the other side's costs as well) and subsequent medical bills that were necessary to undo parts of the damage done.

That was our new car right there.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I never said they were trivial costs. The average award is $135,000. That includes both settlments and jury awards. I see no indication that court costs are not included in that number. If you've got stats that say otherwise, I'd very much like to see that. That would be critical to the issue.

I don't have stats. I just know that the attorney fees borne by the defense are not included in the verdict or settlement. You know why I know that. Court costs might be included, but those are trivial -- filing fees and the like. But that isn't what we are talking about. What we are talking about are attorney's fees and other litigation fees. Those are where the major expenses are and they aren't part of the award.

Don't get confused here about who pays what. We aren't talking about the plaintiff's expenses. The plaintiff would have to pay his or her attorney's fees out of the award. The defendant, on the other hand, will still be responsible for his or own defense costs regardless of whether the case is won or lost. It's those costs that get passed on to the consumer, and it is in addition to any settlement or verdict, or even when the doctor wins the case.

Just to make things clearer: the settlement and jury verdict amounts that you are quoting is the average award or settlement from the doctor to the patient. Plaintiffs do not pay settlements or verdicts to the doctor.


***

Edit to add: It doesn't change the main issue, but it is also worth noting that the $135,000 average figure you cite would be arithmetically depressed by defense verdicts. When the doctor wins the "award" is entered in the jury verdict and settlement databases as an award of $0. Because defense verdicts are common, an arithmetical mean will be much lower than the median amount actually paid. Unfortunately, it's hard to demonstrate this to you because the databases are subscription (I generally use Westlaw), but it is the case. $135,000 would be on the low end for a medical malpractice settlement or jury verdict.

[zigzag]

I don't know the stats, but Simey is correct that the average award figure would probably not include defense costs, which are paid by the malpractice insurer and can be substantial. It's very time-consuming and expensive work, for both sides. Expert witnesses can easily cost $500-1000 an hour. Plaintiff's attorneys can easily invest tens of thousands of dollars in a case at risk of getting zero in return. Of course, if they guess right, they can really score. This gives the contingent fee system a crass entrepreneurial quality, but it also gives ordinary people access to the courthouse. I'd like someone to design a system that's significantly more efficient without depriving ordinary people of access, I just haven't seen it yet.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I think you're both right to a degree - there are inefficiencies in the insurance and litigation systems, but neither is tort reform the cure-all that some would suggest. It's a multi-faceted problem.

Med-mal cases are unusual in that the doctors have to approve any settlement (at least this was true where I practiced). I was only involved in a few such cases but my impression was that this tended to drag things out even further because doctors are loathe to concede that a claim might have merit. Keeping claims and settlements confidential would mitigate this problem, but then that operates against the public's interest in knowing who the bad doctors are. It's a difficult thing, and all sides are fighting tooth-and-nail to protect their interests.

[Nicko]

Riding the Crazy Train
By MAUREEN DOWD

wASHINGTON � Whoa! That was quite the steroid-infused performance. Who's the guy's political consultant � Russell Crowe? He was so in-your-face, smirking his trademark smirk, it was disturbing to think of him in charge of the military. It's a good thing he stopped drinking and started talking about God.

You wonder how many votes he scared off with that testosterone festival: the taunting message, the self-righteous geographic litany of support? The Philippines. Thailand. Italy. Spain. Poland. Denmark. Bulgaria. Ukraine. Romania. The Netherlands. Norway. El Salvador.

Can you believe President Bush is still pushing the cockamamie claim that we went to war in Iraq with a real coalition rather than a gaggle of poodles and lackeys?

His State of the Union address took his swaggering sheriff routine to new heights. "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country," he vowed.

Translation: Hey, we don't need no stinking piece of paper to bring it on in other countries. If it feels good, we'll do it, and we'll decide later why we did it. You lookin' at me?

Sure, Howard Dean was also over the top when he uttered the squeal heard round the world. With one guttural primary primal scream, he went from Internet deity to World Wide Wacko and remix victim, with the scream mixed in on Web sites to punctuate Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train."

Yes, Howard, you know you're in trouble when Chris Matthews says you make him look like Jim Lehrer; when David Letterman compares you to a hockey dad; when The New York Post suggests you have a "God complex." (As Alec Baldwin's twisted doctor said in "Malice": "You ask me if I have a God complex? Let me tell you something. I am God.")

