Healthcare Hypocricy?

[WuDrWu]

Funny. Deep down inside, you know I'm smarter than you've ever dreamt of being.

Now that is funny. Oh man, you've got me there.


All I am worried about is not allowing the youth of this country to be swayed by your ignorance.


How many times are you going to the teabagger card? Talk about old.

At least when I call you a jackass, it's accurate.

[WuDrWu]

Coming from the man who had to take a sabbatical because, lacking the brainpower to do anything but attack others in lieu of ever posting a single, verifiable fact, he blew a gasket and couldn't function on the one site that gave meaning to his life.

Interesting. You seem to think you know me awfully well. Obsessed much?

As usual, any insight you THINK you have waved bye bye to you long ago.


Obsession noted, however.

[rjl]

Are you a little concerned about some coin coming out of your pocket with some tort reform? Nope, can't do anything like that.

The idea of tort reform as it pertains to the healthcare industry would not effect me one iota.

But let me clear up your fallacy anyway.

The myth of tort reform as it pertains to healthcare costs isn't that the judgments levied against the medical personnel costs the health industry, it's that the health care industry goes out of its way to try to shield itself from liability.

Here's why that is wrong. Say you go jogging one day and you feel a heart palpitation and get lightheaded. You go to the doctor, who then runs tests. These first tests come back and show that nothing is wrong. But your sure you had these palpitations. So he runs more tests. Still show nothing wrong. He refers you to a specialist, who runs his own tests. Still nothing wrong. Finally, somewhere down the line you might get an answer. Maybe it's blood pressure. Maybe it's cholesterol. Maybe it's just gas. Maybe it's nothing; he refers you to a shrink. Whatever.

Now, the "tort reformists" would argue that these doctors ran all these tests because they were trying to absolve themselves of liability; trying not to screw up because they don't want you to sue them.

But isn't the more logical reason they ran all these tests because, as doctors, they were trying to help you and figure out what was impacting your health? Wouldn't it be prudent to run these tests even without fear of a lawsuit?

To me, the latter seems like a much more logical conclusion.

[rjl]

Coming from the man who had to take a sabbatical because, lacking the brainpower to do anything but attack others in lieu of ever posting a single, verifiable fact, he blew a gasket and couldn't function on the one site that gave meaning to his life.

Interesting. You seem to think you know me awfully well. Obsessed much?

As usual, any insight you THINK you have waved bye bye to you long ago.


Obsession noted, however.

I see. Playing the weakass "obsession" card. Also known as the "I've got absolutely nothing else to go with" card.

You're a total blowhard, Doc. You blow hard in the politics forum, you blow hard in the basketball forum, you probably blow hard in the other forums I don't frequent. A day without you making Shockernet aware of your presence would be like a day without air.

So when you go all "goodbye cruel world" after you lost it several times in the "CIA torture" thread whilst debating me, you made sure all of Shockernet knew it.

And now, somehow, I'm the one with the obsession. Hil-freaking-larious.

[SB Shock]

[Maggie]

rjl called healthcare a “big, giant, huge cluser****”. I agree. But at stake in the current debate are two conflicting visions for a system that touches every single American, and without doubt needs to be improved in order to dispense care properly and appropriately. Yet recognition of the need for improvement by no means accepts Democratic arguments that their proposal is the only possible path, and that opposing their proposal is tantamount to accepting the status quo or in the alternative rank stupidity. We have learned far too much in the last 15 months to fall into this false dichotomy.

rjl believes that in order to control costs all American’s must be compelled to purchase health insurance and such risk sharing would lower insurance rates for all Americans. I have already explained why I don’t believe this type of system would be beneficial – so I am not going to spend the time making those arguments again.

With regard to tort reform rjl is dead wrong. The practice of “defensive medicine” does have an adverse impact on the system. As a lawyer rjl should know that a large percentage of medical malpractice suits filed in the U.S. are “without merit.” Yet despite the frivolous nature of many of these suits, juries often award millions of dollars to plaintiffs - and their trial lawyers. Not to mention the legal expense, which can substantial, incurred defending these suits. These predatory suits amount to legalized extortion and require doctors to purchase malpractice insurance at great expense. The costs of litigation and defensive medicine are passed on to the patient in the price of health care.

That’s why some states, most notably Texas, have enacted tort reform to limit the amount of damages that can be awarded for pain and suffering. The result? More doctors have returned to Texas or set up new practices in the state. That means Texans pay less to have better health care and more options.

The success of state-enacted lawsuit-abuse reforms in reducing health-care costs shows why we need to enact nationwide legislation to deter frivolous malpractice suits. Democrats’ refusal to consider lawsuit-abuse reform has nothing to do with what could reduce health-care costs for Americans. It’s about preserving their political piggy bank, which is filled up by trial lawyers.

[SubGod22]

Idaho ready to sue over health care mandate. 37 other states looking into doing the same.

I'm no constitutional law expert but these sort of things always catch my eye. I know there's been similar things in regards to gun laws and if you get this many states acting I could see where it could be come quite an issue. I guess we'll just see what happens with the other states and how Congress votes.

[Maggie]

What legal theory or theories would provide a basis for a constitutional challenge?

[SubGod22]

What legal theory or theories would provide a basis for a constitutional challenge?

