[quote]Sloth wrote:
Deregulate. Oh, and big time malpractice/tort reform.[/quote]
Tort reform benefits insurance companies.
Are you going to make the insurance companies lower rates if tort reform is passed?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Deregulate. Oh, and big time malpractice/tort reform.
Tort reform benefits insurance companies.
Are you going to make the insurance companies lower rates if tort reform is passed?[/quote]
Shouldn’t the rates adjust themselves to the market? If insurance companies can provide equal coverage for less money, a few of them are bound to go for it, if only to get customers away from the competition.
Or are all insurance companies in cahoots and operating as a cartel?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Deregulate. Oh, and big time malpractice/tort reform.
Tort reform benefits insurance companies.
Are you going to make the insurance companies lower rates if tort reform is passed?
Shouldn’t the rates adjust themselves to the market? If insurance companies can provide equal coverage for less money, a few of them are bound to go for it, if only to get customers away from the competition.
Or are all insurance companies in cahoots and operating as a cartel?
[/quote]
They will not need to lower rates because lawsuits only account for 2% of all the legitimate claims they pay.
Rates increase based on earnings. Insurance companies invest premiums in the market and when the market under performs they raise rates. Insurance companies don’t lower rates when the market out performs.
Torte reform will do nothing for the consumer.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Our current “universal” healthcare system is the most expensive in the world.[/quote]
As I said, it’s a crappy system.
[quote]vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
It’s like a job estimate going up just because it’s for a government entity.
There are legit reasons for pricing a job up when estimating for the government.
They change the rules. They don’t become a “satisfied” customer in that you need to rebid frequently after acquiring additional resources and staff to handle the contract.
They often won’t purchase as much as they said they would in the timeframe the said either. Basically, if you don’t leave a cushion, it can be damaging to win a government contract.
Often, it is the small hungry company that might win on a low bid and then get strangled as the government screws around, non-maliciously for sure, leaving them up shit creek.
[/rant][/quote]
You may have had different experiences with higher levels of government than me, but generally, I’ve seen the government liason ordering on only the priciest materials, with the contractor putting the us on the backburner for “other” jobs. Granted, I’ve only seen this stuff at the local level, but it pisses me off just the same. I’ve had contractors say that their estimates are up to 30% higher for government jobs. That sucks IMHO.
My point? It just seems to me that everyone involved in a government gig seems to not think of the money involved as “real”, and the entities certainly don’t feel the pain of spending “their” money. Hence, inflated costs to the public.
[quote]
Back on topic, I really can’t see picking on a guy who actually has the disease. I mean, the problem is that it’s obviously an effective ad.
The tactic of attacking anything effective is not a good one here… it just makes conservatives look evil. At the very least, it throws away the concept of “compassionate conservatives”. Oops![/quote]
If I was Limbaugh, I would personally have aproached that differently, but hey, that’s just me.
That being said, I have alot of personall respect for Micheal J. Fox and how he seems to stay strong in the face of a shitty disease. But here’s the thing, when you place yourself in a political battle as Fox did, you make yourself vulnerable to political attack.
And just for the record, I thought his response to limbaugh was classy. And Limbaugh did apoligize. Just my .02
colbert on limbaugh.
[quote]vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
It’s like a job estimate going up just because it’s for a government entity.
There are legit reasons for pricing a job up when estimating for the government.
They change the rules. They don’t become a “satisfied” customer in that you need to rebid frequently after acquiring additional resources and staff to handle the contract.
They often won’t purchase as much as they said they would in the timeframe the said either. Basically, if you don’t leave a cushion, it can be damaging to win a government contract.
Often, it is the small hungry company that might win on a low bid and then get strangled as the government screws around, non-maliciously for sure, leaving them up shit creek.
[/rant]
Back on topic, I really can’t see picking on a guy who actually has the disease. I mean, the problem is that it’s obviously an effective ad.
The tactic of attacking anything effective is not a good one here… it just makes conservatives look evil. At the very least, it throws away the concept of “compassionate conservatives”. Oops![/quote]
I agree that picking on MJF was a stupid thing to do. But I also say that those people responsible for parading him about, taking advantage of his condition, are no better. Either way I think it hurts his dignity.
As far as “attacking thing effective”, are you referring to stem cell treatment? If so, no one has been cured by stem cell research and it has not even come close to be proven effective. So cut the talking points because no one is buying it!
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Deregulate. Oh, and big time malpractice/tort reform.