Once Michael Dukakis got in trouble when he failed to get angry when asked how he would react if his wife were raped and murdered.

But Dr. Dean's snarly, teeth-baring Iowa finale was so Ross-Perot-scare-off-the-women-and-horses crazy that some Democrats on Capitol Hill, already anxious about the tightly wound doctor, confessed they could not imagine that jabbing finger anywhere near The Button.

But Republicans were thrilled when Mr. Bush strutted up onstage on Tuesday night to basically tell the country that if you don't vote for him in November, you're giving up in the war on terrorism. "We've not come all this way � through tragedy, and trial and war � only to falter and leave our work unfinished," he asserted, as if all those Democrats racing from Iowa to New Hampshire in the middle of the night were crying out to the voters: "Falter! Falter!"

Dr. Dean's poll numbers are diving because people freezing in New Hampshire think he's too hot.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are better at looking cool. But their dissing the U.N. � that palace of permission slips � and their doctrine of pre-emption are just as hot, and so was Mr. Bush's cocky implicit defense of the idea that if you whack one Middle East dictator, the rest will fall in line. "Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not," he said. "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."

Maybe he's right, but what about Bill Clinton's line that unless we want to occupy every country in the world, maybe our policy should also concentrate on making friends instead of targets? The president and vice president like to present a calm, experienced demeanor, but their foreign policy is right out of the let's-out-crazy-the-bad-guys style of Mel Gibson's cop in "Lethal Weapon" movies.

For proof of how intemperate their policy has been, compare this year's State of the Union with last year's. Last year it was all about Iraq's frightening weapons. This year the only reference was to "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."

Would Americans have supported a war to go get "program activities?" What is a program activity? Where is the White House speechwriters' ombudsman?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Pointing out that Ralph Nader's group has a well-known position on litigation, and that therefore his group's "report" is not objective is not an ad hominem attack. However, saying that Ralph Nader is a left wing wacko might be.

I usually hate getting pedantic, but you drive to me to it.

That's not what ad hominem means. I know that many use it as a synonym for "personal attack", but that's not what it means.

An ad hominem argument is dismissing an argument based solely on the person making the argument. That's a logical fallacy. An argument's validity and merit is independent of the speaker who presents it.

If you want to say we can't take the report seriously because it was published by a group that uses lawyers, that is by definition an ad hominem argument.

I apologize for the dig at your use of them, but I'm sad to say its true. You consistently base your argumentation on who is making the argument rather than the merits--especially when it comes to media sources.

Pointing out bias is one thing, but even bias doesn't negate an argument. That is still a logical fallacy. Even the most biased person in the universe can be right.

I think I've made the case about the tenuous connection between "frivolous" lawsuits and medical costs clear enough. I think its mostly bunk considering the tiny number of lawsuits compared to the staggering frequency of preventable accidents.

And I still argue, as does Public Citizen, that reducing the number of preventable accidents and errors will do infinitely more to reduce medical costs (and by extension litigation) than merely applying a ridiculous rubber stamp that treats every plaintiff as frivolous by limiting their right to redress and further insulates medical practitioners which are already far too shielded from liability for their actions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
An ad hominem argument is dismissing an argument based solely on the person making the argument. That's a logical fallacy. An argument's validity and merit is independent of the speaker who presents it.

If you want to say we can't take the report seriously because it was published by a group that uses lawyers, that is by definition an ad hominem argument.

I apologize for the dig at your use of them, but I'm sad to say its true. You consistently base your argumentation on who is making the argument rather than the merits--especially when it comes to media sources.

I consistantly point out the bias of the source when you and others consistently rely on hopelessly biased sources and claim that they are not biased. Then you get upset when we call you on it.

This case is particularly egregious because what you have produced isn't some neutral academic "report" but a piece of lobbying puffery at least partly paid for by the American Trial Lawyers Association. It's as ludicrous as touting a study on lung cancer paid for by the tobacco industry. ATLA has as much of a pecuniary interest in avoiding regulation of their industry as the tobacco industry has in theirs, and any "report" they are involved with should be taken with a whopping pinch of salt. This is on top of the specific fallacies and misrepresentations in the "report" which we have already exposed - e.g. the disguising of expensive settlements as voluntary withdrawals of cases, and so forth. It's a bogus study.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
"I think if we had more money in our paychecks we could have afforded not to cut off our dental insurance. So I guess he's wrong."

