I don't think Obama is opposed to tort reform at his base and may well just be dancing around it to keep tort lawyers at bay. He voted for tort reform when he was in the Illinois legislature and in the US Senate voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Who voted against it? Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer and other progressive Democrats. The Class Action Fairness Act was strongly supported by business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and included limitations on attorneys’ fees in coupon settlements.
He may well just be finessing this issue. On Aug 18, 12:58 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > And this reasonable approach requires tort reform which Obama excluded > from any "reform"... That is the point. > > On Aug 18, 11:50 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Personally, I think the court should have some latitude in dealing > > with frivolous lawsuits as they are not all one flavor. If, for > > instance, a suit is brought because the lawyer truly feels and > > reasonably argues that it meets the legal standards for such, even if > > it doesn't, the judge can just throw it out. If, on the other hand, > > the judge determines that the suit is completely without merit and > > just a naked attempt to get money from a company in a settlement > > rather than waste money on a trial, he could whack the suer with > > fines, etc. The same would go for suits brought just to harass the > > other party. > > > On Aug 17, 5:22 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > jgg, > > > > If it was a "fake" accusation and/or suit the proper charge would be > > > attempted insurance fraud, or theft by fraud, which I believe is a > > > criminal offense. Are you saying your definition of "frivilous > > > lawsuit" is actually "attempted fraud"? Fruad has always been illegal. > > > > On Aug 17, 3:23 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That is the point Zeb... If the lawsuit is frivolous as determined by > > > > the courts, have the courts fine the lawyer $10,000 for a fake > > > > lawsuit... > > > > > On Aug 17, 3:52 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The court will have to determine, on an individual basis. I'm sure > > > > > they'll consider if there is enough evidence of the charge, if the > > > > > charge was intentional and/or avoidable, if any damage actually > > > > > occurred............ > > > > > > On Aug 17, 12:11 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Jgg, > > > > > > > Dammit you are not listening. DEFINE "fivilous lawsuit". > > > > > > You can't "cap" what lawyers earn unless you are also ready to cap > > > > > > what doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. can earn. > > > > > > > On Aug 17, 10:45 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Lets start here > > > > > > > > Limiting the abuse of frivolous lawsuits pushed by lawyers and/or > > > > > > > patients... One place to start is if a lawsuit is frivolous, > > > > > > > charge > > > > > > > the lawyer and patient for slander and/or label... Limiting > > > > > > > putative > > > > > > > damages... Limiting the practice of suing any and all who MIGHT > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > involved... Capping lawyers compensation to the smaller of a > > > > > > > percentage or a hard limit... There are other suggestions, I > > > > > > > understand the any solution is by definition complex and > > > > > > > nuanced... > > > > > > > But not to even discuss the issue or consider it when the WH, as > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > does now, insisted this is a debate on health INSURANCE reform is > > > > > > > silly > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 10:12 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > Third time, give me your definition of tort reform. How can we > > > > > > > > discuss > > > > > > > > rationally what you seem to be unwilling or unable to even > > > > > > > > define? > > > > > > > > I've already suggested a cap on punitive damages, and punitive > > > > > > > > damages > > > > > > > > only. What do you have to say? > > > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 2:18 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I said together... You suggest payment and delivery system > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > tort reform first... I then asked why not tort reform > > > > > > > > > first... My > > > > > > > > > point was and is an unreformed tort system IS a major factor > > > > > > > > > in health > > > > > > > > > care raising costs --- it effects and alters how physicians > > > > > > > > > MUST > > > > > > > > > practice just to avoid greedy lawyers whose principle is to > > > > > > > > > sue any > > > > > > > > > and all involved regardless of fault... Even if the lawyer > > > > > > > > > loses, > > > > > > > > > often their costs ARE required to be paid by the claimants... > > > > > > > > > So if > > > > > > > > > you want systemic health care reform, you must have tort > > > > > > > > > reform as > > > > > > > > > well... The Democrats pretend otherwise... > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 11:45 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > WHY should there be tort reform first? Who's struggling > > > > > > > > > > more, the > > > > > > > > > > family that is facing immediate bankruptcy due to medical > > > > > > > > > > bills or the > > > > > > > > > > Physician so financially stressed by the cost of medical > > > > > > > > > > malpractice > > > > > > > > > > insurance he may not be able to afford a new Mercedes this > > > > > > > > > > year? > > > > > > > > > > > Once again I ask, give me a clear definition of what you > > > > > > > > > > mean by "tort > > > > > > > > > > reform". > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 10:06 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Then what about tort reform FIRST... The problem > > > > > > > > > > > Hollywood is you > > > > > > > > > > > have to address all the systemic problems, or at least > > > > > > > > > > > start to, to > > > > > > > > > > > have long lasting cost saving health care reform... > > > > > > > > > > > That the > > > > > > > > > > > Democrats refuse to is telling... Your line of argument > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > fundamentally the same as Obama's lines " You have to > > > > > > > > > > > pass health > > > > > > > > > > > reform now or else", "Any change is better the no > > > > > > > > > > > change", and "We > > > > > > > > > > > have thoroughly discussed health care for 40 years".... > > > > > > > > > > > > If these were true, tort reform would be part and parcel > > > > > > > > > > > of any health > > > > > > > > > > > reform reform now... People remember how the emergency > > > > > > > > > > > "Stimulus > > > > > > > > > > > Bill" changed the basic formulation of welfare payment > > > > > > > > > > > due to > > > > > > > > > > > provision slipped in at the last moment... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 3:55 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > It does not all have to be done in one piece at one > > > > > > > > > > > > time. No one has > > > > > > > > > > > > yet to give a concise definition of tort reform other > > > > > > > > > > > > that to shout > > > > > > > > > > > > about "frivolous lawsuits". A cap on punitive damages > > > > > > > > > > > > ONLY would > > > > > > > > > > > > probably be a good place to start. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 2:43 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A partisan solution without tort reform will only > > > > > > > > > > > > > make matters > > > > > > > > > > > > > worse... That is the rest of the story Obama is > > > > > > > > > > > > > refusing to > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss... The notion of Health Reform at any cost > > > > > > > > > > > > > is as dangerous > > > > > > > > > > > > > as Peace at any cost was in 1938... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 3:37 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree in principle with the solution you suggest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I hope you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > realize that the need for a better healtcare system > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is hardly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something new, it was first proposed by President > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Truman. It's ALWAYS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > going to be "this needs more study, what's the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rush" according to some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people. Look at the energy problem, our dependence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on oil, most of it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > foreign. Only an idiot would not have realized the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > solution must be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > found after the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. Thirty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > five years or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible progress towards a viable solution simple > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thrown away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 1:01 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or if you want to point to Medicare, just look to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how they base the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > payments for doctor visits.... It is a portion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the ordinary and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > customary charges... So if your costs are $50 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > per visit, you have to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jack it up to include your profit, Medicare's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discount, and project > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that figure 3 years in the future... SO The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > visit that cost $50, for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when you might profit $10 if you get $60 you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might charge $100 to have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Medicare discount the bill back to $60... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or might a doctor have an xray machine in-house > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so his elderly patient > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not have make a second appoint at the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hospital... It would be a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sin if he made a slight profit from THAT service > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (especially when he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > charged less the the Hospital)... The problem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with the Health Car > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > debate is it is so nuanced that to reduce it to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "greedy insurance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > companies and doctors) makes it a meaningless > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shouting match... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My solution??? Get a serious bi-partisan panel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whose recommendations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Congress would have vote yea or nay... If > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Health Care is so demanded > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the American People, it will wait six-eight > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > months for folks to get > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it right.. Instead Obama demands action, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regardless of viability, now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for his political resume... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 3:54 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jgg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? And the fact that each and every test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is billable has nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatsoever to do with it I suppose? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 10, 2:39 pm, jgg1000a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nor will help the stupidity and incompetence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > within the legal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community... Why the extra tests??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Malpractice Insurance requires > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it because of an > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
