jgg, That is a far different statement than your previous one that President Obama "had excluded tort reform from any reform". Now you are saying only that you have seen things that indicate to you, as in your personal opinion, he would exclude tort reform. A far different thing than saying the president has already excluded tort reform.
On Aug 18, 3:49 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > As it has not been included or discussed by ANY Democratic leader and > as Obama is the one pushing for reform as defined by Democrats in > Congress, I would say he has excluded it.... > > On Aug 18, 3:08 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > I'd be interested in seeing that statement by President Obama > > verified. > > > On Aug 18, 11:58 am, 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