An extra $300/year is not going to get you dental coverage.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
An extra $300/year is not going to get you dental coverage.

further, in fact it might exacerbate the problem by increasing the amount of people that can afford overpriced health care. That will only maintain or worsen the status quo.
Only when a large enough percentage of people can no longer afford health care will the prices go down, in a free market.

case of supply/demand.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I consistantly point out the bias of the source when you and others consistently rely on hopelessly biased sources and claim that they are not biased. Then you get upset when we call you on it.

deja vu.

that wasn't what he was saying.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I consistantly point out the bias of the source when you and others consistently rely on hopelessly biased sources and claim that they are not biased. Then you get upset when we call you on it.

This case is particularly egregious because what you have produced isn't some neutral academic "report" but a piece of lobbying puffery at least partly paid for by the American Trial Lawyers Association. It's as ludicrous as touting a study on lung cancer paid for by the tobacco industry. ATLA has as much of a pecuniary interest in avoiding regulation of their industry as the tobacco industry has in theirs, and any "report" they are involved with should be taken with a whopping pinch of salt. This is on top of the specific fallacies and misrepresentations in the "report" which we have already exposed - e.g. the disguising of expensive settlements as voluntary withdrawals of cases, and so forth. It's a bogus study.

Again, dismissing their argument because of their bias (preceived or real) is still an ad hominem argument. You can be biased and still be right. I have no problem with using a "pinch of salt", not even a whopping one. But being skeptical isn't the same as refutation.

Secondly, how on earth can you label a 72 page report as "bogus" when you've have only asserted that one of the stats is "misleading". In fact, you've only attacked my one sentence paraphrase of one tiny stat in the 72 page report.

I paraphrased one point from their summary of the report. You say that one sentence paraphrase of a summary doesn't contain all the facts and dismiss it as "misleading". Yes, my paraphrase of a summary might have left something out of the argument, but that doesn't make the 72 page report "bogus".

I'm done arguing it with you. Its obvious that no amount of factual argumentation will ever penetrate your committment to the party plank. I've presented a link to hard facts and numbers and you've taken issue with a one sentence paraphrase of a summary and declared the 72 pages of facts and statistics as "bogus".

Genuinely interested parties can read the report and think for themselves. And the entire nation is welcome to push Tort Reform and watch medical costs and even malpractice premiums contineu to rise, just like they did in California after it passed Tort Reform.

Here's another fact for you to dismiss out of hand, after all, it comes from a progressive website:

Medical malpractice costs as a proportion of national health care spending
are less than 60 cents out of every $100 spent. In fact, malpractice
premiums as a percentage of all health costs have declined from 0.95% in
1988 to 0.56% in 2000. On the other hand, prescription drugs costs make up
about 11% of all health costs - the second largest portion after hospital
spending - and are projected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services to reach 14% in 2010.

There is a link between malpractice premiums and Tort Reform. How much of a link is debatable.

But the truly tenuous argument is that malpractice premiums are a major contributing factor to medical inflation.

If Washington really wants to lower costs:

1) do something about the massive number of preventable errors and accidents (as Public Citizen argues)
2) do something about Drug costs, since they are quickly becoming the largest portion of overall heathcare costs.

Oh, and if you want to factually refute that, all you need to do is provide evidence that demonstrates that Tort Reform will lower healthcare costs (not just malpractice premiums, which are a minor healthcare cost) more than either of the other 2 proposals.

OR you can try to convince us that the best policy for lowering costs (which is what the president says he wants to do) is to do something about .56% of overall costs instead of addressing 14% of overall costs. Not to mention the staggeringly high costs of not doing anything about lower the number of preventable accidents and errors.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
deja vu.

that wasn't what he was saying.

Deja vu. Lerk piles on Simey again, telling him what he may or may not say.

My response was valid. So is the basic issue that people are entitled to point out cases of absurdly biased sources. Just because someone posts a link does not make the source above reproach.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Deja vu. Lerk piles on Simey again, telling him what he may or may not say.