Tort reform benefits insurance companies.
Are you going to make the insurance companies lower rates if tort reform is passed?[/quote]
And leaving the system the same benefits lawyers!
Most of the money paid out is from cases that never go to court. It’s a form of extortion. The lawyers know the companies don’t want to go through all the time and money of a trial with the uncertainty of the outcome at the hands of an illogical and emotionally swayed jury. So they typically always settle. So the lawyers get richer; the insurance companies lose money; and the public pays more and more.
It has to change!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Deregulate. Oh, and big time malpractice/tort reform.
Tort reform benefits insurance companies.
Are you going to make the insurance companies lower rates if tort reform is passed?
And leaving the system the same benefits lawyers!
Most of the money paid out is from cases that never go to court. It’s a form of extortion. The lawyers know the companies don’t want to go through all the time and money of a trial with the uncertainty of the outcome at the hands of an illogical and emotionally swayed jury. So they typically always settle. So the lawyers get richer; the insurance companies lose money; and the public pays more and more.
It has to change!
[/quote]
I understand that their needs to be a change but I can give you an example of where problems will occur.
I have several friends around the country that have had homes built for them and the builder did a horrible job that was not evident at closing.
Each of these homes cost at least a million dollars to build.
One of my friends had their house built in Texas which has torte reform. They can not sue for more than 250K in Texas. They ultimately claimed bankruptcy and the bank took over their property. My friend’s life is ruined.
So, you are advocating torte reform because some lawyers are sleazy. That is not a good enough reason as consumers need to be protected.
2% of all claims paid go to legal fees and settlements. only a 0.5% savings will be realized on total claims paid by capping lawsuits to 250K.
That does not save consumers much money and lawyers will just take on more cases to keep their income high.
There has to be a better solution.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Deregulate. Oh, and big time malpractice/tort reform.
Tort reform benefits insurance companies.
Are you going to make the insurance companies lower rates if tort reform is passed?
And leaving the system the same benefits lawyers!
Most of the money paid out is from cases that never go to court. It’s a form of extortion. The lawyers know the companies don’t want to go through all the time and money of a trial with the uncertainty of the outcome at the hands of an illogical and emotionally swayed jury. So they typically always settle. So the lawyers get richer; the insurance companies lose money; and the public pays more and more.
It has to change!
I understand that their needs to be a change but I can give you an example of where problems will occur.
I have several friends around the country that have had homes built for them and the builder did a horrible job that was not evident at closing.
Each of these homes cost at least a million dollars to build.
One of my friends had their house built in Texas which has torte reform. They can not sue for more than 250K in Texas. They ultimately claimed bankruptcy and the bank took over their property. My friend’s life is ruined.
So, you are advocating torte reform because some lawyers are sleazy. That is not a good enough reason as consumers need to be protected.
2% of all claims paid go to legal fees and settlements. only a 0.5% savings will be realized on total claims paid by capping lawsuits to 250K.
That does not save consumers much money and lawyers will just take on more cases to keep their income high.
There has to be a better solution.[/quote]
There have been several ideas on torte reform and not all put a cap on the recoverable funds. The most recent reform idea that was pushed in California was to require the losing party to pay all court fees and costs of the winning party along with their own costs. This would limit the extortion of frivolous law suites designed to get money with weak cases without going to court.
So I believe torte reform is still the answer, just not with the same regulations as you have suggested.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Deregulate. Oh, and big time malpractice/tort reform.
Tort reform benefits insurance companies.
Are you going to make the insurance companies lower rates if tort reform is passed?
And leaving the system the same benefits lawyers!
Most of the money paid out is from cases that never go to court. It’s a form of extortion. The lawyers know the companies don’t want to go through all the time and money of a trial with the uncertainty of the outcome at the hands of an illogical and emotionally swayed jury. So they typically always settle. So the lawyers get richer; the insurance companies lose money; and the public pays more and more.
It has to change!
I understand that their needs to be a change but I can give you an example of where problems will occur.
I have several friends around the country that have had homes built for them and the builder did a horrible job that was not evident at closing.
Each of these homes cost at least a million dollars to build.
One of my friends had their house built in Texas which has torte reform. They can not sue for more than 250K in Texas. They ultimately claimed bankruptcy and the bank took over their property. My friend’s life is ruined.
So, you are advocating torte reform because some lawyers are sleazy. That is not a good enough reason as consumers need to be protected.
