Frankly it would be a deal breaker for LW Democrats, so therefore it will not be proposed IMHO...
On Aug 18, 3:50 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