My response was valid. So is the basic issue that people are entitled to point out cases of absurdly biased sources. Just because someone posts a link does not make the source above reproach.

no, that wasn't what he was saying, and that wasn't what I was saying....and that's all I have to say.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Deja vu. Lerk piles on Simey again, telling him what he may or may not say.

My response was valid. So is the basic issue that people are entitled to point out cases of absurdly biased sources. Just because someone posts a link does not make the source above reproach.

Pointing out bias is not the same as refutation. A biased source can still be factually correct.

Your argument is as fundamentally illogical as saying "I don't believe you". Whether or not you believe me doesn't make my statements true or false.

Logical Argumentation 101

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Secondly, how on earth can you label a 72 page report as "bogus" when you've have only asserted that one of the stats is "misleading".

Skepticism 101: look at the source. Ask what their stake in the outcome is. Be skeptical when there is an ideological, or financial interest.

I said upfront that I did not read the entire lobbying document. I read enough to confirm what it was, and that it was written in a misleading way. I'm not about to double check every fact and issue that they claim and in fact I said that the actual facts are most likely accurate. What was obviously misleading about it was the editorial slant and that made it essentially useless. The fact that the organization that produced it has a partisan (and indeed, financial) stake in the matter is only the iceing on the cake. The bottom line is it is an unrealiable document no matter how pretty they made it.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of following the party plank. Don't you see the irony there? This is a lobbying effort by an industry with a financial stake in medical malpractice claims and which seeks to avoid government regulation. That should raise alarm bells. That should make you question their argument, especially when others demonstrate that it is being made in a misleading way.

Enough! We are agreed that tort reform advocates have a valid point. We are agreed that the document you produced was misleading in the way I said. Others with experience in this field have concurred that there are real economic costs to litigation, and that those costs are much higher than this document tried to imply. We are also agreed that tort reform isn't the entire answer. It's not a magic bullet. We are also agreed that tort suits do serve a valuable function, as long as they don't get out of control. I'm perfectly happy to concede that there are other factors driving up health care costs other than litigation. I have never thought that the problem has only one cause. Are you willing to concede the obvious and economically undeniable fact that litigation creates the need for malpractice insurance, which is a cost that is passed on to the consumers?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Skepticism 101: look at the source. Ask what their stake in the outcome is. Be skeptical when there is an ideological, or financial interest.

I said upfront that I did not read the entire lobbying document. I read enough to confirm what it was, and that it was written in a misleading way. I'm not about to double check every fact and issue that they claim and in fact I said that the actual facts are most likely accurate. What was obviously misleading about it was the editorial slant and that made it essentially useless. The fact that the organization that produced it has a partisan (and indeed, financial) stake in the matter is only the iceing on the cake. The bottom line is it is an unrealiable document no matter how pretty they made it.

Which is still the definition of an ad hominem argument. At least you admit you're too busy, lazy or disinterested to refute the facts presented. That's fine. Call them whatever you want, you still haven't refuted a single thing they said.

If you want to continue to embarass yourself with that kind of argumentation, go right ahead.

You don't want to read it or refute it's claims. Leave it at that. Calling it "bogus" has as much intellectual weight as calling it "yogurt" if you can't be bothered to refute it.

I present facts, you call it "yogurt". I rest my case.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Enough! We are agreed that tort reform advocates have a valid point. We are agreed that the document you produced was misleading in the way I said. Others with experience in this field have concurred that there are real economic costs to litigation, and that those costs are much higher than this document tried to imply. We are also agreed that tort reform isn't the entire answer. It's not a magic bullet. We are also agreed that tort suits do serve a valuable function, as long as they don't get out of control. I'm perfectly happy to concede that there are other factors driving up health care costs other than litigation. I have never thought that the problem has only one cause. Are you willing to concede the obvious and economically undeniable fact that litigation creates the need for malpractice insurance, which is a cost that is passed on to the consumers?

I didn't agree that the document was misleading. I said that my one sentence paraphrase of a summary didn't contain all the facts. That much should be obvious. It was a teaser to get people to read the report.

Its been argued that Tort Reform might lower malpractice premiums. What other "valuable function" would they serve? Would those functions outweigh the wholesale limitation of all victim's rights because an undefinable fraction of them might be deemed "frivolous"?