2% of all claims paid go to legal fees and settlements. only a 0.5% savings will be realized on total claims paid by capping lawsuits to 250K.
That does not save consumers much money and lawyers will just take on more cases to keep their income high.
There has to be a better solution.
There have been several ideas on torte reform and not all put a cap on the recoverable funds. The most recent reform idea that was pushed in California was to require the losing party to pay all court fees and costs of the winning party along with their own costs. This would limit the extortion of frivolous law suites designed to get money with weak cases without going to court.
So I believe torte reform is still the answer, just not with the same regulations as you have suggested.
[/quote]
The CA idea does make sense but the option touted by most torte reform advocates consists of limiting awards to 250K.
CA has the best chance of getting something like that done.
[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
what would happen if we didn’t have corporations?
Someone will always be selling goods and services. Thus, you will always have corporations.
Corporations by law are evil.
Hah hahahaha LMAO!
You are um, stupid, How’s that?
They are to put profits before anything else - no matter! Is this endless greed something to defend?
You focus on the profits. You resent business profits. Why? I have no idea. But, it could be that you are a kid who never made any money and are full of resentment for those who have. I could be wrong on that. Not every wacky left wing lunatic is a kid who has never made any money, but there are plenty of them.
What you need to think about is all the good that corporations have done for society as I posted earlier.
Now get off that computer that was made by Dell, HP or one of the other evil corporations.
You’re contributing to all of this um evilness.
Ha ha you are truly an uninformed individual.
[/quote]
Do you need corporations to sell goods and services???
Take a good look at how the internet and other modern technology was created. Through the public sector. But I bet you thought it was all Gates/Jobs.
I focus on profits w/o conscious to anything else. This is the way corporations by law have to function. Do you see any dissconnect in that?
Are profits by themselves evil? No, but the way the modern corporation runs they do plenty of it.
Speaking of fakers, Rush Limbaugh pretends that he has back problems, to excuse his appetite for pain killers.
The douchebag plays golf. How many golfers have serious back problems, requiring long-term pain killers?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Speaking of fakers, Rush Limbaugh pretends that he has back problems, to excuse his appetite for pain killers.
The douchebag plays golf. How many golfers have serious back problems, requiring long-term pain killers?[/quote]
Of course he is a liar. He proves that 5 days a weak on his radio show. It is difficult to have pity on a man who makes it his profession to purposefully lead astray his listeners. He is nothing more than a propaganda machine - mostly for the right!
Nobody seemed to notice that when Rush was busted at the airport with a suitcase full of Viagra, he was on his way home from Guatamala… a country where child prostitution is a big problem. And Rush was travelling without his old lady.
Your momma wears combat boots. All of your momma’s.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Nobody seemed to notice that when Rush was busted at the airport with a suitcase full of Viagra, he was on his way home from Guatamala… a country where child prostitution is a big problem. And Rush was travelling without his old lady.[/quote]
He is gay.
It’s so dumb when people say Yeah but the problem with stem cell research is that it’s going to take another 15 years to come up with any of these cures.
DUH???
START NOW!!! Time’s a wasting! Hell you should have started 4 years ago, then it would only be 11 more years.
And if nobody wants to see these embryos destroyed by stem cell research, then why are they letting these embryos get thrown in the trash in the first place? You don’t have to wait around to get out front on that issue, if you believe a zygote is a person. Start adopting those kids now. How many adoptions can we sign Steveo up for, can he handle about 12,000?
Here’s a simple question for the Fertilized Eggs Are People crowd:
Should a woman who had an abortion be charged with murder? Remember, there’s no statute of limitations* on murder (*look it up, Steveo).
Another question (hypothetical):
The lab is on fire!!! There’s almost no time to escape. You have a chance to save either a 2 year old baby, or a glass dish with a dozen embryos in it. Which one do you choose?
[quote]Ren wrote:
colbert on limbaugh.[/quote]
Colbert is hilarious!
Limbaugh is a pathetic phony.
What’s wrong with the stem cell source, used by British scientists, to grow a liver recently? Umbilical Cord stem cells. Is this now a dead ethical debate? Before anyone objects that these cells are not able to change, remember they used umbilical cells to grow a target organ. And, from the FAQs page of the following site.
http://www.cordblood.com/cord_blood_faqs/cord_blood.asp
“The ability of cord blood stem cells to differentiate, or change into other types of cells in the body is a new discovery that holds significant promise for improving the treatment of some of the most common diseases such as heart disease, stroke, and Alzheimer’s.”