I'm not the expert but reading thru the article they had some constitutional law people talking about it some. And I don't know how many states would have to join in for something to really have an impact or for them to change things or whatever. But I'm always interested to see what can/will happen when states at least try to stand up to Washington and say you can't continue to regulate our citizens like you are and take more power for yourselves. Washington has more power than it was ever supposed to have and I find the struggle between them and the states at least interesting.

[Maggie]

What legal theory or theories would provide a basis for a constitutional challenge?

I'm not the expert but reading thru the article they had some constitutional law people talking about it some. And I don't know how many states would have to join in for something to really have an impact or for them to change things or whatever. But I'm always interested to see what can/will happen when states at least try to stand up to Washington and say you can't continue to regulate our citizens like you are and take more power for yourselves. Washington has more power than it was ever supposed to have and I find the struggle between them and the states at least interesting.

Well – a fundamental problem (and I only skimmed the article) is that federal law supersedes state law – when the feds choose to “occupy” a field. You see this with environmental legislation for example. States can be more restrictive but they can’t turn the knob the other way – so to speak - the fed is the floor in terms of regulation.

Now the federal government compelling its citizens to purchase a product I don’t think, and I could be wrong, has ever been done. Also, should the House use the “Slaughter Rule” to pass the Senate bill – that might raise some constitutional issues as well.

I just wonder if the States are spinning their wheels.

[SubGod22]

What legal theory or theories would provide a basis for a constitutional challenge?

I'm not the expert but reading thru the article they had some constitutional law people talking about it some. And I don't know how many states would have to join in for something to really have an impact or for them to change things or whatever. But I'm always interested to see what can/will happen when states at least try to stand up to Washington and say you can't continue to regulate our citizens like you are and take more power for yourselves. Washington has more power than it was ever supposed to have and I find the struggle between them and the states at least interesting.

Well – a fundamental problem (and I only skimmed the article) is that federal law supersedes state law – when the feds choose to “occupy” a field. You see this with environmental legislation for example. States can be more restrictive but they can’t turn the knob the other way – so to speak - the fed is the floor in terms of regulation.

Now the federal government compelling its citizens to purchase a product I don’t think, and I could be wrong, has ever been done. Also, should the House use the “Slaughter Rule” to pass the Senate bill – that might raise some constitutional issues as well.

I just wonder if the States are spinning their wheels.

I understand I just don't know enough about how it all goes down and I really don't feel like reading more into it at the moment. I have a good book I started working on written by a friend I'd like to get thru.

I just wonder if enough states get together if there's a way they can "over turn" or whatever what Washington does or wants to do. The States used to have a little more power and say or influence in things but seem now to be mostly stuck taking whatever DC wants to do. This is where the gov't screwed up by having the people elect the Senate and taking more of the States influence out of things.

I do see where what DC...the Dems are trying to do could definitely be challenged and I'm curious how the Supreme Court would rule on these things as I'd be shocked if something like this didn't end up there at some point. It may or may not be this but with the even larger power grab coming out of DC it's going to be an issue sooner or later and something will stick enough to be taken before the SC. And with so many States potentially getting behind the same thing it at least seems to lend more credibility to the fight.

[Maggie]

I am familiar with constitutional law – having actually practiced in that area for several years – but I don’t have the time right now to research the issues. Notwithstanding, my gut tells me to be skeptical.

[Maggie]

I think Noonan is spot on. I watched the interview last night and it just confirmed everything that is wrong with what is going on in Washington. Noonan writes, in part:

Thursday’s decision followed the most revealing and important broadcast interview of Barack Obama ever. It revealed his primary weakness in speaking of health care, which is a tendency to dodge, obfuscate and mislead. He grows testy when challenged. It revealed what the president doesn’t want revealed, which is that he doesn’t want to reveal much about his plan. This furtiveness is not helpful in a time of high public anxiety. At any rate, the interview was what such interviews rarely are, a public service. That it occurred at a high-stakes time, with so much on the line, only made it more electric.

***

Throughout, Mr. Baier pressed the president. Some thought this bordered on impertinence. I did not. Mr. Obama now routinely filibusters in interviews. He has his message, and he presses it forward smoothly, adroitly. He buries you in words. Are you worried what failure of the bill will do to you? I’m worried about what the status quo will do to the families that are uninsured. . .

Mr. Baier forced him off his well-worn grooves. He did it by stopping long answers with short questions, by cutting off and redirecting. In this he was like a low-speed bumper car. In the end the interview seemed to me a public service because everyone in America right now wants to see the president forced off his grooves and into candor on an issue that involves 17% of the economy. Again, the stakes are high. So Mr. Baier’s style seemed—this is admittedly subjective—not rude but within the bounds, and not driven by the antic spirit that sometimes overtakes reporters. He seemed to be trying to get new information. He seemed to be attempting to better inform the public.

Now for the Slaughter - On the road to Demon Pass, our leader encounters a Baier.

Bret Baier Interview

[RoyalShock]

I didn't see the interview, but after having read a lot of Obama's responses to pressing questions over the past year, he sounds like an aspiring dictator who is seething inside when he's expected to conduct himself like a servant of the people.

[Maggie]

I didn't see the interview, but after having read a lot of Obama's responses to pressing questions over the past year, he sounds like an aspiring dictator who is seething inside when he's expected to conduct himself like a servant of the people.

It is a good interview effectively demonstrating, to any reasonable observer, how vapid the arguments for this legislation really are.

Baier is actually doing his job – as frustrating as that might be. I doubt Obama will grant Baier similar access for the foreseeable future.