I've presented lots of evidence that malpractice premiums have an almost negligible impact on healthcare costs. So its not a question of whether or not there is "only one cause", but a question of whether or not its a cause in any meaningful way. I don't consider .56% of overall health costs to be much of an issue.

And litigation does not "create the need" for malpractice insurance. Preventable errors and accidents create the need. Want less litigation? Lower the number of preventable errors. Punish incompetent doctors.

From where I sit, until we've taken measures to address preventable errors, disciplinary action against problem doctors, drug costs and fundamental insruance reform, worrying about what percentage of lawsuits might or might not be "frivolous", punishing all victims because we don't know what that percentage is, and worrying about .56% of health costs is utterly stupid.

I dream of a healthcare system where litigation is our biggest problem. Right now, it seems to be to be very very very low on the list. And it shouldn't even be on the list of problems until we've done something about the fact that preventable errors kill more people than auto accidents!

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I usually hate getting pedantic, but you drive to me to it.

That's not what ad hominem means. I know that many use it as a synonym for "personal attack", but that's not what it means.

An ad hominem argument is dismissing an argument based solely on the person making the argument. That's a logical fallacy. An argument's validity and merit is independent of the speaker who presents it.

No, ad hominem is dismissing an argument based on the character of the person making the argument. EG an ad hominem attack would be dismissing every Clinton policy because one is disgusted with his character. Dismissing an argument because it's written in a misleading way by someone with a financial interest is not the same thing.

I'd add that it's a bit annoying that there's a common practice of people posting 70 page reports that support their argument, and wave off any counter-argument because their opponent doesn't have the time to read, analyze, and disprove every fact in the report. To me, it's just another report until someone either disproves or proves its findings. When you paraphrase a particular section of the report that you find important, it's certainly reasonable for someone to argue against that paraphrase. After all, you didn't take the time and effort to publish a full analysis on here, why should anyone else?

I don't mean to make that look like a personal dig, because it's a common practice on MacNN. It's irritating when anyone does it

[zigzag]

tf, you seem knowledgeable about single-payer systems - what provisions do they make for malpractice claims? Is it like the worker's comp system, i.e. forfeit the right to sue in exchange for immediate and free benefits? Or is it an arbitration-type system? Or a traditional tort approach? Just curious, if you know.

Re: malpractice costs. I'm no authority, but there would seem to be an additional, indirect cost in the form of unneeded tests, procedures, CYA paperwork, and the like. Are you aware of any numbers on this? I honestly don't know what the overall effect is, and I'm not even sure it's calculable. I'm sure the insurance/medical interests would put a relatively high number on it, and the trial lawyers/public interest people would put a relatively low number on it. It's probably in-between but I suspect that it's a genuine hidden cost.

[thunderous_funker]

Fine. I'll present 2 arguments and welcome anyone who would like to factually debate them.

1) It is uncertain how much Tort Reform will impact malpractice premiums on a broad scale.

Studies show that sudden rise in malpractice premiums track much more closely to general economic trends than to litigation. The spike in premiums in the mid-80's was largely due to a price war between insurers to gain market share. Those prices were artificially low, making later spikes not an indication of any kind of malpractice "crisis".

Furthermore, increases in premiums also track with the bottom line of insurance companies. When the stock market tanks and their investments are producing low return, premiums go up. When margins are good and markets are solid, the premiums go down. These are natural market forces at work and not the effect of frivolous litigation.

2) Even if malpractice premiums are lowered substantially, the impact on overall healthcare costs would be insignificant.

I've posted that malpractice premiums represent .56% of health costs. Down from .95% a few years ago. As compared to 11% (soon to be 14%) represented by prescription drug costs.

Even the CBO report done for HR 4600 (tort reform measure) substantiates that claim:

The percentage effect of H.R. 4600 on overall health insurance premiums would be far smaller than the percentage impact on medical malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending; even a very large reduction in malpractice costs would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums. In addition, some of the savings leading to lower medical malpractice premiums--those savings arising from changes in the treatment of collateral-source benefits--would represent a shift in costs from medical malpractice insurance to health insurance. Because providers of collateral-source benefits would be prevented from recovering their costs arising from the malpractice injury, some of the costs that would be borne by malpractice insurance under current law would instead be borne by the providers of collateral-source benefits. Most such providers are health insurers.

linky

So not only would the uncertain or uneven lowering of malpractice premiums not significantly lower heath costs, it might even introduce additional costs to patients as the financial burden moves to heath insurance rather than malpractice insurance.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
tf, you seem knowledgeable about single-payer systems - what provisions do they make for malpractice claims? Is it like the worker's comp system, i.e. forfeit the right to sue in exchange for immediate and free benefits? Or is it an arbitration-type system? Or a traditional tort approach? Just curious, if you know.

Re: malpractice costs. I'm no authority, but there would seem to be an additional, indirect cost in the form of unneeded tests, procedures, CYA paperwork, and the like. Are you aware of any numbers on this? I honestly don't know what the overall effect is, and I'm not even sure it's calculable. I'm sure the insurance/medical interests would put a relatively high number on it, and the trial lawyers/public interest people would put a relatively low number on it. It's probably in-between but I suspect that it's a genuine hidden cost.

I'm unaware of any specific single-payer proposals that address the issue of malpractice. I think malpractice is a non-issue for most of the activists in the fight against skyrocketing healthcare costs. I'll look into it, though.

Your second point sounds like you're talking about the hidden costs of "defensive medicine", the term used most often to describe what medical practitioners do in order to protect themselves from possible litigation. Data on that is very very sketchy. The CBO report I linked to above states they can't put their finger on such costs. However, they do say that preliminary investigations into claims that a "malpractice crisis" has resulted in limited access to services or substantial degredation of service to be largely unsubstantiated.

[maxelson]

I dunno about the Dem response, but here's mine:
Bush: Congress needs to reign in the spending.
Oh. By the way, here are a bunch of new programs I don't really believe in which will make me look good to the centrists. Fund them.

[thunderous_funker]

On a much much lighter note, check out the Get Your War On reaction to the SOTU here

Genius.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
On a much much lighter note, check out the Get Your War On reaction to the SOTU here

Genius.

That's a pretty funny cartoon-related program activity.

[finboy]

Originally posted by zigzag:

Re: malpractice costs. I'm no authority, but there would seem to be an additional, indirect cost in the form of unneeded tests, procedures, CYA paperwork, and the like. Are you aware of any numbers on this? I honestly don't know what the overall effect is, and I'm not even sure it's calculable. I'm sure the insurance/medical interests would put a relatively high number on it, and the trial lawyers/public interest people would put a relatively low number on it. It's probably in-between but I suspect that it's a genuine hidden cost.

Having just had a kid, I can tell you that the litigation overhead was about 2/3 of the total cost. Everything during the pregnancy hinged upon checking a box that absolved someone of liability. It was very scary. And expensive, mainly because of the legal overhead.

As for Canadian drugs: How did drug prices get to be lower in Canada? Price controls. Would Canadians even have ACCESS to some of those drugs if they hadn't been developed and tested in the US? A related question is: How many of those drugs were invented in Canada? If you remove the incentive to develop drugs, people won't bother to develop them.

Fixing the tort system is relatively simple to do, let's start there.

Back on topic: The Democrat response to the SOTU was pathetic, as expected. Same old lines, nothing of substance. If the Democrat cause is resting on folks such as these, the next few generations will have it much better in this country.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by finboy:
Having just had a kid . . .

Congrats . . .

[maxelson]

Originally posted by finboy:
Having just had a kid...
Back on topic: The Democrat response to the SOTU was pathetic, as expected. Same old lines, nothing of substance. If the Democrat cause is resting on folks such as these, the next few generations will have it much better in this country.

One: Congrats: cool, ain't it?
Two: Although I agree totally with the thought that the dem response was for the most part typical, I'd have to say that the description of "same old lines, nothing of substance, UTTER BS and spin and, yes, less hope for future generations applied pretty well to the SOTU itself.

Once again: STOP SPENDING... but let's fund these programs, shall we?
Bottom line: Bush and Co will continue to spend us out of existence and you folks seem happy with that. Why? Lower Taxes and spend to beat the band? How do you justify that? 287 billion to kill foks and ZERO to fund (one of biggest misnomer in history) "NCLB".

All this rationalization crap is just plain foolish. Skip the partisanism and LOOK AT IT.

Oh. When was this "smaller government" thing supposed to happen again? Fiscal responsibility? I seem to recall quite a bit of that going on in the original campaign promises.
Friggin travesty.